h/t sda comments
Toronto Sun, Monday, June 29.
Gerry Nicholls nails it.
Free election speech under attack | NICHOLLS | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Su
"people who favored the gag law told me not to worry, since it would just infringe on free speech during elections"
"Suddenly it’s being argued we need more restrictions on free speech. [Law professor Michael] Pal, for one, regards the fact that the gag law is in effect only during elections as a 'loophole', which is why he’s advocating it be imposed year round."
Not only that, but the left considers everything political, so they might try to use that as an excuse to clamp down on all speech year-round.
Would it be a surprise if that were their real goal?
It always amazes me when intelligent people argue that the best way to safeguard democracy is to restrict free speech.
After all, it should be self-evident that the right to free expression is the lifeblood of any free and democratic society.
The more voices heard, the more debate that’s raised, the more points of view expressed, the better, right?
Democracy should be a free market place of competing ideas. Yet some in the media and in academia are currently calling for new laws that would stifle free democratic speech.
Mind you, they don’t put it in such blunt terms. Rather they argue that “Third parties,” i.e. any group that’s not a political party, -- taxpayer advocacy organizations, church groups, environmental associations --should be strictly regulated and controlled and as much as possible silenced.
More specifically their aim is to prevent independent organizations or groups of private citizens from having the freedom to spend money on political ads.
Such freedom they say would harm democracy or make elections unfair. Writing in the National Post, for instance, Andrew Coyne says third party spending could result in groups buying “the odd politician.”
Well, if that’s a real danger, than in addition to restricting third parties, we should also impose regulations on columnists and editorial writers just in case they endorse a political party in the hopes of being rewarded with a cushy Senate appointment.
What’s good for the third party goose, should be good for the media gander.
Another argument for restricting third party spending was put forward by Michael Pal, a law professor, who writing in the Globe and Mail claimed that “permitting unlimited spending would allow those with resources to dominate the political conversation and drown out the voices of their fellow citizens.”
Sounds scary. Too bad there’s actually no evidence to support his apocalyptic assertion.
In fact, it would be impossible for any group no matter how rich to “dominate” a political conversation in this country with paid advertising. And even if it was possible such domination would risk repelling voters.
Recall that in the 1990 Charlottetown Accord referendum the “Yes” side outspent the “No” side by about a 12 to one margin, yet it still lost in a landslide.
So much for dominating political conversation. Of course, it should be noted that Canada already has a draconian election gag law on the books, a law which effectively stifles the speech of all citizens during elections.
Once an election is called it’s basically illegal for groups to freely or effectively communicate political opinions through paid advertising, meaning political parties have an effective monopoly on debate.
I’m quite familiar with this election gag law, because, while I was associated with the National Citizens Coalition, I battled against it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing it was an infringement on free expression.
At the time, people who favored the gag law told me not to worry, since it would just infringe on free speech during elections, roughly 35 days every four years.
The rest of the time, they assured me people would have the freedom to speak out.
But that was then, and this is now. And now, because a few groups – Engage Canada, Working Canadians, HarperPAC – are running political ads before the election is called, people like Coyne and Pal are in a tizzy.
Suddenly it’s being argued we need more restrictions on free speech. Pal, for one, regards the fact that the gag law is in effect only during elections as a “loophole”, which is why he’s advocating it be imposed year round.
And this illustrates the dangers of allowing the government to restrict our freedoms.
Once you’ve made the initial decision that it’s OK to limit a freedom, it then becomes easier and easier to expand on that limit, until that freedom gradually disappears.
That’s the thing about slippery slopes; they can slide you into some pretty scary places.
Free election speech under attack | NICHOLLS | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Su
and...
Michael Pal is from the University of Ottawa.
Take anything that comes out of the mouths of their 'academics/professors' with a huge grain of salt.
The U of O is a cesspool of hate aimed towards Canadian values. They do not like independent thought or independent society.
It is run by Allan Rock,the father of the gun registry. It is a very 'progressive' institution.
The U of O produces more ISIS recruits than any other university in Canada.
That is not a coincidence.
Toronto Sun, Monday, June 29.
Gerry Nicholls nails it.
Free election speech under attack | NICHOLLS | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Su
"people who favored the gag law told me not to worry, since it would just infringe on free speech during elections"
"Suddenly it’s being argued we need more restrictions on free speech. [Law professor Michael] Pal, for one, regards the fact that the gag law is in effect only during elections as a 'loophole', which is why he’s advocating it be imposed year round."
Not only that, but the left considers everything political, so they might try to use that as an excuse to clamp down on all speech year-round.
Would it be a surprise if that were their real goal?
It always amazes me when intelligent people argue that the best way to safeguard democracy is to restrict free speech.
After all, it should be self-evident that the right to free expression is the lifeblood of any free and democratic society.
The more voices heard, the more debate that’s raised, the more points of view expressed, the better, right?
Democracy should be a free market place of competing ideas. Yet some in the media and in academia are currently calling for new laws that would stifle free democratic speech.
Mind you, they don’t put it in such blunt terms. Rather they argue that “Third parties,” i.e. any group that’s not a political party, -- taxpayer advocacy organizations, church groups, environmental associations --should be strictly regulated and controlled and as much as possible silenced.
More specifically their aim is to prevent independent organizations or groups of private citizens from having the freedom to spend money on political ads.
Such freedom they say would harm democracy or make elections unfair. Writing in the National Post, for instance, Andrew Coyne says third party spending could result in groups buying “the odd politician.”
Well, if that’s a real danger, than in addition to restricting third parties, we should also impose regulations on columnists and editorial writers just in case they endorse a political party in the hopes of being rewarded with a cushy Senate appointment.
What’s good for the third party goose, should be good for the media gander.
Another argument for restricting third party spending was put forward by Michael Pal, a law professor, who writing in the Globe and Mail claimed that “permitting unlimited spending would allow those with resources to dominate the political conversation and drown out the voices of their fellow citizens.”
Sounds scary. Too bad there’s actually no evidence to support his apocalyptic assertion.
In fact, it would be impossible for any group no matter how rich to “dominate” a political conversation in this country with paid advertising. And even if it was possible such domination would risk repelling voters.
Recall that in the 1990 Charlottetown Accord referendum the “Yes” side outspent the “No” side by about a 12 to one margin, yet it still lost in a landslide.
So much for dominating political conversation. Of course, it should be noted that Canada already has a draconian election gag law on the books, a law which effectively stifles the speech of all citizens during elections.
Once an election is called it’s basically illegal for groups to freely or effectively communicate political opinions through paid advertising, meaning political parties have an effective monopoly on debate.
I’m quite familiar with this election gag law, because, while I was associated with the National Citizens Coalition, I battled against it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing it was an infringement on free expression.
At the time, people who favored the gag law told me not to worry, since it would just infringe on free speech during elections, roughly 35 days every four years.
The rest of the time, they assured me people would have the freedom to speak out.
But that was then, and this is now. And now, because a few groups – Engage Canada, Working Canadians, HarperPAC – are running political ads before the election is called, people like Coyne and Pal are in a tizzy.
Suddenly it’s being argued we need more restrictions on free speech. Pal, for one, regards the fact that the gag law is in effect only during elections as a “loophole”, which is why he’s advocating it be imposed year round.
And this illustrates the dangers of allowing the government to restrict our freedoms.
Once you’ve made the initial decision that it’s OK to limit a freedom, it then becomes easier and easier to expand on that limit, until that freedom gradually disappears.
That’s the thing about slippery slopes; they can slide you into some pretty scary places.
Free election speech under attack | NICHOLLS | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Su
and...
Michael Pal is from the University of Ottawa.
Take anything that comes out of the mouths of their 'academics/professors' with a huge grain of salt.
The U of O is a cesspool of hate aimed towards Canadian values. They do not like independent thought or independent society.
It is run by Allan Rock,the father of the gun registry. It is a very 'progressive' institution.
The U of O produces more ISIS recruits than any other university in Canada.
That is not a coincidence.
