We are one cozy little nation of cracked, confused hypocrites.

Two, four, six, eight - what do we hate? Violence! Three, five, seven, nine - what do we call fine? Consensus, peace and reconciliation! Yeah, right. We are, in fact, addicted to TV footage of some guy beating up another guy. We love it, relish it and smirk about it. Over the past few days, I think I've seen that hockey brawl about 15 times. You know the one - featuring Jonathan Roy of the Quebec Remparts attempting to pulverize Chicoutimi goaltender Bobby Nadeau. Yesterday, in a two-hour period, I saw it five times, and I'd only flipped between two channels.

In case you've been away, here's what happens. Roy skates the length of the ice to attack Nadeau, who had ostentatiously stayed out of an on-ice brawl that featured most of the players on both teams.

He was just standing there, an onlooker. Roy arrived, tore off Nadeau's mask and began pummelling him. It is clear, instantly, that Nadeau is not interested in fighting back. Thrown to the ice, Nadeau is hit about 15 times on the head and body by Roy. Then Roy skates away, giving the fans the finger as he does so.

Why has this been on TV endlessly? Not because it is treated as a serious matter. It's on TV endlessly (and a huge hit on YouTube) because it is our acceptable face of pornography in Canada. We fetishize it, adore it and enjoy it. The consensus is that it's really no big deal. It helps to sell tickets, it's part of the game's appeal, it helps to prepare junior players for the National Hockey League. Those clichés have been spouted over and over again on TV. I heard them spouted by hockey writer Gare Joyce while speaking to Scott Laurie on CTV Newsnet and trotted out again by reporter Dan Halton on CBC Newsworld.

These clichés are rarely questioned, never challenged. Nobody says this is just brutal violence and utterly unacceptable. It induces a tincture of tut-tutting, and that's all. Because, really, we love it. It's our culture of shocking violence and it's okay because it's ours.

Yet, watching that footage, one can't help but think of a police officer, armed with a baton heading straight for an unarmed protester and pulverizing the victim. You know, like those cops hammering away at Tibetan monks protesting against China's treatment of Tibet. The sort of footage that appalls most Canadians and, at the very least, causes our politicians to express shock and dismay about the brutal suppression of unarmed protesters.

A good deal has been made of the fact that Jonathan Roy's father is Patrick Roy, coach of the Quebec Remparts, and, it is alleged by some, an instigator of the brawl. Patrick Roy, we are reminded, is National Hockey League royalty, a great goalie and sometimes a brawler himself.

Now here's an interesting question - who, in turn, is Patrick Roy's father? That would be Michel Roy, chairman of the board of directors of Telefilm Canada. In case you don't know, Telefilm is "a cultural investor in cinema, television, multimedia and music, primarily concerned with the funding of original, diverse, and high-quality productions that reflect Canada's linguistic duality and cultural diversity." Michel Roy is also the author of a book, in French, about his son Patrick, called Le Guerrier, which translates into English as The Warrior.

In explaining the title to Canadian Press, Michel Roy was quoted as saying, "A warrior is a combative personality who seeks victory and who is noble."

Telefilm, in turn, is at the centre of the storm over Bill C-10, aimed at possibly removing tax credits for TV and movie productions deemed unacceptable by some faceless group in Ottawa. Unacceptable in the matter of sex, that is.

The first hint that something was stirring in the approach of the minority Conservative government toward "unacceptable" film and TV, was at a meeting of the Commons heritage committee in January when, as the newly appointed chair of Telefilm, Michel Roy was obliged to appear before the committee. That's when a couple of Conservative MPs, Dave Batters and Ed Fast, slammed the funding of such movies as Young People Fucking.

"I haven't seen this film, but it's my understanding that the film contains a lot of soft-porn images," Batters famously said. Ed Fast put it to Roy that Canadian productions funded by Telefilm must be "reflective of the values we have." He also spoke darkly of an unnamed movie that focused, he said, "more on recreational sexual activity than loving relationships."

This line of questioning was groundbreaking - most Conservative MPs never dare to talk about cultural issues, especially not in the context of what they deem to be "reflective of the values we have."

Then Fast joshed with Michel Roy. Speaking about the sort of documentary productions that Telefilm might fund, he said, "Perhaps a documentary or biography on your son would be appropriate." He acknowledged that he was kidding and Roy acknowledged that he would never allow such a thing to happen.

In the matter of legendary brawler Patrick Roy, it was all cozy, comfortable and just-guys-kidding-around. In the matter of depicting people having sex, it was alarmist and condemnatory. Now, in the matter of Patrick Roy and his son Jonathan, it is, well, just part of the game.

That's some game we've got going here. Fetishize hockey violence and brutal, unprovoked attacks on others. Condemn carnality. How cracked and hypocritical is that?

*****

Airing tonight

Sophie (CBC, 8 p.m.) is almost over. In the next-to-last episode, Sophie (Natalie Brown) finds herself torn between work and staying home to play with the baby. That stuff is as slight as all of Sophie's allegedly comic adventures. What makes the thing barely acceptable is a lovely turn by Mary Walsh as tough movie director Sarah Sloan. Walsh has snap, bite and vigour while everybody else appears to be performing at the level of a Teletubbies episode.

Check local listings.

J.D.