Treat the situation for what it is, and then find a solution – don’t blindly throw around big words to create something out of what it isn’t.

This taxation cause does need to be addressed, but as John said, you can’t fight the battle if you don’t know what you are targetting anymore.

Also, if you want to talk about censorship in Canada, you should read up on the Maclean’s / Mark Steyn / British Columbia Human Rights Commission trial. Agree or disagree with Steyn’s politics, the implications of that situation are scary.

First of all… there is a distinction between criteria, and discrimination. They are not (although some people erroneously do this) interchangeable.

Secondly, each film is judged individually, regardless of filmmaker, genre, run time or medium.

Under Bill C-10 no film is looked at on it’s surface for who made it, what genre it is, or what medium it is. To use the word “discrimination” suggests a pre-determined negative attitude towards what something outwardly is. But this is not the case here.

For the Tax Credit committee to “discriminate”, they would have to pre-judge a movie based on it’s genre, it’s makers, it’s medium… but Bill C-10 doesn’t do that.

There is criteria, by which ALL FILMS are equally measured without prejudice or favor under C-10. No matter who made it, or the genre, or the issue or the topics covered. They are all looked at EQUALLY. That in and of itself rules out the term “discrimination”.

If one of the criteria for being granted a tax credit is “no children involved in sexual acts”, and a movie, regardless of it’s maker, or genre, or medium violates that criteria… then it isn’t afforded the Tax Credit. And rightly so if that is the pre-determined criteria which is applied equally to all films.

So no. By definition both literal and in spirit, neither the term “censorship” nor “discrimination” apply to this situation in any way.

Again, that’s just my opinion.

I didn’t realize that they were taking into account the artistic merits of the film as well. The way you put it, it basically sounds like a rating board that looks through a proposal and then just says, “nope, that’s too offensive. No soup for you!”. If that’s not how it is, I stand corrected. You sure make it sound that way though.

What is good? I don’t know. Whatever criteria film boards or studios use to say if a film is good or not or whether it should even get made in the first place (the Academy, critics societies, film boards, festival juries, etc).

And YES, you not getting in for the senior discount IS discrimination. Again, the word “discrimination” does not have to have a negative connotation. Ladies night at the bar is also a form of discrimination. A certain type of film project getting rejected for another type of film project is discrimination – whatever the criteria used may be.

Yes, that is the definition… but I think your application of it takes some extreme liberties (just in my opinion)

Under Bill C-10 each film IS judged on it’s individual merits. You’re just saying it’s not.

Also you suggest:

“NOT on how good the movie might actually be”

What is “good”? What criteria are you applying?

So let me ask you this. Is the theater refusing to let me in for the “Seniors” rate “discrimination”?

I’ve read Bill C-10, there is nothing in there about creating a “category” for films refused for tax credits. No qualifications of “Any films that say “fuck” are out. Nothing like that.

So I see what you’re saying, but the definition doesn’t apply. The definition actually works against your argument.

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Looks like the shoe fits perfectly. It doesn’t say anything about what you agree or don’t agree with. It just states picking one thing (in this case film) over another based on a class or category (in this case fmily films vs sex/violence/drugs etc) and NOT on how good the movie might actually be.

Discrimiation does not necessarily have a bad connotation or have to do with race.

source: dictionary dot com

Amen to your comments about the word “discrimination”! Like “censorship,” it’s a word that gets tossed around far too often. These are the black-list adjectives: if you want to shame someone or encourage others to view him with contempt, just toss in the adjective of your choice and you have an instant entourage of mindless followers, collectively crying out for metaphoric blood.

I’ve seen this at work recently, as well. A police officer who acts as a security guard for my workplace was approached by a woman who wanted to talk about why Barack Obama is the best candidate for the U.S. presidency. The police officer told her he didn’t really want to talk politics, at which the woman immediately called him a racist, and said she didn’t think “we need that kind of thing” in our police force!

Now, while I agree with some of my peers’ comments above that a government bill of this sort might eventually LEAD to censorship, I also agree with you that labeling this bill as such is incorrect. I think that, in actuality, this should be a debate with two points: 1) Should the Canadian government support the arts in a criteria-based manner rather than supporting the arts as a whole, and 2) Could this type of “discrimination,” if you will, lead to actual censorship in the future? The issues are related, but calling this bill as it stands “censorship” is just plain wrong.

If a majority of films are produced this way, then it is the government stepping in to decide what is right and wrong to be produced. If it’s just a few struggling films each year, I think the government is correct in making sure they fund films they deem as “safe”.

Can’t you say that ANYTHING that has criteria is “discrimination”?

Not all films BEFORE bill C-10 got approved for the tax credits. Why wasn’t it called discrimination before? It had approval criteria before?

Seems to me we only call it discrimination if the criteria is something we don’t agree with. Just an observation.