Toronto Star Article: Toronto Court Strikes Down Ontario Prostitution Law.
Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules
Terri-Jean Bedford, seen here at a news conference on Sept. 28, 2010, challenged Canada’s prostituion laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
RICK MADONIK/TORONTO STAR
Related
A Toronto judge has struck down Canada’s prostitution laws, effectively decriminalizing activities associated with the world’s oldest trade.
“These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Justice Susan Himel of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice said in Tuesday’s landmark decision.
The long-awaited judgment had been on reserve for nearly a year.
Himel said that while she has concluded the laws amount to a serious violation of the Charter, she has imposed a 30-day “stay” on her decision to give lawyers for the federal and provincial governments, as well as the women at the centre of the case, an opportunity to make fuller submissions on whether her decision to invalidate the laws should be placed on hold for an even longer period of time.
Rona Ambrose, minister for status of women, said the Conservative government is “very concerned” about the court decision and is considering an appeal.
Himel said she is not persuaded that striking down the provisions without enacting something in its place would pose a danger to the public, as the federal government argued.
“I am mindful of the fact that legislating in response to prostitution raises difficult, contentious and serious policy issues and that it is for Parliament to fashion corrective legislation,” wrote Himel.
“This is wonderful,” dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford told reporters at the University Ave. courthouse.
Bedford and prostitutes Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch had asked the court to strike down Criminal Code provisions dealing with prostitution, contending the laws violate their constitutional right to security of the person and freedom of expression.
They argued that restrictions on keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade force sex workers onto the street and expose them to violence.
In an affidavit filed with the court, Bedford described scars she has from being hit on the head with a baseball bat by a customer many years ago when she worked as a street prostitute.
The women argued that if the law permitted sex workers to conduct their business indoors, they could employ safety measures such as the use of security guards and monitoring devices.
But when the case was argued in Toronto last fall, lawyers for Ontario’s attorney general suggested there are already measures that women on the streets can employ to ensure safer working conditions, including simply warning each other about customers with a propensity for violence.
Lawyers for the federal government maintained that prostitution is inherently dangerous no matter where it is practised.
The Criminal Code prohibitions, Canada argued, are meant to prevent the commercialization of the sex trade and protect women from exploitation.
In her ruling, Himel said the criminal prohibition on keeping a common bawdy house is overly broad because it has the potential to punish sex workers who do not create the kind of neighbourhood disruption the legislation was designed to prevent.
Most prostitutes in Canada are “independent operators” and the impact of their business, while working discreetly from home, could be different from a large brothel employing many prostitutes, the judge said.
Although prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada, almost everything associated with it is, a situation that was once described as “bizarre” by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court dismissed a slightly narrower challenge to the country’s prostitution laws in 1990.
At that time, the court ruled that restrictions on communicating for the purposes of prostitution was a justifiable limit on free expression because the law was meant to discourage the nuisances of street prostitution and related activities such as drug trafficking.
As part of their case, Bedford, Scott and Lebovitch pointed to a report from a Parliamentary committee that was released in 2006, several years after the Supreme Court had considered the constitutionality of the legislation.
The report concluded that restrictions on communicating had merely shifted prostitution from certain neighbourhoods into others.
About.com Article: Does Demonizing Black Christians Really Help Black Gays Or Just Make Things Worse?
Thoughts on the Bishop Eddie Long Scandal: Is the Black Church More Homophobic Than Others?
It was bound to happen sooner or later. As soon as I heard that Bishop Eddie Long was being sued for allegedly seducing teenage boys from his black megachurch in Atlanta, I wondered how long it would take before someone framed the scandal as a race issue. Well, sociologist Shayne Lee did just that in a piece published Sunday on CNN.com. In it, he insinuates that if the black church didn’t harbor so much homophobia, gays in its midst wouldn’t feel the need to stay closeted and lead secret lives. He writes:
“Many black Christians pride themselves on a plain reading of Scripture, making it virtually impossible to foster an inclusive embrace or acceptance of homosexuality. As long as African-American Christians adhere to biblical mandates as authoritative prescriptions from God, they won’t be easily dissuaded from rejecting same-sex lifestyles as viable alternatives to heterosexual norms.”
To back up his point, Lee cites Pew Research Center data indicating that blacks are more religious than other racial groups, not to mention the group most likely to consider Scripture the literal translation of God. That may be true, but that doesn’t necessarily make African American Christians more homophobic than other Christians. To imply that it does enters dangerous territory.
For years African Americans–Christian and otherwise–have been portrayed as fiercely homophobic. The term “on the down low” was coined to describe black men who have sex with other men but refuse to call themselves gay because of their extreme discomfort with their sexual orientation. Moreover, when California banned gay marriage in 2008, blacks were held responsible. Media outlets erroneously reported that seven out of 10 black voters backed a gay marriage ban. In actuality, blacks were pretty much split on the issue, just like other voting blocs were. One group, however, did vote overwhelmingly in favor of a gay marriage ban–white evangelicals.
Make no mistake. Homophobia in the church isn’t a black or white issue. Both black Christians and white Christians read the same Bible, so why paint the former as extreme homophobes and the latter as tolerant when anyone who attends a Bible-based church is likely to object to homosexuality? To pin this problem on black Christians is to engage in racial scapegoating and to deny the fact that the culture at large is heterosexist. Yet, writers such as Lee and Anthea Butler at RD Magazine seem bent on turning the Long scandal into an indictment of the black church. Butler writes:
“The Eddie Long crisis is not just a crisis for himself, the accusers, Long’s family and the church; it’s a clarion call to African-American churches to cease and desist with the homophobia…”
But this is a shortsighted view. The Long controversy isn’t just about whether the pastor is a homosexual whose religious beliefs forced him into the closet. It’s about an alleged abuse of power. The young men suing Long claim that he used his power and influence as the head of a megachurch to seduce them after they came to him for help. In this way, the scandal has less to do with homophobia and more to do with lack of character. If the allegations against Long are true, it means that the pastor is a predator–gay or straight.
But let’s stick with this idea that virulent homophobia in the black church drove Long to this behavior. If black homophobia is to blame, does it make sense that Long’s flock is now rallying to his side? You’d think that extreme Christian homophobes would abandon a pastor facing such allegations. Long’s followers, in contrast, are saying that they will stand by him whether he’s guilty or innocent. Compare this to the case of Ted Haggard, a white Colorado preacher involved in a gay sex scandal in 2006. After Haggard’s liaisons with a male prostitute became public, Haggard was driven out of his predominantly white megachurch. So, how exactly is homophobia in the church a black thing?
I Am Back In Toronto Making Choices & Taking My Opportunities.
Last weekend, I made the right choice to get outside my comfort zone and attend the black gay men’s retreat outside of Toronto.
Although some people may think of me as some kind of black gay warrior, the truth is, sometimes I get lonely. Sometimes I have feelings of doubt and I question myself. I feel that Toronto’s gay community is like a dysfunctional family. I learned it is okay to say I want support, I want to connect with people, I want to make new friends. Sometimes I think I can solve everything on my own but that is not necessarily true. I am a human being and social isolation will solve nothing and just create more feelings of loneliness and despair.
I am cognizant that, it is deleterious to isolate myself. I have a predilection to having very good ideas but I panic and chicken out! I really happy that I took my opportunity that was available and challenged myself. It can be emotionally draining to introduce myself to new people but it is also very rewarding experience as well.
I am proud of myself that I made the right decision to attend the retreat. I must admit, I was a bit apprehensive, I was nervous, anxious, I had doubts that flooded my mind. I only knew a few people prior to attending the retreat. However, I learned a lot that is very empowering being around people are in a similar circumstances such as myself. Although Canada is considered a progressive nation in relation to LGBT rights, the truth is, there is still stigma against gay and lesbian people.
Race is a social construction, we all know this and black feminist bell hooks reminds us that “race” still matters. In Toronto, the LGBT community is white dominated and I am not suggesting that there are not some decent white LGBT people out there because there are some. I am simply arguing that, when you have multiple layers of identities it is sometimes important to gain strength, courage, from being around your own kind. Last weekend, it was nice talking and getting to know black people who are LGBT. In African and Caribbean communities in Toronto, being gay and lesbian is still socially taboo.
The black Toronto newspaper Share Magazine does not discuss “homosexuality” at all. The other black Canadian newspapers such as Pride, Caribbean Camera, there is no discourse with homosexuality. The black Toronto media treat black gays and lesbians as though we are invisible and don’t exist. I guess the attitude is, don’t write about black queers and we will just remain quiet? The message the Caribbean media are sending is, homosexuality does not exist in our community. Of course, we all know this is ludicrous and false. Last weekend, I saw with my own damn eyes a plethora of black gay men that are intelligent, handsome, educated, smart, and talented. My birthday present to myself was getting outside, beyond my own fears, doubts, taking a chance and realizing I am not alone.
I’m Going Away To A Gay Black Men’s Retreat For The Weekend!
My birthday is September 26th which is a Sunday. I am going away this weekend to a gay black men’s retreat. I won’t be blogging this weekend. I am happy that I am leaving the city for a bit. I am kind of sick of Toronto right now.
CNN Article: Three Young Men Say An Atlanta Pastor Forced Them To Engage In Homosexual Sex!!!
Atlanta pastor cancels interview about sex scandal
- NEW: Lawyers will speak at radio interview instead of Eddie Long
- Another lawsuit is filed against pastor Long
- Long’s spokesman says the lawsuits are “without merit”
- The spokesman says Long’s church members have rallied around him
Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) — Atlanta-based megachurch pastor Eddie Long, accused of coercing young men into sexual relationships, will not be interviewed on a radio show planned for Thursday.
Long was scheduled to address the civil lawsuits filed against him on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show.” Instead, his lawyers will speak, Long’s lawyer told Roland Martin, a syndicated columnist and CNN political analyst.
Martin was scheduled to conduct the interview because he is substituting for Joyner at the radio show.
Long had also scheduled a news conference for Thursday. It is unclear whether this decision will affect the news conference.
A third lawsuit against Long was filed Wednesday, and it prompted Long to decline to do the radio interview, the lawyers said.
The new lawsuit was filed in DeKalb County, Georgia, State Court. It was brought on behalf of Jamal Parris, now 23, who was a teenager at the time he joined Long’s church.
The suit, which claims Long encouraged Parris to call him “Daddy,” also names the church and a youth academy as defendants.
Allegations that Long coerced young male church members and employees into sex are “a case of retaliation and a shakedown for money by men with some serious credibility issues,” Art Franklin, the pastor’s spokesman, said Wednesday.
Long “categorically and adamantly denies these allegations,” Franklin said. “There’s been a lot of chatter since yesterday, but these complaints that have been filed are definitely without merit.”
Martin had said on Twitter that he would talk with Long at 7:15 a.m. ET Thursday on the syndicated radio program.
But late Wednesday night, Martin tweeted “The lawyers have made the decision that due to the third lawsuit that Bishop not to do interviews tomorrow.”
The new lawsuit gives intimate details about Parris and his alleged relationship with Long.
Parris joined New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in 2001, when he was 14. Long counseled Parris when the latter talked about his strained relationship with his father and got him a job as a summer camp counselor at New Birth, the suit states.
The suit, also filed by attorney B.J. Bernstein, claims Long engaged in sexual acts with Parris. The young man eventually became a church employee and served as personal assistant to Long and traveled with him, the suit says. The pastor continued to engage in sexual activity with Parris and gave him money, trips and gifts, the suit says.
It says Parris left the church in late 2009, “disillusioned, confused and angry about his relationship with Defendant Long.” The bishop manipulated and deceived Parris into thinking that the acts were a “healthy component of his spiritual life,” the suit states.
The civil action filed Wednesday contends that Long’s LongFellows Youth Academy and New Birth knew or should have known of Long’s behavior and that they failed to warn Parris, who lives in Colorado, and his family, thereby allowing the minister to coerce and induce Parris into engaging in sexual relationships with him.
The lawsuits describe LongFellows as an offshoot of New Birth. According to its website, the group’s vision is to “love, live and lead. We successfully meet the demanding needs of young men through a vigorous Rites of Passage Curriculum that helps young men realize their hidden potential and discover their masculine heart.”
Parris also claims that the institutions were negligent in retaining the pastor.
Lawsuits filed Tuesday in DeKalb County by two men allege that Long used his position as a spiritual authority and bishop to coerce young male members and employees of his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church into sex. CNN was the first to report on the lawsuits.
“Defendant Long has a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as Bishop over them to ultimately bring them to a point of engaging in a sexual relationship,” the suits allege.
Long is considered one of the nation’s top African-American preachers. His church has more 25,000 members, according to the suit, and was the site of Coretta Scott King’s 2006 funeral, attended by then-President George W. Bush and three former presidents. King was the widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
One of the men, Anthony Flagg, 21, alleges in his suit that Long took him on overnight trips to a half-dozen American cities in recent years.
“Long shared a bedroom and engaged in intimate sexual contact with plaintiff Flagg including kissing, massaging, masturbating of plaintiff Flagg by defendant Long and oral sexual contact,” the suit says.
The other man, Maurice Murray Robinson, 20, claims Long took him to Auckland, New Zealand, in October 2008 for his 19th birthday and engaged in oral sex with him, Robinson’s suit alleges.
“Following the New Zealand trip, defendant Long regularly engaged in sexual touching, and other sexual acts with plaintiff Robinson,” Robinson’s suit alleges.
Bernstein, who represents Parris, Flagg and Robinson, said Wednesday that the youths’ accounts are “really strong.”
She said she has worked with sexual abuse victims and finds the two believable because of “the emotion. The intensity. The very strong description of what sexual acts occurred. … This is not just someone giving a vague thing, ‘Oh, yeah, one time he did this,’ or a couple of times.”
But Franklin told CNN’s”American Morning” on Wednesday that the two men “are not innocent victims” and that they have known “the wrong side of the law” before, including being charged with breaking into Long’s office in June to steal items, such as jewelry, that could be sold for cash.
“Let your viewers be the judge of their actions,” Franklin said.
In June, Robinson was arrested and charged with burglary in connection with a break-in at Long’s office. An iPhone, iPad and other items — more than $1,300 worth — were taken from the office, according to the police report. Bernstein said Wednesday that about $100,000 worth of items were taken, including black diamonds.
–Art Franklin, pastor’s spokesman
On Tuesday, Bernstein said the theft was Robinson’s attempt to retaliate against the pastor. She said that once Robinson began telling others about his experience with Long, “he realized he wasn’t the only one.”
“It made [Robinson] angry,” she said.
She said Wednesday that Robinson’s anger also stemmed from a May incident in which he sought comfort and solace from Long and instead was the target of a sexual advance. That “created a frenzy inside him,” she said.
Franklin told CNN’sJohn Roberts, “This is actually, John, a case of retaliation and a shakedown for money by men with some serious credibility issues trying to mount their own defense. This is something that went from 48 hours of contact with the attorney flinging outrageous demands to this dog-and-pony show we are seeing.”
Asked about the relationship between Long and the young men, Franklin said that both were part of the LongFellows program at the church.
Franklin said that both Robinson and Flagg were among many young people employed by the church. Asked whether they ever traveled with Long, he said that a number of people travel with him.
On whether the two youths ever shared a room with Long, Franklin said, “That is one of the allegations that we learned through the media that’s being made by the attorneys and something our defense team will have to respond to.
“We have not even seen the lawsuit ourselves,” he said. “That’s something our attorneys will have to go through.”
On the reaction from Long’s congregation, Franklin said, “Last night, it was a very spirit-filled worship service from a church family that loves its spiritual leader very much.” He said Long is drawing strength from his family, the New Birth family and other supporters.
“Before rushing to any judgment on Bishop Long and this court of public opinion taking place right now, I really do hope you will look at these guys that are throwing the mud and consider the source,” he said.
Asked how she can prove that sexual contact took place, Bernstein said, “I am ready to put them under oath. Bishop Long can spend money on the best attorneys in this world, and they can question those young men, and then I’ll get to question the bishop, and then we’ll really see what’s going on.”
She said she will subpoena records of an “excessive number of phone calls” between Long and the young men, along with e-mails, credit card receipts and other items. Bernstein said she had alerted federal authorities about the situation.
Long frequently denounces homosexual behavior. A 2007 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s magazine called him “one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement.”
Video: Minister accused of coercion
Video: Megachurch pastor under fire
Video: Appeal of millionaire ministers
Both plaintiffs said the pastor, his church and church employees gave them cash and lavish gifts that ranged from cars to college tuition.
The lawsuits also said that Long framed the sexual relationships as religious in nature.
“They were groomed for it, from 14 to 17 years old,” Bernstein said Wednesday. “He gets to know them and gets the trust, and then bit by bit — first it’s a hug. It’s just like any sexual predator. Or we’re sitting watching the football game, and you put your legs up on their lap … One of the boys described going to the gym, ‘Can you massage my neck?’ and then there’s another massage, and it just slowly breaks down. Ask any victim of sexual abuse. It is a progression.”
The suits allege that Long chose the plaintiffs to be his “Spiritual Sons,” a program that allegedly includes other young men from the church.
“Spiritual Sons are taken on public and private jets to U.S. and international destinations, housed in luxury hotels and given access to numerous celebrities including entertainment stars and politicians,” the suit alleges.
Flagg moved into a home owned by another New Birth pastor when he was a high school junior, according to the suit, where Long would sometimes share a bed with him. Flagg eventually was put on the church’s payroll, his suit alleges, with Long personally delivering his checks.
Flagg’s suit says that Long presided over a spiritual “covenant” ceremony between the two of them.
“It was essentially a marriage ceremony, with candles, exchange of jewelry and biblical quotes,” Bernstein said Tuesday. “The bishop [told] him ‘I will always have your back, and you will always have mine.’ ”
The families of both young men moved to Georgia in order to join Long’s church, she said Wednesday.
Robinson’s suit alleges that “Defendant Long would use Holy Scripture to discuss and justify the intimate relationship between himself and Plaintiff Robinson.”
The lawsuits are seeking unspecified amounts of punitive damages from Long on various counts, ranging from negligence to breach of fiduciary duty.
Bernstein said she warned the young men they would be “crucified” for making the allegations, “and they just said, ‘We have to do it, and we know there are others.’ ”
Colorlines Magazine Slams Elle Magazine For Making The Obese Gabourey Sibide Skin Look Lighter On The Cover!!
Gabourey Sidibe is a (Much Lighter) Elle Cover Girl
by Julianne Hing ShareThis | Print | Comment (17View)
Monday, September 13 2010, 6:14 PM EST Tags: fashion industry, Gabourey Sidibe, media analysis
Gabourey Sidibe has landed her first fashion magazine cover, kind of. The 25-year-old ingenue is the solo cover for the October issue of Elle magazine. Starting next month, you can pick up a copy of Elle with Sidibe flashing her pearly whites and glamming it up for the cameras in an emerald green Tadashi Shoji dress.
Except look closely, and you’ll notice there’s something off in Sidibe’s cover photo. Sidibe’s skin is noticeably lighter than usual. Elle clearly couldn’t handle Sidibe’s real skin color, and traded away her actual color for something dramatically lighter.
It’s a common, tired practice, and the routine is well-practiced: beauty companies and fashion magazines regularly lighten women’s skin (and darken the faces of black men), pissed off consumers shout back, and sometimes an apology is issued. But come the next fall collection or election season, photo retouchers are inevitably back to trying to make women of color more attractive by lightening them, and darkening the skin of men of color to make them seem more dangerous and suspect. Color, still, is everything.
And that’s just one thing Elle got wrong with its Sidibe cover. By cropping Sidibe’s cover photo so close, Elle may have been trying to hide her full-figured body—its own travesty—but they only made her seem bigger. Sidibe doesn’t get the standard female cover photo treatment: three-quarters of the woman’s body centered with strong margins of white space on either side of the woman. She gets a uniquely awkward cropped shot.
And I’ll just say what I know you’re thinking: the weave Elle gave her is not doing Sidibe any favors. It’s the kind of unflattering and embarrassingly obvious weave that a fashion magazine should be ashamed to put on anyone. (And Elle’s done it to Beyonce in the past, too.)
Landing a cover is a big deal for any star, more so for Sidibe, whose skin color and wise-cracking smarts and body type make her something of an obvious outsider in Hollywood. Sidibe’s also been famously snubbed by fashion magazines. She was reportedly passed over by Vogue, because she was too big. And in March, Sidibe was left off a Vanity Fair cover of nine young actresses for the magazine’s “Young Hollywood 2010!” spread. The women who made the cut were, you guessed it, all white.
At the time, Access Hollywood asked her about how it felt to be sidelined in favor of five nearly identical pale white female actresses. Sidibe, with her characteristically tough mettle, shrugged it off:
“Was I satisfied? Yeah, well… I mean, I come from a world where I’m not on covers and I’m not in magazines at all,” Gabourey said. “And so I was happy to be in the magazine.
“At first I thought, ‘Hmm, should I be there?” she continued, about the cover shoot. “Then I very quickly got over it. I think if I were a part of that shoot I would have felt a little left out anyway.”
And judging from October’s Elle, it may have been just as well that Sidibe was left off the Vanity Fair cover. The fashion industry clearly gets flummoxed by any woman whose body and skin color are outside American society’s narrow definitions of beauty. In 2007, Vogue also ran an unflattering photo of Jennifer Hudson when they gave her a cover. It’s illustrative of all the ways that when it comes to full-figured women of color, landing a fashion magazine cover isn’t always a compliment. Too bad for the fashion industry; it pays time and again for its racial faux pas with ridicule from the rest of the world. But unfortunately for us, fashion magazines don’t operate in a vacuum. If only the fashion and beauty industries were not a reflection of our culture and our society, our own ignorance. It’d be so much easier to make fun of.
Choptensils Article: Hollywood Doesn’t Care About Actors Of Colour Despite Proof They Can Make Studios Money.
Of Hollywood and ‘the American People’: How Status Quo is Maintained
by Guest Contributor CVT, originally published at Choptensils
My brother is a screenwriter in LA. Has a couple movies to his credit, and he just got what could be his “big break” as he sits down to write – what should be – a “major summer blockbuster” type movie. This is the kind of movie that will likely get a whole lot of hype, splash his name all over the place, and – hopefully – turn into a bunch of work (and cash). And – being on the “inside” as I am – I just got a copy of his first draft.
So I’m reading his script, trying to just let myself jump in, imagine it as a film; looking for highlights and lowlights to give him some feedback for his next re-write prior to turning it in to the producers and all that kind of thing . . . and, well . . . something struck me – right off the bat – that felt a little odd . . .
As far as details go – I’m not really going to give you more than that – because this is my brother, it’s his original work, and I’m not trying to throw him under the bus or get him in trouble with his producers or future employers – so no other identifying information will go out there. But let’s just say the “odd” ness involved race. Specifically, Asian people. Which just so happens to be our race.
It was nothing major – certainly not offensive, really – but it was a form of following the same Hollywood-esque patterns of who gets to “count” – and who doesn’t. You can probably guess whether or not the Asian people “counted” or not.
Now, did this happen because my brother is “one of them?” Does he hate Asian people or want to break them down? Hell no. Of course not. In fact, he has very intentionally re-incorporated some Asian culture into this particular script – something which I doubt a white writer (or other non-Asian writer, for that matter) would have done. One of his favorite original story ideas that he really pushed back in the day involved prominent Asian characters (main characters, heroes, even).
Except, well . . . that story about Asian people? Rejected. The people of color that he’s introduced into his stories? Usually white-washed in later drafts due to the producers’ demands. Or maybe that three-dimensional character he wrote up? Knocked flat before shooting – again, by the producers.
Because Hollywood works like this:
There are a bunch of producers. They’re the ones with the money and the pull and clout to get full movies made and put into the national theaters. As a result, they think they know something about how movies are made. Which, they do.
Unfortunately, these producers also tend to think they know something about “the American people” and “what they want to see” or “what they can understand.” Which they absolutely do not. They think that – because they have made one blockbuster, popular movie – that it indicates what “people want to see.” Of course, when the only options are all pretty much the same, you don’t need my science background and/or a knowledge of variables to realize that doesn’t really mean anything.
But – as a result of this false notion of “what Americans want,” these producers continue to pump out the racist, sexist, classist, bigoted Hollywood “blockbusters” that we all know and love today. Because that’s “what Americans want.”
And, of course, the screenwriters and low-level directors, actors, etc. can’t do much about it. Because money’s involved, and it’s the producers who have the money. I wish I could get more specific, but I can’t believe all the stories I’ve heard about the ridiculous cuts and edits producers have made to my brother’s – and other writers’ – scripts due to this faulty belief about “what Americans understand.” (*1)
So what is the end-result of so many, repeated instances of ridiculously idiotic producers changing every intelligent, thoughtful aspect of my brother’s (and other writers’) scripts? He starts anticipating their ignorance and just keeping it out of the original. The reasons are obvious – it hurts too much to constantly have his creative work trashed by people that have no appreciation for creative thought, or challenging convention, or flipping stereotypes; so my brother saves himself some of the pain. (*2) He lets go a little bit. The even sadder part is – when my brother tries to sell original scripts that are too “different” . . . he simply doesn’t sell them. And he can’t really support a family on thought-provoking stories on paper alone.
Now, does he compromise his own morals to write the films he does? No. Never. But he does end up having to “dumb-up” his scripts for the sake of the imaginary, “low-brow” American public. And he does end up with white protagonists instead of the folks of color that he’d rather have. (*3)
On a larger level – what does this mean? Am I just trying to say that we shouldn’t blame screenwriters for the crappy state of Hollywood movies? That it’s just the producers’ fault that the Hollywood media machine is a major reason stereotypes remain in place? A little bit.
But it’s bigger than that. Because we – people, in general – tend to gauge the prominent attitudes of our nation through our media. When folks are trying to figure out what the majority of “Americans” believe, or like to see, we turn to popular media as indicators. Makes sense, right?
Except it actually doesn’t. Because the decks are stacked against us, as popular consumers of media. Our options – in terms of large-scale media – are extremely limited, and the variety is negligible. (*4) Therefore, what “we” end up choosing is more a reflection of what’s being put out, as opposed to our actual tastes and beliefs.
For example: say I go to the grocery store. I want some fruit. At the store, there are some apples, bananas, strawberries, and oranges. I really want passion fruit. But there is no passion fruit. Somebody higher up decided that passion fruit wasn’t a big seller, so they don’t waste their time, space, or money.
So I end up buying an orange. Then somebody else looks at that and says, “people like that guy really like oranges.” They can say it’s a “hard” statistic because it’s flat data . . . but I wanted a passion fruit. And, maybe – if people got more exposure to passion fruits, were able to try them out because they were all over the place, passion fruit would become a big seller. In fact, if they marketed it right, passion fruit would become a big seller. But they’ve elected to market oranges, instead. And so guys like me buy oranges.
Our pop media culture is the same: a ridiculous minority (a fraction of a fraction of a percent) of people are in charge of deciding what “we want to see,” and they provide for that. The problem is that the majority of these guys are ignorant fools and are completely out of touch with real people. But, because they have the power of money and marketing – they can create the results they need to “prove” themselves right. Again and again.
So are the “American people” really as ignorant and prone to prejudice as we all tend to think, based on what we see on a large scale? Or is it just that the tiny minority at the top creates this ignorance and prejudice as part of this sick cycle of miscommunication?
And I’m not saying that Hollywood producers are evil. I’m sure many of them have decent intentions and really believe that they’re right on this one. Many of them are probably thinking – “I wish I could make an intelligent, thought-provoking movie that challenges the status quo – just once – but ‘the American people’ would never go see it . . . “ I bet that happens all the time.
But when money and power and the public are involved? The right thing and what people really want is seldom achieved. It’s all this strange, twisted feedback loop that reinforces all these beliefs that aren’t true and aren’t what most of us even really want – while convincing us that “everybody else” really wants it. (*5)
So what can we do about it? It starts with just acknowledging that what is out there isn’t what we actually want. It continues, though, with challenging the belief that it is what a majority of other people really do want. With understanding that we’re not the only, special, open-minded ones looking for more – that there are a lot more people like that out in the world, and they don’t necessarily look or talk or dress or vote like we do. But they are out there. And so are we. And if we can come together and find a way to deliver that message? Feedback loop interrupted.
Of course, I do not yet have a (full) concept of how we bring it all together to fight off the weight of exposure, money, and influence that those faulty producers have, but I’m working on it.
Any ideas?
(*1) Outside of the usual, “obvious” stereotype-based cuts we’d all expect, here are a couple quick-hitters to demonstrate just how ridiculous these guys (because they’re 90% male) are:
1) Action movie. Original concept: Good guy battling it out with somewhat-stronger badguy. Badguy is winning. Good guy realizes that he’s not going to survive this fight and that – if badguy gets out of this alive, goodguy’s buddies are in big trouble. So he finds a way to sacrifice himself to take out the badguy. Producer edit: “The film-going public wouldn’t understand why the goodguy would do that, they don’t want to see it.” So, in the actual film, the goodguy just kills the badguy and gets his way, no notions of sacrifice for greater good intact.
2) Psychological thriller. Original concept: Can’t say much without tipping off what the movie was, but the whole movie revolves around mistakes made by primary protagonist and how that hurts those around him. Final lesson which brings it all home and ties the whole plot together involves him losing a loved one because of the main character’s neglect. This loss causes him to finally change. Producer edit: “That’s too sad. People don’t want to see that.” In spite of all the mistakes and the inevitable lesson coming at the end, main character saves loved one with little to no difficulty, all smiles and “everything’s better” at the end. Which just so happens to defeat the purpose of the entire rest of the movie (and make no contextual sense, either).
(*2) And I realize that he “doesn’t have to” do the job he’s doing – but that’s not really the point. Although this is in the context of my individual brother, the same thing happens to every other screenwriter, whoever they are. Somebody‘s going to write these things, and this is going to happen – every time – to whichever “somebody” that is.
(*3) Of course, he seldom actually describes his characters as “white,” but we all know what’s coming when he writes in no specific racial or cultural description for somebody in his scripts.
(*4) And yes – I understand the presence of “alternative media,” but let’s be realistic in terms of the reach and scope of said alternatives. When money, marketing, and exposure is pumped into certain media, we’re just not going to be able to resist it or compete, on a large scale.
(*5) It’s how our government works, as well – but that’s for another day.
(*6) I was going to throw up a photo of John Cho to try to draw more readers, but I – luckily – decided against that particular form of exploitation . . .
Gayblackcanada 
