Conservatives... Way too Sexully Frustrated

[niss]

I have no problem with the government withholding tax dollars for films like this. In general I am against censorship. Denying funding for these movies is not censoring them as they would still be free to make the film using private sector dollars. Funding for the arts is important. I think the simple test for if something should get funding would be to ask "would you let your six year old daughter watch this". If the answer is no then it is probably not appropriate to receive tax money.

Art is all about interpritation. What one may view as smut others may view as art. Stand to close its just a bunch of coloured dots, take a couple of steps back its a beautiful painting.

It all depends on what you want to see and what you are able to see.

I may not agree with a particular piece but I am sure there are many others who do. I dont think we should hold a national referendum everytime they want to give a grant so what else should they do? Stop funding completely?

[GilletteNorth]

I have to disagree with those who believe denying subsidies for this film is censorship.

STL:

Ok, all joking aside - how's THAT for an Evil to choose???? Censorship.... Thought that was one of those things our Fathers fought against with the Nazi's, or our troops are fighting against now in Afghanistan.... Or am I missing something?

That's a fairly belligerent statement, can't we have an uncensored non-belligerent discussion?

The government has NOT STOPPED the film from being produced or viewed by those who wish to see it. If it has such a big fan following let THOSE people pay for it's production. If someone wanted to produce a snuff film and claimed it was being done artfully, would you object to the Canadian government if it failed to provide funding for the 'artistic' endeavor?

How do you go from the government following the wishes of the it's citizens by not providing tax dollars for something the majority of the public don't want to see to Naziism? Naziism implies the subversion of the will of the people. I see the will of (most of) the people of Canada being that they don't want to fund this film.

I'm sure our troops fighting in Afghanistan didn't get sent over there with the stated mission of preventing censorship in Canada by fighting Afghanis. They were sent over there to assist the legal government establish order. And that is a noble duty. But it's not because some people are feeling censored here in Canada because the government won't pay their bills.

[mcrit]

Yeah, why are we subsibizing films at all? Or any art for that matter? Voice of fire ring a bell for anyone? We'd be far better off setting that money aside to buy weapons for when we have to take out Iran. (BTW STL.....I put that last statment there just in hopes of giving you a cerebral vascular acident.)

[sky's the limit]

How do you go from the government following the wishes of the it's citizens by not providing tax dollars for something the majority of the public don't want to see to Naziism? Naziism implies the subversion of the will of the people. I see the will of (most of) the people of Canada being that they don't want to fund this film.

I'm fairly certain I wasn't polled about the making of that film, and I'm fairly certain you weren't either. So, "majority?" What majority?

You really don't want to open the "will of the people" argument with me either, we have an appallingly low voter turn out when we have elections, and in between elections, we have little, if any influence on what the Gov't does. Harper has about 35% support nation wide, Jean Crouton had about 50% at best.... Anyway, that's another discussion.

Mcrit,

Thanks for keeping me in mind, I appreciate it, but I just spent a day sitting on a floating cabin in the middle of a lake drinking good drink, and eating amazing food... WAY too full to bite.

stl

[mcrit]

beer....lake....things I could go for.

[GilletteNorth]

I have to go with the fact that MP's represent the people in their constituency. When the MP's don't do at least most of what the people in the constituency want, they usually get tossed out at the next election. If you want to complain that it isn't representative due to low turnout at the polls, well, people get what they deserve then don't they? Personally, if my MP tells me he's voting against public funds being used to subsidize the kiddie porno, I'm voting him or her back in.

Oh, and has anyone else bothered to send letters to their MP? Personally visited one? Talked to them on the phone? I've talked to my MP many times in the various locations I've lived in. They do listen to normal constituents concerns. Perhaps you should talk to yours.

Oh, one last comment, remember you mentioned the Conservatives were talking about a bill that would deny subsidizing this sort of film. That means it has to be passed in Parliment with a minority government presenting it, so it may never become law anyway if the 'majority of Canadians' push their MP's to vote it down.

[sky's the limit]

Gillette,


This is no minority Gov't.... It's a functioning majority enabled by a spineless opposition.

And no, I'm not at all happy that my MP has four years to speak on my behalf on any range of matters. The system in archaic and outdated.

Kiddie Porn? How do you figure that?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0913445/

Any of you guys bother to see what the film is about at all?????


stl

[GilletteNorth]

I retract the 'kiddie porn' comment and replace it with 'young couples fucking porn'... everyone seems like a kid to me these days <sigh>.

Tomaytoes tomaatoes.