Canadian Government Regulating Movie Welfare Is Not Censorship
There has been a huge stir going on around a new rule change that the Canadian government has proposed to its Tax Credit system for filmmakers. Basically speaking, the new law would give the Canadian Government the ability to deny certain projects the lucrative Tax Credits if they feel the project in question is overly offensive (too much gratuitous sex or graphic violence). The government claims the change in the rules is prompted by citizens concerned over where their tax dollars are going.
The response to this issue from many people has been to stand up upon the bell tower and cry out “CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP!” They see themselves as modern day Paul Revere’s warning the populace that “The censors are coming! The censors are coming!” After all, no one likes the idea of the government telling people what they can and can not watch. No one likes the notion of a government dictating what is and what is not acceptable, especially when it comes to the arts. Art is a form of expression, a tangible manifestation of ideas, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and inspiration. Ultimately, censorship against the arts is therefore censorship against ideas, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and inspiration themselves.
This should never be taken lightly. The right to expression in its various forms is arguably the very cornerstone to any concept of freedom. And so, whenever the government steps in to restrict or limit or CENSOR expression we all need to look upon it with a very dubious eye. Sometimes, when that expression requires the victimization of another (like kiddie porn for example), we as a society approve of the government stepping in and outlawing it. But that is a rare exception.
And so it’s completely understandable that people get concerned when they hear the Canadian government is now going to censor filmmakers. How dare the government tell filmmakers (artists) what they can or can not put in or make the subject of their art (expression)!?!?! This is intolerable right? We should all fight this right? Right???
Well… no.
The main problem here is that the wrong question is being asked by some people. There are those who want us to believe that the question here is “SHOULD WE ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO CENSOR FILM MAKERS?”. That question pushes a button with us. That question will stir our emotions and our anger. It is a question that has an obvious answer. “NO!” But that’s not the correct question here, nor does it even begin to apply to this situation.
The real question we need to be asking is “DOES THIS SITUATION FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP?” I’m sorry, but the very clear answer to that correct question is “No. This is not in any way, shape or form an example of censorship in the least”.
For one to even begin to call this situation an example of “censorship” with a straight face, it would require the Canadian government to restrict filmmakers from making their films. It would require the Canadian government to ban filmmakers from making their movies the way they see fit. For this to be called “censorship” the government must in some way be stepping in to stop artists from freely making their art. And that simply is not happening here.
There is a massive and fundamental difference between STOPPING you from making your movies and REFUSING TO HELP you make your movies. One is censorship, the other is not.
The Canadian film industry is essentially a welfare state. It lives on the handouts the government gives it. Unlike the United States or India where the film industry pays its own way… unlike just about every other industry in Canada that has to find a way to pay for itself and be self sustaining, the Canadian film industry is basically a collective of baby birds in a giant tax credit nest with their mouths stretched open waiting for the government mama bird to come along and drop freebies in its mouth.
Anyone who gives away free money (or even just loans it) has the right to decide, on whatever basis they want, who they will or will not give or loan that money too. Let’s say I want to build a rocket ship to fly to the moon and paint a giant happy face on it to make the world feel good. I go to the bank and ask for the $700 million it will take me to bring my creative masterpiece to life. Here’s the question: If the bank turns me down for the loan, would they literally be committing censorship against me? Obviously not.
I’m still free to pursue my artistic vision. No one is stopping me. But it’s up to me to come up with the money I require to do it. The bank is under no obligation to give me money. If they do, then great! If not, it’s not censorship. In the same way, if the government gives a handout to your film project, then great! If they don’t for whatever reason, it may suck but it’s NOT censorship.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually love that the government helps out the Canadian film industry. But government handouts to an industry is NOT a birthright. It’s not a fundamental freedom. It’s not something filmmakers are entitled just by virtue of being filmmakers.
The debate on wether the new rule about extremely offensive projects is a good one or a bad one is certainly a good debate to have. The positives and negatives of such a rule change to the current system should be weighed, compared and debated. However, when some people start throwing in the term “censorship”, then the real issue gets lost, the title of the debate becomes deceptive and ultimately confuses the whole matter until no one is even talking about the same thing anymore.
Is the new government rule a good one or bad one? Will it help or hinder the Canadian film industry? Is it or is it not in the best interests of the citizens and tax payers of Canada? Honestly I haven’t formed my opinion on this yet. But the one thing I do know is that the new proposed legislation is not in any way “censorship”. So quit your midnight yelling Mr. Revere, you’re raising a false alarm.
29 Comments, Comment or Ping
Brendan
You’re right- it’s not censorship. But it is playing favorites and deciding what content gets the advantage.
Personally I’ve never been a huge fan of the advantages given by the NFB and government grants and the like because a lot of time they control the content too much (for example the films have to have a certain amount of ‘Canadian’ content in it in order to qualify for the grant) Personally I believe that this cuts creativity.
I have a friend who’s a filmmaker and the NFB denied her grants because there wasn’t enough ‘Canadian content’. It seems that in order to get money in Canada now you have to have a clean non-violent, no swearing film about mounties eating poutine while playing hockey.
I’m just saying I think there’s only so far you can go controlling content until we’re just stereotyping ourselves.
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey Brendan,
I don’t disagree with you entirely. My only response would be, your friend should then find her own way of making her film aside from a government hand out.
I do strongly disagree when you say:
“It seems that in order to get money in Canada now you have to have a clean non-violent, no swearing film about mounties eating poutine while playing hockey.”
Canadian film is a hell of a lot more edgy than that. Although I can understand the frustration that comes along with any limitations.
Still, government hands outs should be looked upon as a bonus, not a right or entitlement. Just my two cents worth.
Apr 14th, 2008
Clinky
Are we talking about tax breaks or subsidies here? If it’s subsidies, where the government gives money from taxes to companies as grants, then you may have a point…maybe. But if we’re talking about tax breaks, then the new rule effectively means that if you don’t say what they like, you have to pay more taxes, i.e. a tax on unpopular speech. Which is censorship. A subtle but important difference.
Apr 14th, 2008
goodbar1979
“But if we’re talking about tax breaks, then the new rule effectively means that if you don’t say what they like, you have to pay more taxes, i.e. a tax on unpopular speech. Which is censorship. A subtle but important difference.”
right on the money
sry John i gotta disagree with you on this one. ESPECIALLY since there is a conservative government in power here in Canada. Its kinda scary.
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey Clinky,
Thanks for the comment. However, I quite disagree with you when you say:
““the new rule effectively means that if you don’t say what they like, you have to pay more taxes”
The assmption of your statement is that everyone pays one rate, and then those that don’t “comply” will have to pay more, and that’s inaccurate. Only a few films (out of the thousands that apply for government tax credit) get the credits and thus THEY are the exception for getting the bonus. Those who don’t get the bonus are not “penalized”.
Apr 14th, 2008
goodbar1979
i should have put this in the last post.
One question i think is important:
Why the change of heart now with the canadian government?
Its been the same for about 20 years…
the answer: (as i said above)
Harper and his right-wing conservative wingnuts. They see their chance to “cleanup” Canadian movies. Thats the ONLY reason this has started up now. Its that part that worries me a tad.
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey goodbar1979
Once again, the problem with CLinky’s statement is that it assumes everyone gets the tax credit, and only those who fail to meet the “government’s standards” will get declined the credit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is, only a finite number of films and projects get approved for the credits out of the thousands of films each year that apply for it. There is only so much money to go around.
The films that get tuned down for the free welfare handout are not “penalized”. They are simply amongst the majority who don’t get the free handout.
And once again, it’s not “censorship” because the government is not interfering with the filmmaker from making his/her movie however they want on their own.
I’m not paying for their movie either… does that mean I’m censoring them too?
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey goodbar1979,
One more thing (and I appreciate what you’re saying). It should be noted that this change was actually introduced by the old Liberal government. It was just never enacted. (Long live Jean Cretian!!!! I seriously wish he was still PM)
Apr 14th, 2008
goodbar1979
hey John,
sry at work didnt read it properly lol….your right not everone gets the credit. So i guess this falls under the category of..hmmm…..selective morality??
Like i said above its the timing and reasoning behind this new rule change that upsets me. Great canadian films will still be made but im afraid this will just cause less stuff to come out.
Without that extra $$ from the CFB i feel were gonna see alot less canadian made movies.
I guess its also where i come from that is affecting my veiw. Im a lifelong Alberta boy…so ive seen Harper and all is cronies work there political “magic” here. With people in his cabinet (theres one who actually believes that dinosaurs didnt exist) helping make these decisions about what is “acceptable”. Thats the damn scary part.
peace from Calgary :)
Apr 14th, 2008
goodbar1979
?? really (just read your post)
well then there goes my agrument LOL :(
Apr 14th, 2008
goodbar1979
damn slow internet….
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey Goodbar1979
Ha! No, I don’t think you should say “there goes your arguement”, I still think you make a valid point even if I don’t agree with it.
Any while it may be true about the government using “selective morality”, the fact still remains that as long as they aren’t going out and telling people what they can and can’t do on their own, by definition it’s not censorship.
Apr 14th, 2008
Lifetoanother
I in a way have to agree with what the Canadian government is doing on the way they decide who gets the money and who doesn’t. I say this because I think this will actually start freeing up the people in the industry to find new and creative ways to make money for films and TV shows. Canadians are very creative people. I think they will find a way to make it through. Anyone who is dowed by their art finds a way, even if they have to work extra hard for it to work. I find this by no way censorship.
Apr 14th, 2008
Slushie Man
I agree with John and don’t really see what the argument is. Censorship is when they don’t allow you to watch something. Are they doing that? No, so it’s not censorship, end of story.
And about playing favorites: There is only so much money to go around, unless you want to pay more taxes so then you can afford to pay ALL the films that apply for it.
Apr 14th, 2008
Bishop
It is my understanding that they will still provide the money to make the film. HOWEVER upon review of the content of the film, they make it clear that they may revoke any funding, essentially castrating production.
Canadian Arts rely heavily on funding. Music is heavily funded in this fashion as well. If it were not for the Government of Canada we may not have had an opportunity to listen to a great number of “Superstars” to this day (even if their music sucks). The difference between these two industries is that in Canada, radio (and TV now as well) must have a certain percentage of CANCON (that is to say CANadian CONtent). This gives artists an opportunity to be heard on the radio (and that station that used to show music videos). Big problem being, well, you can’t exactly force CANCON into the theatres can you?
There was a great discussion on this topic on a program called “Q” on CBC between Jian Ghomeshi (the host), and Sarah Polley (the hot).
Like you, I see sides to both parts of the argument, but sides will need to be taken and a decent resolution will need to be found. So far, it seems very unfortunate for the creative side of the fence, but logical for the fedeuciary side. It would be a shame to lose talent to the south (no offense Neighbours) all the while trying to pound our chests yelling “Canadian! Canadian!” WIthout this source of funding what alternatives are there?
Apr 14th, 2008
John A.
In some ways it is censorship as you stated the industry in Canada relies on the money in order to succeed at an real level. If the money is held back then films will not get made and therefore people are not able to see the movie that might have been made.
You said that its their right to say who gets the money since its their money. This is not really true in my mind as the money is not theirs. The money belongs to the taxpayers and not the government. Just because some bureaucrat does not like the idea of a specific movie should not mean that it gets no money. Take a look at a movie like Fido. I could very easily see the paperwork hitting the desk and the person reading Zombie movie and just automatically dumps it in the trash bin. Why should the gov’t pay money to see some zombie movie made.
Now, don’t take this as me saying there should not be criteria for choosing what movies get made but that criteria should not include topic or subject of the movie.
I believe the comment was also made that the film maker just needs to then go out and find another way of making the movie. This for me is the exact same argument that could be used for people who live in the poorer areas of large cities. Why should we give them welfare, they could just go out a get a job. There is much more too it than simply making the statement that they should just find alternative methods to get money.
Apr 14th, 2008
John
Hey John A.
You said:
“In some ways it is censorship as you stated the industry in Canada relies on the money in order to succeed at an real level.”
How does that address the issue of censorship at all? Just because their situation is bad doesn’t obligate the government to give them a handout for an industry that should be self-supporting.
Only a fraction of the films that apply for tax credits are granted them. Are all the other films being “censored”? No.
Once again, unless the government is interfering with the filmmakers who are doing the films on their own… it’s NOT censorship under any definition.
And yes, it is the governments money, because they are the ones we elected to make the decisions about how the money is spent. It’s their jobs, their responsibility and their right to do so. If we don’t like how they handle it, we vote them out next election.
Apr 14th, 2008
Rusty James
I guess John’s right in a sense, there’s no reason why any particular film has any inherent right to government funding. Whatever soulless Canadian beaurocrat in charge is well within his rights to discriminate based on whatever criteria he sees fit. I don’t think it’s any worse to discriminate against violence / sex / non canadian values (as if that means anything other than “I didn’t like it”) than it is to discriminate based on personal preference / running time / dislike of minorities / whatever.
Either way you end up with some peon behind a desk deciding which films the private citizen should and shouldn’t be promoting. I would hate to have some asshole telling me that Saving Private Ryan is pro-american but The Road To Guatanamo is anti-american. Or that films about homosexuals are offensive to traditional moral normatives or whatever nonsense the self-appointed cultural hall-monitors are saving us from this week.
Basically I think that government funding for film is incompatible with free expression in film. The distinction between rewarding films with canadian content and penalizing non-canadian content is meaningless semantics.
Government funding (in any area) is something is something to be avoided if possible.
Apr 14th, 2008
Rusty James
also,
@slushie man “Censorship is when they don’t allow you to watch something.”
I don’t think that’s a very good definition of censorship. and in that vein…
@Gio “Only a fraction of the films that apply for tax credits are granted them. Are all the other films being “censored”? No.”
I might not use the word “censored” because it’s too vague but certaintly fined and levied. Gov funding creates a market place that’s hostile to certain films.
Apr 14th, 2008
Day-Vuh
Dude, regardless of anyone’s position, you really need to stop referring to anyone getting a tax/credit/subsidy break -for anything- as someone just lazily lining up to get a welfare check. It’s rather offensive.
Forget filmmaking, you and I both know someone who’s been on welfare - and if you want to imply laziness, say it. Bringing the poor and dependent into the mix is beside the point.
Apr 14th, 2008
Krintina
Hey Day-Vuh,
It was an analogy, a pretty accurate one too. No implication of “laziness” was made at all.
Apr 14th, 2008
Day-Vuh
KRINTINA,
I’m not referring to any particular reference someone has made.. but c’mon, let’s be adults here: the reference itself, the paradigm of “free welfare handout” does not stir up any images of a “hard working individual”. We both know it’s a quick draw for a “lackey” reference. My hat off to you if you think of “hard working people who don’t want the help” when people are negatively referencing “welfare”, you’re a bigger person than I.
As far as welfare goes, no, it’s not an accurate anaolgy. You do realize that these credits are given to the production AFTER the film has been made, right? “Grants” are totally different. Artists and filmmakers work their ASSES off to produce what they can most often than not, with NO help whatsoever. In the past two months I’ve been in 3 pilot projects - all funded completely 100% out of pocket. And yes, John’s right, not everybody gets a tip of the that, but if we found out that we’re not getting a tax credit SOLELY based -read it again - I said SOLELY based (and in your court, I doubt this would be the case anyway) because one or two folks thought it “wasn’t mass appealing enough” would be infuriating.
Again, I question how often that would actually happen, but if it did, it shouldn’t.
Apr 14th, 2008
Dan
I can’t believe someone is actually saying it’s not censorship. And someone I read regularly, too! Thanks for being the voice of reason, John. Also, I skimmed through the existing comments quickly, but has anyone brought up the argument about the rules only applying to canadian productions? I read somehwere that US productions filming in Canada will still get the tax credits regardless of the amount of sex/violence.
Man, I got so sick of hearing about this, along with the same old censorship claims, that this was refreshing.
Apr 14th, 2008
Claude
Anyone who gives away free money (or even just loans it) has the right to decide, on whatever basis they want, who they will or will not give or loan that money too.
I’m sorry that argument does not work in this case, in this particular case the people who are deciding what kind of movie gets tax break or not are not same the people who are paying from their pocket. Your argument would work if this was a private corporation financing these movies (like the studios in the US), in which case they have every right in the world to decide the content of their movies. But in our case it is us tax payers who are financing these movies, why should a group of self-righteous Conservative nutjobs get to decide what is “moral” enough to get additional funding?
I know that you make a point that these breaks are not a right but an added bonus. Whether or not you agree with them, the point remains that even if they are an added bonus it is completely unfair to deny certain people even a chance at getting their movie funded. In our healthcare system, if you want an organ transplant there are usually long wait times. The government is doing that for us free of cost, if someone wants a new kidney badly enough they can buy it from down in the states but that does not mean the government can dictate that groups such as gays or ethnic minorities are ineligible to receive these government funded transplants, it is the same thing with this film censorship thing.
What this basically amounts to is a movie that is religious propaganda would be eligible to get these tax breaks but a Canadian version of Brokeback Mountain with a decent social message is not even allowed allowed to apply. This might not be censorship in the traditional form but it is still kind of a moral censorship and imo is part of the hidden social conservative agenda of the Conservative government. We need to stand up and strongly oppose these kinds of measures by our government or in 20 years time we will in the same situation as the Chinese.
Apr 14th, 2008
Jarred
People who hate this can play semantics all they want. The fact of the matter is that this isn’t censorship.
They just don’t like what’s happening and trying to attach and bend the meaning of the word to make it look as bad as possible.
Being wrong doesn’t make it censorship
The wrong motives don’t make it censorship
Twist the meanings and try to force it into a new definition all you want still doesn’t make it censorship.
This law may be bad, but if it is, it isn’t because it’s censorship, because it’s not. Read a dictionary.
Apr 14th, 2008
Drewbacca
While John is completely right on this particular issue (assuming he’s stating the facts correctly), it is my understanding that the Canadian government does have quite an extensive ban list. There are plenty of films and books that have been banned by the (liberal) Canadian government. They are still available in your area probably, but for all intents and purposes, they are illegal to buy or sell.
Correct me if I’m wrong about that.
Apr 14th, 2008
Hater
Hey I have an idea, lets discuss the same topic every two months
Apr 15th, 2008
Omar
John is right in that this isn’t censorship and it’s very understandable that people get that impression as a first response.
First I’d like to ask. Are Canadian movies really that hardcore that they need a legislation to tone down the content?
But it always sucks when people tell you what you can or can’t have in your movie. And who then decides what is acceptable at any given time. There are bound to be films released that will sort of contradict the policy and filmmakers that have been shunned will then go up in arms.
But has this legislation gone through or is it just being discussed?
Apr 15th, 2008
WillTheSecond
It’s not censorship, but it does sound like the government (typical of a Conservative one - it’s part of the ideology after all) is getting to big for its boots.
Is this government trying to claim they can objectively measure whether or not a film is suitable for everyone else? We’re talking about ART here: it’s elementary logic to suggest that any claims based the interpretation of art are at least in part subjective.
Also, let’s get real. Economics is power. Denying a non-Hollywood film tax breaks (as pointed out earlier these are films which will have already been finished and require distribution assistance) is tantamount to saying “we’re going to do what we can to stop this film being shown”.
It is economic, if not legalistic, censorship of a certain degree. Because of this law certain films will not be seen by their intended audience because of arbitrary decisions made of individuals without any real authority to make them.
Apr 15th, 2008
Reply to “Canadian Government Regulating Movie Welfare Is Not Censorship”