Parks Canada Denies Film Permit

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SebC

A narrow definition of freedom of speech is the one where only the government can't restrict expression. Parks Canada is the government.

By law or by sanction, Parks Canada has a very specific role that includes promoting Aboriginal heritage.

There is no law stopping this film from getting made in Canada, nor has their been a sanction against it. It's simply been deemed contradictory to the purpose of Parks Canada, so they need to shift locations. Is there some specific reason they can't film in Canmore and Kananaskis?

Freedom of expression is not absolute in Canada. There are plenty of exceptions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So yeah, aboriginal characters can only be heroes, never villains. That's not paternalistic at all.

Somebody better tell Denzel Washington he was putting black Americans in a bad light with his roles in Training Day and American Gangster.

There is actually an Association tasked with repairing the public image of Italian Americans as not all Gangsters and thugs.

Although...on the cover of their magazine is a stereotypical Italian man holding a slice of pizza so they may not be all that great as far as organizations go.

http://www.niaf.org/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Freedom of expression is not absolute in Canada. There are plenty of exceptions.

Yes, there are, but when the government is imposing a limitation on 2(b) expression it must pass s.1 muster. There are policy grounds for those exceptions that have to be justified within the framework the SCC set out twenty years ago. That is how this works, legally. Your argument - "there is no law preventing this film from being made in Canada" - would be laughed out of Court.

[Kjesse]

nm

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, there are, but when the government is imposing a limitation on 2(b) expression it must pass s.1 muster. There are policy grounds for those exceptions that have to be justified within the framework the SCC set out twenty years ago. That is how this works, legally. Your argument - "there is no law preventing this film from being made in Canada" - would be laughed out of Court.

Oh, would it? Well let me know when someone takes this to court, then. Make sure I'm there, so I can bask in the laughter of my intellectual superiors.

For now, though, you'll have explain why Parks Canada needs to grant permission to film to every film that applies, even if an element of production is clearly at odds with the mission statement of Parks Canada. Pretty sure that's why permission needs to be asked in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, so be it.

But framing this as a freedom of speech issue? I don't think it's accurate, and I wonder if people would care if not for the perceived aboriginal justice issue to it. my guess? No. People make a stink when it's "PC RUN AMOK!" but I don't see a lot of freedom of speech arguments in the thread about the couple who killed their kid because of voodoo science.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Because there's no expression in that case to infringe. The parents' actions aren't a matter of messaging. The closest it would come would be to a freedom of religion case, as some parents deny medical care to kids for batcrap crazy religious reasons, but even that doesn't apply in that particular instance as there was no religion involved. If there were, laws prohibiting that sort of negligence are always going to be saved under section 1, because they involve preventing kids from dying. That's called a "pressing and substantial objective". Seriously, trying to draw a parallel between that scenario and this one just demonstrates how confused you are on this topic.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously, trying to draw a parallel between that scenario and this one just demonstrates how confused you are on this topic.

"Laughed out of court" and "confused"

God you're arrogant. Have at it. If you can't answer the question as to what the purpose of Parks Canada being able to grant permission for use of its protected lands, other than to adhere to the criteria set out in it's charter, then don't answer it. If you think some part of the charter matters and others don't, explain why.

But this isn't a freedom of speech issue, as much as you want it to be. And if you really want it to be then bring it to court. You're a lawyer. Rally the troops. Test your theory and let a judge decide if you're correct.

Otherwise, it looks to me like it falls right in line with the role of Parks Canada.

[SebC]

Are you mixing up the Parks Canada charter with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? They are not at all equivalent.

[Buff]

Tom Jackson is claiming that Parks Canada didn't even read the script.

He also is quoted saying that he isn't speaking for all First Nations people, but he doesn't think the movie is harmful to First Nations people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But this isn't a freedom of speech issue, as much as you want it to be. And if you really want it to be then bring it to court. You're a lawyer.

This is exactly the point. You have no background in this. I actually have a body of knowledge as to how constitutional law and charter challenges work, and you've decided you're right and you know better on this point than I do? Please, ask yourself, what are the odds of that? And I'm the one being arrogant here? Seriously, I look back on those posts where I was really just trying to make it as clear as possible that you're simply wrong on this, and sure, maybe I could have worded them more diplomatically. Sorry about that. You know I don't think you're dumb. But just trust me on this one.

And of course I'm not taking it to Court unless the film company hires me to, and that seems pretty unlikely.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

God you're arrogant. Have at it. If you can't answer the question as to what the purpose of Parks Canada being able to grant permission for use of its protected lands, other than to adhere to the criteria set out in it's charter, then don't answer it. If you think some part of the charter matters and others don't, explain why.

I didn't answer because SebC's question is relevant here... are you conflating the constitution of Canada with a Parks policy document? The Parks charter is just a statement of principle. It has no binding authority as far as I'm aware. The purpose of Parks Canada being able to grant permission for use of Park land is a matter of delegation of Ministerial authority from the Minister of the Environment. That Minister has only the powers granted to the office under statute. So there may or may not be a law or regulation stating what the permitted commercial uses of the park are, and the power to ensure that those are complied with in the process of granting or denying applications for use of Park resources would be delegated to someone. It's administrative law, it gets technical - if this actually did go to Court, it would likely be challenged on multiple grounds. In the event that discretionary application of authority conflicts with the exercise of a Charter right, the legislation is often read down so as to exclude the application of that authority in the context.

[OMG!WTF!]

At first it just seemed fairly insulting. You poor dears...we're not going to let you film your own movie here cause you'll look bad. It's for your own good.

Now I think it's just straight up ignorant. We're not going to let you film your own movie here because it might come back to bite us in the ass someday. You know how you people get.

And they said that is very much a concern of the national parks. They said that there were a number of negotiations in process with Treaty 7 (First Nations) … regarding land claims and they didn’t want to do anything that would eventually offend the First Nations people and affect their position at the bargaining table.”

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's... also fairly insulting. But also, you'd think if the negotiations were in process they could bring it up and get some feedback from at least some of the people they think it could offend.

[Fuzz]

They should have just denied the permit based on bad taste. Liam Nieson? Ugh. They say they get way more applications than they can give out permits for every year. I'm sure other movies are more deserving than this one. Lets be honest here, they aren't making another Ben Hurr. This is going to be generic schlock.

[Wormius]

That's seemed pretty evasive from CHL.

Anyway, without any deep research, I would hope thy Parks Canada would prefer to highlight the majestic Rocky Mountains in some other form than what will be a straight-to-Walmart discount bin film. I am sure there are some movies that filmed there that didn't live up to expectations, but maybe that is something they want to correct.

Purely speculative, but it might be possible that there are a lot of film makers wishing to use the parks, and this is simply Parks Canada eliminating some of the low quality productions. I mean, seriously, this is not going to be some Oscar contender we are talking about here.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That's seemed pretty evasive from CHL.

Anyway, without any deep research, I would hope thy Parks Canada would prefer to highlight the majestic Rocky Mountains in some other form than what will be a straight-to-Walmart discount bin film. I am sure there are some movies that filmed there that didn't live up to expectations, but maybe that is something they want to correct.

Purely speculative, but it might be possible that there are a lot of film makers wishing to use the parks, and this is simply Parks Canada eliminating some of the low quality productions. I mean, seriously, this is not going to be some Oscar contender we are talking about here.

I dont know...maybe they think Liam Neeson is due. Leo has his.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They should have just denied the permit based on bad taste. Liam Nieson? Ugh. They say they get way more applications than they can give out permits for every year. I'm sure other movies are more deserving than this one. Lets be honest here, they aren't making another Ben Hurr. This is going to be generic schlock.

So this movie would actually be good and make decent money then? 2016 Ben-Hur

[Fuzz]

Obviously I meant the original. Remakes don't count as real movies.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know...maybe they think Liam Neeson is due. Leo has his.

He was robbed for "Schindler's List", I will give him that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That's seemed pretty evasive from CHL.

Anyway, without any deep research, I would hope thy Parks Canada would prefer to highlight the majestic Rocky Mountains in some other form than what will be a straight-to-Walmart discount bin film. I am sure there are some movies that filmed there that didn't live up to expectations, but maybe that is something they want to correct.

Purely speculative, but it might be possible that there are a lot of film makers wishing to use the parks, and this is simply Parks Canada eliminating some of the low quality productions. I mean, seriously, this is not going to be some Oscar contender we are talking about here.

That's just it, right?

Parks Canada can't possibly say yes to every film, and I doubt they care enough about content to read a whole script, so I assume the answering of some simple questions is enough to let the cream rise to the top.

Would people be happy if they let every single film crew who wasn't planning on cutting down trees into a National Park to film? Think Banff is busy now? How about if 3 different productions shut parts of it down for filming? Seems pretty straightforward to say "Oh, a B movie with Liam Neeson that has Aboriginal badguys? ... sounds bad, pass."

Corsi can wrongly argue FoE until he's blue in the face, but until he understands the purpose of Parks Canada and under what conditions permits are granted, he'll still be "confused." Maybe someone disagrees with the whole process and believes it shouldn't depend on permits. I personally think the work Parks Canada does is worthwhile.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Okay, now you're just trolling. You have no basis for claiming that I'm wrong about anything, but are doing it anyway out of ego and I guess for amusement? You're - it's happened. You're him. You're Trump!

Frankly, if they want to let every single film crew that won't do any lasting damage to the park or interfere with wildlife or interfere with the Public's access to it, and they're charging them a bunch of money that subsidizes the park for my use and allows them to maintain it and continue to provide it to Canadians and, yknow, repair the roads... yeah, go nuts. Let 'em film. If it's a good movie, more the better, but these guys's money is as good as anyone else's.