I consider myself a fairly conservative person. I don't wear loud colours, I pay my bills on time, and I love unregistered firearms. I believe a government that governs least governs best. In all, I'd been leaning in the direction of the Conservative Party, although lately I've had to change my mind.
My one problem with the Conservative Party had always been the social conservatives. While I myself am fairly religious, I have absolutely no time for people trying to push their views on others.
However, Mr Charles McVety believes otherwise. He feels that government should be able to control what films and television shows receive government funding. Of course, anything beyond PG-13 would not be eligible under Mr McVety's view. Imagine what Canada would be like without Ricky, Julian, Bubbles, and J-to-tha-R-O-C.
According to the Globe and Mail:
"Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign."
I'd like to thank Mr McVety for telling us what sort of media is appropriate for this country to fund. Without dudes kissing, guns, and hardcore sex scenes, what's the use of movies? And what kinds of movies are being made that "promote homosexuality"? Did I catch gay from watching Heath Ledger kiss Jake Gyllenhaal? It's busybodies like Charles McVety who'll ensure I'll continue to heterosexually pleasure my fiancee without being distracted by those handsome gay recruiters on TV (I swear, honey, I watch HGTV for the decorating ideas...).
I'd also like to thank the 308 MPs who forgot to read this bill before voting on it. I never thought I'd say this, but: Thank God for the Senate.
It's unfortunate that I cannot vote for a Federal Government which I believe is doing a good job regarding foreign policy and the economy. As a supporter of Freedom of Speech, I cannot support a Conservative Party that bows to this sort of pressure. Unfortunately, the Opposition doesn't offer me much hope either. Is there any mainstream party in Canada that believes in libertarianism, and will allow me to think for myself?
7 comments:
I hear ya. Its tough to be a Conservative these days. You keep hoping the wingnuts are a small percentage but damn if they don't keep getting their ways. I've had to hold my nose voting for the CPC in the last two elections but I don't think I can take it anymore. It hurts my soul too much.
It's true, when you agree with 90% of their platform, but the other 10% turns you completely off, what's there to do?
If we're lucky, the Rhinos will run a candidate in Fredericton, and I can park my vote there.
Maybe David Raymond Amos will run again. :)
If you still agree with 90%, I'd say you ought to vote for them. I don't think I've ever found a party that I agree with 90% of the time.
If no party is breaking 70% for you though, that's when I would start to get worried.
That said, I've been dabbling in politics for quite a few years now and I honestly believe that anyone with a small bit of brains and a lot of time can get at least 15% of the vote in any riding in the country so if the mainstream parties aren't doing it for you, run as an independent or Libertarian, or convince a smart friend to do so and run his or her campaign.
nbp- 90% of the platform is an exaggeration, but I do feel the Tories are doing a better job at earning my vote than the Liberals. However, like I said, I can't bring myself to vote for a party that gets mixed up in the sort of nonsense I describe. I guess that makes me a Scott Brison Blue Liberal.
I'd imagine that federally, a Fredericton Independent could easily get 15% of the vote. Given the socially conservative nature of the Liberal and Conservative nominees, and the non-existence of the NDP, a live-and-let-live candidate could do quite well. He probably wouldn't win, but he'd draw attention.
As for David Raymond Amos, God help us all.
I'm a libertarian when it comes to social issues. However, with that in mind, I respect the opinion of McVety even if it is a bit extreme. I just wish he would stop talking about this stuff while having two golf balls stuck in his cheeks. He looks and sounds ridiculous. I couldn't sound that bad after drinking 48 beer and a full 40 of scotch.
However, with that in mind, I respect the opinion of McVety even if it is a bit extreme.
He is completely welcome to his opinion, however I believe it to be a very dangerous opinion. Giving the Minister the power of veto over film funding is opening the door to censorship.
It may be used today to prevent a very sexual or violent film from receiving funding (and thus prevent it from being made). In the future, it could theoretically be used by a very homophobic person to prevent a movie to be made that "promotes homosexuality". It could also be used by a firm believer in the separation of church and state to remove all mention of religion from government funded movies. Imagine "It's a Wonderful Life" without mention of the Christian holiday of Christmas.
There are two opposing libertarian views in this situation: censorship, and overall government funding of the arts. I believe censorship to be the more grievous of the two, and I thus oppose the veto power.
Post a Comment