UN Flunks Economics Again

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Well, all I can tell you is that CanCon legislation makes no mention of keeping American media out; it treats all foreign media as equal...

Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage for eight years from the late nineties until 2003) laughed about the vehement U.S. opposition. "It's ironic, because if it wasn't for the U.S., we never would have had the instrument in the first place," Copps told The Tyee.

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2005/10/28/CanadaUNVictory/

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which makes me curious on what basis Spiffor claims that there is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out.

What KH said.

The concern has been raised because the culture of one country (which happens to be the US at this juncture) is flooding the others.

OTOH, The law, at least in Canada and in France, do not specifically discriminate against US cultural products more than other foreign products.

[Aphex_Twin2]

The US does not seem particularly interested in what the world has to say (read world=world's political nomenclature). I don't know why they're agreeing to this: it hurts their own industry; or are they sticking it the Hollywood lefties?

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin2
The US does not seem particularly interested in what the world has to say (read world=world's political nomenclature). I don't know why they're agreeing to this: it hurts their own industry; or are they sticking it the Hollywood lefties?

Hello, Richard

[Imran Siddiqui]

OTOH, The law, at least in Canada and in France, do not specifically discriminate against US cultural products more than other foreign product

Spiffor, who do you think it was passed to deal with? I mean it is like a Christian fundy trying to pass an anti-sodomy law and saying it applies to straights and gays equally, but we all know it was passed to deal with homosexuals.

[Aphex_Twin2]

Originally posted by nostromo Hello, Richard

Why, hello

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Spiffor, who do you think it was passed to deal with? I mean it is like a Christian fundy trying to pass an anti-sodomy law and saying it applies to straights and gays equally, but we all know it was passed to deal with homosexuals.

Duh. I've just said the concern came from the fact that there is a cultural hegemon, the US. If the cultures hadn't been inundated (by you guys), nobody would have raised the stink.

However, the law does not discriminate on which foreign origin the cultural product comes from (save for the music quotas, which do a positive discrimination for European products - what with us being in the EU and all that)

For example, Martini is currently running an ad campaign in Paris' subway. One of these ads features an Italian-speaking phrase ("Ultima Colezzione"). This phrase, as per the language laws, must be translated on the ad. This is exactly the same treatment as when a company advertises with English phrases (a recent example, still in the Paris' subway, is the Aisne tourism board, with phrases such as "Peace Aisne Love", "Aisne Joy" etc., that make puns in English).

What I mean is that the whole matter isn't motivated purely by a rabid anti-americanism, but for a genuine concern for a culture that is deemed to be threatened. If another country than the US had been the cultural hegemon, we would have raised the stink all the same (for example, there was quite a wave of hostility toward Japanese culture when Anime became big in the 80's - it abated when we understood that anime would mostly fill a niche market).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've just said the concern came from the fact that there is a cultural hegemon, the US. If the cultures hadn't been inundated (by you guys), nobody would have raised the stink.

So the US is singled out here... thanks . That's all we were asking you admit.

[Aphex_Twin2]

I've just said the concern came from the fact that there is a cultural hegemon, the US. If the cultures hadn't been inundated (by you guys), nobody would have raised the stink.

Hegemonic, domineering, preeminent, but the fact of the matter is that individual buyers make choices and not nations. If you support this you are simply saying to 'the people' that they are ignorant and/or stupid and the state (or you) should make choices for them. What do you think gives you that right?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So the US is singled out here... thanks . That's all we were asking you admit.

Not in the actual law. Which is why the question of Adam Smith (about whether Peter Jackson would financially suffer depending on whether his movie is deemed American or NZian) is irrelevant. In France, the actual law doesn't regard whether you're American or NZian when it discriminates against you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not in the actual law.

In de facto, yes it is being singled out.

Once again, my sodomy example. In the actual law homosexuals aren't being targeted.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not in the actual law.

Once again, my sodomy example. In the actual law homosexuals aren't being targeted.

If we only enforce the law against the Yanks, please tell me why Martini had to translate its Italian-speaking ads

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which country do you think that affects the most?

So?

That doesn't mean you're being singled out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If we only enforce the law against the Yanks, please tell me why Martini had to translate its Italian-speaking ads

If a few straight people are prosecuted for sodomy, does that mean the law wasn't meant to target homosexuals?

[notyoueither]

This might be a news flash for you, but Canadian broadcasting policy began when it wasn't just the Yanks to be concerned with, but the Brits as well.