Less speech = more debate

I haven't had a chance to read the Supreme Court's entire decision in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), so who knows? It could be a masterful, convincing example of jurisprudence. But for the life of me, I simply cannot comprehend the idea that less speech from anyone other than a political party is essential to safeguard democracy:

A landmark Supreme Court of Canada has preserved a tight clamp on advertising by interest groups during election campaigns, ending the prospect of an election free-for-all in which groups blitz the government on issues such as the sponsorship scandal or same-sex marriage.

”While the right to political expression lies at the core of the guarantee of free expression and warrants a high degree of constitutional protection, there is nevertheless a danger that political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voter,” a 6-3 majority ruled.

”Parliament had to balance the rights and privileges of all the participants in the electoral process.”
[...]
The ruling was hailed as a victory by those who see unfettered third-party advertising as a licence for wealthy groups to drown out public debate and threaten free speech. The court agreed with their view that unrestricted free speech gives a much greater voice to those who possess the means to exploit it.

”This egalitarian model of elections seeks to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed,” Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache wrote for the majority.

”In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter's ability to be adequately informed of all views.”

The majority said that while the election advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees, the breaches are justified.

One way or the other, the ruling was bound to dramatically affect Canadian democracy. Those who fought to uphold the law saw it as vital to prevent Canada slipping into U.S.-style elections where wealthy private interests hold the upper hand and use advertising to dominate public debate.

It's amazing, how you can completely shut down debate on any issue in this country by invoking the spectre of the hated Yanks. Want to reform medicare? That will lead to "American-style for-profit health care". Should judges be approved by Parliament? That will lead to "American-style ideologically-driven confirmation hearings". If the federal government proposed banning elections altogether, you can be sure Maude Barlow and the Toronto Star editorial board will say elections cause "American-style social division and conflict".

So, if "the rich" are allowed to spend as much as they want promoting their political agenda, will it distort the electoral process? I'm thinking of the Charlottetown Accord referendum campaign in 1992, when government, business and labour supporters of the Accord all united to outspend and out-promote the "no" side by a staggering margin. And they still lost.

All the money in the world can't force people to accept an idea they find unpalatable. It's too bad the Supreme Court of Canada thinks we're too stupid to make up our minds.

And as for these leftist groups who are celebrating about the Court sticking it to the National Citizens' Coalition, how quickly they forget. These are the same people who celebrated the Supreme Court's infamous Butler decision, which upheld anti-pornography laws. Customs officials subsequently cracked down - on gay and lesbian pornography, much to the chagrin of feminist groups who celebrated this infringement on our freedoms. (The feminist argument, if I understand it correctly, is that gay porn is okay because it doesn't involve men dominating women. No, I don't think it's anything more than self-serving bullshit, either.)

This decision is going to come back to haunt you in the same way, guys. Mark my words.

Update: Colby Cosh has more.

Posted by damian at May 19, 2004 06:35 AM