Statistics often get a bad rap and there is perhaps a very good reason for that when people cherry pick only the news that is favourable to them. Newspapers not doing enough background research on “news” can be a problem as well. Which definitely looks like what happened at the Toronto Star earlier this week with the release of the “Pan-Canadian Assessment Program’s” first report. 

For example, take a look at an article in the Toronto Star dated April 29th, 2008. Titled “Ontario Grade 8s top the class,” it gives the definite impression that Ontario students are tops in reading across the country, right? In fact, that notion is reinforced with this quote that:”The bold showing may reflect Ontario’s rigorous new curriculum, suggests Michael Kozlow, director for data for Ontario’s testing body, which took part in the new nation-wide Pan-Canadian Assessment Program.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail quotes Finance Minister Jim Flaherty as saying “I don’t pretend that it’s easy to draw the line.” The line he is talking about is between independent films that are socially acceptable and contextual compared to those that include “gratuitous violence, sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.”And, I would suggest that most people over the age of 18 know hate and pornography when they see it. 

Yet, independent film makers like “David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley are leading a campaign against the bill, describing it as a form of censorship.” To my mind the only censorship that is involved is access to public money, our money, taxpayers money. Moreover, as Curry writes:“Canadian Heritage officials said the law will trigger consultations on new rules that will expand the criteria for denying the [tax] credits….”

In other words, once it is law, C-10 would allow Heritage officials to: (1) deny certain tax credits for certain films so that public money, taxpayers money, is not paying for them; and (2) provide for public consultantion to set new rules on what is art compared to hate, gratuitous violence and pornography.

So, while David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley and others say C-10 is about censorship,  I would suggest it isn’t because the law would NOT stop anyone from making independent films.  Rather, what C-10 would do is provide a mechanism to deny public money.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.