chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (02/18/87)
Here is some info for those discussing culture & free trade (taken from today's vancouver sun editorial section). "There is such a thing as too much free trade with the United States. A fine example of it is to be found in the Canadian film industry, which is completely dominated by U.S. entertainment conglomerates. Trade is so free in the film business that the American companies treat Canada not as a foreign market but as part of the U.S. market. And what a market it is - for American made films. According to a federal task force report, Canadians spend $1.2Billion a year on movies, but 90% of it flows out of the country and into the U.S. There it is used to finance the production of American films, which in turn shut Cnaadian films out of Canadian movie theatres, most of which are integrated with American distribution companies. Was a circle ever more vicious? .....<goes on to describe a plan proposed by Flora MacDonald which might reduce the American market share of distribution to %65> " You could sure make a lot of high quality, feature length, commercially successful films in Canada with part of that $1.2Billion. john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brad@looking.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <183@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >"There is such a thing as too much free trade with the United States. >According to a federal task force report, Canadians spend $1.2Billion >a year on movies, but 90% of it flows out of the country and into the >U.S. There it is used to finance the production of American films, >which in turn shut Cnaadian films out of Canadian movie theatres, >most of which are integrated with American distribution companies. >Was a circle ever more vicious? > >.....<goes on to describe a plan proposed by Flora MacDonald which >might reduce the American market share of distribution to %65> " "Ticket for Platoon, please." "No sir, you can't watch that movie! We don't allow its distribution here!" "Why not?" "Why that's an American made film, and we won't allow you to give your dollars to American film makers." "Why?" "Well, you should give your dollars to Canadian film makers instead. In fact, we're going to force you to." "I would rather give my money to the makers of the films I enjoy most. Right now the public doesn't think that Canadian film makers are doing a job worthy of our patronage." "Exactly our point sir. They must be forced to see Canadian films through import barriers and subsidies. That way, not only will the public be telling them they don't like the films, the government will be branding them poor as well! It's bound to improve the quality of the industry sir. Now, did you want a ticket for 'My American Cousin' or the 'Moncton Amateur film festival' tonight?" "I think I'll go rent a tape. Or is E.T. too subversive for you?" It has been shown time and time again that Canadian content quotas on entertainment just produce massive amounts of poor to mediocre material that would not otherwise get shown. Because it *is* shown, Canadian material gets a reputation for being crap. The average goes down because making more films does not increase the talent of the people making them. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <183@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >You could sure make a lot of high quality, feature length, commercially >successful films in Canada with part of that $1.2Billion. > Not if the government has any involvement in it. Considering what the CBC does with its nearly 1 billion dollars I wouldn't hold my breath in any theatre lineup waiting for these movies. Donald Acton
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/19/87)
> In article <183@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > > >"There is such a thing as too much free trade with the United States. > >According to a federal task force report, Canadians spend $1.2Billion > >a year on movies, but 90% of it flows out of the country and into the > >U.S. There it is used to finance the production of American films, > >which in turn shut Cnaadian films out of Canadian movie theatres, > >most of which are integrated with American distribution companies. > >Was a circle ever more vicious? > > > >.....<goes on to describe a plan proposed by Flora MacDonald which > >might reduce the American market share of distribution to %65> " > > "Ticket for Platoon, please." > > "No sir, you can't watch that movie! We don't allow its distribution here!" . . < brad gives mildly hysterical response to canadian content rules > . > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Brad I think you have completely misinterpreted the intent of the editorial I quoted. The editorial is about film *distributors* not forcing Canadian content on anyone. I should probably have quoted the remainder of the editorial - but my fingers got tired :-). The points are simple: $1.2 billion is sucked out of the canadian economy every year - I don't know too many people who would think it's a bad idea to try and keep some of this (*our*) money in our economy rather than sending it south. Canadian culture is already at a disadvantage since the decisions about what movies will be available (and when) in our theatres are made by foreign nationals. Please don't bother trying to tell me it's all just controlled by the "market". A Canadian distributor (with control) is more likely to say "yeah let's show that <non-american film X> for a week in March" than someone in Los Angeles. Hoever nothing was mentioned about barring American films from Canadian movie houses. If more of the film industries' profits remained in Canada it would be a whole lot more likely that fundng would be available for Canadian films. john
hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <741@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>.....<goes on to describe a plan proposed by Flora MacDonald which >>might reduce the American market share of distribution to %65> " > > "Ticket for Platoon, please." > > "No sir, you can't watch that movie! We don't allow its distribution here!" No Brad, it's "Ticket for Platoon, please." "Yes sir. By the way, under the new system, a significant portion of the money that you pay to see movies in Canada will stay in Canada and hopefully provide the financial support to develop a quality Canadian film industry. Under the old system, 90 percent of your money would have gone to the US where they are only interested in Canada as a potential source of profit." Ken Warkentyne
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <840@mprvaxa.UUCP>, acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) writes: > In article <183@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >You could sure make a lot of high quality, feature length, commercially > >successful films in Canada with part of that $1.2Billion. > > > Not if the government has any involvement in it. Considering what the > CBC does with its nearly 1 billion dollars I wouldn't hold my breath in ^^^^^^^^^ > any theatre lineup waiting for these movies. > > Donald Acton And that's just the deficit of the CBC. You could actually drop the CBC and give everyone an unlimited pass to the movies for about the same amount of money give or take VIA Rails deficit (approx. $600 million a year). And speaking of VIA. No wonder it loses money, it costs more to take the train to Toronto from Edmonton than to fly, at least if you want more than a seat (after all it takes ~ 2 days). When I throw the question at politicians: Why don't you drop VIA Rail? What do I get? A song and dance about how Canada was settled and the important role played by the railroads in that story, and how the railroads are an integral part of the Canadian national identity, ad nauseum. Wake up guys, your paying for this now and your grandchildren will still be paying for it 50 years hence. Sheesh. Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/20/87)
> In article <183@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >You could sure make a lot of high quality, feature length, commercially > >successful films in Canada with part of that $1.2Billion. > > > Not if the government has any involvement in it. Considering what the > CBC does with its nearly 1 billion dollars I wouldn't hold my breath in > any theatre lineup waiting for these movies. > > Donald Acton I must be missing something here. What does having Canadian owned (and therefore controlled) distributors for movies have to do with the CBC or any crown corporation? Nothing like that was even hinted at either in my posting or in the Sun editorial. However if you want to bitch about the CBC...... While I think it could be improved I certainly think it is worthwhile for the money. It does provide a sense of cultural identity. When I lived in a little town in Ontario I could hear the same Cross Country Checkup that I heard in Vancouver and it really helped make it all seem like one country. Canada has 10% of the US population; does the CBC cost more to run than 10% of what it costs to run one of {NBC,ABC,CBS}? john
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (02/20/87)
I wrote >>. Considering what the >> CBC does with its nearly 1 billion dollars I wouldn't hold my breath in >> any theatre lineup waiting for these movies. In article <188@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >I must be missing something here. What does having Canadian owned (and >therefore controlled) distributors for movies have to do with the CBC >or any crown corporation? Nothing like that was even hinted at either >in my posting or in the Sun editorial. I fail to see how changing the distributors of a movie to some Canadian company is going to result in more "good" Canadian movies. The US owners of the movie are still going to want to make their profit and if they can't get the profit directly through their own distribution companies they will just charge our companies more. So now when I go to a show I will have to pay another middle man so that my meager wealth can be redistributed even more. What is suppose to happen to this extra money? Why it is suppose to go to our film industry. How? Through the good graces of these new film distributors. But why would they do that when they can take a much smaller risk and be guaranteed a profit by just taking the movies offered from the US? I fail to see how the introduction of Canadian film distributors is going to result in any significant amount of money going to the film industry. Now for a prediction on the legislation: When the legislation is introduced the government will either through a "special tax" (we certainly have enough of those these days) or provisions similar to those for TV licenses demand that a certain percentage of this money be made available to film producers. Voila, a new CBC. Donald Acton
brad@looking.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <185@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >The points are simple: > >$1.2 billion is sucked out of the canadian economy every year - I don't >know too many people who would think it's a bad idea to try and keep >some of this (*our*) money in our economy rather than sending it south. Actually, I don't care. It's not 'our' money. It's each individual moviegoers money. Where do you get off claiming that you have some claim on it? Even if I did care what other people spend their movie $$ on, I think its pointless to bicker about 'our' money and 'their' money. You like the idea of making people go to Canadian film distributors. Some yanks would rather that people buying cedar shingles buy them in the US. Some legislators would rather see you buy your books and computer parts in Canada in return. (Thank god they wised up on that! Who lobbied them? The CANADIAN publishers!) Endless bickering just to create more snivel serpents, hassles at the border and tax wastage. > >Canadian culture is already at a disadvantage since the decisions >about what movies will be available (and when) in our theatres are >made by foreign nationals. Please don't bother trying to tell me >it's all just controlled by the "market". Actually, I think the largest cinema chain in North America is now CinePlex/Odeon, which has its headquarters on Yonge St. in Toronto, not Hollywood. And while you asked me not to bother telling you this, I am quite sure that they choose what movies to show based one which ones will get the most ticket buyers. > >A Canadian distributor (with control) is more likely to say "yeah >let's show that <non-american film X> for a week in March" than >someone in Los Angeles. Hoever nothing was mentioned about barring >American films from Canadian movie houses. It is rarely explicit. The point is that any attempt to artificially shift the market does displace somebody at the expense of somebody else. Platoon was, if you couldn't figure it out, a satirical example. The nationalists have a simple message: "Buy Canadian", and sometimes, "Buy Canadian, OR ELSE!" The market has another message: "Buy the best, and force your neighbours to make it or go out of business." The first strategy encourages Canadians to be ... well ... Canadian. That accomplishes a lot. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/21/87)
In article <2312@watdragon.UUCP> hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >In article <741@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>.....<goes on to describe a plan proposed by Flora MacDonald which >>>might reduce the American market share of distribution to %65> " >> >> "Ticket for Platoon, please." >> >> "No sir, you can't watch that movie! We don't allow its distribution here!" > > >No Brad, it's "Ticket for Platoon, please." > >"Yes sir. By the way, under the new system, a significant portion of >the money that you pay to see movies in Canada will stay in Canada and >hopefully provide the financial support to develop a quality Canadian >film industry. Under the old system, 90 percent of your money would >have gone to the US where they are only interested in Canada as a >potential source of profit." Am I wrong to get the feeling that rather than accept a decline in profits the US film industry will simply cause movie prices to increase in order to compensate? Oh well, I suppose if the result is more films like "My Bloody Valentine", who am I to complain? J.B. Robinson
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/21/87)
> In article <185@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > > >The points are simple: > > > >$1.2 billion is sucked out of the canadian economy every year - I don't > >know too many people who would think it's a bad idea to try and keep > >some of this (*our*) money in our economy rather than sending it south. > > Actually, I don't care. It's not 'our' money. It's each individual ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well you should because keeping some of that money in Canada would create jobs->lower unemployment->(lower taxes, lower uic premiums for employers and employees alike). If you don't care about stuff like this then you have no right to whine about government spending either: either you look at the whole system or not at all. . . > Platoon was, if you couldn't figure it out, a satirical example. And irrelevant to the original point. . . . > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I did.
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/21/87)
>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) >Canada has 10% of the US population; does the CBC >cost more to run than 10% of what it costs to run one of {NBC,ABC,CBS}? Lets compare apples and oranges. Is the cost to the Canadian government for subsidizing CBC more than 10% of the cost to the American government for subsidizing NBC,ABC, and CBS combined ? The point the American negogiators were trying to make is that the above imbalance of government subsidzation should be addressed in any free trade deal. The point that Canadian negogiators were trying to make is that there are some areas of government subsidization that are not open to negogiation. An interesting side note is the current approach being taken by the federal tories to kill the cbc. Any large cutbacks in federal funding are politically unwise (refer to attempt to change qualification for old age pension). The tories are therefore sucking money out of cbc slowly, until someday the programming wil be so hideous and second-rate that the final demise of the cbc will be accepted by the public with far less public outcry than a sudden halt tomorrow would produce. If the cbc is such a great deal, why hasn't it been able to operate insuch a way as to become financially independent? Why hasn't it been able to operate in such a way as to at least break even including the government subsidizes ? The obvious conclusion is that its mandate is not supported by a majority of Canadians, and if its mandate is not supported by a majority of Canadians then it should be allowed to die. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/22/87)
> >From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) > > >Canada has 10% of the US population; does the CBC > >cost more to run than 10% of what it costs to run one of {NBC,ABC,CBS}? > > Lets compare apples and oranges. Is the cost to the Canadian > government for subsidizing CBC more than 10% of the cost to the > American government for subsidizing NBC,ABC, and CBS combined ? If you want to talk about subsidization go ahead but my comment was directed more at the people who constantly carp about how innefficient the CBC. My question was: is the CBC relatively less/more efficient/costly than a US network? . . . > If the cbc is such a great deal, why hasn't it been able to > operate insuch a way as to become financially independent? Why should it? Seriously. Not every aspect of life has to be run as a business venture you know - although to hear some people talk you would never realize it. > Why hasn't it been able to operate in such a way as to at least > break even including the government subsidizes ? The obvious > conclusion is that its mandate is not supported by a majority It may be obvious but it's not necessarily the correct conclusion. > of Canadians, and if its mandate is not supported by a majority > of Canadians then it should be allowed to die. So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it? I don't know any country that actually runs that way. I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the rights of minorities. This impinges on something I have been thinking about for a long time so I think I will hold the rest of my comments until I have time for a more lucid & comprehensive posting. > > Try not to become a man > UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try > Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. > Albert Einstein john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/22/87)
>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) >>>Canada has 10% of the US population; does the CBC >>>cost more to run than 10% of what it costs to run one of {NBC,ABC,CBS}? >> >> Lets not[ed.] compare apples and oranges. Is the cost to the Canadian >> government for subsidizing CBC more than 10% of the cost to the >> American government for subsidizing NBC,ABC, and CBS combined ? >If you want to talk about subsidization go ahead but my comment was directed >more at the people who constantly carp about how innefficient the CBC. >My question was: is the CBC relatively less/more efficient/costly >than a US network? If you want to talk about how costly the CBC is to run you are talking straight dollar figures, in which case the analysis of subsidized versus non-subsidized costs is valid and even necessary. If you want to talk about the relative efficiency of the CBC in comparison to other networks then you are going to have problems. Sure, CBC and NBC both put on 20 hours of programming per day (as an example), but surely efficiency must include some measure of the quality of said programming, the ability to attract advertising, the ability to attract viewers, etc. Efficiency cannot be measured in straight dollars. The people who carp about efficiency are not necessarily carping about the total amount spent by CBC, but carping about what this money actually buys. Note that many people complain about both the actual money spent, and the product that this money buys. >> If the cbc is such a great deal, why hasn't it been able to >> operate insuch a way as to become financially independent? >Why should it? Seriously. Not every aspect of life has to be run as >a business venture you know - although to hear some people talk you >would never realize it. That is the typical government bureaucratic attitude, "Not everything has to operate to break even you know, why if we didn't spend money on (insert program of your choice) then no one would". Doesn't this ring a red light somewhere in your head that indicates that maybe the program shouldn't be funded at all, or that the program should at least be carefully scrutinized. I agree with you that not everything has to operate as a business. But, if you are not going to operate as a business then there should be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is : a) essential that you operate in the first place, b) essential that you avoid operating as a business and instead operate using government subsidies. And the government, as a supporting body should have the right to review items a and b whenever it chooses and if need be discontinue the program. The problem with government support is that it is much easier to get going than it is to stop. People seem to assume that because the government chooses to support some program at some time (CBC 20 years ago), that they have a moral obligation to continue this support ad infinitum. Arguements in favour of supporting CBC in the form of : a) but we have supported it for a long time b) but not everything has to break even c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity d) but it brings the country together are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. >So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it? >I don't know any country that actually runs that way. >I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the >rights of minorities. The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the majority of voters oppose A, but some minority wants A, then A shouldn't happen. This is the supposed basis of a democracy. Where possible, where the wishes of the minority don't clash with the wish of the majority, they can be accomodated. Lets hypothesize that the majority of Canadians don't support the national governments subsidization of the CBC, but a small minority actually does (obviously Barbara and pals would like CBC to keep going). Are you saying that the representatives in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (Dave Brewer, SysDesEng, PAMI, UWaterloo) writes: > > > Arguements in favour of supporting CBC in the form of : > a) but we have supported it for a long time > b) but not everything has to break even > c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity > d) but it brings the country together You miss the whole point of the CBC. If one has any goal for the culture you live in, the education level of the general population, their ability to make decisions, both personally for themselves and jointly for the nation, you might well want to have a television and radio service that presents its programs for a reason other than selling toothpaste. The difference between American and Canadian programing is well illustrated by comparing kid's programming. In Canada, Mr Dressup, Fred Penner, Friendly Giant, and the Canadian portion of Sesame Street all have the goals of enlightening the children as well as entertaining them. The educational goals of these programs are obvious to the parents of children who watch thje shows with their kids. The goals of the children's shows on US TV are to sell products - often products that have very questionable social side-effects. I would gladly pay my share of the CBC subsidy just for their radio service. Its quality is exceptional, and its role of informing people is well carried out. I am sorry that there are those in the country that would rather have everything run solely for the purpose of making money. > The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic > state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the > majority of voters oppose A, but some minority wants A, then A shouldn't > happen. This is the supposed basis of a democracy. > This is certainly not the basis of democracy. (What happened in your school when they taught "civics"?) The basis of democracy is that the general population has the right to elect its leaders who then make decisions as they see fit. If we do not like the set of decisions they make, we throw them out. Nowhere in our system is there the notion that we have any right, as an electorate, to make decisions on the individual issues of the day. One of the common current complaints of our governments is that they often make decisions according to Gallop rather than using their "wisdom" to make the decisions best for the province or country.
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/23/87)
In article <3044@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP writes: > If the cbc is such a great deal, why hasn't it been able to > operate insuch a way as to become financially independent? > Why hasn't it been able to operate in such a way as to at least > break even including the government subsidizes ? The obvious > conclusion is that its mandate is not supported by a majority > of Canadians, and if its mandate is not supported by a majority > of Canadians then it should be allowed to die. I don't have a TV and when I listen to non-music radio it's CKO, so I'm quite sympathetic to the above view. To me, it's hard to justify blowing $800 million a year on the CBC when we've got underfunding of post-secondary institutions, over-crowded hospitals and a military that had better not have to fight any country larger than Barbados. An alternative solution I've heard suggested would be to turn CBC TV into a pay TV station. Since it would be non-profit one would think that it could be delivered at a reasonable cost (that cost being whatever it takes to break even). And, only those people who wished to avail themselves of this service would have to pay for it. If it couldn't be delivered at a reasonable cost it would be because it did not manage to garner sufficient support; in which case it should be given the burial that it would deserve. J.B. Robinson
ken@hcrvax.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP writes: > > The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic > state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the > majority of voters oppose A, but some minority wants A, then A shouldn't > happen. This is the supposed basis of a democracy. So if Jerry Falwell et al can sell the "Moral" Majority philosophy to enough people, then pre-marital fornication should become illegal. If Hitler can bamboozle enough Nazis into supporting the Final Solution, then on with it! If the 99% of people who don't make more than $200,000 per year vote that all people who do should have their assets forcibly redistributed, then let's do it. In theory, brewster@watdcsu.UUCP may be right. But political philosophy must work in practice as well as in theory. Let's look at reality: Facts: ----- * Most people don't have the time to learn enough to make informed decisions about important political issues. * Many people don't have the brains to make informed . . . * Given a choice between my own personal good and the good of society as a whole, most people will choose my own personal good. See point (1) for why they might choose short term personal gain over long term societal gain, even when this means they will lose in the long run. Obvious examples: tobacco lobbies, the NRA, many polluters, etc. Opinions (mine) --------------- Due to the preceding points, we hire politicians not just to implement the decisions of the masses, but to use brains and integrity, and to take the time we can't all afford, to make decisions in the best interests of us all, EVEN WHEN THOSE DECISIONS ARE UNPOPULAR. Obviously this doesn't work all the time, but it's the best system we've got. If we ignore reality and try to implement a simple will-of-the-masses political system, we will actually wind up with a will-of-the-best-and- loudest-lobby system. Many of the ugly problems in our society today are due to decisions made on that basis already. Can you say (powerful) "special interest groups?" * * * End of tirade * * * * Please don't flame me for being a Big Brother politician or something. I'm not. All I am trying to do is point out that simplistic blanket statements such as that to which I am responding inevitably ignore large sections of reality, and must be read very critically indeed.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/24/87)
Donald Acton questions the point of encouraging Canadian distribution of movies, raising the spectre of a new CBC. The main reason for trying to get U.S. distributors' market share down is the fact that U.S. distributors tend to be related (at less than arm's length) to U.S. producers and (in the case of Paramount) to Canadian exhibitors (Famous Players). I'm no expert on the movie business, but I know that many Canadian movies over the years have suffered from poor distribution in Canada (and thus Canadian movies have been harder to finance); things have gotten a bit better now that Cineplex is the major player in Canada, but it is still harder to show a Canadian than a U.S. movie. By enhancing the role of the Canadian distributor, there's a considerable hope that more films can be made for domestic distribution, since a Canadian distributor will presumably be less obsessed with placing films made by affiliated U.S. production companies.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/24/87)
In keeping with my recent nasty comments about "Canadian culture" == "TV",
here's a concrete proposal. This first came to mind as a silly idea, but
then I thought about it for a moment and decided it might have merit.
We all know that TV is mostly crud. The CBC may be a bit above average,
but it's not a major exception to the general statement. This suggests to
me that most of the money spent on CBC TV is not a terribly good investment
in Canadian culture. Unless this can be changed -- how? -- it should stop.
Now, I have no idea what proportion of the CBC budget goes where, but I
suspect that physical realities put an awful lot of it into TV production.
What awful consequences would there be to our National Identity if the CBC
went back to being radio only?
--
Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henrychapman@fornax.uucp (02/24/87)
> > >If you want to talk about subsidization go ahead but my comment was directed > >more at the people who constantly carp about how innefficient the CBC. > >My question was: is the CBC relatively less/more efficient/costly > >than a US network? > > If you want to talk about how costly the CBC is to run you are talking > straight dollar figures, in which case the analysis of subsidized versus > non-subsidized costs is valid and even necessary. If you want to talk Why? A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.... These are separate questions. 1. Does the CBC provide programming you enjoy? 2. Is this programming provide for less $ than a commercial network? 3. Should a every network generate all of it's revenue to cover expenses? My question/comment was #2 and was directed at the numerous people who claim the CBC is innefficent, top heavy, over bureaucratized etc. . . . > >Why should it? Seriously. Not every aspect of life has to be run as > >a business venture you know - although to hear some people talk you > >would never realize it. > > That is the typical government bureaucratic attitude, "Not everything has > to operate to break even you know, why if we didn't spend money on (insert > program of your choice) then no one would". Doesn't this ring a red light > somewhere in your head that indicates that maybe the program shouldn't be > funded at all, or that the program should at least be carefully > scrutinized. > > I agree with you that not everything has to operate as a business. > But, if you are not going to operate as a business then there should be > valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is : > a) essential that you operate in the first place, > b) essential that you avoid operating as a business and instead operate > using government subsidies. If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is: a) essential that you operate in the first place, b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead operate strictly on a profit motive. . . > a) but we have supported it for a long time > b) but not everything has to break even > c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity > d) but it brings the country together > > are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does > and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. Why are b, c, and d merely rhetoric? Because you want them to be? If you are going to assert that these are not valid reasons then you should try to back it up. > >So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it? > >I don't know any country that actually runs that way. > >I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the > >rights of minorities. > > The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic > state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see the problems such an attitude engenders? . . . > in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority > somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. No, parliament should do what "it" thinks is "right" not just what is going to be popular (i.e. what will get them re-elected). > > Try not to become a man > UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try > Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. > Albert Einstein jc
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/24/87)
> > I wrote > >>. Considering what the > >> CBC does with its nearly 1 billion dollars I wouldn't hold my breath in > >> any theatre lineup waiting for these movies. > > In article <188@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >I must be missing something here. What does having Canadian owned (and > >therefore controlled) distributors for movies have to do with the CBC > >or any crown corporation? Nothing like that was even hinted at either > >in my posting or in the Sun editorial. > > I fail to see how changing the distributors of a movie to some Canadian > company is going to result in more "good" Canadian movies. The US > owners of the movie are still going to want to make their profit and And they will. The proposed legislation would enable the actual producers of a movie to distribute it in Canada but if a third party is to be used to distribute it to Canadian movie houses then it must be a Canadian company. Hardly an onerous situation for the movie producers. What gall we have eh? Insisting that some of the services operating in Canada actually benefit Canadians in some way! The nerve of some people. . . . > Donald Acton *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/24/87)
> If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should > be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is: > a) essential that you operate in the first place, > b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead > operate strictly on a profit motive. I'm horrified to say that I didn't see any smiley faces after that... The reason why it is essential that services be allowed to operate as businesses is because there is no legal way to forbid it in a free country. If you are going to operate some service as a business, the *customers* (not Big Daddy in Ottawa or Washington) decide whether your service is worth having, i.e. "essential". They say "yes" by buying from you and "no" by not buying from you, instead of saying "yes" at gunpoint whenever they pay taxes. As for why operate on a profit motive, to put it bluntly, because greed is a more reliable motive than altruism. If I want to send mail quickly and reliably, I use Federal Express (etc.), not the Post Office. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/26/87)
In article <195@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp claims: >> >So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it? >> >I don't know any country that actually runs that way. >> >I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the >> >rights of minorities. >> >> The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic >> state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the > >This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see >the problems such an attitude engenders? I don't know if Nazi Germany had a Charter of Rights, but we certainly do. Given this state of affairs I see no reason why most/many/some issues cannot be left up to majority rule. If the majority attempts to implement a piece of legislation that would contravene the Charter it would be struck down by the courts. Voila: majority rule *and* protection for minorities. In California ordinary citizens have the right to introduce legislation which is then voted on by the populace. I still haven't noticed any goose-stepping going on there. >> in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority >> somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. >No, parliament should do what "it" thinks is "right" not just what is >going to be popular (i.e. what will get them re-elected). Given the way the Canadian system works there is virtually zero incentive for them to do this. As long as every SIG (special interest group) is getting its share of the loot it will keep quiet and occasionally heap a bit of praise on the government. However, if the government should annoy a well organized SIG it knows it can count on an indefinite amount of bad press. The easiest course of action then becomes to simply buy the SIG off with the taxpayers' money. It costs them (the individual MPs) nothing and increases their chances of re-election. Of course there is the minor problem of spending money that isn't there, however, that becomes someone elses concern. J.B. Robinson
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/26/87)
>From: pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (Peter P. Tanner) >You miss the whole point of the CBC. If one has any goal for the >culture you live in, the education level of the general >population, their ability to make decisions, both personally for >themselves and jointly for the nation, you might well want to >have a television and radio service that presents its programs >for a reason other than selling toothpaste. This goal for the CBC seems to place it fairly close to being a propraganda machine. Presumably it is responsible for providing the ability to make the "right" decisions for the nation, and for providing the "real" definition of Canadian culture. The point I was trying to make is that there is no way currently to evaluate the performance of the CBC. How well does it do at providing the objectives you mention ? How do you measure its performance ? One common method for evaluating performance is monetarily and in this evaluation CBC is a failure. If you don't like this evaluation then feel free to suggest an alternate evaluation method, since I don't think anyone proposes we provide 1 billion + every year to a company without some sort of minimal guarantee of performance. >I would gladly pay my share of the CBC subsidy just for their >radio service. Its quality is exceptional, and its role of >informing people is well carried out. But suppose you happen to be in the minority. Suppose that of all Canadian taxpayers only 10,000 support current expenditures by the CBC. If this hypothetical situation were true why should the remaining 15,000,000 taxpayers support your habit ? >I am sorry that there are those in the country that would rather >have everything run solely for the purpose of making money. Note that I am not among those who think everything should be run for the purpose of making money. I am among those who think that we should be very careful about which enterprises we are going to support as public institutions. I think that an institution that has the broad and poorly defined goal of "supporting Canadian culture" and also sucks up 1 billion per year should be EXAMINED very closely. I am also among those who feel that the Canadian standard of living is being artificially propped up by deficit financing of public institutions. 1986 was a banner year for the Canadian economy, they're not going to come much better than that, and yet the deficit was still astronomical (>30 billion and higher than predicted). I have yet to here anyone, not even the most conservative, kill all public institutions, type of politician propose that we can balance our budget inside of ten years. With the current total deficit over 200 billion and estimates of 500 billion before 2000, we have a big problem. (and if thats not an understatement I don't know what is). Sooner or later this bubble will burst. And when it does it will have been the 60's generation of leaders who led us into the financial mess and also enjoyed the benefits of their financial irresponsibility (one benefit being CBC radio virtually everywhere, anytime, and often in two languages, almost independent of demand). I am from the FIRST generation that is going to have to START to pay for this boondoggle, and excuse me for being forward, but if you don't want to pay for your pleasures or at least attempt to run institutions in a responsible manner then I'm going to start to complain; and since its my future income that you are spending now I think I have not only the right, but the responsibility to complain fairly loudly. Disclaimer : "you" above is the general you and not meant to refer to peter specifically. >The basis of democracy >is that the general population has the right to elect its leaders >who then make decisions as they see fit. If we do not like the >set of decisions they make, we throw them out. Nowhere in our >system is there the notion that we have any right, as an >electorate, to make decisions on the individual issues of the >day. I disagree. We elect leaders who have the duty to represent the views of their constituency in parliament. We don't have rights to vote on the day to day issues before parliament, but our representatives look after presenting our views for us. It is a very dangerous, and also a very lazy and irresponsible approach to democracy, to say "ok guys, you got five years, go do whatever you want. I'll look at the results in five years and if ya did good you're in again. " Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/26/87)
>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) >If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should > be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is: > a) essential that you operate in the first place, > b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead > operate strictly on a profit motive. Sounds like Sweden. You need a license there before you can open a business of any kind. And this is not a formality for collecting taxes, your proposal is scrutinized for "suitability" and often you are denied the right to start your business. There were no smileys behind this posting because I believe that John was dead serious. All I can say is that socialism has never worked very well in practice, and that is as glowing a review of socialism as you will ever hear from me. Examine the countries that are doing well in recent years. What do they have in common ? What has the bastion of socialism China recently introduced in order to increase production ? Personal initiative is the single strongest force in driving a productive economy and a productive economy allows you the options of altruism and support of the weak or less fortunate. I argue that it is essential that institutions function as businesses whenever possible since this will maximize productivity, which is either good of itself, or is good because this allows the widest range of subsequent action. Now for your arguement the other way please. >> b) but not everything has to break even >> c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity >> d) but it brings the country together >> >> are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does >> and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. >Why are b, c, and d merely rhetoric? Because you want them to be? > If you are going to assert that these are not valid reasons then you > should try to back it up. I say mudwrestling is a sport that will help support the Canadian national identity, and if we publicly supported Friday night fights at Maple Leaf Gardens we would pull the country together. Me and ten friends really support this view, so lets protect minority rights and start the fights next week. :*) Anyone see any flaws in this arguement ? >This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see >the problems such an attitude engenders? Sure, if the majority is not properly educated then they will make stupid decisions. The alternative is to have some "board" or "commission" of final authority which rules on every controversial issue. Now instead of a bad decision requiring 10,000,000 stupid people a bad decision can be made by 3 or 5 or 11 stupid people. Surely you can see the problem when too much power is distributed among too few people, as must be the case if majority rule is not the deciding factor in most decisions. Or do you propose that we can find the "proper" people who are highly educated and totally altruistic and who will always make the "right" decision? Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/26/87)
>From: ken@hcrvax.UUCP >So if Jerry Falwell et al can sell the "Moral" Majority philosophy to enough >people, then pre-marital fornication should become illegal. I don't think this will happen, because people aren't that stupid. But suppose it did happen. What makes you and your view so special that you should be allowed to say the majority are wrong. Conversely, the majority of the population currently don't support the Moral Majority philosophy. Why should this minority not be allowed to turn around and foist their views off on us much as you are obviously willing to do with your views on them, even if you were in the minority? Sounds to me like the only viewpoint you will accept as being "correct" is your own, independent of whether you are in the minority or the majority. Most people at least have some of the same notions but in "reality" as you later call it, not everyone can have their own way on every issue. Everyone realizes that the Moral Majority is really a misnomer since their leaders actually speak for a very small portion of the population. But don't you think they chose the name for a reason. Of course they did. *IF* they can convince people that they are a majority then society is conditioned to accept the fact that their opinion will rule the day. >If the 99% of people who don't make more than $200,000 per year vote >that all people who do should have their assets forcibly redistributed, >then let's do it. Something of this form happens in socialized states already, or as in the recent Holland quote people are stopped from making 200,000 to start with. I don't support this view, but some recent posters seem to think that this may be a preferable state of affairs. I maintain that majority rule is the best way to decide which view should preside in any country. What alternative method do you propose for enforcing an economic viewpoint within any state ? Note that if the above scenario happened then the people with 200,000 would leave the country pretty damn quickly and the ones left behind would be far worse off in the long run. What do you think is going to happen if highest marginal tax rate in the states is at approx 30% and Wilson doesn't get Canada's tax situation straightened around very quickly ? Why do you think he has been promising to make "big changes" "very soon" ? >In theory, brewster@watdcsu.UUCP may be right. But political philosophy >must work in practice as well as in theory. Let's look at reality: >Facts: >----- >* Most people don't have the time to learn enough to make informed > decisions about important political issues. I disagree. In regards to the MAJOR issues of the day most people actually have personal opinions, the degree of informment and the amount of learning is open to question, BUT : >* Many people don't have the brains to make informed . . . why should we deny people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are uninformed. Exactly what counts as uninformed in your mind ? Why should I assume that you are informed ? You one of those high faluting college guys who nose everything or somethin like that ther ? Why should I assume that anyone else is better informed than myself and allow this other person the proxy right to make up my mind ? Why shouldn't I assume that the Communist Party of Canada is not the best informed group and allow my proxy vote to be exercised by them ? :*) >* Given a choice between my own personal good and the good of society > as a whole, most people will choose my own personal good. See point (1) > for why they might choose short term personal gain over long term > societal gain, even when this means they will lose in the long run. This tradegy of the commons behaviour is well studied, and when you are dealing with at least a semi-educated public and an intelligentsia that is willing to stand up and shout whenever a tradegy of the commons arises I think people will make the right decision. >Obvious examples: tobacco lobbies, the NRA, many polluters, etc. I think these examples are particularly poor, and actually support the opposite view. What have a belligerent public forced tobacco companies to do recently ? What have a belligerent public forced polluters to do recently ? >Due to the preceding points, we hire politicians not just to implement >the decisions of the masses, but to use brains and integrity, Given the brains and integrity shown by recent Conservative politicians from Quebec (and in the interest of conversation let me say all politicians from Quebec in recent history independent of party affiliation), I was very amazed to see your comment occur under a section of the discussion labelled "facts" and "reality". >If we ignore reality and try to implement a simple will-of-the-masses >political system, we will actually wind up with a will-of-the-best-and- >loudest-lobby system. Many of the ugly problems in our society today >are due to decisions made on that basis already. Can you say (powerful) >"special interest groups?" Exactly my point. Politicians respond to these SIG, which really represent only a small portion of the population. This is exactly what we don't want as you state. How can this be rectified ? I say politicians should make a more concerted effort to represent the grass roots constitutent, and when this doesn't happen the grass root constitutent should make more of an effort to kick the politician in the ass. You say that politicians should try to make the "correct" decisions independent of what the people want. Firstly, how is this even remotely related to the reality of the situation which is that getting re-elected is usually the primary goal of politicians. Secondly, why are you so keen to trust politicians to always make good decisions on their own, they're people too and if not kept in check by the populace they will and do abuse the system where possible. >Please don't flame me for being a Big Brother politician or something. >I'm not. All I am trying to do is point out that simplistic blanket >statements such as that to which I am responding inevitably ignore large >sections of reality, and must be read very critically indeed. Go ahead and flame me for having faith in the people and for Libertarian leanings in general. All I am trying to point out is that people who don't trust the masses usually have something to hide and probably good reason to be afraid; and that the above contributors addition to a discussion of reality was fatally flawed, in my mind at least. As for simplistic blanket statements; they have to be taken in that light as counterexamples and loop-holes will always be found. Despite this the KISS principle will get you a long way. KISS (keep it simple stupid). Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/26/87)
> >From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) > > >If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should > > be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is: > > a) essential that you operate in the first place, > > b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead > > operate strictly on a profit motive. > > Sounds like Sweden. You need a license there before you can open a > business of any kind. And this is not a formality for collecting > taxes, your proposal is scrutinized for "suitability" and often you > are denied the right to start your business. An interesting tidbit of information re sweden. So what is the quality of life like there - are people living in poverty due to government overspending, or is there serious unrest at restrictions like these. I am not particularly advocating this system but it would be interesting to know how it works. One thing about restricting businesss is that it would reduce a lot of the needless competition which costs consumers so much money (e.g. miilions spent saying "detergent X is bolder brighter whiter neater and keener than dtergent Y" which I then pck up the tab for). > > There were no smileys behind this posting because I believe that > John was dead serious. All I can say is that socialism has never See my reply to Henry Spencer's posting as to my purpose in the comments I made. . . . > >This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see > >the problems such an attitude engenders? > > Sure, if the majority is not properly educated then they will make > stupid decisions. The alternative is to have some "board" or I agree completely. So perhaps it would be in our (society's) best interests to try and wean people away from spending hours per day passively absorbing mindless trash on the tube. Now we can't just outlaw commercial tv (although it wouldn't be a real big loss) so maybe we could try and provide some alternative? Say something like a tv network that would provide informative programming, few or no commercial messages, public debates, science shows, history, drama, and yes some light entertainment (perhaps something that doesn't glorify violence, ignorance and greed). Whats that you say? the CBC? Well thats a start in the right direction.....
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/27/87)
In article <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >I don't know if Nazi Germany had a Charter of Rights, but we certainly >do. Given this state of affairs I see no reason why most/many/some >issues cannot be left up to majority rule. If the majority attempts to >implement a piece of legislation that would contravene the Charter it >would be struck down by the courts. Voila: majority rule *and* >protection for minorities. I'm not sure whether to describe this as nonsense or twaddle. Apart from being historically and legally incorrect, it is also logically inconsistent. First: Nazi Germany was governed in accordance with the Weimar constitution until 1934. In 1933, the Reichstag passed a law (actually an extension of the emergency decrees issued by the non-Nazi Bruening and Schleicher governments of the previous year), called the "Law for the Protection of the People and Reich", and another one called "The Law for the Relief of the Distress of the People" which gave the Chancellor emergency powers. The first illegal thing Hitler ever did (apart from perhaps cheating on his taxes) was to merge the offices of Reich Chancellor and President into one after the death of Hindenburg. Under the Weimar Constitution, citizens had an extensive array of rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of association. Under the Nazis, too much free speech led to association with a concentration camp. Now to the legally incorrect part: the Charter of Rights is what the courts say it is, and, in any case, the Charter contains the infamous "notwithstanding" clause which allows a government to overrule it. For example, the government could pass a law which ensured that all persons of Albanian background were to be rounded up and shot. When the law was struck down by the courts, the law could be re-passed with a statement that it superseded the Charter. Such laws expire (I think in 5 years), but by that time, all the Albanians would be dead. Logic: if the Charter supersedes the will of the people, then the majority doesn't rule. >In California ordinary citizens have the right to introduce legislation >which is then voted on by the populace. I still haven't noticed any >goose-stepping going on there. No, but there was an idiotic proposition in 1978 to bar gay teachers from the schools. Last year, an idiotic proposition making English the official state language was also passed. >... The easiest course of action then >becomes to simply buy the SIG off with the taxpayers' money. It costs >them (the individual MPs) nothing and increases their chances of >re-election. Of course there is the minor problem of spending money >that isn't there, however, that becomes someone elses concern. I agree with Jim's point here that majority rule is a bad thing. (Of course as a Burkean radical conservative socialist, I'm bound not to support majority rule).
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/02/87)
In article <873@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >In article <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > >>I don't know if Nazi Germany had a Charter of Rights, but we certainly >>do. Given this state of affairs I see no reason why most/many/some >>issues cannot be left up to majority rule. If the majority attempts to >>implement a piece of legislation that would contravene the Charter it >>would be struck down by the courts. Voila: majority rule *and* >>protection for minorities. > >I'm not sure whether to describe this as nonsense or twaddle. Apart from >being historically and legally incorrect, it is also logically inconsistent. [I guess the above is Vince's incredibly subtle way of saying he doesn't agree with me] Historically incorrect, Vince? Why? Because you go on to present an undoubtedly accurate exposition on Nazi Germany and the Weimar Constitution after I *admitted* to not even knowing whether such a constitution existed, much less knowledge of how it was used and abused? >Now to the legally incorrect part: the Charter of Rights is what the courts >say it is, and, in any case, the Charter contains the infamous >"notwithstanding" clause which allows a government to overrule it. For >example, the government could pass a law which ensured that all persons of >Albanian background were to be rounded up and shot. When the law was struck >down by the courts, the law could be re-passed with a statement that it >superseded the Charter. Such laws expire (I think in 5 years), but by that >time, all the Albanians would be dead. My claim was *not* legally incorrect, merely incomplete. A piece of legislation that contravened the Charter in an obvious manner, e.g. shooting all persons of West Indian background, *would* indeed be struck down in any court in this country. It would then be possible for the government of the day to use the ridiculous "notwithstanding" clause to exempt that legislation and get on with this "important" task. However, this state of affairs is really a non-issue since it would not be a result of majority rule. It is the result of a weak Charter which at this very moment would allow a government to legally apply such a "Final Solution" to any class of people it so desires. I should like to point out something that Vince did *not* say. He did not claim that minorities would have *less* protection under majority rule than they have now. He merely stated a problem that presently exists and attempted to pass it off as a consequence of direct democracy. >Logic: if the Charter supersedes the will of the people, then the majority >doesn't rule. Strictly speaking Vince is correct. If I had realized that he (and possibly others) were going to take such a literal view of my words I would have said - "Voila: majority rule, for the most part, *and* protection for minorities". Hope this makes ya all happy. >>In California ordinary citizens have the right to introduce legislation >>which is then voted on by the populace. I still haven't noticed any >>goose-stepping going on there. > >No, but there was an idiotic proposition in 1978 to bar gay teachers from >the schools. Last year, an idiotic proposition making English the official >state language was also passed. First let's take gay school teachers. I agree with Vince (for once) that the proposition in question was idiotic. However, it is to be expected that in a direct democracy ridiculous propositions will occasionally make it to the ballot box (just take a look at some of the policy resolutions voted on and passed at NDP conventions; resolutions which would be *binding* on any NDP government). However, what was the outcome? The proposition failed. Net result: zilch. So what does this prove, Vince? Only what one might expect: that a minority of anti-gay people live in California. The same can be unequivocally said for BC and Ontario. Now on to making English the official state language. Since idiocy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, how about informing us as to why you consider this proposition idiotic. Why should a state/province not have an official language? Should French not be Quebec's official language? Should English not be BC's official language? Should French and English not be Canada's official languages? It's okay to have an official currency, an official system of measurement, but *not* an official language, eh? Who's being illogical now? >>... The easiest course of action then >>becomes to simply buy the SIG off with the taxpayers' money. It costs >>them (the individual MPs) nothing and increases their chances of >>re-election. Of course there is the minor problem of spending money >>that isn't there, however, that becomes someone elses concern. > >I agree with Jim's point here that majority rule is a bad thing. (Of course >as a Burkean radical conservative socialist, I'm bound not to support >majority rule). Who ever said Vince didn't have a sense of humour? The above situation is *NOT* a manifestation of majority rule. The above situation is a result of weaknesses inherent in Canada's political structure which allow minority organizations to force their self-serving policies on the majority. Direct democracy, i.e. majority rule, would not allow this to happen. Policies would not be decided on the basis of how many votes and/or how much bad press are at stake. The only criteria necessary for a policy to pass and be implemented would be that a majority of the voters believe it to be a good policy and that it could be upheld in the courts. J.B. Robinson BTW, Vince, I've got thesis writing to do and I'm sure you have papers to mark so why don't you just admit I'm right and we can call it a day :-)?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/04/87)
> ... A piece of > legislation that contravened the Charter in an obvious manner, e.g. > shooting all persons of West Indian background, *would* indeed be struck > down in any court in this country... Really? Even if there was strong government and popular support for it? I observe again that military conscription is a clear and obvious violation of the US Bill Of Rights, yet in this century the US Supreme Court has quite consistently upheld conscription as legitimate, using some remarkably contrived arguments. Perhaps the Canadian courts would do better, but I wouldn't stake my life on it. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) (03/04/87)
In article <2767@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>I'm not sure whether to describe this as nonsense or twaddle. Apart from >>being historically and legally incorrect, it is also logically inconsistent. > >[I guess the above is Vince's incredibly subtle way of saying he >doesn't agree with me] Please, Jim, don't accuse me of being subtle. I'd regard it as an insult. I hope you noticed the ambiguity in the first sentence, though. >My claim was *not* legally incorrect, merely incomplete. A piece of >legislation that contravened the Charter in an obvious manner, e.g. >shooting all persons of West Indian background, *would* indeed be struck >down in any court in this country. No, Jim, I'm sorry to disagree with you. Though I'd hope that any court in the country would strike such a law down, there is no requirement for it to do so. Article (1) ties those rights down to the maintenance of a ``free and democratic society'' (I quote from memory), and therefore if the courts could be convinced that shooting Jews (I'll use a minority *I'm* a member of) served that purpose, it would uphold the law. Mr Justice Angelo Branca, in upholding the right of the Vancouver Sun not to print an ad for a gay publication, enunciated the concept of a ``reasonable bias''. Essentially, he said that if you don't like somebody, it's ok to discriminate against them (the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his judgement, but rejected his reasoning; this was under the Bill of Rights, not the Charter). More strongly, let's assume that Les Bewley (a loony right-winger beloved of the antimetric supporters of Jim Keegstra) were still on the bench. The Charter is a living document; at any point, our understanding of what rights (and responsibilities) it guarantees depends on our understanding of ourselves and our country. It's up to us to make sure our courts' understanding grows as ours does. >I should like to point out something that Vince did *not* say. He did >not claim that minorities would have *less* protection under majority >rule than they have now. The last majoritarian society I know of is the Athenian democracy of Perikles' times. Apart from the fact that it denied the rights of women, slaves, and non-citizens, one of its high points was the institution of ostracism. The members of the Assembly would from time to time banish people because they didn't like them. Find me an example to prove me wrong, Jim. In any case: under direct democracy, minorities would have less protection than they do now. Jim goes on to discuss various California propositions. Without getting into the merits of the English-language proposition, let me point out that the main argument used to convince people to support for it was ``the Canadian experience''. Much was talked of separatism, the FLQ, and many other subjects of limited relevance to 1986. Californians, who know as much about Canada as an oyster knows of balanced budgets (despite having a high proportion of resident Canadians), bought this argument. My point is simple: the average citizen knows little of many abstruse issues (as a diehard Canadian nationalist, I don't know how I'd vote on a free trade referendum, because I don't understand the economics of it), and therefore cannot vote on an informed basis. The best we can do is to find a party with whose philosophy we agree, or an individual whom we respect, and ask him/her to investigate the matter thoroughly and decide accordingly. As a gay person, I have particular qualms about referenda. In the late 1970's, city and state bodies across the United States passed civil rights laws regarding gay people. Consistently, referenda were organised to overturn these ordinances (Anita Bryant's effort in Miami is the most famous of these). Last year's Larouche-organised AIDS proposition in California did not pass; however, a poll showed that over 20% of its supporters were inspired by homophobia. It's a lot easier to get people to oppose something (anything) than to support something; that's why decisions ought to be made on a basis of sober decision, not in the heat of public debate. >BTW, Vince, I've got thesis writing to do and I'm sure you have papers >to mark so why don't you just admit I'm right and we can call it a day >:-)? You are right, Jim. Very right. (I really do like that Chiclets commercial, even though I hate chewing gum). ----- Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet (604) 228-6770 or 228-3061 "BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."