Canadian Supreme Court upholds election "gag law"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

--------------

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld rules that limit how much lobby
groups can spend during election campaigns. It's a decision that will have
a direct impact on the upcoming federal election.

At issue were rules in the Canada Elections Act that set limits on how
much lobby and special interest groups can spend during an election
campaign to support the candidates they like or attack the ones they
don't.

Opponents to the so-called "gag law" said they were an affront to free
speech that stifle independent voices and thereby violate the Charter of
Rights. They also argued that the spending limits were too low.

--------------

I'm opposed to the law in question. For one thing, what the above article
doesn't mention (although other aritcles did) is that the law restricts
not only the ads that are for/against candidates , but ones that just talk
about issues that are discussed during the election. Basically, it says
that politicians are the only ones who are allowed to get their views out
in any significant fashion.

But what really ****ed me off about the decision was a line from this article:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/National/

"The majority [of the Supreme Court] said that while the election
advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees,
the breaches are justified."

Excuse me?

The Supreme Court agrees that the law is unconstitutional, but they
supported it anyway!?

Canada has some real problems.

We had a lengthy discussion about this already in this NG. It's
useless to start this topic again.


On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:55:39 GMT, "Xomicron" wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

--------------

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld rules that limit how much lobby
groups can spend during election campaigns. It's a decision that will have
a direct impact on the upcoming federal election.

At issue were rules in the Canada Elections Act that set limits on how
much lobby and special interest groups can spend during an election
campaign to support the candidates they like or attack the ones they
don't.

Opponents to the so-called "gag law" said they were an affront to free
speech that stifle independent voices and thereby violate the Charter of
Rights. They also argued that the spending limits were too low.

--------------

I'm opposed to the law in question. For one thing, what the above article
doesn't mention (although other aritcles did) is that the law restricts
not only the ads that are for/against candidates , but ones that just talk
about issues that are discussed during the election. Basically, it says
that politicians are the only ones who are allowed to get their views out
in any significant fashion.

But what really ****ed me off about the decision was a line from this article:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/National/

"The majority [of the Supreme Court] said that while the election
advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees,
the breaches are justified."

Excuse me?

The Supreme Court agrees that the law is unconstitutional, but they
supported it anyway!?

Canada has some real problems.

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Bradly Wiebe wrote:

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Imposing a limit on how money can be spent on campaigns is a good idea.
One time we had a billionaire run for president. If he emptied his bank
account he could have probably won. He wasn't the worse guy in the world
but he wasn't the best candidate.

--
Chris F
Long Island, USA.

Prime Minister Helen Clark fights for Maori rights.
http://img33.photobucket.com/albums/...sbug/maori.jpg

Pizza Express Man and his pizza eating cat Gayrab.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/expressman.jpg

http://****france.com/
http://www.fark.com/

America the beautiful wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Imposing a limit on how money can be spent on campaigns is a good idea.
One time we had a billionaire run for president. If he emptied his bank
account he could have probably won. He wasn't the worse guy in the world
but he wasn't the best candidate.

But here we have liberal friendly national newspapers, and a liberal friendly national
television broadcaster. The opposition gets little if any exposure in these mediums, and when
they do get exposure the time is used to belittle them. Also, the limits put in place are an
embarrassment. 150 thousand nationwide advertising limited to 3500 dollars per riding.
Nobody outside of those with official party status can effectively get any message out. Free
speech should not be limited to only those with official party status.



--
Chris F
Long Island, USA.

Prime Minister Helen Clark fights for Maori rights.
http://img33.photobucket.com/albums/...sbug/maori.jpg

Pizza Express Man and his pizza eating cat Gayrab.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/expressman.jpg

http://****france.com/
http://www.fark.com/

Bradly Wiebe wrote:


Nobody outside of those with official party status can effectively get any message out. Free
speech should not be limited to only those with official party status.

Nor should it be limited to those who can afford to advertise.

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
America the beautiful wrote:
Bradly Wiebe wrote:

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Imposing a limit on how money can be spent on campaigns is a good idea.
One time we had a billionaire run for president. If he emptied his bank
account he could have probably won. He wasn't the worse guy in the world
but he wasn't the best candidate.

But here we have liberal friendly national newspapers,

That's just right-wing propaganda. Newspapers are run by conservatives,
as a rule, and typically get their news from Republican sources such as
the White Hourse.

and a liberal friendly national
television broadcaster.

More propaganda.

The opposition gets little if any exposure in these mediums,

Yeah, people like Limbaugh and Fox "News" can barely be heard.

Lying moron.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
America the beautiful wrote:
Bradly Wiebe wrote:

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Imposing a limit on how money can be spent on campaigns is a good idea.
One time we had a billionaire run for president. If he emptied his bank
account he could have probably won. He wasn't the worse guy in the world
but he wasn't the best candidate.

But here we have liberal friendly national newspapers,

That's just right-wing propaganda. Newspapers are run by conservatives,
as a rule, and typically get their news from Republican sources such as
the White Hourse.

That's all fine and dandy, but we are talking Canadian newspapers covering Canadian elections
here. Your post is non sequitur.



and a liberal friendly national
television broadcaster.

More propaganda.

Again, Canadian broadcasters covering Canadian elections..



The opposition gets little if any exposure in these mediums,

Yeah, people like Limbaugh and Fox "News" can barely be heard.

Lying moron.

You sir are the moron. Try to read the thread will you? It is concerning the elections in Canada
and coverage by Canadian media.



--
Ray Fischer

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:

America the beautiful wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:

As useless as trying to fight for our RIGHT to free speech in the
Canadian Supreme Court.

Hmm, I wonder where some of that adscam money could have gone.

What a ****ing joke. Time to dump the liberals.

Imposing a limit on how money can be spent on campaigns is a good
idea. One time we had a billionaire run for president. If he emptied
his bank account he could have probably won. He wasn't the worse guy
in the world but he wasn't the best candidate.

But here we have liberal friendly national newspapers,

That's just right-wing propaganda. Newspapers are run by conservatives,
as a rule, and typically get their news from Republican sources such as
the White Hourse.

I wasn't aware the Republican party was in Canada.

Ray Fischer wrote:


But here we have liberal friendly national newspapers,

That's just right-wing propaganda. Newspapers are run by conservatives,
as a rule, and typically get their news from Republican sources such as
the White Hourse.

LOL I wonder if the radical right assumes that "the media" provides all the alleged liberal
friendly press out of the goodness of their hearts. Newspapers, radio stations and television are
businesses, owned and operated by businessmen. I would think that running a successful business
would involve knowing something about how business works.