The internet has been raging with bill C-10, which seems to have become the new media baby now that the government is dragging its feet with releasing the proposed copyright legislation.
Geist is surprisingly brief on his coverage of the activity, with a mere mention and pointing people to one of the anti-C-10 Facebook groups.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts issued a press release on the matter (I’m linking to my own blog because I can’t find it on their website), as did ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada.
Trying to read through the entire bill is a nightmare, and I’m grateful to “FF Canuck” for finding the relevant text in the bill. The offending text, in short, is that “public financial support of the production [of a Canadian film or video] would not be contrary to public policy”.
While I agree with some criticisms that this isn’t necessarily or specifically a censorship clause, anyone who reads between the lines (or any of the articles covering the issue) knows its intent is to facilitate censorship. It’s chillingly familiar to the undertones of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and it’s no wonder everyone is aghast.
Just what exactly is “contrary to public policy”? What exactly is “public policy”? Who decides what “public policy” is and whether a work is contrary to it?
Surely the Canadian government shouldn’t be allowing hateful propaganda, but where do we draw the line…and, more importantly, from where do we draw the line? As others have noted, other provisions are in place to ensure that works which violate human rights are not allowed to be distributed. Is it really the place of the governmental branch in charge of tax credits to determine whether a film should be funded?
