The Subsidized and the Subsidizers

From the desk of Alexandra Colen on Sun, 2005-10-30 11:29

godslastering.jpg 

Christopher Gillibrand has some pictures of a Catholic demonstration yesterday evening in Brussels against a state subsidized theatre play depicting a barebreasted Our Lady of Flanders. As Chris writes it is clear from the pictures that “those who attended the state-subsidised play were noticeably ‘middle class’,” while those demonstrating were clearly less well off. Indeed, the question is: why do the poor have to pay for the entertainment of the rich liberal bourgeois, especially when it mocks the values of the poor? Can the Minister of Culture explain this to us?

Clear or not so clear

Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2005-10-31 12:44.

those demonstrating were clearly less well off.

It's not clear to me. Funnily enough some people put their posh clothes on to go to the theatre, whilst they might wear something less posh to go on a political demo. None of the theatre-goers or the demonstrators appears to be displaying a copy of their last income tax return, so it's hard to be sure.

And while we're on the subject, the rich liberal bourgeois pay a lot more tax than the poor, which fact may go some way to answering Alexandra's question to the Minister of Culture. It may also be that putting on plays is a more worthwhile way of spending taxes than, say, the upkeep of two parliamentary buildings for the same parliament, or subsidising Irish cattle rustlers. Just a thought.

Bob Doney