…and this is a 
Canadian bluenoses
Category: Politics
Posted on: February 29, 2008 3:49 PM, by PZ Myers
Those Canadians have got a few prigs running things up there, and they've apparently trying to pass some laws to slap down those darned naughty artist types. There's just one line from the sour old prude that's worth mentioning, the rest is the usual noise.
A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.
Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.
"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."
I'd like to make a distinction here.
"I will not watch movies with graphic sex scenes" is a good moral value; it's defining a standard of behavior for yourself. If McVety, Day, and Nicholson wish to abstain from watching movies with sex, then that's fine. Personally, I am unperturbed if someone else wants to watch porn, as long as they don't force me to watch it too, and I think that's a reasonable value as well.
Conservative values don't seem to have anything to do with personal standards, at least as they are expressed by politicians and the media. "You will not watch movies with graphic sex scenes" is not what I would consider a moral good. It's the imposition of values on someone else, not yourself. There really are only two possibilities here: 1) McVety, Day, and Nicholson already do not watch movies with graphic sex scenes, in which case this law causes them no hardship and they can't be said to be acting for their own good; or 2) McVety, Day, or Nicholson do watch movies with graphic sex scenes, in which case they are hypocrites imposing a standard on others to which they do not adhere themselves.
We've been living with "conservative values" here in the US for a long time now, and they rarely seem to have anything to do with a social good, or with people actually setting exemplary moral standards for themselves. It's always about narrowing experiences, constraining others to a single permissible range of behaviors, and punishing others outside your domain of accepted social norms.
You know, it is possible to be a liberal, progressive sort of person who doesn't do any of the "bad" things that conservatives detest — who doesn't drink to excess, use addictive drugs, or gamble, who is faithful to a single spouse and doesn't spend time on pornography or prostitution. That people don't do those things is not the distinguishing characteristic of conservative vs. liberal at all. The real difference is that conservatives take sanctimonious pleasure in requiring everyone else to be just like their ideal, and seem to be less interested in measuring up to their own standards themselves than in demanding that others do so; liberals are people who put first priority on abiding by their own standards, and a second priority on allowing others to live their lives as they see fit.
Comments
Conservative values? I wonder if Charles McVety would praise the Saudi Arabian authorities? They are the real conservatives and we all know what a utopia that nation is.
Posted by: MH | February 29, 2008 4:06 PM
Um, they're not exactly trying to ban such films, only deny them certain kinds of government funding. This may, of course, wind up having the same effect, in that the flicks won't get made, however I think it raises a legitimate issue of what kind of activities the govt should be spending taxpayers' money on (ie. including those that some find objectionable for whatever reason). Thus, I find it difficult to come to a position either way on this particular issue. I don't like censorship; I just about automatically disagree with anyone who likes to wrap themselves in the "Family" flag -- but that doesn't automatically translate into thinking that my government should be funding this, or any type, of movie-making.
Comments? Feel free to persuade me, in either direction.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 29, 2008 4:07 PM
Perhaps there's a third, or maybe simply a corollary to #2: They do watch porn, but feel guilty about it, and therefore the government should step in and enforce their morals for them.
It all ties back in with the idea of God as the source of and enforcer of moral standards. They really don't think that humans are capable of enforcing our own morals on ourselves.
Posted by: stogoe | February 29, 2008 4:07 PM
I don't want the government being the arbiter of artistic taste, as that is a dangerous road to go down. This is no different in principle than a publicly-funded school banning certain books because they are "objectionable".
Posted by: Tulse | February 29, 2008 4:10 PM
Why?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 29, 2008 4:11 PM
I largely agree with you, and as a Canadian I am very upset by this law project. My greatest problem with it is that I don't know WHO will actually judge the standards or HOW it is going to be done. What are the criterions?
And also, I think that it is a bit narrowing to attack video contents that may as well be only representative of the hard reality that some people live day to day, and I am afraid that it is THIS kind of movie that will be touched.
In my point of view, our government lacks credibility in the cultural field, and, despite it has denied it, I do not find encouraging that the religious right (not as worse as yours yet but...) may have influence over it.
Posted by: Benji | February 29, 2008 4:12 PM
Liberal is rooted in liberty, or the exercising of free will. The suggestion that only "conservatives" are guilty of a desire to impress their will or ideal upon others is a dangerous one. How would the libertarians fit into this liberal vs. conservative dichotomy? These definitions of conservative and liberal are not substantive, nor are they based upon the fundamentals of each.
Posted by: william | February 29, 2008 4:12 PM
"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."
No, that's not why they were voted in, to nor to repeal the same-sex marriage laws. The Conservative Party is not standing on solid ground right now, with the accusation that party officials may have tried to bribe an indepenedent MP about three years ago.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | February 29, 2008 4:14 PM
Often the liberal/conservative dichotomy is described as liberals want to regulate business, conservatives want to regulate human behavior.
Posted by: True Bob | February 29, 2008 4:22 PM
"...and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."
Actually we have a minority government which means that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for a Conservative government.
Posted by: Blondin | February 29, 2008 4:24 PM
Jesus said to avoid temptation, not eradicate it. Isn't it moral cowardice of the worst sort to try and have the government do away with temptation so you will not have to try to avoid it personally?
My personal (somewhat Stoic and Epicurean, akin to Cicero's eclectic Academic Skepticism) philosophy would be a lot easier to follow if everything contrary to it didn't exist. But then what's the point?
Posted by: Sarcastro | February 29, 2008 4:31 PM
Actually we have a minority government which means that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for a Conservative government.
Oh, but McVety is referring to 'real' Canadians, which are Evangelical Christians.
I myself prefer the term "Shit Stains on the Underwear That Is the Conservative Movement" for people like him, but you know, potato-potahto.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 29, 2008 4:36 PM
Hopefully it won't pass, but as a french canadian I'm sick of my provincial government giving funding for every darn shitty artist out there. Their movies suck, their songs sucks, their art are retarded. Heck, they drive fancy cars, but their CD sales are terribly low. Yet all they have to do is ask for more money from the government. What the heck is THAT about?
I think the government shouldn't rule on the MORALE of the shebang, but I think we should just give less money in that. Or at least select who deserves the money better. Heck! They funded a project of making a giant banana go in space and which would float over Texas, for sake. (Surprisingly enough, THAT DIDN'T WORK!)
Posted by: Michelle | February 29, 2008 4:37 PM
@Blondin: And yet, besides a couple slides like this shit, that conservative minority government works surprisingly well... At least far better than the liberals did for years. Because let's face it, they sucked. Massively. It was terrible. And the only reason we kept them there was because Chrétien was absolutely hilarious... (and rotten but he made so many memorable quotes I could forgive him!)
Martin was rotten and annoying. A filthy twisted man.
...And Dion... Well... um... Wow. I'm not voting there either... He just makes me stare blankly.
Posted by: Michelle | February 29, 2008 4:41 PM
So much of this is irrelevant to morality that it makes me wonder how the world functions at all.
Posted by: Spinoza | February 29, 2008 4:41 PM
Arguably that was true primarily toward the end of their run, and arguably because they had no effective opposition. The only reason the Harper & Co. haven't tried to outlaw abortion except for gay fetuses is precisely because they are a minority government. Don't be fooled -- these Western whackjobs will happily require schools teach that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve 6000 years ago if they ever get a solid majority.
Posted by: Tulse | February 29, 2008 4:47 PM
McVety is certainly a piece of work-- self-righteous to a fault, the whole homophobic shebang, a real U.S.-style right-wing Xtian. And his influence over this government is not trivial with Day on the inside (a 'men walked with dinosaurs' creationist) and a sympathetic PM in Mr. Harper. I've been waiting to see what they would do for the McVety types, after a pro-forma attempt to overturn our same-sex marriage legislation failed so badly that the evangelicals felt hard done by. After all, if they don't get their way, God didn't get his way, and that can't be good-- though I have to ask, what's with that, anyway?!?
If we're going to fund these projects (and we have some great artists here, in Atom Egoyan and David Cronenberg and others, who've used this funding to good effect), then I think we need (as for academic research funding) arms-length procedures with artistic merit (as judged by artists and other qualified folk) as the criterion, not some sniffy criteria dreamed up by a bunch of small town prudes...
Posted by: Bryson Brown | February 29, 2008 4:48 PM
It's absolutely about narrowing experience. These and every other Culture Warrior that wants to censor art isn't doing it to protect values or For The Kids. They want to stifle creativity because they view any book or film or work of art as direct competition for the Bible. And they're right. Why would you read some moldy old book of shepherd poetry when you can watch a Superman movie and get the same moral parable about good and evil? And maybe you'll stumble upon somethign that totally contradicts Conservative Values altogether, somethign that opens your mind to other ideas and ways of seeing. Can't have it. So, they want to starve artists and creative types.
Posted by: Keith | February 29, 2008 4:48 PM
Dave at the Galloping Beaver has an excellent take on this. [url]http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/02/sex-drugs-violence-and-things-that.html[/url]
Note that it is not so much denying funding to certain types of film or TV projects, but that after the two-stage process has been approved for tax exemption, some shadowy group behind the scenes will determine whether the project is not "contrary to public policy".
There already exists guidelines that exempt pornography, game, talk and reality shows and sports and news programs, and yet this condescending group of control freaks want to extend that into what they deem might or not be acceptable 'public policy'. Little Mosque on the Prairie? They have the same names as our 'enemies'. Gone. Randy, Ricky, Julian and Bubbles? Too much drugs, alcohol and cursing: gone. Degrassi Street? Oh no, no realistic and thoughtful perspectives on teenagers here, you're gone. Shows making fun of our fucking stupid government (22 Minutes, Air Farce, Rick Mercer). Gone, gone, gone.
Posted by: b_nichol | February 29, 2008 4:58 PM
@Tulse: 100% with you right there. Because well, politicians are politicians. I think you need to give up a bit of your soul to the devil to become one (And yes, that was just a figure of speech. I dont believe in such things
Which makes me think that minority governments are actually a great thing. I don't want them conservatives to ever get majority, of course.
I guess that's why the Bloc still exists. Just to have braindead french canadians break any weak majorities. Of course, that's NOT what they think they are doing, and I'd rather die than vote for them... I'm just babbling.
Posted by: Michelle | February 29, 2008 5:02 PM
I wish someone would force me to watch porn. Then I'd have a convenient excuse if caught. I loves me some porn!
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | February 29, 2008 5:02 PM
stogoe @3 is on to something.
The 'born again' type can be a fairly major reformed sinner a la Ted "I didn't do meth and have gay sex and lie about it and condemn it" Haggard. They never really lose that desire to. The only thing keeping them on the straight and narrow is the peer pressure of their congregation and their professed lurv of jeebus. They are the weakest moral people you will ever meet. Rock music is a no-no in their life because it causes adultery and fornication. PG or higher rated movies are a no-no for the same reason. Combine all that with their belief that the same behavior and naughty desires afflict all of mankind. Is that what is called "projection"? Since they
knowbelieve what causes everyone to sin theyknowbelieve they have the solution: Ban Everything.Posted by: WRMartin | February 29, 2008 5:05 PM
"'You will not watch movies with graphic sex scenes' is not what I would consider a moral good. It's the imposition of values on someone else, not yourself."
As others have pointed out, this is simply barking up the wrong tree. The issue is funding (via tax credits), not availablity.
#4: "I don't want the government being the arbiter of artistic taste, as that is a dangerous road to go down. This is no different in principle than a publicly-funded school banning certain books because they are 'objectionable.'"
Because I agree with the first sentence I disagree with the second. Whenever the government gets involved in the arts, the art gets compromised (in the same way that funding so-called "faith-based" initiatives ends up compromising religious organizations). Moreover, despite claims of censorship, schools do in fact have to exercise discretion, and rightly so (unless you think Debbie Does Dallas ought to be available at your local elementary school?).
Posted by: Sinbad | February 29, 2008 5:12 PM
. Whenever the government gets involved in the arts, the art gets compromised
*sigh*
a horrid overstatement of the actual state of affairs.
much art simply wouldn't exist without the NEA, for example.
(in the same way that funding so-called "faith-based" initiatives ends up compromising religious organizations)
nope. not the same thing at all, but if you want to talk about that, it's the organizations themselves that pervert their own missions to garner a chunk o cash for themselves.
Moreover, despite claims of censorship, schools do in fact have to exercise discretion
again, you are comparing apples and oranges.
and, again, your posts are nothing but a waste of time.
why not start your own blog and invite everyone who cares about what you have to say over?
oh wait, you did, didn't you.
LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 29, 2008 5:18 PM
unless you think Debbie Does Dallas ought to be available at your local elementary school?
Well, they should have some exposure to the classics.
In Canada, we've always been a little paternalistic about the arts, figuring that if the government won't pay to support our local talent, no one else will either. (Ah CanCon. Where would would Gowan be without it?)
It's partly a response to living next to the elephant.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 29, 2008 5:21 PM
Erm, no, not exactly. We all have values and some of these we use to judge others and their behaviour. There is no way around that. Murder is bad? Paedophilia is bad? That's a value judgement.
Now we can agree or disagree with these people's values, but to say that if something is contrary to their values they should only look the other way is a bad argument.
There is a case to be made that porn, for instance, is as damaging and exploitative as, say, prostitution. (And before you start, I know this law isn't about porn) If that was proved there would be a case for it to be banned.
Posted by: Arnaud | February 29, 2008 5:22 PM
A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.
So would that apply to the snuff-porn classic, The Passion of the Christ? Or the highly offensive Expelled?
Posted by: slim | February 29, 2008 5:25 PM
Well, they should have some exposure to the classics.
funny thing about that, turns out that DDD is actually a part of many sociological and film history courses. There was even a documentary made that covered what was going on culturally and industry wise back around that time frame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas_Uncovered
maybe more than one documentary, actually.
not relevant to coursework for elementary students, but that is hardly a case of censorship.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 29, 2008 5:26 PM
On the liberal side, where they belong. Where else?
Keep in mind that things like import tariffs are conservative values.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 29, 2008 5:33 PM
On a serious note, the French Canadian movie Black Robe was made with government money, was an historically accurate portrayal of 17th century French-Canadian settlements, and was, in parts, brutal and violent.
Maybe the good pastor just wants to keep science (sex) and history (violence) away from impressionable Canadian children.
Posted by: slim | February 29, 2008 5:34 PM
Well, with our first past the post electoral system, most majority governments are not elected by a majority of Canadians, either.
In this case, the Conservatives got in because so many people voted against the Liberals because of the Sponsorship Scandal (see Wiki), amongst other things. Interestingly in light of Michelle #13, this was spending money in Québec on advertising, ostensibly to reduce the influence of the Seperatistes.
With their baggage being what it is, there are probably several reasons to put this legislation forward. Most of our Federal governments have spent money in Québec, as if bribing them to not separate. Even the previous Conservative governments did so. They however had their power base in Ontario and Québec. This minority government has quite a few Reform party members, from west of Manitoba, like Stockwell Day. These are the conservative religious types who favour creationism in schools, censorship, making abortions illegal, the death penalty, etc. They have always resented the Feds taking Western resource money (oil) and spending it in the hope of keeping Québec happy.
I see them chipping away at trying to accomplish subtle things, since attempting to legislate their main goals would get them bounced with a non confidence vote. Eliminating the position of Science Advisor recently, was one such small victory for them.
With regard to this legislation, on the one hand, the government subsidizes Canadian culture to keep us from drowning in the massive flood from America, but on the other, their bureaucrats are only responsible for getting rid of all the money they can get their hands on, not spending it wisely. The Canadian Film Board went through a period when they got good work produced, but success comes and goes.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | February 29, 2008 5:39 PM
"much art simply wouldn't exist without the NEA, for example.
I think such government subsidies are a bad idea whether it's an alleged artist or corporate welfare. If an artist can't find support for his/her art, too bad. Moreover, much of the crap funded by the NEA makes a pretty good case that a lot of the money is going to poseurs looking to feed at the government trough rather than to the real artists.
"but if you want to talk about that, it's the organizations themselves that pervert their own missions to garner a chunk o cash for themselves."
Which is exactly my point, whether it's artists or religious organizations.
"again, you are comparing apples and oranges."
Your saying so doesn't make it so, especially since you don't even try to support the claim. Censorship is a necessary fact. The question is merely when and how.
"Well, they should have some exposure to the classics.
Touche'.
Posted by: Sinbad | February 29, 2008 5:40 PM
I think such government subsidies are a bad idea
of course you do.
so, with that in mind, shall we get your positive vote to remove tax exempt status for churches?
I'll send a petition to you tomorrow for your sig.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 29, 2008 5:43 PM
Charles McVety's finest moment came when, during a debate on the CBC with Richard Dawkins, he said "The Bible interprets itself". Watch it here (about 26 minutes in). Most of the audience erupted in laughter after hearing that one.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | February 29, 2008 5:45 PM
Why do you think that conservatives say "if there wasn't a God, there'd be nothing to stop people from killing or robbing or raping..."? They're making personal statements about themselves.
Posted by: IanR | February 29, 2008 5:48 PM
"of course you do."
Your tone suggests you think corporate welfare's a good idea?
"so, with that in mind, shall we get your positive vote to remove tax exempt status for churches? I'll send a petition to you tomorrow for your sig."
I'll sign it (assuming it treats all charitable organizations the same way). It's way OT, but our tax code is way too complex. It ought to be drastically simplified, but most people like their deductions too much to do it (and the industry built up around it is too embedded).
Posted by: Sinbad | February 29, 2008 5:52 PM
"I will not watch movies with graphic sex scenes" is a good moral value
Why?
Posted by: Azkyroth |
Because the images of the female body are sacred to nature, and it is a sort of natural blasphemy to use them without the informed and present consent of the women (or Goddess) involved. It's not good for a guy to do that, mother nature wouldn't aprove. And it don't help your soul none.
That's as near as I can come to it in scientific terms. A little bit of prudery goes a long way, so use it wisely.
Posted by: Mooser | February 29, 2008 5:54 PM
Your tone suggests you think corporate welfare's a good idea?
now it's corporate welfare? thought we were talking about government sponsored social programs and artwork?
so you want to talk apples instead of oranges, moron?
whatever. sure, corporate welfare works just fine in certain circumstances.
ask GM.
it's way OT
LOL
at least some part of your brain is functioning... but it doesn't appear to be able to produce a complete picture for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 29, 2008 5:56 PM
Murder is bad? Paedophilia is bad? That's a value judgement.
Arnaud
Ah, the Panglossian detachment of those still breathing with an intact anus. It's wonderful.
Posted by: Mooser | February 29, 2008 5:59 PM
That's as near as I can come to it in scientific terms.
??
mother nature wouldn't aprove. And it don't help your soul none.
uh huh...
I need to reconsult my astrologist on what constitutes scientific terminology again.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 29, 2008 6:00 PM
Government arts funding here rarely pays for the whole thing, at least so far as films go. Offhand, the excellent werewolf movie "Ginger Snaps" was partly funded by government money. I think a lot of Cronenburg's early stuff was, too.
Some of them are crap, but there are a lot of good Canadian movies that wouldn't be around without a little help from federal arts funding. This move seems like a bad idea at the least.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | February 29, 2008 6:03 PM
Arnaud, they are bad because they hurt people, and we know this, not by a "value judgement" but by simple human empathy. For some people, empathy is a basic value, upon which a system of ethics governing our relations with others could be based. Others seem to see it as an impediment.
Posted by: Mooser | February 29, 2008 6:03 PM
"thought we were talking about government sponsored social programs and artwork?"
I see no essential difference between government subsidized art and other forms of commercial subsidies. I expect every enterprise to stand or fail on its own. If that makes me a moron, I'll wear the label proudly.
Posted by: Sinbad | February 29, 2008 6:04 PM
I need to reconsult my astrologist on what constitutes scientific terminology again.
Posted by: Ichthyic
It's an intelligent guy who goes right to the source.
Posted by: Mooser | February 29, 2008 6:06 PM
I hope this idea spreads to Germany so they stop funding Uwe Bole. His movies are offensive to anyone with a shred of taste.
Posted by: darwinfish | February 29, 2008 6:11 PM
The law is set up so that Mr. Day, a former pastor, can decide who gets funding for their film projects. The definitions of sex and violence are his alone. Which means the film does not have to be considered pornographic. Also, try to come to a consensus on what is graphic violence. I doubt this group can. But Mr. Day will. And he will also decide the "other offensive" material. Meaning, if Ben Stein is really on the ball he will apply to the Canadian government for funding for his film. It may be offensive to most people that read your blog but it wont offend Mr. Day.
Posted by: Dennis | February 29, 2008 6:17 PM
Mooser, that's not what PZ seems to be saying in his third paragraph. You expect your elected representatives to govern and legislate for the good of the country and its inhabitants and, possibly, the planet at large. By doing this, you expect them to uphold moral values.
You don't elect them to look the other way when it doesn't concern them directly because, in a way, everything concern them. (even if it's to decide that it doesn't, that's still a judgement!)
The same also applies to whether their own misconducts disqualify them from ruling on moral issues (and all issues are moral issues), as PZ seems to imply. They are elected FFS; as long as you keep them in power they need to make value judgements. The business of government cannot stop because a minister has been visiting male or female prostitutes...
Also, about my intact anus... what?
Posted by: Arnaud | February 29, 2008 6:40 PM
Sinbad:
Ah, but funding may impact availability.
Well... yes. Ichthyic, I have to defend Sinbad on this one, because I think his statement must be interpreted as being a direct response to the "arbiter" comment, rather than as a more general statement against "involvement." Of course I agree that funding equals involvement (and the more passive, the better).
Still, Sinbad, I can't back you on the second part. I don't recall much of a fervor over Debbie Does Dallas being available (or not) down at Jenna Jay Elementary, so I must call strawman on that specific example. However, I do seem to remember other soul-destroying works of the devil coming under attack, such as the Harry Potter series, and the lovely A Wrinkle In Time. There's a grey area between exercising discretion with regard to ensuring that school libraries have age-appropriate materials available by screening out things like porn, and censoring age-appropriate materials based on the personal dislikes of a vocal minority (elected or otherwise). So, as Ichthyic points out, it's not quite the same thing, even in principle.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 29, 2008 6:40 PM
I'm pretty sure that the Canadian government funds (at least partially) the TV show How It's Made, which is serious nerd porn. I'm seriously addicted to that show.
Is that OK morally?
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | February 29, 2008 6:50 PM
I just realized, why is McVety discussing about this to the Public Safety Minister? Should he not bring this to the cultural minister? Or is he trying to influence our MPs?
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | February 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Quite. And I'm always amused at how fond a certain breed of uptight nutbars like that are of lines like that 'why Canadians voted for a Conservative government' one, even in such absurd contexts as this. Same sorta vibe you get from the self-titled 'moral majority' (which, as certain wags generally and justifiably point out, is neither). There's this weird 'everyone really agrees with me' attitude they always seem to have. Even when everyone so clearly and demonstrably does not.
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 29, 2008 6:59 PM
It's certainly not enough to distinguish between "good" and "not good" moral values on the basis of whether you impose it upon yourself or wish to impose it upon others.
Certain values are necessary to impose on others, such as the old "Thou shalt not kill," because they are adequately universal and socially necessary, but more importantly because they harm others. I see it as a 2x3 matrix:
.....................restriction imposed on others | restriction imposed on self
--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------
action would..|..........restriction is good......|.......restriction is good
have harmed.|
others..............|
----------------------------------------------------------------
action would..|.........restriction is bad.........|..restriction is pretty good
have harmed.|
self, not...........|
others..............|
----------------------------------------------------------------
action would..|..........restriction is silly.......|.........you're a prude.
have harmed.|
nobody...........|
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also like to note that the value of my point is outweighed by the time it took to format this post...
Posted by: Spaulding | February 29, 2008 7:35 PM
No there isn't, and no it wouldn't.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 29, 2008 7:47 PM
Good to know, Askyroth. I'll sleep better tonight.
Not that it would change anything as to the validity of my argument, BTW.
Posted by: Arnaud | February 29, 2008 8:00 PM
I don't know where Michelle gets the idea that the previous Liberals sucked. Not any harder than any other government we've had since the 1980s, and certainly less hard than the current government or Brian Baloney's... I mean, either you've got your choice -- vote for the Liberals and get hard-core University of Manitoba Chicago-style hothouse economics, or vote for the CRAPs and get all that plus Republican-style panty-sniffing. As much as I hate the fact that Canada has nothing at all like progressive taxation and that our economy is deliberately kept subservient to the US's (note how when the dollar got really high there for a while, David Derbes, Bank of Canada mook, had to go in the media everywhere for a while spouting the word "recession" -- as if! -- to make everyone properly un-uppity again), I'll take that over the alternative.
Fuck these guys. Let them go back to their fortified compoundsranches in Alberta where the only things they'll be hurting are the cows. There's a saying here that Canadians elect a Conservative government once a generation just to remind themselves why they shouldn't, but I didn't need a refresher course.
Posted by: Interrobang | February 29, 2008 8:04 PM
"I don't know where Michelle gets the idea that the previous Liberals sucked."
...I dunno Interrobang. I guess I got that idea from all the dirt coming up to the surface since a few years about the liberals.
Posted by: Michelle | February 29, 2008 8:47 PM
Yes, it is. I look forward to Law & Order: Parking Violations Unit and Midsomer Pub Brawls already.
Posted by: windy | February 29, 2008 9:21 PM
A little perspective, Michelle--
The 'dirt' that came to the surface was pretty small-time stuff-- a few percent of the sponsorship program, which ran for quite a few years and actually did seem to improve the image of the feds in Quebec. Not that that makes it OK-- but the notion that this was some huge scandal was a product of press hyperbole and Paul Martin's internicine crusade against Jean Chretien (of course Martin paid the full price in the end, with all his ambitions frustrated).
In the meanwhile, the provincial conservatives continue to run Alberta as a one-party state and plan to go on expanding their massive CO2 emissions with no protest from Ottawa, while Mr. Harper's links to Brian Mulroney, the continuing lies and deception over policy and conditions in Afghanistan and other pretty important matters, and now a little bribery scandal build up. Funny how it took over a decade for enough to stick to the Liberals to give any real trouble, and the conservatives have dug a big hole in just two years of minority government. But self-righteous control freaks tend to make a mess of things, I find.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | February 29, 2008 9:43 PM
Sinbad, I've dusted up with you before on various topics, but I think that your comment stating:
"I expect every enterprise to stand or fail on its own. If that makes me a moron, I'll wear the label proudly."
now just makes me feel kinda sad for you. Your probably are just going to say "don't bother" in a very forceful way, but I do. I'm aware that you're not a moron, but you do seem to have a rather limited knowledge of how our modern world has come about. Let me just say, it's not through enterprises just standing or failing on their own.
Assuredly, the market system is remarkable, but it's not an infallible god that works in every case, in all things. Hopefully you'll come to understand that some day too. Best to ya.
Posted by: Dahan | February 29, 2008 9:50 PM
Man, I knew we were in trouble the minute this government got into office. It's just ridiculous what they're doing to our country.
Posted by: LisaJ | February 29, 2008 10:19 PM
The old joke is that there are two kinds of Scots, those that turn their oats into porrige, and those that turn their oats into whiskey. Canada got all the porrige eaters.
Or, as a friend of mine of Scotish origin put it: "the kind of people that keep an eye on God to make sure He doesn't offend the presbyter."
Generally it's a different kind of prudery than the fundagelicals, but there *is* an established strain of it in Canada.
Posted by: Graculus | February 29, 2008 10:23 PM
"Still, Sinbad, I can't back you on the second part. I don't recall much of a fervor over Debbie Does Dallas being available (or not) down at Jenna Jay Elementary, so I must call strawman on that specific example."
I used an extreme example to make the point. There will of necessity be "censorship." What must be decided is when and how much.
"However, I do seem to remember other soul-destroying works of the devil coming under attack, such as the Harry Potter series, and the lovely A Wrinkle In Time."
It often comes down to whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Ironically, simply courtesy would solve most problems, but these aren't very courteous times (on all sides).
"There's a grey area between exercising discretion with regard to ensuring that school libraries have age-appropriate materials available by screening out things like porn, and censoring age-appropriate materials based on the personal dislikes of a vocal minority (elected or otherwise)."
You make it sound like that's a bright line distinction, but it isn't. I would prefer erring on the side of freedom, but I have no trouble understanding the concerns parents have (been there). For example, is wanting to keep a 9th grader from being assigned Bret Ellis "censoring...on the basis of personal dislikes" or a mere exercise of good judgment? Oh, and why should it matter who's in the majority?
"Your probably are just going to say 'don't bother' in a very forceful way, but I do."
Actually, I'm not. I'm happy to leave the vitriol and the ad homs to folks like Icky.
"I'm aware that you're not a moron, but you do seem to have a rather limited knowledge of how our modern world has come about. Let me just say, it's not through enterprises just standing or failing on their own."
I suggest either that you're misunderstanding me or that it's you whose knowledge is limited. My objection is practical more than theoretical. Governments the world over have dreadful records trying to manage economies. It rarely works and the unintended consequences provide a lousy kick in the teeth for good measure.
"Assuredly, the market system is remarkable, but it's not an infallible god that works in every case, in all things."
I'd go a step further and concede that the market works poorly in many instances, but it almost always beats the alternative. To return to the arts, the market may not have good taste (watch MTV if you doubt me), but the government's taste is no better and its getting in the middle adds exponential inefficiencies.
Posted by: Sinbad | February 29, 2008 11:50 PM
There's a Facebook group, "Canadians against Conservative Censorship Plan." Feel free to join or start "Everygody else against Conservative Censorship Plan."
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 1, 2008 12:01 AM
Uh, "Everybody."
Sorry about that. Rented fingers.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 1, 2008 12:03 AM
Governments the world over have dreadful records trying to manage economies.
I'm sorry, but anyone who says you're NOT a moron isn't reading you correctly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2008 12:10 AM
Governments the world over have dreadful records trying to manage economies.
"I'm sorry, but anyone who says you're NOT a moron isn't reading you correctly."
I take it all back -- I've seen the light. Those Soviet block countries were incredibly successful managing their economies.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 1, 2008 12:44 AM
I hope so. I love that show too. My favorite thing about it is the seemingly odd and strangely MacGuyver-esque grouping of the subjects. "Today, we'll see how buttons, paint brushes and distributor caps are made."
Total nerd/machinist porn, though.
Posted by: Dan | March 1, 2008 12:51 AM
Since the laws that give rise to corporations are a creation of governments, governments have, in fact, been wildly successful at managing the economy.
Posted by: Zarquon | March 1, 2008 1:19 AM
You know, Sinbad, I believe we agree on how the school stuff ought to play out in practice, but the key phrase in my comment was "age-appropriate". Who's going to argue that Debbie belongs on the shelf next to Dora? But people do argue that A Wrinkle In Time - a children's story about love, loyalty, and perseverence in the face of adversity, among other things - should be banned because some of the characters are witches. Ditto Rowling's series.
As adults, we do have a responsibility to keep mature materials away from immature audiences. I believe we agree on that. However, we have no responsibility - or right - to make age-appropriate materials unavailable to their target audiences based on our own personal preferences, which is pretty much what this is about. I think we agree on that, too. The subject of this blog entry concerns material and a target age group that I believe we would describe (nominally) as "mature", but in principle, age is irrelevant, and that's the point #4 was making.
I realize this raises the questions of how we defined "age-appropriate," and of who formulates that definition... but it's past my bedtime, I've got walking pnemonia or something, and this is the best I can do. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | March 1, 2008 1:54 AM
Corey @50,
Day's 'Public Safety' portfolio has nothing to do with films. The Minister responsible would be Josée Verner. She has the 'Canadian Heritage' portfolio that includes 'Telefilm Canada'. Some of her minions would be making the decisions that the legislation in question would control. The Prime Minister and his most powerful Cabinet ministers and advisors decide what legislation goes forward, hopefully with the support of the Minister responsible, but power politics rules in the end, I'm sure.
McVety was bragging and name dropping. His connection to Day would be their common religious fundamentalism. Day was once the leader of the Alliance Party and lost a party leadership election to Stephen Harper. The Alliance Party later merged to become the Conservative Party. Harper has in the past criticized Day for his religious right orientation, but himself belongs to the evangelical Christian & Missionary Alliance church. There are more than a few parallels between Harper and Bush, enough to have him labelled mini-Bush.
I have no idea why Rob Nicholson would have given McVety the time of day. As a long standing member of the Conservative Party, he undoubtedly wields a lot of power and his portfolio reflects that.
Dennis, @46, I am sure there is nothing in the law itself that would allow Stockwell Day or any other elected politician to be the hands on arbiter for each and every funding decision. He may have had the power to write or edit the legislation to suit himself, but it seems unlikely. Not only would others in Cabinet have disagreed with him on principle, they cannot allow themselves to propose legislation sufficiently offensive to the opposition parties to bring a non-confidence vote.
The insidious part is where the bureaucrats have pressure brought to bear on them to make the 'right' decisions. Mr. Day could only be one of many voices, and if he weren't sufficiently circumspect, might bring down the minority government.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | March 1, 2008 4:05 AM
Michelle, I have no idea hwo you can see Dion as worse than Harper, Dion at least has some personality, and opinions(and a ridiculous accent, you have to love it). Harper is obviously made entirely out of plastic (hes even kinda shiny).
Living in alberta, it is becoming painfully obvious that any polititian who labels themselves as a conservative has no ability to plan for the future, they instead seem to focus on petty 'moral' issues and on moving money into the pockets of their friends.
I'm not sure why canada seems to be moving away from the rest of the first world and trying to imitate the states so much lately, but frankly, it frightens me.
Posted by: Al | March 1, 2008 4:57 AM
Given the tack taken by the present US administration, self-preservation might explain it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 1, 2008 6:46 AM
Given the tack taken by the present US administration, self-preservation might explain it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 1, 2008 6:46 AM
Ok, the "you must wait before commenting" thing kicks in to stop me from making a quick correction (like, for instance, this post), but allows the same comment to be submitted twice because my finger slips? That's...odd. O.o
Sorry for the double post, at any rate.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 1, 2008 6:48 AM
""I will not watch movies with graphic sex scenes" is a good moral value"
No its not. Its no better than "I will not watch zebrafish develop in dishes" Its just an opinion.
The rest of your post is spot-on.
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | March 1, 2008 7:51 AM
Yes, there is. It might not be a convincing argument, but that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Not that I think that porn should be banned. As far as I'm concerned, if you're a healthy human being it won't hurt you, and if you're not than *not* watching it isn't going to save you.
Posted by: mandrake | March 1, 2008 8:42 AM
You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The object, "movies with graphic sex scenes", is irrelevant, and sure, you can substitute in whatever phrase you want right there. I'm saying that the good moral value part is "I will not," this whole business of taking personal responsiblity for one's own actions. I'm contrasting it with the conservative value of "You will not," which I thought would make it obvious.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 1, 2008 8:58 AM