Religious fundamentalist and Harper pal, Charles McVety, doesn't have a lot of time for homosexuals. He even thinks the homosexual arts community is quietly scheming to "proselytize young people into homosexuality."
At issue was a production called "Breakfast with Scot" which is about a gay, former hockey player and his partner caring for an orphaned boy.
McVety told the Senate banking and commerce committee that "(It) is about an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual." McVety believes that Bill C-10 should be used by the government to deny funding to films that, in his view, "promote" homosexuality. It seems that, to McVety, anything that acknowledges homosexuality must surely promote its spread.
Bill C-10 is seen by many as an attempt by the Harper government to introduce a means for political censorship of the entertainment industry in Canada. Do ya think?
At issue was a production called "Breakfast with Scot" which is about a gay, former hockey player and his partner caring for an orphaned boy.
McVety told the Senate banking and commerce committee that "(It) is about an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual." McVety believes that Bill C-10 should be used by the government to deny funding to films that, in his view, "promote" homosexuality. It seems that, to McVety, anything that acknowledges homosexuality must surely promote its spread.
Bill C-10 is seen by many as an attempt by the Harper government to introduce a means for political censorship of the entertainment industry in Canada. Do ya think?
4 comments:
Huh? I thought he was worried about the fact that one of the parents was a former Leaf. Now that is something to be concerned about!
Maybe he just couldn't bring himself to come right out and say it.
MoS,
Thank you for your commitment to accuracy in blogging re: potash post -- especially in a medium that values volume over veracity.
As for Bill C-10, while I do think the bill is silly, one could certainly avoid its "censorship" by not taking government money in the first place. I find it curious that the arts community is getting so worked up about this red herring issue, while making not a peep over the explicit mandate for the policing of free expression as practices by Canada's various human rights commissions.
I also cannot help asking whether anyone accused Sheila Copps of introducing political censorship of the entertainment industry when she introduced similar legislation many moons ago.
Again, a tax credit isn't taking government money. It is paying less tax TO government. Religious institutions (including the bizarre and creepy ones) get tax credits too. No one accuses them of getting government funding.
Post a Comment