General Updates and News

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by JET

The age old position has often been to stand by, because it is not our battle;
sadly so

Who are "they" "coming for" in this case though? All I meant is that it's not my ancestors who were under threat of being scalped (on either side) in this case, so I'm maybe not as sensitive to the topic as those whose families would have been directly affected. Me saying "it's no big deal if the statue is removed/not removed" is not exactly the same as someone whose ancestors lived that experience saying that.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...e-vandalized-halifax-red-paint-1.3580675

Ah, the good ol' "We didn't get our way so now we'll kick, scream, and vandalize wasting everyones time and money" approach.

[stevencourchene]

soon to open!!!




The Canvas Room will be opening on may 25th and will be located at
5521 Cornwallis St.
Halifax, NS

visit their Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/thecanvasroomcafe/?fref=ts

The Canvas room is locally own and operated.

cant wait to test my inner artist

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

I think it is frequently the role of artists to critique the status quo.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I think it is frequently the role of artists to critique the status quo.

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest inherent to that statement, in which those who funded someone are then to be immune to criticism. I vehemently disagree with that.

Should public money only be provided by a government agency to fund someone who will not be critical? This very much resembles the arguments from the past decade that federally funded scientists should not be critical of government policies. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about artists or scientists, linking availability of public money to an inability to criticize those who funded you is a dangerous game. Personally I think that in a healthy society people should be free to debate and criticize public policy as much as they want, on all sides of the political spectrum, rather than be subject to veiled threats that they shouldn't be critical of those who fund them.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

Depends on how civilized the funders are.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

There is a fundamental conflict of interest inherent to that statement, in which those who funded someone are then to be immune to criticism. I vehemently disagree with that.

Should public money only be provided by a government agency to fund someone who will not be critical? This very much resembles the arguments from the past decade that federally funded scientists should not be critical of government policies. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about artists or scientists, linking availability of public money to an inability to criticize those who funded you is a dangerous game. Personally I think that in a healthy society people should be free to debate and criticize public policy as much as they want, on all sides of the political spectrum, rather than be subject to veiled threats that they shouldn't be critical of those who fund them.

Government funds should not be used to fund advocacy groups whose purpose it is to criticize public policy. I see artists criticizing public policy as little different if they are also receiving public money.

[portapetey]

So government shouldn't provide any support to individuals or organizations that provide feedback or represent community reaction to government policy, and in turn anyone who receives public funding must toe the party line? Only yesmen need apply?

Sounds like a good setup for a dictatorship. I know one ex-PM who would be proud.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Government funds should not be used to fund advocacy groups whose purpose it is to criticize public policy. I see artists criticizing public policy as little different if they are also receiving public money.

My apologies. I was under the impression we lived in a democracy, where dissenting voices were not only permitted but encouraged. One where public funding of organizations through both direct funding and charitable tax status was used as a way of ensuring all voices were heard from all ends of the political spectrum, not just those supporting the current political leadership. Apparently I was wrong, Comrade.

Your view on funding for the arts is well documented, but I can only assume then that you would also support it if the current government revoked the charitable tax status of the Fraser Institute?

[Keith P.]

They can provide as much criticism, feedback and lobbying as they want. Just don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. That is not a dictatorship; that is fiscal responsibility. Otherwise you have a self-perpetuating system of using the taxpayer to pay for lobbyists.

[beyeas]

And so you support not giving a tax break to the Fraser Institute then? Same logic would apply.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

And so you support not giving a tax break to the Fraser Institute then? Same logic would apply.

For a bunch of fellas who are supposed to be smart you guys sure post some dumb things. We are talking public funding, not charitable status. The tax definition of a charity which receives private money is very different from govt writing a cheque to the like of David Suzuki or Maude Barlow.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

For a bunch of fellas who are supposed to be smart you guys sure post some dumb things. We are talking public funding, not charitable status. The tax definition of a charity which receives private money is very different from govt writing a cheque to the like of David Suzuki or Maude Barlow.

Handing out $1000 and never collecting $1000 in taxes has the exact same net effect on the treasury from my perspective as a tax payer.

Similar, for example, to not collecting full market value for a municipal building and instead selling it to an arts group for less than market. The government never handed out money in that case either, and yet you speak out against it.

And let's be clear, there is a massive difference between a typical "charity" (like Feed NS for example) and a right-wing advocacy group that largely supports private interests. You calling the Fraser Institute a charity is laughable. The ONLY difference is whether it is in support of your world view.

[portapetey]

Remember kids, this is only about one thing:

Libz is evilz

Nothing else. Fiscal responsibility is just a red herring.

[beyeas]

I think there is tremendous value in a system where public funds are available to promote the discussion, evaluation and criticism of information and decisions in the public realm. And that crosses all political borders. There are valuable ideas and criticisms that come from the left, the right, and everything in between.

Furthermore, I have no issue with public funds going to groups that can transparently add to that discourse, in particular when without those funds it would be difficult for a specific group to have such a voice because of a lack of deep pockets. Again, I would support that for groups whether they represented a liberal or conservative perspective. I can judge the merits of their argument in light of any potential bias in either direction that they may have, because it is transparent as to who the group represents, and I can have access to points-of-view from all sides of the spectrum.

Deciding to fund or not fund a specific group based upon whether they will be critical of the government is EXACTLY the opposite of what should happen, given the conflict of interest that the government of the day is in when they make such decisions. The other option of course is to fund no advocacy groups, whether through money or tax breaks. However, this runs into the issue of ceding the field to only those with deep enough pockets to self fund, thereby skewing the discourse.

[Hali87]

A dramatic break from the established aesthetic in Highfield Park:

Untitled by Hali87, on Flickr

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Handing out $1000 and never collecting $1000 in taxes has the exact same net effect on the treasury from my perspective as a tax payer.

Similar, for example, to not collecting full market value for a municipal building and instead selling it to an arts group for less than market. The government never handed out money in that case either, and yet you speak out against it.

And let's be clear, there is a massive difference between a typical "charity" (like Feed NS for example) and a right-wing advocacy group that largely supports private interests. You calling the Fraser Institute a charity is laughable. The ONLY difference is whether it is in support of your world view.

Handing out $1000 to a group costs the govt $1000. Giving a tax break to a donor on a $1000 donation costs govt +/-$170. I am willing to live with that, but not the $1000.

Govt selling for less than market or giving away a building to a group almost always results in a later request to govt from the same groups, cap in hand, for operating funding.

I never called the Fraser Institute anything, you did. It is the flip side of the Council of Canadians, Center for Policy Alternatives, EAC, or other left-wing groups. Govt should fund none of those regardless of political stripe. If people want to get a tax deduction for giving them THEIR money, I'm OK with that. It costs govt much less.

[Hali87]

A problem with this though is that it is much easier for the very wealthy/big business to fund lobby groups/think tanks than it is for the very poor or marginalized to do so. And since the right-wing groups are rarely advocating for the concerns of the very poor, and the left-wing groups are rarely advocating for the concerns of the very wealthy...

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Handing out $1000 to a group costs the govt $1000. Giving a tax break to a donor on a $1000 donation costs govt +/-$170. I am willing to live with that, but not the $1000.

Govt selling for less than market or giving away a building to a group almost always results in a later request to govt from the same groups, cap in hand, for operating funding.

I never called the Fraser Institute anything, you did. It is the flip side of the Council of Canadians, Center for Policy Alternatives, EAC, or other left-wing groups. Govt should fund none of those regardless of political stripe. If people want to get a tax deduction for giving them THEIR money, I'm OK with that. It costs govt much less.

Well we shall decidedly agree to disagree. And back to focusing on development!