Thursday, May 29, 2008

Young, Huffed, And Muslim...?

... pissed off at the crap Macleans Magazine has been slinging your way, but maybe tired of the whole "take 'em to the HRC" routine?

Well, you might consider demanding that the magazine pay for its own stamps! As I wrote in an earlier post:

As it turns out, Macleans Magazine gets a cool $3,000,000-plus from the Canadian Heritage Publications Assistance Program (PAP), which offset[s] the mailing costs of Canadian content magazines and non-daily newspapers mailed within Canada.

In fact of all the magazines supported it is the single largest recipient of such assistance...

Except that there are rules, see? PAP is not supposed to fund magazine publishing "offensive" material. And, to find out how one might raise a complaint against Macleans on this basis, I emailed Heritage Canada. Yesterday, I received their response:

Good morning... [BigCityLib]:

This is in reply to your e-mail of May 12, 2008, regarding your concerns and comments about the article entitled "The future belongs to Islam" published in Maclean’s magazine October 2006.

The Publications Assistance Program – Applicant’s Guide, page 6, states the following:

magazines are not eligible for postal subsidy if they are: that in the view of Canadian Heritage, contain material considered to be hate propaganda, sexual exploitation, excessive or gratuitous violence, denigration of an identifiable group or an any other way offensive.

If you would like to register a complaint under these guidelines, you may write to the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the following address: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6. You may also contact the Minister through our departmental Web site at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/verner/contact/index_e.cfm. We also suggest you consider writing to the Ontario Press Council, as this organization has media accountability mechanisms in place. Furthermore, you may wish to consider writing to Maclean’s magazine to communicate your concerns directly.

Should you have further questions, please contact Céline Boucher at 819-997-5249 or at 819-997-9221.

Sincerely, Céline Boucher
Chief, Policy and Program Development /
Chef, Administration et politique de programme
Publications Assistance Program /
Programme d'aide aux publications
Canadian Heritage /
Patrimoine canadien
114-4, 15 Eddy, Hull, Québec, K1A 0M5
Telephone /Téléphone 819-997-5249
Fax Télécopieur 819-997-4995
www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/pap
www.patrimoinecanadien.gc.ca/pap

Now, I'm not saying "take this route". But its probably something not thought-of much previously. And I would argue that, while we may disagree over the limits of Free Speech, we can certainly, all of us, Conservative or Liberal, agree that publications spreading general offensiveness ought to be forking out for their own postage. Its just so Capitalist. Make Kenneth Whyte and Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne lick their own goddamn stamps!

PS. Other things you might try include approaching the Ontario Press Council (although I thought I read somewhere that Macleans, as well as the Natty Post, don't recognize such Councils as authoritative). Or you might just try and scare up enough like-minded Muslims to picket the Rogers building. Picketing can work just fine. Witness how Soharwardy extracted a grovelling apology from the Western Standard.

PPS. Retire Mo Elmasry. He's muddying your message.

20 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

I've long thought about lodging a complaint of that nature against The Interim, LifeShite's print rag that is toxically screechy and hate-filled most of time.

Thing is, I support small publications that have no hope of being profitable. That's a different issue with Rogers publications and general interest news/current events magazines like Macleans, especially as it concerns the care and upkeep of that Wingnut Welfare Queen, Mark Steyn.

KC said...

Retire that young Awan fellow too(aka sock puppet #1). Hes a pretty bad spokesman for "human rights" after his trip to Parliament hill to speak out against same sex marriage.

Paul S said...

= . . .we can certainly, all of us, Conservative or Liberal, agree that publications spreading general offensiveness ought to be forking out for their own postage.=

Well count this righty out.

If "offensiveness" is the operative word here, and I believe it truly is, then tax dollars must be withheld from a myriad of publications.

But the issue here is you and your pet beliefs have been offended. For the left, offending others is a right while being offended is a crime.

Just get it over with BCL. File the complaint. Pray that Barbara Hall will use her matronly magical powers to turn Steyn into stone. In other words what I'm saying is: give up.

Ti-Guy said...

Man, you can't even count on the twatty Rightwingers to stay coherent on the point of using tax dollars to fund cultural products.

Your mother shouldn't have binged so much during the first trimester, Paul S.

Paul S said...

Pardon me ti-guy, it is the left who is squawking incoherently on the topic of freedom of speech/expression and tax subsidies.

Artists are asking for, no, demanding access to tax subsidies and unfettered freedom of expression.

You think BCL is upset about that? Nope. Fat chance.

If unsupported suppression of "offensive" speech is good enough for all of us there is no reason it shouldn't be welcomed by Canadian artists also.

= Your mother shouldn't have binged so much during the first trimester, Paul S. =

Ooooh. Such a zinger ti-guy. Honestly, your retorts are slipping badly.

Ti-Guy said...

Pardon me ti-guy, it is the left who is squawking incoherently on the topic of freedom of speech/expression and tax subsidies.

Look further up, sweetie, and you'll see that I support tax incentives and grants for cultural products that may not have enough mass market appeal to be profitable (or even workable 'at cost'). Does that really apply to media empire's like Rogers and their products?

What is incoherent is that "conservatives" are generally opposed to the state funding anything (except tar sands research, guns and other military toys for boys and whatever they, personally, can milk from the state), so you reveal that you are unprincipled if you don't think this reason is good enough to remove PAP funding from Rogers (currently, close to 9 million dollars a year), regardless of the content it features.

Artists are asking for, no, demanding access to tax subsidies and unfettered freedom of expression.

Art and other cultural products aren't real life as presented in news and current affairs media, sweetie. I'd support, wholeheartedly, funding for a documentary to examine Canada's neo-nazis, bigots, racists, FreeDominion, Blogging Tories, and *conservatives*, for example. It's where I very often differ with other liberals/lefties, though not many, since they're usually smart enough to understand the difference between art and real life, unlike "conservatives."

If unsupported suppression of "offensive" speech is good enough for all of us there is no reason it shouldn't be welcomed by Canadian artists also.

Why should cultural standards be determined by people like you? You don't even pay taxes; you're only 9, after all. Re-read that bit above about art and real life again as well.

Ooooh. Such a zinger ti-guy. Honestly, your retorts are slipping badly.

Lighten up, honey. It was obviously a lie and a joke. Your mother didn't start binge drinking until after you were born; about the time you started talking, as I recall.

Now go out and play or go bother the people at DeSmogBlog again for a bit. Daddy's had enough of your chatter for a while.

Paul S said...

= Art and other cultural products aren't real life as presented in news and current affairs media, sweetie. =

Right. When art is offensive, it isn't real, when art is hateful or racist or pornographic or paedophilic, that isn't real either. Sure.

= Why should cultural standards be determined by people like you? =

Nice try. The question is why freedom of speech should be determined by the likes of Barbara Hall.

But really ti-guy, you need some new lines. Your schtick is getting a bit tired.

Terrence C. Watson said...

I put a post on the Shotgun blog that links back here. Thanks for bringing the Maclean's subsidy to light. Hopefully, the discussion will be interesting.

Best,

Terrence
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/05/macleans-corpor.html

Terrence C. Watson said...

In case the above link to my Shotgun post didn't come through, here it is
again.

Ti-Guy said...

Paul S, if I need to hear anymore from you today, I'll go over to DeSmogBlog. Although I see no one's responding to you.

Are you lonely, honey?

The question is why freedom of speech should be determined by the likes of Barbara Hall.

Adorable. Simply adorable...

Paul S said...

Oh please Terrence, would either you or BCL just get on with it.

If you don't like being offended by reading Macleans, DON'T READ IT.

If you don't like postal subsidies given out to ALL Canadian magazines, WRITE A LETTER.

BUT, forget about arbitrarily suppressing freedom of speech based on denying accused parties proper legal remedy as HRCs are wont to do.

So please, either you or BCL just DO SOMETHING USEFUL. Remember, you have been offended, and while you should be free to give offense as you please, this same right must not extend to others. Talk about consistency.

Paul S said...

= Are you lonely, honey? =

No, just bored. Had the afternoon off and have already done my part to kill all the annuals and perennials I just put in so I'm wasting time until suppertime. Posting here is almost as enjoyable as taking a nap (almost). ;)

Ti-Guy said...

...get on with it.
...DON'T READ IT.
...WRITE A LETTER.
...DO SOMETHING USEFUL.


Jafuckingwohl!

Who do you think you are, Czarina Barbara Hall?

Use your your indoor voice, sweetie.

bigcitylib said...

Terrence,

Posted a long comment on WC re this. Didn;t even use profanity. Hopefully the debate shall be glorious.

Paul S said...

BCL, I read your post and you are still whacking at a dead horse. "Offensive" is not nearly good enough to warrant censorship.

It is interesting that there is a parallel debate with C-10. Canadian artists demand the right to be provocative and offensive and receive tax credits.

If tax credits are good enough for layabout Canadian artists, it should be good enough for Macleans.

If we are going to go down the petty and anal retentive road of spurious censorship, we might as well be consistent and hobble Canadian artists with censoring too.

Ti-Guy said...

Paul S. is a liar.

bigcitylib said...

Paul,

It is for PAP.

Ti-Guy said...

He knows that. He's just pretending he doesn't.

He's not as stupid as I first thought. He's more manipulative and deceptive.

Examine these assertions:

Offensive is not nearly good enough to warrant censorship.

Offense is something that remains undefinable and is only resolved through mediation.

Canadian artists demand the right to be provocative and offensive and receive tax credits.

This is a lie. Industrial incentives are part of the operations of the state. Artists and other innovators are simply availing themselves of the incentives we have determined, collectively, are worth state support, for a variety of reasons.

If tax credits are good enough for layabout Canadian artists, it should be good enough for Macleans.

"Layabout Canadian artists." Such as Sarah Polley, Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg, I imagine. Not to mention all those involved in the development of cultural products that "conservatives" approve of

If we are going to go down the petty and anal retentive road of spurious censorship, we might as well be consistent and hobble Canadian artists with censoring too.

This confuses censorship with withdrawal of support. And deliberately.

Paul S. will, of course, simply respond as if he knows nothing or that words have no meaning. That would be a charitable interpretation of what he writes.

But I've seen enough to conclude that he's simply a manipulative and disruptive liar, whether he realises that or not.

Paul S said...

I seem to be hitting a nerve.

= Offense is something that remains undefinable and is only resolved through mediation. =

Merely being offensive is no business of the state. No mediation necessary.

= This is a lie. Industrial incentives are part of the operations of the state. =

Now you're simply playing wordgames ti-guy. Incentives or subsidies, both publishers and artists are recipients of taxpayer's money.

Only artists demand exemption from the rules applying to all other Canadians.

= This confuses censorship with withdrawal of support. And deliberately. =

Personally I just think you're confused ti-guy. Even BCL has made it is mission that if he can't get the matronly hall monitor Barbara Hall to do his censoring or hectoring, he wants postal subsidies withdrawn from Macleans.

Who's confused again?

Ti-Guy said...

He knows that. He's just pretending he doesn't.

He's not as stupid as I first thought. He's more manipulative and deceptive.

Examine these assertions:

Offensive is not nearly good enough to warrant censorship.

Offense is something that remains undefinable and is only resolved through mediation.

Canadian artists demand the right to be provocative and offensive and receive tax credits.

This is a lie. Industrial incentives are part of the operations of the state. Artists and other innovators are simply availing themselves of the incentives we have determined, collectively, are worth state support, for a variety of reasons.

If tax credits are good enough for layabout Canadian artists, it should be good enough for Macleans.

"Layabout Canadian artists." Such as Sarah Polley, Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg, I imagine. Not to mention all those involved in the development of cultural products that "conservatives" approve of

If we are going to go down the petty and anal retentive road of spurious censorship, we might as well be consistent and hobble Canadian artists with censoring too.

This confuses censorship with withdrawal of support. And deliberately.

Paul S. will, of course, simply respond as if he knows nothing or that words have no meaning. That would be a charitable interpretation of what he writes.

But I've seen enough to conclude that he's simply a manipulative and disruptive liar, whether he realises that or not.