What a ridiculous idea lets analyse this lets take
the Gays at the last Census there was just 1.5% of the population who were Gay
does that mean each film etc must have 1.5 Gays? What is an ethnic
minority? I am half german and 1/2 english do I qualify as an Ethnic minority?
Surely true diversity is having the best person for the Job no what they are or
Who they are
Ed
Vaizey, the Conservative Minister for Culture, has praised the British Film
Institute (BFI) for demanding ethnic minority, women and gay quotas on the
films they finance. BFI is the largest funder of films in the UK, and from
September they will no longer finance projects that do not fill diversity
quotas, according to the Daily
Telegraph.
The new "three ticks" scheme means
that every film will have to fulfil two of the following requirements:
on-screen diversity; off-screen diversity and "creating opportunities and
social mobility". It is intended to ensure that more diverse actors and
projects end up getting funded.
On screen, at least one of the leading actors
must portray a character that is "positively reflecting diversity".
The film itself is more likely to receive funding if it "explicitly and
predominantly explores issues of identity relating to ethnicity or national
origins, a specific focus on women, people with disabilities, sexual identity,
age and people from a socially disadvantaged background".
The BFI is effectively handing out government
money as it allocates £27m a year raised through the National Lottery. It
supports around thirty projects a year and these have included The King's
Speech and Philomena. It is chaired by Labour supporting former television
executive Greg Dyke.
They hope to encourage more films like the
recent film "Pride" which is about left-wing gay activists backing
the National Union of Mineworkers during their battle with Margaret Thatcher.
They also funded a film about women fighting for the right to vote called
"Suffragette", it did not include reference to the fact the leader of
the suffragettes was a Conservative.
But Mr Vaizey still praised the initiative as
helping to "raise the bar". He went on to say that he hoped other
television and film outlets would follow the BFI's example.
Viazey is best known for being a member of the Notting Hill set,
a group of ambitious Conservatives that includes David Cameron. They are often
perceived as being out of touch with the views of ordinary Tory voters.
As reported on Breitbart London in May, one of the
Notting Hill set, Nick Boles was asked to apologise because his unpopular
policies were putting Tory seats at risk in the 2015 General Election. He did
not choose to apologise or back down.
I
copied the following
This is horrifying. A charitable foundation established to
promote the art of the motion picture - ALL motion pictures, not ones which
appeal to one or another political perspective - now turns its funding aimed at
encouraging creativity and originality into a system of politically-motivated
patronage. I'm sure nobody here is ignorant of how worthless and demeaning
'diversity quotas' are so I need not go into that aspect of it, but what really
takes my breath away is how blatantly partisan and anti-creative the whole
business is. What's next, a scheme for struggling artists which fails to pay
out if they don't paint a portrait of a member of an ethnic minority every
month? One by one, charities are drifting away from any semblance of neutrality
and purpose and becoming appendages of politics, staffed by activists and
apparatchiks. (c.f. the RSPCA)
No mention
of actual quality of script/talent or overall artistic merit in these
multi-culti masterpieces I notice: hopefully that should ensure that the reels
of PC garbage this scheme will fund will go safely unwatched.
This is social engineering at its most blatant across
state institutions such as the BFI and BBC (I note that the BFI is listed as a
CHARITY!)
Common
Purpose rules the roost as they indoctrinate us into believing that we are a
more diluted nation than we actually are, softening the nation up further into
allowing even more immigration into this country. Well, I for one, have had
enough. WHO IS IT that pays the TV license each year? Whose tax-payer's money
goes into funding the BFI? It's the Anglo-Saxon MAJORITY that pays through the
nose for ever-diminishing quality of film and TV programmes. Diversity! My
foot!
What if you are making a historical film in which
there are no ethnic minority characters - are you compelled to introduce them -
to alter history to get funding?
What happens when the ethnic characters that are
present are not heroes? Do we sanitise the Mugabes of the world - or just not
cover them because they are not a 'positive' reflection of diversity and that
means no funding? Is this in effect a subtle requirement to not only include
minorities but to ensure their presentation is idealised?
When
you have hit your quota of 'positive' gay, transgender, women, and ethnic
minority characters, what will remain for other actors? Will it be white men of
British descent who routinely get the supporting roles,.bit parts and, if
they're lucky, the big villain? Will they effectively be facing racist
discrimination?
