In the news: Bill C-10’s inappropriate rhetoric

From Bill Harris of Sun Media:

  • Seeing sense on Bill C-10
    ” The Canadian TV and film industry’s reaction to the existence of the bill has included references to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the Guantanamo detention camp. And while I share some of the industry’s concerns, it’s that type of terminology that strikes me as inappropriate. The average Joe should understand something: This is not about censorship. Censorship means you aren’t allowed to make a certain TV show or movie. No one is talking about that here. Everyone in Canada is completely free to make whatever TV show or movie they want, provided — and herein lies the heart of the debate — they pay for it themselves or secure private financing.” Read more.

5 thoughts on “In the news: Bill C-10’s inappropriate rhetoric”

  1. I’m disappointed that this is the only article Diane has chosen to post regarding the censorship inherent in Bill C-10. If Mr. Harris believes producers are “free” to finance film and TV without the the tax credit, he should give it a try and see how far he gets. The point isn’t even that censorship will be applied at the whim of the government, it’s that it could be applied — and that is enough to undermine business confidence. Who would be fool enough to produce a film or TV program with a major chunk of the budget in question? This amendment must be stopped.

  2. I’m disappointed you don’t read this site enough to know this isn’t the only article I’ve chosen to post regarding Bill C-10, even though behind-the-scenes industry news falls outside the mandate of this site. I hope you’re not suggesting I should only post opinions you happen to agree with. I don’t even post only opinions I happen to agree with. That would be censorship.

  3. My apologies, Diane. This was the only posting I saw for the past five days, when the controversy has been heating up. I applaud your stance against censorship of any kind, and your ongoing support for the Canadian industry.

  4. Hey there Beth … I appreciate your point of view. Just to be clear, though, I never wrote that getting financing on your own is “easy,” I merely said it’s possible and not illegal. And in my mind that means people are throwing around the “C” word – censorship – a little too casually. As I admitted in the article, I’m not an expert on this, I just wish both sides would tone down the rhetoric. Cheers, Bill Harris, Sun Media

  5. I happen to agree with Beth. There is overt and covert forms of censorship. I would hate to think of what would come of some of our best known Canadian films under this. Would C.R.A.Z.Y. be denied funding because it touched on homosexuality and drug abuse? Who decides?

    Pornographic films are already denied funding. Who has made the case that tighter restrictions are absolutely necessary? The rhetoric is high because this was never debated openly in Parliament. It was snuck through the HOC embedded in another bill and only came to light in the Senate. Perhaps the opposition parties were caught sleeping at the wheel, but the artistic community feels rightfully betrayed.

Comments are closed.