Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The site is a sister to Atlantic Free Press and Brick Ogden an American Expatriate in Amsterdam has been a key supporter of this project.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Canadian Taliban: Harper's Department of Propaganda
Canadian Taliban: Harper's Department of Propaganda
by C. L. Cook For those believing Stephen Harper's emphasis on "family values" was just another of the many Republican inspired marching mantras adopted by his "Tory" party and not indicative of a slide down the extremist form of social control familiar to the unfortunates of pre-liberated Afghanistan, or current day China, some unsettling news regarding how the arts will, or will not be funded, with or without the New Government of Canada's help broke from Hollywood today.
Canadian media being what it is, The Hollywood Reporter reports; the Conservatives propose amending the Tax Act to make tax credits for film and television productions depend on whether a panel of government approved apparatchiks consider the project worthy, or "offensive."
Rightly, the Hollywood industry paper's first concern is whether
"foreign" i.e. American film companies shooting in Canada, (due in large
part to tax and labour breaks and incentives) will be subject to the
same Star Chamber treatment.
THR reporter, Etan Vlessing says; the amendment to the Act is a part
of Bill C-10, now before the House. The provision under consideration
would put the power over a picture's life or death in the hands of the
Heritage Minister, for the favour of whom the meek and mighty of
tinsel town will prostrate and grovel.
While the opportunity for venality and abuse
this scenario portrays is blockbusters, the real fear here is the chilling effect such
legislation will have across the artistic spectrum in Canada, where
many avant garde and mundane productions alike rely on already jealously
guarded government dollars.
What kind of art can Canadians expect when
its authors are spending as much energy second guessing the tastes and
fearing the diktats of the distant gray bureaucrats on a crusade for
cultural purity?
It could be, the Harper administration
having already failed to force the opposition in parliament to bring
down the government over the two odious predecessors to Bill C-10; C-2,
which makes of Canadian law a mirror for the cracked facade of American
Justice, with its minimum sentences, drug wars, and over-enthusiasm
for enriching police and government agencies through seized "proceeds
of crime;" and C-3, which mires the nation's military in the heart of
the fighting in southern Afghanistan through 2011.
If the prospect of
making hundreds of thousands of Canadians convicts by dint of outdated and ill-considered drugs laws, or sacrificing thousands more to the horrors of
war are not dire enough to move the opposition to oppose in vote as well as
in voice, then perhaps Harper believes threatening the last of the Holy of Holies our
depreciated society has left to offer, The Movies will finally inspire the Liberals to
take up arms against Harper's Roundheads and force the election he thinks he wants?
The Canadian Broadcast
Corporation's, (CBC) news flagship, 'The National' ran the story
briefly tonight, featuring two iconic Canadian film makers, David
Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan; Cronenberg says the proposed amendment
makes him "very angry;" adding it was something more expected in
Beijing than Ottawa. Otherwise, it's hard to get more on this in
the Canadian press.
Back in Hollywood, the Hollywood Reporter's Etan Vlessing did
manage reaction from Stephen Waddell, national executive director of
ACTRA, the actor and directors union, who says;
"The government
is overstepping its bounds and interfering in an arms-length process.
Witholding public funding for film and television productions it deems
offensive is a dangerous direction for this government that smacks of
censorship."
More to the point, the money, THR quotes
entertainment lawyer, David Zitzerman, who says C-10 is "problematic"
because films and Teevee shows take a lot of time and planning and
money hustling.
It's hard to hustle money from investors who don't want
to lose it. They want certainty, as much as they can get if they're
gonna lay down the dough. Zitzerman makes the salient observation;
"You're
not going to know if a film is controversial, whether it's acceptable,
until the committee, if it chooses to, reviews and rules on your
project."
Yes and that is the rub. I'm sure Mr. Zitzerman is a
very clever man and doubtless cunning with a contract negotiation, but
I think he's not entirely in on the plot of this one if he thinks
"problems" are unanticipated by Harper.
You see, I believe this bill is
about more than forcing an election with a piece of fish so old someone
has to throw open a window, or about making again pure the Canadian
airwaves, (for the sake of the kinder of course) this is about
creating that atmosphere of uncertainty, precisely as it will be the
result of this bill's passage.
Once
again, Mr. Harper has illustrated through his medium of choice, State
power his distaste for the values of the country he finds himself
lording it over. Values like freedom of speech and expression and the
"separation of church and state" wherein patrons leave art to the
artists. Whether through the carrot of the people's money they hoard as
though it be their own, or through the deployment of state actors
against the better interests of the people as a whole, hindering the proper
functions of a legitimate democracy, this new government of Canada is no white hat in Hollywood these days.
It's no surprise Harper's
legislation would serve to sabotage the social fabric of the nation,
it's become something of a pattern with the prime minister. What is
surprising is; this time his is not a Canadian emulation of the Bush
regime but is as David Cronenberg says;
When did Canada become a dictatorship?? written by Charles Shirriff,
February 29, 2008
So a Minister of the Government would have censorship over films? Surely there must be better things for elected politicians to do than to turn film-making into a politically controlled activity. I used to think that the government represented the people and their wishes. In the past few years we seem to have moved into a government that does anything to foist its own desires onto the populace. What ever happened to the traditions of Parliament? Bullying the Parliament and Senate is not particularly democratic.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Offensive conservative policy and consequences written by donnie mcleod,
March 04, 2008
This is not just about the elimination of womens nipples that for some reason are offensive. This is about eliminating ideas that conservatives find offensive. It is about protecting the Bible as the word of God with policies and laws based on Christian faith. If there was movie that showed our Christian religion adopted Roman religion aspects that the Roman empire found were useful for growing empire and then controlling it, would be offensive. If there was a movie that showed the tough on crime policy increased crime and suffering because it ignores empirical data and ideas that suggests we are a species of collaborators that through evolution created a species that uses fairness as a competitive advantage and that most people are fair, and those that are not are punished because they cheat and to protect the species. And these traits of collaboration and fairness ignored in the tough on crime polices are the reason there will be riots in Canadian prisons. Would that get funding? Conservative talk about consequences they don't include them suffering the consequences of using laws and policy like this to inflict God laws on a people created by evolution. That is worth doing a movie about.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I used to think that the government represented the people and their wishes. In the past few years we seem to have moved into a government that does anything to foist its own desires onto the populace. What ever happened to the traditions of Parliament? Bullying the Parliament and Senate is not particularly democratic.