Gagging democracy.

Ottawa -- On May 18, 2004, our ideologically-correct Supreme Court justices dealt another blow to democracy as we know it in Canada. They upheld the federal government's controversial election 'gag' law which had been turned down by lower courts on four different occasions.

The Supreme Court ruling imposes severe legal restrictions on the amount of money non-political organizations are allowed to spend on what the government calls "election advertising." So, while political parties can spend up to $30-million (tax dollars) during an election, other groups are limited to $130,000 for national ad campaigns and a $3,000 limit for ads in any particular riding (all paid by private individuals).

Secondly, those groups which desire to advertise must register with the government and be prepared to reveal all donors who have given them money over the previous six months.

What reasons did the judges give for this law? It seems they fear that 'unlimited' spending by third parties during an election would harm "electoral fairness." They warned that there is a "danger" that "political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voters" (pretty oppressing reasons). And they say "the limits preclude the voices of the wealthy from dominating the political discourse ..."

In the minority report, Justices McLachlin, Major, and Binnie wrote that the "draconian" spending limits are so low that they amount to a "virtual ban" on citizens taking part in political debate.

As for the politicians, of the four major parties only the Conservatives pledged to scrap the gag law. NDP leader Jack Layton, on the other hand, favours the law: "The ruling," he said, "levels the playing field because advocates for the poor or otherwise disadvantaged can't afford advertising during election campaigns."

Comment:

Mr. Layton is wrong. First, information put forth by corporations and large interest groups could well be of interest to the disadvantaged. Second, smaller groups such as environmentalists, or pro-life groups, or associations of the handicapped, which do not have large sums of money, are of prime interest to the disadvantaged.

What will be the result of this gag law? It will stifle debate; give unfair advantage to political parties over broad-based interest groups (since the politicians will still be able to get out their politically-biased, tax-funded propaganda to the tune of $30 million per election)," severely restrict the information that third-party organizations can release to the electorate during the election; protect politicians from criticism; and ensure that politicians decide on what will be debated during the campaign (Various news reports).