Bill C10 - C'mon dear, when is violence ever gratuitous?

Nothing with nipples, nothing that shows off pie, two people cannot be in love with a third person, no talking horses etc

Ah, careless me.

Bill C10 is colloquially entitled An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act and was passed by the House of Parliament on October 29, 2007.

You can download a copy of Bill C10 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including, etc, etc by clicking here.

It appears this is not part of the recent federal Canadian budget. I was mistaken, misinformed, confused and/or too lazy to talk to Uncle Internet, who knows all. Mea Culpa. I hope you didn’t bet the farm or break up with your boyfriend over an argument based on data that I uttered carelessly.

But, now, if you did let’s chalk it up to a painful life lesson for you and move on. Let’s turn to page 346 of Bill C10 An Act… and start reading the amendments that the House passed and that now sit before the Senate Standing Committee on Banks, Trusts, etc as they relate to the film industry in Canada

So. Have you read it? It’s on page 350, after the changes to the definition of labour, the payment ratios, the qualified dates, etc. It doesn’t read very clearly since it’s amending the Income Tax Act. So there are a lot of “drop the and after subsection b and insert yawn". It’s not a coherent whole picture – it’s just the changes

On page 350 Bill C10 An Act to amend… amends Subsection 125.4(6) and this is what is causing all the trouble. I think.

The Act allows the Ministry of Heritage to revoke certificates after the fact if the Ministry decides the production in question violates the guidelines with which they’ll come up. Bill C10 is silent on the sorts of guidelines it expects but comments from government spokespersons indicated they would limit content such as gratuitous violence and pornography.

The problem for a filmmaker is the uncertainty of not having money if the content doesn’t meet with approval after the fact.

Great art needs its nuances. And to have guidelines that eliminate nuances, or impose political agendas to replace artistic sensibilities always results in poor, crappy art. Layered, complex continuums and multiple readings can give life and meaning to art. Abridging these complexities to satisfy political pressures isn’t good.

Sometimes provoking discomfort through art results in reflection and rumination. And God knows we need more rumination.

xoxo

M

Bill C10 - Snatching Tax Payers' Money From Dirty Tax Payers

Canada is a clean society and we don't want your kind around here - unless you're American

Apparently, the Senate will look more closely at Bill C10. Click here to read the press release from the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

However, even if the Senate believes the bill to be flawed and that it pushes the government into the role of censor, even if they recommend changes to its language or urge the 'morals clause' be included in the bill upfront it will not likely make a difference.

Click here for the blog from which the following quote came:

Finally, Maureen Parker of the Writers Guild of Canada had this to say today:

I just received a phone call from the Stephane Dion’s chief of staff who advised me that the Senate has now officially (controlled by the Liberals) decided to address the issue of Bill C-10, in particular the requirement for guidelines to ensure that an film, TV or digital program is not contrary to public policy.

Should the Senate decide an amendment is required (and this seems likely), the entire Bill will be sent back to the House for another reading as an amended Bill. If the government manages to raise enough support amongst all of the MP’s it seems that this could mean a non confidence vote for the government. But given that the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are supporting an amendment to this Bill, it doesn’t seem likely that it will become an issue that will bring down the current government and force us into an election. But if it does, we say bring it on.

Except that anyone who has been following Canadian politics knows the Liberals have taken a strategy of talking big and tough but avoiding any skirmish that could lead to an election. The Liberals themselves made amendments to the Conservative budget and then voted against their own amendments. On Wednesday only 11 Liberals voted against the budget (the rest of the Liberal caucus waited in the foyer until the vote was over). To defeat the government's proposed budget (and Bill C10 is embedded in that legislation) would be a vote of non-confidence and it could trigger an election.

If the Senate returns an amended Bill C10 to the House, their past actions suggest it will not be supported by the Liberals if it becomes a matter of confidence.

However, if the Conservatives can be convinced that Bill C10 is unnecessary (what porno? what gratuitous violence?) or impolitic then possible amendments might pass.

But, my question is: what are the chances that the Conservatives are going to agree to delaying the passage of the budget in order to assuage the fears of artists? Especially those unkempt, slightly vulgar, foul-mouthed fuckers who might be degenerate enough to utter words like...well, you know...and do things with kids that we wouldn't even dream of doing with hookers.

I'd say, 'nil'. The Conservatives want a good clean, orderly society in which the trains run on time and if you want your tax credits to make your movie you'll just put on that bow-tie and comb your hair and stop touching your yoni and lingum.

Wankers.

xoxo

M

PS: I've heard that Bill C10 only applies to Canadians making films - not American production companies. Apparently, taxpayers have a right to ensure no Canadian uses his tax credit to make bad, dirty things but we're less concerned about American degenerates.

Let Us Not Speak of Politics, Sex, Abortion or Bad Dirty Things

Canadian Funding of the Arts - Bill C10

At the risk of seeming alarmist and crying out in pain before I've even been hit let me say that, if it's true, then Bill C10 should die or be partially aborted.

According to an email I received from Marilyn Thomas the Canadian government (minority government) has slipped in a proviso for content review by the Minister of Heritage for films being funding by tax credits.

This amounts to censorship of the arts. Eventually the only films that will be funded will be about children with jam on their mouths and kittens playing with balls of wool.

Sometimes art is provocative, sometimes it's unnecessarily provocative and offensive. Sometimes it deals with subject matter in ways we don't agree with (I can think of the famous American installation of a crucifix standing in a jar of urine which - well, you know).

But let the artists make art. If it speaks to you and it sings then great. If it takes a generation or two for it to begin to vibrate (like Emily Carr) then let's be willing to pass along something valuable to future generations.

Email your MP.

Email the leaders of the opposition parties (Layton, Dion, Duceppe, and whatsername with the Greens).

1. if we are going to fund the arts we must be careful of the content requirements we put in place. Things could get stupidly ugly. As it stands the requirements are the subject matter deal with Canadian issues. I think that's pretty good. Let's leave it at that.

2. if we're to change the tax credit funding mechanisms we should first consult the communities affected. Sort of like let's pretend we live in a democracy and we actually talk about these things and vote on them.

Remember democracy? It was in vogue once but unfortunately it had a definite liberal bias and we've been thinking about letting it lapse as a political system in this country.

3. personally, I want to see more small films from Canadian filmmakers dealing with issues in that small film way. Some of them are boring and treat subject matter like depression and melancholy (and why would we possibly be depressed when we have it all) and some of them show amputees having anal sex or women falling in love with beautiful dead boys (at least, you can comfort yourselves that it's a heterosexual necrophiliac longing).

4. degenerate art? Ahfuckyou! Sorry, a bit of a phlegmy cold.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn pro

One of you, I can't remember who, recently mentioned Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 as his or her favourite book and that got me all nostalgic so I went out and bought a new copy (my copy was tattered beyond repair). I started reading it on the bus home (with a quick stop at the liquor store for some beer and some rum in case things were unexpectedly happening on the social scene once home).

I've been closely following the lurching 2008 presidential campaigns in the US and the silly politicking between the Canadian parliamentary parties (firing a safety commissioner for enforcing safety protocols at a nuclear site, a stupid report on Afghanistan, the pig-squealing from the Conservatives because the Senate is on-schedule for examining a bill, the whole KarlHeinz Schrieber debacle, the Liberals thundering rubbish, and the NDP as toy poodles pretending to be real dogs).

My friends have been arguing and debating through emails and wine noshing about the effectiveness of each candidate for the presidential nomination in both political parties in the States.

I liked Huckabee (except for his stupid homophobic pandering to the homophobes) (not many takers in my crowd), Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (we all agree that, within minutes of becoming president, each would be shot). We've watched and debated every move from Clinton and Obama. We're split evenly between being Mrs. Clintonites and Obamamamas (although I'm secretly rooting for Nader - shhhhh).

Hunter Thompson wrote Fear and Loathing as bi-weekly articles for Rolling Stone magazine covering the remarkably familiar elections of 1972. Richard Milhous Nixon was a hawkish US President, millions of Asians (Cambodian, Vietnamese) were dying in the American stand against 'world terrorism', then called 'communism', as did 50,000 American GIs in what was called 'the Vietnam War', although the US Congress never actually got around to declaring a war.

in 1972 half the Americans protested Vietnam and its cost in financial capital and in loss of life; the other half of Americans felt that to withdraw would demonstrate weakness in the face of encroaching communism. They claimed if 'we' didn't fight them in Asia we'd end up fighting them here.

When Thompson arrived in Washington to begin reporting the political scene he was already notorious as a slightly demented and uncontrollable agent; he drank incessantly, took all sorts of medication and narcotics to help him relax or to really focus on the matter at hand. No one could really figure out where he was coming from and they couldn't anticipate his next move. He made people nervous. He dressed like an off-duty cop but he had some decidedly counter-culture habits and moves.

He asked questions that were too blunt or too far out of the mainstream that he made everyone flinch or boil furiously; no one else asked questions like he did at these press conferences because everyone else wanted to keep working in Washington. No one wants to shit in their own nest, after all.

By a fluke the people who talked to him the most openly were the McGovern people. They were long shots who eventually got the Dem nomination against great odds. And by the time McGovern became a front runner Thompson was as 'embedded' in with that campaign as was possible for someone to be 'embedded', who ate speed like candy and drank Wild Turkey. When the campaign got respectable it was hard for their operatives to control Hunter and keep him from leaving little pools of blood that he drew with each little clackity clack of the keys of his typewriter.

Oddly, Washington hasn't changed too much since then (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Buchanan et al were in the Nixon administration).

And today the rush for the American presidency pretty much brings out the same sort of people today as it did in 1972 (the Clintons organized for McGovern as young idealists). Muskie was the heir apparent and was overtaken by a long shot candidate. The mantra then was 'who can beat Nixon'. The feeling among the Dems was that it really really mattered that this madness stop.

Well, I don't want to spoil it for you but Nixon put his boot so far up McGovern's ass that November he needed several people to help him pull it out.

However, the seeds of Nixon's destruction had already been planted and were sprouting even while Thompson was covering the campaign; BeBe Rebozo's slush fund ($200,000 in a paperbag that Nixon kept in a safe in his office), the Watergate breakin, the illegal activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President (with the fabulous acronym: CREEP), and the insane behaviour of the President (he ordered nuclear armed planes to circle the Soviet Union as part of his 'Mississippi Gambler' strategy bluffing the Soviets to call back the Chinese from their involvement in Vietnam - demonstrating that he knew absolutely nothing about the true dynamics of Sino-Russian relationships - Mao didn't take orders from the Kremlin and hadn't for 30 years at that point - but Nixon was willing to escalate a civil war in a small country in Asia into an international nuclear armegeddon).

I hate Nixon by the way just in case you're wondering.

Fear and Loathing '72 is a great book. It's great for political junkies; great for history buffs; great for fans of 'that terrible weirdness' known as Hunter S. Thompson; it's a terrible book for young and impressionable 16 year olds who, as a result of reading it, slide into a lifelong habit of intellectual questioning and alcohol consumption.