WE’VE SHIED AWAY FROM covering the minor fracas over Bill C-10, a bit of federal legislation that would see tax credits revoked from movies and TV shows that cross the line from edgy to criminal.
Film producers, writers and actors have been screaming about censorship all this week, fearing that Canadian movies will lose tax credits just because some politicians might not like their content. Honestly, I don’t see the reason for all the fuss and they are pouring their energies into opposing the wrong bill.
While in a free society we’ve all got to stand guard against censorship, C-10 seems more like the shutting of an unusual loophole than anything else.
The bill that stands at committee that worries me far more than this silly tax tempest is Bill C-327, a bill that would alter the Broadcasting Act so that the CRTC would be forced into the role of censor and made to try and stamp out violent content on television. If you’re saying “riiiight… our little regulator is going to eliminate violence on TV,” you’re sure not alone.
As it’s currently written, this particular bill would compel the Commission to come up with new rules that would govern the level of violence in television programming and, incredibly, force the agency to police all that’s on the boob tube for violent content that crosses whatever new lines are created.
This is an outrageous bill, an affront to freedom of expression pushed by Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras, that would have far more direct effect on Canadian television makers than the tax bill being whined about this week. (While we know the back-story to this involves the death of a little girl years ago and a petition bravely put together by her surviving sister, it doesn’t make the bill, or Mr. Bigras, any less wrong.)
Where are the creative groups on this one? They say their fight over C-10 is over censorship, when it’s really about money, or the potential loss of it. Bill C-327 actually is a fight over censorship and it would be nice to see them battle this one, too.
Bill C-327, of course, is written in lovely sounding language people who want to be these types of censors always use. They say they just want to protect society – especially the children – from the darned bad effects of violent programming. Um, are these MPs with way too much free time even aware of the video game industry? Seriously, Mr. Bigras, buy yourself an Xbox. If you’re scared by what you see on Prison Break, Grand Theft Auto will give you hysterical paralysis.
Oh, and have you heard of the Internet? There’s this site called YouTube that I hear has a few dozen videos on it, some of which could be called violent.
Of course, I’m certainly not advocating Internet or video game regulation despite the fact that some of the violence I’ve seen on both make me wretch. I just bring it up to demonstrate how our world is completely media saturated, that modern parents have to know this stuff as intuitively as “Look both ways before crossing” and that forcing the CRTC, which has better things to do, to figure out what’s too violent for my son or daughter to see on TV is a colossal waste of time and resources and makes the agency into a censor, a role it surely should not have – and does not want.
Plus, in its “WHEREAS” preamble, the bill makes a number of assumptions backed by no facts.
“WHEREAS it is recognized that the broadcasting of violent scenes is one of the factors related to violence in society;” says one. That has never been proven. One could say that television merely reflects back the society in which we live.
“AND WHEREAS the number of violent scenes broadcast on television during the hours when children watch television, namely, before 9 p.m., has nevertheless increased,” reads another. Really? Who counted these scenes and by what standard did they judge them? What qualifies whomever counted these to sit in such judgment?
Who is to decide what’s violent? Is Disney cartoon character Kim Possible drop-kicking nemesis Shego too violent? Is shooting aliens on Stargate SG-1 too violent? No offense to the good people at the CRTC, but I really don’t want you folks deciding that for me and for the federal government to make such a request is wrong.
Besides, through the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, private broadcasters have policed themselves – quite well, I might add – for years. The system in place already works.
The worst part of all is where it says: “WHEREAS it is also necessary to assume responsibility for the protection of children;” Really? As a father, I thought that was my job. I have a remote control. My TV has an off switch. I use them both regularly.
I also know there are nuts in this world who are capable of evil things and who may be affected by what they see on TV. But no matter how protective I am or how good any piece of legislation may be, you can’t stop crazy people from doing crazy things.
What I’d be more interested in are maybe some new regulations protecting the public from any more vacuous “news” stories on the likes of Britney, TomKat and Pam Anderson. I worry more about how the decadent antics of those twits may affect my son and daughter than if they happened to see a clip of 24 (or someone emptying a clip during 24…).
I don’t expect, or want, the government to police this stuff. That’s my job. And when my kids are exposed to violent content, I think I’ve made a good enough impression on them that they know it’s either fake, gratuitous, silly, stupid, or a good scene needed to tell a story properly.
This anti-freedom-of-expression bill should be defeated.
To comment on this or anything else on Cartt.ca, please drop us a line at editorial@cartt.ca.
