• Connect to CKNW
Related Links

Court says government fixes to elections 'gag law' still unconstitutional
VANCOUVER/CKNW (AM980)
CKNW News Staff | Email news tips to nwnews@cknw.com
10/4/2012

Free speech advocates are applauding a ruling by the BC Court of Appeal that says no to government changes to an election-campaign spending law.

A court has again ruled the B.C. law on third-party advertising before an election is unconstitutional.

The BC Supreme Court struck down the law in 2009, on a challenge by the teachers union.

The province announced fixes in May, including limits of $3,000 per electoral district or $150,000 overall, which would apply to 40 days instead of 60 before campaigning starts.

Robert Holmes, lawyer for the BC Civil Liberties Association, says the province "foolishly" tried to restrict people speaking out against it.

"In the time since the last go-round on this issue in 2009, they didn't commission any studies, they didn't assemble any evidence, they didn't get the views of chief electoral officers on whether this was necessary.

“They left the clear impression that their only goal here was to limit speech by people that disagreed with government policy."

He says the province can make more changes, scrap the law, or appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

NDP justice critic Leonard Krog says the Liberal government should get the hint: It's time to stop trying to limit advertising before an election campaign even begins.

"The government should lick its wounds, go home, apologize and drop it. Stop wasting precious resources fighting a battle that it has now lost literally twice." 

That said, Krog says his party has not discussed whether it would try to limit ad spending in the lead up to an election.   


 «  Return to previous page
 »  Send to a friend
Subscribe to channel

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
  1. BY posted on 10/04/2012 12:55 PM
    Don't these, as "The Town Drunk" used to "The Brightest And The Best" ever win anything when they go to court. Sure doesn't seem like it.
  2. Garp posted on 10/04/2012 01:16 PM
    In a democracy what kind of government passes against free speech? Leave those laws to third world countries!
  3. Jartann posted on 10/04/2012 06:11 PM
    Leonard Krog is a hypocrite on this one. It waqs the NDP (i.e. the party he represents) that passed the first version of the gag law. And in addition there was no requirement to declare labour help, so when unions provided the NDP with members to help, this was not an election contribution. None of the parties were against the fundamental premise, which is that political parties are the only ones who can be trusted to communicate political information to electors prior to an election. They hold that we are smart enough to vote, but way too stupid to sort through 3rd party advertising and advocacy. Free speech? Not on their watch.

    But then, the political class supports the BC Human Rights Tribunal/Commission and their efforts to enforce politically correct speech codes.
    1. Garp posted on 10/04/2012 06:36 PM
      @Jartann In that sense this is a favourable ruling for industry which can now spend its money convincing you and me why we should vote Liberal. This is the same situation as in the US where superpacks spent billions convincing Americans which Republican would best serve their interests.
  4. Jartann posted on 10/04/2012 08:54 PM
    @Garp: As usual you are obviously uninformed. What the election gag laws say is that people are sufficiently astute to evaluate messages provided by registered political parties, but are not sufficiently astute to be able to sort through messages from groups other than political parties. It is the voters are stupid argument, but says that the message must be controlled.

    As for the US elections-the truth is that the average contributor to the Democrats is wealthier than the average contributor to the Republicans. Both parties represent big money interests-it is just that the Democrats are better at playing the crony capitalism game which is why people on the left prefer them.
    1. Garp posted on 10/05/2012 02:17 PM
      @Jartann thanks for the rub! so in other words, only political parties can advertise and provide the voters with information capable to analysis. An gaging fee speech was designed to prevent others from distorting beyond recognition a political message.

      Now third parties, ie industry, can advertise and support its favourite candidate, which is in their interests.

      Just exactly how is my post uninformed?
showing all comments