Canada: You Can Say What You Want – Except When It Counts

The National Post ^ | May 17, 2004 | Gerry Nicholls

[quidnunc]

Elections in Canada have always been fair, they have always been free. But unfortunately that might change this week. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Canada will render its judgment on the constitutionality of the federal government's controversial election gag law, and the future of our democratic freedoms hangs in the balance. Simply put, if the court rules the gag law can live, then free election speech in Canada will die.

Sound overly dramatic? Consider this: Under the gag law you could be thrown into jail if you printed and distributed brochures during a federal election saying, "Remember the Sponsorship Scandal, Don't Vote Liberal." It could also be illegal for independent, non-partisan groups to run media campaigns that support or oppose the Kyoto Accord, or that toke a stand on the same-sex marriage issue or on the state of our Armed Forces.

That's because the gag law imposes severe legal restrictions on how much money non-political parties can spend on what the government calls "election advertising." These restrictions are so tight — a $150,000 limit for national ad campaigns and a $3,000 limit for ads in any particular riding — that they amount to a virtual ban on election speech.

Yet, while the gag law stifles citizens and independent groups, political parties and their candidates can spend up to $30-million during an election.

You don't have to be a constitutional expert to see what the net effect of all this will be: The gag law would ensure political parties a monopoly on debate during federal elections, which is when free speech matters most. Meanwhile, everybody else — environmental groups, taxpayer watchdogs, abortion organizations, advocates for the poor, private citizens — would be forced to shut up. Does that sound like democracy?

-snip-

[henderson field]

Sounds like the hammer and sickle will replace the maple leaf. Too bad. The Canadians deserve better.

[Guillermo]

People deserve the government they get (have).

[68skylark]

The more I learn about the other countries, the happier I am to live in the United States. We have stupid, anti-freedom election laws also, but they're aren't as bad as this one from Canada.

[FourPeas]

People deserve the government they get (have).

I couldn't agree more, which makes this and many things that happen in the US all the more sad.

[CWOJackson]

Why am I not surprised.

[Yardstick]

Yet, while the gag law stifles citizens and independent groups, political parties and their candidates can spend up to $30-million during an election.

Isn't this the mirror image of the US's campaign speech laws under CFR?

It seems like CFR gags the political parties in the 60 days before an election but basically leave everyone else alone, which is the reverse of the proposed Canadian law.

[Straight Vermonter]

Doesn't really sound all that different from McCain-Feingold. Except that libs have already found a $100,000,000 loophole in our law.

[vpintheak]

Welcome to Canadistan. All comrads welcome. The US isn't far behind.

[kanawa]

Under the gag law you could be thrown into jail if you printed and distributed brochures during a federal election saying, "Remember the Sponsorship Scandal, Don't Vote Liberal."

Looks like I might be doing some jail-time.

[ModelBreaker]

The more I learn about the other countries, the happier I am to live in the United States. We have stupid, anti-freedom election laws also, but they're aren't as bad as this one from Canada.

During the 60 days before an election, the CFR here is more stringent. The limit is $0. Not $150,000.

[Unam Sanctam]

They already suppress free speech with their criminal laws against so-called "hate speech".

[Grig]

The website DontVote4Liberals.ca shut down to avoid the possibility of having this law brought to bear against it.

[quidnunc]

Grig wrote: The website DontVote4Liberals.ca shut down to avoid the possibility of having this law brought to bear against it.

I posted the National Review article "Here to Stay: We're here, we're mildly and tolerantly homophobic, get used to it!" on the Canadian site Free Dominion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135557/posts

It was deleted less than an hour later, I suspect because of C-250.

And this in spite of the fact that Free Dominion is on an American server.

[Grig]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, they rarely pull an article and have no qualms about going up against C250. It probably had something to do with some disruptors in the thread.

[quidnunc]

Grig wrote: I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, they rarely pull an article and have no qualms about going up against C250. It probably had something to do with some disruptors in the thread.

I have no idea why, I posted the article and was not able to go back for an hour, by which time it was gone.

I didn't ask because it's their forum and they can run it any way they wish, but I would be surprised if they weren't able to delete individual replies which they found to be problematic without nuking the whole thread.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

You can say what you want - except when it counts - Gerry Nicholls

Elections in Canada have always been fair, they have always been free. But unfortunately that might change this week. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Canada will render its judgment on the constitutionality of the federal government's controversial election gag law, and the future of our democratic freedoms hangs in the balance. Simply put, if the court rules the gag law can live, then free election speech in Canada will die.

Sound overly dramatic? Consider this: Under the gag law you could be thrown into jail if you printed and distributed brochures during a federal election saying, "Remember the Sponsorship Scandal, Don't Vote Liberal." It could also be illegal for independent, non-partisan groups to run media campaigns that support or oppose the Kyoto Accord, or that toke a stand on the same-sex marriage issue or on the state of our Armed Forces.

That's because the gag law imposes severe legal restrictions on how much money non-political parties can spend on what the government calls "election advertising." These restrictions are so tight -- a $150,000 limit for national ad campaigns and a $3,000 limit for ads in any particular riding -- that they amount to a virtual ban on election speech.

Yet, while the gag law stifles citizens and independent groups, political parties and their candidates can spend up to $30-million during an election.

You don't have to be a constitutional expert to see what the net effect of all this will be: The gag law would ensure political parties a monopoly on debate during federal elections, which is when free speech matters most. Meanwhile, everybody else -- environmental groups, taxpayer watchdogs, abortion organizations, advocates for the poor, private citizens -- would be forced to shut up. Does that sound like democracy?

In a true democratic society, everybody should have the right to participate freely and effectively in election debate without fear of imprisonment. That's why the National Citizens Coalition launched a constitutional challenge to the gag law, arguing it violates every Canadian's Charter-guaranteed right to freedom of expression.

It has not been an easy fight; taking on the federal government in court never is. But up until now, David has defeated Goliath: Three different provincial courts in two different provinces have ruled that all or parts of the election gag law are unconstitutional.

But the politicians kept appealing their court losses, and a few months ago the battle landed before the Supreme Court of Canada. And tomorrow, just days before the federal election is expected to be called, the court's decision on the gag law will come down.

How will the court rule? Well, if the Supreme Court justices base their decision solely on the law and on the Charter, then they will almost certainly uphold the lower court rulings and shoot down the gag law. But sometimes judges don't base their decision solely on the law or on the Charter. Sometimes they allow politics and ideology to win out over justice and democracy. If that happens in this case, then the unthinkable might occur: The Supreme Court could give politicians the green light to strip away your democratic freedoms.

It's a frightening thought. Once you take away free speech, you can no longer have truly free elections; and if you no longer have truly free elections, you no longer have a true democracy.

That's why the NCC recently asked the leaders of the four major political parties to sign a pledge committing them to scrapping the gag law should the court rule it to be constitutional. So far, only Conservative party leader Stephen Harper has agreed to sign it.

Maybe this will become an election issue. Maybe Mr. Harper and the Conservatives will make some political hay out of the fact that they seem to be the only party that cares about protecting our precious democratic traditions. Then again, maybe they won't. Perhaps no political party will address this crucial issue during the election.

And that, itself, illustrates exactly why gag laws are so wrong. They give politicians the power to set the national debate and to marginalize and ignore important issues that may need debating -- issues such as the gag law.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

After all, the Supreme Court might do the right thing and kill the gag law. Let's hope so. If the courts won't protect our democratic freedoms, who will?

____________________________

quidnunc,

I still do not see the National Post listed on the "Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints" (posted by Jim Robinson himself on 5-11-04)....

Perhaps you should look into checking out the list before you excerpt? :-) After all, isn't life better lived when everyone plays by the rules? That having been said (in only the most Christian-like way I can).....

Quidnunc,


There you go again....


"Did I forget to post the full article again? D'OH!!"

FReegards,

ConservativeStLouisGuy