under tory law, word changed to "breastillating"

It’s the most exciting political news in years – the prospect of a federal election over Bill C-10, the Act to Stop Giving Tax Credits to Makers of Freaky-Deaky Titillating Hippie Porno Snuff Flicks and All Other Movies Starring Sarah Polley. (I’m paraphrasing.)

Consider the many cultural benefits of a five-week campaign waged over the issues of censorship, artistic freedom and horny, sadomasochistic midgets. The lawn signs alone would make it worthwhile: “My Canada Includes Graphic Government-Funded Cinematic Depictions of Vegetable-Based Intimacy.” And the debates! The debates would consist in their entirety of Lloyd Robertson fast-forwarding through his personal collection of 1970s’ blue movies and asking Stephen Harper: “What about that? Would you give them a tax credit if they did that?” I would willingly donate $50 of my own money to see this happen.

According to the Globe and Mail, the proposed law – now being debated in the Senate – is designed to “expand the criteria for denying [tax] credits to [films that] include gratuitous violence, sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.”

You can see why Conservatives are all worked up – after all, denigrating identifiable groups in this country is their job. At the same time, I see a simple solution for filmmakers still determined to secure government funding for their motion pictures: simply ensure that all sexual content includes an educational purpose.

For instance, in David Cronenberg’s film Crash, where people get all sorts of randy after staging car accidents, the director could just slip in an edifying line or two about the importance of regular oil changes to the life of your car’s engine. Bingo – we all learn a little, Cronenberg still gets his money and everyone is able to see James Spader’s naked ass. It’s a win-win-win situation.