If you get in the game of giving money for the production of films you inevitably have this problem unless you decide to fund all films.

What I found interesting was this:

Canadian Heritage officials confirmed yesterday they will be “expanding slightly” the criteria used for denying tax credits to include grounds such as gratuitous violence, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.

It would have been nice if the journalist had mentioned what the existing criteria for rejection are. It seems possible that we already have an “Orwellian bureaucracy determining what kind of productions are ‘acceptable’”.

There are lots of films I don’t support. It’s unlikely that I would pay the $15 at a theatre to see Young People Fucking — and no, that’s not because other versions are free on the internet. While I respect and advocate for the film makers right to produce it I don’t think they have a right to state funding in order enable the economics of producing it. Nor do I think that people should be put in a position where they are forced to support something — even symbolically through tax credits — that they hold strong negative beliefs about.

The natural conclusion for me is that the state has no essential interest in funding the film industry in the first place. Simply stop all funding.

“Nor do I think that people should be put in a position where they are forced to support something — even symbolically through tax credits — that they hold strong negative beliefs about.”

Unfortunately that’s sort of what living in a parliamentary democracy means, isn’t it? I’m put in the position of having to support many things, including a war in Afghanistan, that I hold strong negative beliefs about. I’m also in the position of watching my government fail to support many things that I hold strong positive beliefs about.

Canada funds the arts. The idea is ideologically repugnant to those to who believe in minimizing the role of government wherever possible. That’s cool; that’s a perspective on the continuum that needs to be voiced, debated, and…once its impact on the reality of film and television production in Canada is honestly assessed…dismissed. ;)

Certainly decapitation is a relatively economical, efficient and simple solution to the problem of facial acne. It may in some quarters, however, be viewed as excessive.

As Kevin points out we are left to guess as to the extent of the changes to the existing restrictions. This may be a tempest in a teapot.
Artists are always beholden to their patrons unless the artist has independent means. It is not any different just because the patron is the government, unless we expect our tax dollars to be handed over with no strings attached.
In my opinion the government shouldn’t be funding the arts at all outside of specific commissions. Not because I object to my tax dollars being spent on work that I don’t value but because this funding power gives the government control over what is deemed to be art. But then I am just a cretin according to the few artists that I know.