convenience or democracy?

given that a truly democratic society needs a well-informed and empowered electorate;

given that, when one has too many choices in front of them, they cannot easily commit to a particular option confident that they will be satisfied with it ("embarras du choix");

knowing that humans, as investors and consumers, will wait until the dust has settled and a clear winner can be announced (or at least confidently predicted) (examples beta vs VHS, blu-ray vs hd-dvd) before investing heavily in a particular technology and/or buying that equipment;

knowing that once investors and consumers converge on a particular technology, it becomes the de facto standard and the people behind it are propelled into high financial/social/political status (which enables them to suppress/oppress the competition even more);

I am starting to understand that entrenching freedoms of speech, religion, etc were deliberately applied in the constitutions of our fine countries to ensure that no one interest group could gain a power advantage over another. with so many groups competing for our interests, our support and/or our allegiance, we generally ignore them and carry on with our own merry ways, content in waiting for the dust to settle before having to choose sides (at which point it may be a matter of life or death). the multitude of social options protected by our laws have effectively been a societal paralyzer (we have no single-recognized system of lords, kings, princes, marshals, bishops, etc in our society). This paralysis is fundamental to an effective democracy where all can thrive side by side as equals, without fear of retribution, competition nor profound compromise.

Bill C-10, currently before the Senate, threatens that social harmony.

Bill C-10 originated years ago under the Liberals and was carried forward by the Conservatives. It will allow the Heritage minister and/or a secret group of political appointees (unknown to, and with no accountability to, the people) to withdraw eligibility for tax credits for a television or movie production deemed "against the public interest" at any time, without justification. Examples cited in its defence are extreme violence, pedophilia, or other such "senseless" content that is not educational and threatens "our good tastes."

Seemingly harmless at first glance. But what are the ramifications on the entertainment industry? Producers need private investment, and private investors need a certain degree of confidence in the projected numbers before parting with their money. Bill C-10 puts those projections, and therefore private funding, at risk. Removing that lever will oblige producers to rely a lot more heavily on ticket sales. Resulting productions will therefore be lower-budget, less appealing, and a whole lot more conventional. (just look at what happened when the evening news, which the networks once provided as a public service, were forced to be at least revenue-neutral: they had to cater to an disinterested public in order to generate the required advertising revenue, and voila, today's info-tainment industry).

Bill C-10 will have a similar effect: anything even perceived to be controversial (at least the kind of controversial that encourages consideration of alternate viewpoints, intelligent debate and generates informed discussion) or even potentially inconvenient politically, will be avoided, and democracy will be starved of yet another pillar.

Social paralysis resulting from an excess of available philosophical options is a threat - but only to groups with delusions of grandeur, private agendas and an insatiable appetite for power. To the ordinary people like you and I who want to live and let live, there is no greater ally. The arts industry should not be subservient to government pollsters. C-10 must be amended to reflect that.

People get what they are willing to pay for, and ultimately, what they deserve.

Those who give up freedom in favour of security deserve neither and lose both.