Elections Canada to charge Moore

[moghrabi]

Elections Canada to charge Moore
by Justin Boudreau, Managing Editor, Canadafreepress.com

Elections Canada will lay charges against shockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

Officially, Elections Canada will neither confirm nor deny plans to lay formal charges against Moore. However, Canadafreepress.com has learned through sources that charges are imminent and expected by the end of next week.

The anti-Bush Moore, who often lets his mouth get ahead of him, may think he got away with the boner of the Canadian release of Fahrenheit 9/11 just days ahead of the June 28 federal election, but there is the little matter of election law infringement.

Moore’s pre-election advice lecturing Canadian voters not to vote Conservative quickly enraged a number of Conservative Party supporters who launched the website: www.chargeMoore.com in an effort to encourage Elections Canada to uphold its own law.

Moore’s tactics encompass what legal beagles believe is a direct violation of Canada electoral law. Under the "Non-Interference by Foreigners" clause (Part 11, Division 9, section 331) of the Canadian Elections Act:

No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is

a) a Canadian citizen; or

b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As far as the letter of the law is concerned "I love Canada," as Moore has stated, does not count.

Penalties under the Canada Elections Act for such violations are a $2,000 fine--or a jail term of six months less a day. Kasra Nejatian, spokesperson for chargeMoore.com and his lawyers aren’t interested in the fines. "They (the fines) can be higher, but we aren’t interested in that. What we want is the jail time," Nejatian told Canadafreepress.com.

Once charges are laid, the small force behind chargeMoore.com is confident that they will be successful. "It (the Act) is fairly clear here. He has no wiggle room."

Nejatian, however is being realistic. While he doesn’t expect Pooh-Bah Moore to spend a single night in the slammer, he is anticipating that such a charge would all but bar the Michigan-native film maker from ever entering Canada again, a point he sees as a bonus as bright as any star.

Encouraged by the amount of public support his online petition has found, Nejatian says he’s hoping that even more Canadians will log on at www.chargeMoore .com to sign up.

"There’s no excuse for a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda," he said.


Justin Boudreau is the Managing Editor of Canada Free Press. He can be reached at cfp@canadafreepress.com.

 

[Andem]

Excellent. A foreigner really should have absolutely no right in swaying voters in our country. Doesn't matter who they're talking about, conservative, liberal, ndp, bloc, etc.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree. More than that Moore will most likely use this a way to ridicule right-wing wackos like this Nejatian guy.

Look how vindictive and nasty these people are though, Andem. He doesn't Moore fined, he wants him in jail. Since that's unlikely to happen he's hoping that Moore gets permanently baned from Canada.

I doubt anybody, even the idiots behind chargeMoore.com, seriously think that Moore had an impact on the Canadian election. These people would love to silence him though. They are the haters or free speech.

There is another on-line petition though, one that points out how ridiculous the people at chargemoore.com are. http://www.petitiononline.com/chgmre/.

 

[Numure]

Most likely, he will won't be punished to the full extent of that law. He will, threw the eyes of my of my friends, only get a fine. But, I hope this teachs foreigners to mind their own business when it comes to our elections.

 

[vista]

This from the G & M editorial...

Michael Moore's words

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - Page A14

Kasra Nejatian describes filmmaker Michael Moore as an "American jackass" who loves Canada yet insists on breaking Canadian law. Those are strong words from the 21-year-old Queen's University business student, who has launched a campaign to prosecute Mr. Moore for speaking freely.

Mr. Moore was in Toronto last month to promote his film Fahrenheit 9/11, which attacks the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. Instead, he attacked the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader, Stephen Harper. He accused Mr. Harper of wanting to "snip away" Canadians' social safety net. He said "dire consequences would follow" if the Conservatives were elected. He said a Tory government would be "a blow to those of us trying to get rid of Bush." He urged Canadians not to vote Conservative. As it turned out, they voted in a Liberal minority government.

Mr. Nejatian thought Mr. Moore influenced the vote. To his ear, what Mr. Moore said didn't seem legal. Sadly, Mr. Nejatian may be right.

Section 331 of the Canada Elections Act, part of a revamping of the act in 2000, prohibits "foreigners" from inducing electors to vote for or to refrain from voting for a particular candidate. This untested section says that non-residents or non-citizens who "willfully" make such comments during an election campaign could face a $2,000 fine or six months in jail.

More than 1,600 people have signed Mr. Nejatian's petition to ask Elections Canada to prosecute, and the student is receiving support from an unlikely corner. "Personally, I think Michael Moore has every right to say whatever he wants about the Canadian election," said Gerry Nicholls, vice-president of the National Citizens' Coalition, which has been fighting what he calls Canadian election "gag laws" for years. But he wants charges laid so there can be a challenge to the law.

Elections Canada isn't commenting on the yet-to-be-filed complaint. But one constitutional law professor called Section 331 a "joke" and unconstitutional because it unreasonably limits freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights.

Quite so. It is a bad law. And Mr. Moore may be just the person to challenge it. Election campaign rules shouldn't give governments the right to dictate what voters can hear or what they can tune out.

 

[Reverend Blair]

That raises the question, at least for me, of what we're allowed to say about the US (or British, or German, or Iraqi) elections. If I can sit here and post things about why should never ever ever consider voting for George Bush, why can't Michael Moore comment on Stephen Harper?

I know Moore is more famous and influential than I could ever hope to be, but if I can comment on the US election why can't Moore comment on the Canadian election?

I don't like foreigners meddling in our business, but we do meddle in theirs.

 

[crash]

I think this is pretty silly....

Though it does send a message that the Canadian people will not tolerate the petty grandstanding that Moore does on a daily basis in his own country, on their soil.

Comparing Harper to Bush is ludacraus, and comparing the CPC to the Republician party is either ignorant or devious.

I just hope they don't waste too much time and money making a point....

 

[Reverend Blair]

Since these are people who are already on government payroll, they won't actually be charging any more than they already would have. The costs remain the same.

Also keep in mind that without Canada Moore would have returned to the GM production line long ago...it was us that watched and paid for his TV shows during the lean years between Roger and Me and Stupid White Men.

Personally, I think he's great. The perfect response to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and that blonde chick who gives women a bad name. His research is better than theirs; his tactics are basically the same, but delivered with a sense of humour; and what seems to piss them off the most is that he's beat them at their own game and gotten rich. His being rich is the first or second thing they always bring, alternating with his weight.

He also has balls. Moore is screening f 9/11 in Crawford, Texas in a football stadium parking lot. He invited George Bush to stop by and watch the movie. No doubt there will be a segment in his next movie of him waiting for George to show, then looking hurt when George doesn't. That's cool.

 

[crash]

Sure, but there are nominal costs that the government faces going through the prosecution process.

I dispise him, and while I am at it I also dispise Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

I have no respect for what he does. He makes movies filled with half truths/misleading content and often insults the intelligence of his own viewers. His tactics are no better than Limbaugh either, he tries to pass off his work to the public as if it isn't the work of some partisan with an agenda but some concerned citizen. I like his humor though; he isn't stuffy like these tight wads on the far right, I agree with that much.

The only thing I think that he has done positive in the last 3 years is make jackasses like Charlton Heston and GWB look like bad while himself often at the same time. So its win-win, I guess its not that bad afterall.

:wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

He's never made a secret of his partisanship. He wears it on his sleeve. When he was supporting Nader he made that very clear and still stands by his decision. Now he's supporting the Democrats and has made the reason for that...that he wants to get rid of George Bush...very clear.

Something that I think most people miss about Michael Moore is that he's parodying himself and the American public as much as anybody else in his work. That was a lot more clear in his TV shows and Roger and Me, but that element is still there, it's just more subtle now....What used to be Dave Barry making fun of himself is now Hunter Thompson writing about a drug-addled trip to Vegas.

If you ask 1000 people what the theme of Fear and Loathing of Las Vegas is, maybe one or two will come back with, "Hunter went to Vegas to understand the death of the American Dream and realised that his lawyer and himself were the representatives of that death." One or two might...maybe...on a good day.

900 will tell you it's about two drug addled buffoons who do ether and go to the bar...hilarious but weird.

98 or 99 will say that it's about politics or the 1960's drug culture.

Moore is no Thompson, but the same thing is happening...people are missing a huge chunk of of the point and using him as an excuse for their actions, pro and con. That's unfortunate, but it is happening.

 

[crash]

He might not make a secret of his partisanship in his day to day life or on the floor of the democratic convention. I never claimed that he did.

However, as I did say, in his films he very much tries to make it a squeaky clean non partisan arguement...but he has the subtle tone of his partisan stripe being thrown in. Being a hater of GWB doesn't make you a non-conservative and being against the proliferation of guns or the NRA doesn't make you a non-conservative. In fact in Bowling for Columbine he didn't even directly tackle guns directly and why they need to be controlled. He simply threw in a bunch of emotional points, misleading facts and half truths. I think the thesis of bowling for columbine did not have anything to do with anti-conservatism or anti guns per se (he threw it in to suit his cause) but it asks the question of why americans are so violent compared to the rest of the world. Perhaps you have seen more of his work than me, but what I have seen of Moore intentionally goes out of its way to present itself as a non-partisan arguement.

The fact that Moore makes a jackass out of himself has nothing to do with the depth of his work or its subtle tones. He is a loud mouth opinionated fool: it is less subtle in his personal life than his documentaries but its still there. Don't try and protray his work as something some deep and intellectual that can only be understood by people such as yourself. You give him far too much credit, he is a loud mouth jackass because he is a loud mouth jackass.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think it's deep or intellectual, in fact I think it's pretty obvious and broad. That's why I said he was no Hunter Thompson.

You are right about Bowling for Columbine...it's not really about gun control, but violence in a society. Were you being deep and intellectual when you noticed that? No, you were just thinking. You aren't looking for an excuse for your behaviours, which frees you up to do that.

You said,

He simply threw in a bunch of emotional points, misleading facts and half truths.

Back to the Thompson analogy. He wrote a book about the 1972 presidential campaign. There are a lot of things in there that aren't very factual, but there are enough facts that he exposed what a monster Nixon was and never got sued by anybody.

Moore's work may be a poor cousin in comparison, but again nobody is suing him even though the US has become much more litigious in the past couple of decades.

 

[crash]

Well, i understand a little better what you mean now. I just thought the tone of your other post was bordering on the condascending.

Sorry that I misunderstood.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't mean to sound condescending, and I hope I don't.

It irks me that we've trained ourselves not to think though. It's like we've come to worship elitism even while we despise it. We consider those with an education somehow above us, but I've met enough brilliant high school dropouts and moronic phds to know that it doesn't work that way.

I don't know what your education is, Crash. Mine is a Grade 12 and a degree in Applied Photography. I've taken some non-accredited night courses in writing and journalism, a home reno course, a further building science course, and had the usual corporate courses on everything from how to effectively use a telephone to human resources and management.

I've learned a lot on my own and through friends and relatives.

What it comes down to is that I have a high school education. So does Michael Moore...he dropped out of college on his first day because he couldn't find a parking spot. So does Hunter Thompson...he joined the Air Force after high school because he was in trouble with the law.

That makes us all better educated than William Shakespeare...I've heard a couple estimates that would have him around a grade six in the modern world. Nostradamus, who was also a physician, likely would have been placed at about a high school level.

In other words I don't think it's possible to "talk down" to somebody. Each of us is capable of thinking, each of us is capable of learning. The only time I'm purposely condescending with people is when they refuse to think.

All of which is an incredibly long-winded way of getting to a point about Moore. Part of his success...a large part...is that he can't be accused of being an "intellectual" who talks to people from an ivory tower. He's a blue collar guy who never went to college because he couldn't find a parking spot.

He is, in a very real way, an intellectual though. He thinks about things. He puts a lot of effort into getting his thoughts and opinions across. Since he employs a staff of researchers (who tend to be college educated), I'll bet he puts a lot of thought into how to word things so they sound blue collar too.

 

[crash]

I have always been interested in politics, even oddly since I was like 10 years old, in a very real way. So much so I went off to university and took a degree in political science. I was 16 the first time I joined a political party, though it hasn't been static. I was disillusioned to some degree with party politics, probably cause I had such high and idealistic standards. Anyway, I am getting off topic.

Sure, I have respect for Moore as an intellectual, and comedian. Perhaps the way I throw around terms like jackass and manipulator it doesn't come off that way but I really do. I actually don't mean it always as nesscessarily so negative either. I mostly respect his mastering of the manipulative arts. He might have had a great career as a politican, though I think at the same time that he has helped his cause I think he has fallen on the sword for any such career (should he wish to have one). Not to say he couldn't get elected to office, just that his

What I don't have a lot of respect for is some of the things that he does other than foward his intellectual arguement.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

The thing with Moore is, he is very effective at getting the basic message of 'no more Bush' across. None of the rest matters, in the end.

 

[Numure]

I think this is pretty silly....

Though it does send a message that the Canadian people will not tolerate the petty grandstanding that Moore does on a daily basis in his own country, on their soil.

Comparing Harper to Bush is ludacraus, and comparing the CPC to the Republician party is either ignorant or devious.

I just hope they don't waste too much time and money making a point....

Bush is the equivilant of Harper. And the CPC is exactly l;ike the Republican party. The PC wasnt.

 

[crash]

Nonsense

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

How did that old ABC laundry soap ad go... 'I can't tell the difference... can YOU tell the difference?'

 

[crash]

#1

This party is almost indistinguishable to the PC party post 1986.

:arrow: The constitution is almost a carbon copy of that of the former PC Party.

:arrow: The vast majority of CRCA and PCPC supporters supported the same parties provincially.

Stephen Harper was elected by default cause two weak candidates stood in his way. There was no CRCA takeover, it was a fusion back to the old party.

Prior to 1986 he, and most of the old CRCA caucus and members were members of the PC party of Canada. Some were MPs.

#2

In sum, Canadian conservatises are far more moderate and less influenced by the religious right than the United States.

It comes as no surprise that a few people who are clearly on the left can't see the difference, or don't want to. Its the same type of mentality that people have in relation to members of a different culture. Often times caucasans find it very different in passing to tell the difference between one east asian and the other yet exagerate small differences in theirselves.

Anyway, the fear mongering of the Liberals worked, quite obviously. Now watch after all the campaigning they did on the left to try and paint a stark contrast from the CPC they will as always take on a conservative-lite form of governance. The Ontario caucus of the Liberal party might be as conservative as the Ontario caucus of the Conservative Party.