Tobacco sponsorship

[WHITELEY DAVID]

Coming from a tobacco-processing town, a would-be theatre artist and son
of an adamant anti-smoking lobbyist, I can't resist putting my two cents
in two even though I know basically nothing about the new bill and its
direct and indirect effects on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

I would like us to be clear if it is true that tobacco companies are
threatening to withdraw legal sponsorship if their advertising is made
legal.  I know there are a lot of DuMaurrier employees in Guelph who were
personnally offended that a "gift" (lots of strings attatched) that was
meant to "honour them" was not happily received by all.  As with the
health effects of smoking, the industry goes out of its way to deny that
their sponsorships are for their own benefit.  The issue of whether or not
this is marketting _is significant, whether or not the present bill
passes.

Secondly, I'd like to hear discussion on *WHO* benefits from tobacco
money.  It may be unfair of me to proudly snub tobacco money when I'm not
living off of it.  But it seems to me that that money doesn't just go
where it is needed most.  Strikes me that it goes where it will be most
visible, least controvertial.  But maybe that's just where I've seen it.
Has anyone made a serious study of this?  I would find it serious indeed
if our artistic agenda in this country were visibly influenced by tobacco
industry sponsorship!  Am I alone here?

I think we can agree that dependancy on money from one or two industries
for the survival and well-being of arts organisations is not an ideal
situation, even if the industry is harmless and exercises no influence at
all on what's done.  I also realize that diversity is preferable over a
dependance on government alone (especially today!!) and so arguments, as
in Quebec (however tentatively) that withdrawn funding will be made up for
somehow by gov't is not reassuring.  I don't have magic answers, and I
realize that people have been looking hard for them since before I was
born...

I suppose the best I can say is that the present bill highlights the
precarious position of arts funding in Canada today.  I think _that_
should be our message and response as artists.  As individuals, we should
of course respond according to our beliefs about smoking, advertising,
freedom and health (and whatever else).  But if we are discussing a
position of an association, any sort of "arts industry response" should,
imvho, evoke our precarious position and call for solutions to it.
Simply defending the status quo only prolongs the risk that somewhere down
the line the plug will be pulled.  Nor have we a mandate (unless it has
been bought for us) to defend -- or oppose -- tobacco.  Freedom of speech,
okay, but would the artistic community rise to impede this bill if
funding +weren't+ at issue?  Do we have any credibility as defenders of
free speech if at the same time we stress the fact that our incomes are at
risk?

Sorry for all the rhetoric.  In fact, I'd be happy to see answers to any
and all of the questions I have posed.  I realise I don't have the
experience dealing with these issues that many members must have.  I
welcome this debate and hope to see the real issues get addressed -- by
people who are competent to address them,

Yours humbly,


David Whiteley          Les savants ne sont bons que pour pr^cher en chaises
m233701 at er.uqam.ca      --Moli`re, _Les Femmes Savantes_, V, ii, 1662