In Canada, such opinion biases are restricted. “I will prevent you from entering because I don’t like your politics” has been tested many times in the courts. Where this fails is on religious grounds. Laws can not be made to prevent religious bias.

Does anyone else see where this may be leading?

Which can rationalize all manner of questionable, partisan, ‘censorious’ behaviour.

The problem with the quote you give (”if I gap finance… yadda yadda yadda”) is that it’s factually and objectively incorrect. It re-defines the meaning of “censorship” to their own ends in order to force feed this issue under its non-existant definition. The quote erroneously also asumes that the tax credit is a “RIGHT” that every filmmaker in Canada is entitled to, and taking it away or not granting it is the “exception”. That’s a completely false assumption when actually the opposite is true.

Ang Lee said in that article:

““People should be free to say anything,”

Well… yes they should. And even under this new law they are free to say anything they want in film. No one is stopping them and this law does nothing to give the government the right to go out and interfere in the work filmmakers do. It DOES give them the right to choose to not financially support certain films (that don’t inherently have a right to that money anyway). And THAT is why this is NOT censorship.

As I said in my article:

“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.”

Some of the reader comments are additionally interesting:

“If I gap finance a film that is fully within the bounds of the Criminal Code with the anticipation of a tax credit that gets pulled on me, because of some specious notion of public policy, that is censorship. Why these pro Bill C-10 supporters can’t get this through their thick skulls is beyond me.”

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.

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?

Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

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.