It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada Censors Artists, Silences Scientists (But Good With Crack ’Ho Toronto Mayor)

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

surely censorship would only apply, if they were preventing her from writing what she does, and having seen some of the stuff that she has translated, i would probably have got fired from my job as well.
They havent stopped her from doing anything other than work for them.




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
....If a private entity they can do as they choose.


The TSO gets our taxes through the following agencies:


The Toronto Symphony Orchestra would like to thank the following for their financial support:

The Canada Council for the Arts
The Ontario Arts Council
The Ontario Trillium Foundation
The Ontario Arts Foundation
The City of Toronto


Moreover, the TSO is licensed as a tax-exempt charity in Canada, which should ensure that the organization be held to the highest standards of respect for human rights and freedoms.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
Moreover, the TSO is licensed as a tax-exempt charity in Canada, which should ensure that the organization be held to the highest standards of respect for human rights and freedoms.

Getting your contract terminated for inflammatory statements doesn't infringe on any rights though...so, I fail to see how they are not upholding the standards.

When the government stops her from communicating her opinion at all...then you may have a rights infringement case.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: WilsonWilson

If Lisitsa's ability to work is conditional on her 'towing the party line' - that's censorship. Just like when Bell's CEO tried to force staff to censor news coverage. Employers have a right to demand "professional demeanor" from staff, and certainly lawful conduct - but not 'pre-approved' political views.

More to the point, our tax dollars support the TSO - and we have a responsibility to demand that employees and artists rights and freedoms be respected. In addition, our nation's laws allow the TSO tax-exempt charitable status - and if the TSO is not willing to respect their employees' and artists' rights and freedoms to express their own political views, then we should rescind their charitable status.

As it happens, the TSO tried to cancel Lisitsa's contract, but couldn't do it legally. So we are paying, with our tax dollars, for her NOT to play at her scheduled concerts with the TSO. Point being, the TSO does NOT have the law on its side.

We still have the right to our political views, and to dissent - and we need to protect those rights for everyone.












edit on 10/4/15 by soficrow because: sp

edit on 10/4/15 by soficrow because: sp



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: soficrow
Moreover, the TSO is licensed as a tax-exempt charity in Canada, which should ensure that the organization be held to the highest standards of respect for human rights and freedoms.

Getting your contract terminated for inflammatory statements doesn't infringe on any rights though...so, I fail to see how they are not upholding the standards.

When the government stops her from communicating her opinion at all...then you may have a rights infringement case.


The TSO claimed Lisitsa was "inciting hatred" and tried to cancel Lisitsa's contract, but couldn't do it legally. So we are paying, with our tax dollars, for her NOT to play out her legally-upheld contract with the TSO. The TSO does NOT have the law on its side.

And the TSO is censoring an artist - quite a slippery slope for an artistic organization.







posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow
I dont agree with you, if your employee is expressing offenisve opnions which bring your organisation into disrepute, you think they should be forced to keep that person there, no matter what negative effect it has on them?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
The TSO claimed Lisitsa was "inciting hatred" and tried to cancel Lisitsa's contract, but couldn't do it legally. So we are paying, with our tax dollars, for her NOT to play out her legally-upheld contract with the TSO. The TSO does NOT have the law on its side.

And the TSO is censoring an artist - quite a slippery slope for an artistic organization.

That is incorrect.

TSO received complaints from patrons, they did not make any claims themselves. Here is an article where Lisitsa backs that up: Pianist says TSO donor threatened to cut funds if she performs.

Quite frankly, slippery slope or not (G&M has an good article on this aspect, btw: Why the TSO set a terrible precedent by barring pianist Valentina Lisitsa), business' that rely on independent patronage do have to respond to the complaints from said patronage. That's not to say that TSO handled it the best possible way, just that they did have to do something.
edit on 10-4-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: soficrow
I dont agree with you, if your employee is expressing offenisve opnions which bring your organisation into disrepute, you think they should be forced to keep that person there, no matter what negative effect it has on them?


What constitutes an "offensive opinion"? Who decides?

How do you determine "disrepute," and distinguish it from simple disagreement? Who makes the determination? By what standards - economic, social or political? Is it a matter of majority versus minority? Or is it legal, and committed to equality?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: soficrow
The TSO claimed Lisitsa was "inciting hatred" and tried to cancel Lisitsa's contract, but couldn't do it legally. So we are paying, with our tax dollars, for her NOT to play out her legally-upheld contract with the TSO. The TSO does NOT have the law on its side.

And the TSO is censoring an artist - quite a slippery slope for an artistic organization.

That is incorrect.

TSO received complaints from patrons, they did not make any claims themselves. Here is an article where Lisitsa backs that up: Pianist says TSO donor threatened to cut funds if she performs.

Quite frankly, slippery slope or not (G&M has an good article on this aspect, btw: Why the TSO set a terrible precedent by barring pianist Valentina Lisitsa), business' that rely on independent patronage do have to respond to the complaints from said patronage. That's not to say that TSO handled it the best possible way, just that they did have to do something.


This is correct: The TSO claimed Lisitsa was "inciting hatred" and tried to cancel Lisitsa's contract, but couldn't do it legally. The TSO does NOT have the law on its side in this regard. So we are paying, with our tax dollars, for her NOT to play out her legally-upheld contract with the TSO. In consequence, the TSO is honouring its affiliation with a single private donor over its debt to all Canadians. [No doubt some individual patrons complained - such occurrences are common in the entertainment industry. Note that there is a difference between a patron and a donor - and the link you provide refers to a donor.] But in point of fact, I too am speaking as a donor. Given that my tax dollars support the TSO, I have a right to that appellation, and to voice my opinions and preferences, and to complain.

Most importantly, if the TSO sees itself more as a "business" and a part of the entertainment industry than an artistic organization, and seeks to exercise its corporate right to pursue profit over respecting individual artist's human rights, then the TSO should NOT receive government funding, and should NOT benefit from charitable status. That would be playing both ends against the middle. And it's just wrong.






ED. to add PS.
EXCELLENT article from the Globe btw.



edit on 10/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow
Yup, you do have the right to complain. And the TSO has the right to act on or ignore the complaint...just like what happened with the unnamed donor.

No, the government does not have the right to dictate the minutiae of running the TSO. It is not a mandated and funded program. The TSO asked departments to donate, and they chose to donate. They were free to choose not to donate.

They are very much a charity. And to diminish that is an insult to the TSO, which provides a host of youth music programs...with those donated dollars you are trying to claim as profits.

The only thing "wrong" with this situation, is all the "internet warriors" trying to turn this into some ridiculously misguided "rights" campaign.

So eager to clamor for Lasitsa's rights...and so eager to tromp all over the TSO's rights. If WE have rights...we ALL have those rights.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: peck420

...so eager to tromp all over the TSO's rights. If WE have rights...we ALL have those rights.


Your arguments defend the TSO as a "business" and corporate "person" - and don't apply to government funded charitable organizations.

In any event, I do NOT respect corporate "persons" - or their "right" to stomp on individual rights and freedoms in pursuit of profits.

And re: "If WE have rights...we ALL have those rights." Yes, including Lisitsa - and no one should be held hostage and silenced from expressing their opinions. Including Lisitsa.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Well, well. Rex Murphy has something to say about it too. Here is his point of view:




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AdamuBureido

Sir you are poorly informed on this issue. She was outright lying. Even if using a false name or not and hiding behind anonymity. The chance that her identity could get out is evident in that it did. The business she is an employee of has every right to distance themselves form a possible liability that could cost them money. She also outright lied further compounding the issue and her liability.

She is not an employee of the government where freedom of speech applies, She is an employee of a private business that has every right to cut her for holding political views, or even views they simply dont like.

The fact that you dont know this only proves that you do not know what censorship even is legally or if her ART was silenced, which it was not, or if she was.

being that you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue at hand it is recommendable that you take a back seat and learn. I say this since you are grossly uninformed and as such are in a position to learn further rather than teaching others how truly misinformed you truly are.

You would only be spreading your ignorance on the issue. That is not helpful. SO please, sit, read a little and learn. You need to get the facts before you offer corrections to anyone.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: aboutface
Well, well. Rex Murphy has something to say about it too. Here is his point of view:




Brilliant. On point. Totally valid.




Thank you.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Here's the kind of stuff Toronto is missing out on. Listen and tell me how this music makes a person's political views relative to the privilege and joy of hearing her play. This was an impromptu performance while waiting for a London train.




posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: aboutface

Great stuff. Thanks!




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join