maplesyrup Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Court to rule on election spending law On the eve of a federal election, the Supreme Court of Canada today hands down a critical ruling on freedom of speech in the political arena.The high court has been asked to strike down a law passed in 2000 that strictly limits the amount of money special interest groups — other than the registered parties and candidates — may spend during elections I expect my confidence in our Supreme Court Justices to remains intact after their decision today. I am sure they believe in fair elections. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Argus Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 I expect my confidence in our Supreme Court Justices to remains intact after their decision today. I am sure they believe in fair elections. I hope they do. If so they'll no doubt strike down this undemocratic law. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 I expect my confidence in our Supreme Court Justices to remains intact after their decision today. I am sure they believe in fair elections. I hope they do. If so they'll no doubt strike down this undemocratic law. Well, apparently, stacking the Supreme Court with party loyalists lets you get away with just about anything. The SC has ruled that there's nothing wrong with suppressing freedom of speech where that speech might be uncomfortable to the Liberal Party of Canada. I haven't read the decision yet, but I'm sure they went to interesting lengths to justify ignoring any guarantees on freedom of speech the charter has. It shows the lack of value of both the Charter and the Supreme Court. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Well, apparently, stacking the Supreme Court with party loyalists lets you get away with just about anything. The SC has ruled that there's nothing wrong with suppressing freedom of speech where that speech might be uncomfortable to the Liberal Party of Canada. Not at all. Freedom of speech is still intact. Freedom to flood the airwaves with deceptives television ads has, thankfully, been curtailed. And it's not about the Liberals either. It's about the quality of debate. The same tactics have been used or could be used against Mike Harris or Steven Harper. I haven't read the decision yet, but I'm sure they went to interesting lengths to justify ignoring any guarantees on freedom of speech the charter has.It shows the lack of value of both the Charter and the Supreme Court. I think the decision means we'll be heading down a higher path of democracy than our neighbours to the south. Let the issues be discussed through debate and discussion rather than misleading ads. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
CanadaRocks Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Suppose party A) supports not fully deregulating our environmental protections (just an example) and has 100 grand of their own to promote it, and an additional 50 grand collected from supporters to advertise and promote to Canadians the values of thier cause. Suppose party supports full deregulation of the environment as this will allow big business to fully maximize profits and will help Canadians through some trickle down concept. Party B has 100 grand of their own to promote their point of view, and collect an additional 900 million dollars from special interest supporters (big business) to make the idea seem good to Canadians. Regardless of the validity of the actual merits of either parties arguements, which party is more likely to succeed? Quote
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Despite what Harper says, this is not a free speech issue, it's about keeping the democratic process in the hands of the people, not just those with money to burn on political action campaigns. I think the decision means we'll be heading down a higher path of democracy than our neighbours to the south. Let the issues be discussed through debate and discussion rather than misleading ads. Exactly. And who knows, maybe people will have to get a little more involved in the process, instead of just voting along party lines, or for the candidate with slickest PR campaign. Otherwise, we'd end up like the States: the best democracy money can buy. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Argus Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Not at all. Freedom of speech is still intact. Freedom to flood the airwaves with deceptives television ads has, thankfully, been curtailed.I think the decision means we'll be heading down a higher path of democracy than our neighbours to the south. Let the issues be discussed through debate and discussion rather than misleading ads. I have now read the Supreme Court's decision. As I expected, it was simplistic, shallow and based on suppositions rather than laws. In fact, some of the wording of the majority decision reminds me of the doublespeak we used to see in the Soviet era. For example, the following gem from the decision: "Because they restrict the political expression of those who do not comply with the scheme, ss. 352-357, 359-360 and 362 have the effect of limiting free expression. They do not infringe s. 3, however, as they enhance the right to vote." So the limits violate free expression but somehow or other - we are not told how - they enhance our right to vote? How? Why, by preventing us from being exposed to advertising which might confuse us? The decision freely admits in many places that the law violates the constitution, and yet it justifies it again and again because well, maybe, possibly, at some point in the future, the possibility exists that wealthy (iiicck!) people might come to dominate political discourse. Right. God help us if that ever happens. Like Paul Martin and his cabinet aren't bought and paid for by wealthy corporations. Examine the following shallow, poorly thought-out, illogical nonsense from the decision: "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." First of all, just because a lot of people (ie citizens?) pool their resources to advertise that does not "deprive" anyone of opportunities to speak or be heard, nor undermine the voter's ability to be informed. Nor did the SC make any attempt to explain how it would. If I take out a number of advertisements that does not preclude you or anyone else from doing the same. Second, the mere fact that something is "possible" should not justify a law which infringes on freedom of speech and expression. Absent any pressing and demonstrated need such laws should be struck down out of hand. This decision is full of illogic and suppositions masquerading as thought. It's as if a bunch of frightened socialists saw the possibility that some rich man might show up, squealed in horror, and frantically set out to put in place extreme laws to combat the supposed evils this illusory rich man might expose them to. Finally, examine the following nonsense from the SC judgement: "The limits set out in s. 350 allow third parties to inform the electorate of their message in a manner that will not overwhelm candidates, political parties or other third parties while precluding the voices of the wealthy from dominating the political discourse." It considers the $150,000 limiit to be quite reasonable and not overly restrictive of a third party's attempt to get its message out. This would buy you, btw, something like two 30-second commercials on a top rated national television show. And that would be the limit of how much you could spend this election. Two commercials and you're gone. Small worry you're going to dominate an election with that!! A Supreme Court known for its shallow intellect once more redefines the term. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Right. God help us if that ever happens. Like Paul Martin and his cabinet aren't bought and paid for by wealthy corporations. So your solution is what? To get more politicians on the corporate teat? As near as I can tell, you seem quite in favor of anyone with money being able to overwhelm the electorate with their message. Again: you want teh best democracy money can buy. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Argus Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Despite what Harper says, this is not a free speech issue, it's about keeping the democratic process in the hands of the people, not just those with money to burn on political action campaigns. OF COURSE it's a free speech issue! Whenever a law stops you from making your views known it's a free speech issue, especially when those views are political. As for "keeping the democratic process in the hands of the people" - uh, what country do YOU live in? Our democratic process hasn't been in the hands of the ordinary people for a generation. Politicians are bought and sold by anyone willing to shovel some bucks into their pockets. Or have you not even heard of the sponsorship scandal? Do you think the government extended patent protection for the big pharmaceutical companies because the PEOPLE wanted it? Or did it have a little do do with all the money the pharmaceutical companies gave to the political parties, first the Tories, then the Liberals? Do you know who's running in my riding? A parachute ethnic from the NDP, the brother of the Ontario premier (yeah, like that's the choice of the people) for the Liberals, and a lawyer for the Tories. Some choice. Anyone who defends this law by suggesting it will keep elections out of the hands of the rich obviously has no idea how our political system works. The groups this law will, in the main, silence, are the likes of the Citizens Coalition and Taxpayers Federation, made up of numerous individuals, not rich corporations or individuals (Izzy Asper anyone?). And who will it protect? Not the people, but the establishment. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Our democratic process hasn't been in the hands of the ordinary people for a generation. Politicians are bought and sold by anyone willing to shovel some bucks into their pockets. Or have you not even heard of the sponsorship scandal? Do you think the government extended patent protection for the big pharmaceutical companies because the PEOPLE wanted it? Or did it have a little do do with all the money the pharmaceutical companies gave to the political parties, first the Tories, then the Liberals? So let's make it worse by alllowing even more third party groups to splurge on election funding? Still confused. The groups this law will, in the main, silence, are the likes of the Citizens Coalition and Taxpayers Federation, made up of numerous individuals, not rich corporations or individuals (Izzy Asper anyone?). You sold me: anything that the corporate front group's you named are against must be good for democracy. Now, excuse me while I shed a tear for the millionaire's club that is the NCC. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
August1991 Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Now, excuse me while I shed a tear for the millionaire's club that is the NCC. In your anti-right obsession, BD, you don't see that the Liberal Party is turning Canada into a one party State. Quote
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 In your anti-right obsession, BD, you don't see that the Liberal Party is turning Canada into a one party State. And you probably think the Grits are a left-wing party. I don't like the Liberals, who have long played lip service to their social democratic roots while arduously pursuing a conservative economic agenda. They're corrupt and they're hypocrites. Nor do I like the Conservatories, with their Reform baggage, and even more vigorous embrace of a right-wing agenda that will deepen the already precipitous gap between the haves and have nots in this country. And I certainly don't like groups like the CTF and NCC who cloak themselves in populist rhetoric while pushing an agenda that will, again, benefit a select few (like the mebership of the CTF and NCC, for example.) Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Michael Hardner Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 OF COURSE it's a free speech issue! Whenever a law stops you from making your views known it's a free speech issue, especially when those views are political. I believe the French philosophers were the first to popularize the idea of free expression as a basic human right. This event predates electronic mass media, which is a different animal altogether and should be recognized as such. As for "keeping the democratic process in the hands of the people" - uh, what country do YOU live in? Our democratic process hasn't been in the hands of the ordinary people for a generation. Politicians are bought and sold by anyone willing to shovel some bucks into their pockets. Or have you not even heard of the sponsorship scandal? Do you think the government extended patent protection for the big pharmaceutical companies because the PEOPLE wanted it? Or did it have a little do do with all the money the pharmaceutical companies gave to the political parties, first the Tories, then the Liberals? This is an excellent argument against paid lobby professionals, television campaigns, and so forth. It was bad then, and it's bad now. Do you know who's running in my riding? A parachute ethnic from the NDP, the brother of the Ontario premier (yeah, like that's the choice of the people) for the Liberals, and a lawyer for the Tories. Some choice. That's a different problem than television ads, I think. Anyone who defends this law by suggesting it will keep elections out of the hands of the rich obviously has no idea how our political system works. The groups this law will, in the main, silence, are the likes of the Citizens Coalition and Taxpayers Federation, made up of numerous individuals, not rich corporations or individuals (Izzy Asper anyone?). Regardless of whether it's that group, or large unions, you're talking about groups that have access to the resources needed to mount these campaigns. Are you sure that the Coalition isn't supported by Corporations ? And who will it protect? Not the people, but the establishment. The people don't have access to network television ads, except to watch them. The establishment does. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted May 18, 2004 Report Posted May 18, 2004 Right. God help us if that ever happens. Like Paul Martin and his cabinet aren't bought and paid for by wealthy corporations. So your solution is what? To get more politicians on the corporate teat? As near as I can tell, you seem quite in favor of anyone with money being able to overwhelm the electorate with their message. Again: you want teh best democracy money can buy. First you acknolwedge our politicans are already paid for. Then you somehow suggest that private groups or individuals doing political advertising is going to make that worse. I'm confused. How does that happen? How is allowing groups like the Taxpayers Federation or National Citizens Coalition to advertise going to make our politicians any more corrupt? As for being "in favour of anyone with money... overwhelming" people with advertising. Let's get it straight. I am in favour of free speech. You, apparently, are not. If we were subjected to massive bombardment of third party advertising - note, something which has NEVER happened, nor even come close to happening - then it might be worth taking a look at restricting it. But restricting it to a couple of ads in TOTAL is not exactly fair. It is giving a free ride to the establishment and preventing other voices, especially groups of individuals, from banding together to challenge them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
maplesyrup Posted May 18, 2004 Author Report Posted May 18, 2004 In an ideal world we would not need an election campaign. With fixed election dates, we would know every 4 years we go to the polls, and based on what each voter observed over the past four years, voters could either vote to re-elect, or elect someone else in their respective communities. It would of course involve MPs, and potential members of Parliament working in their respective ridings for four years. But then imagine how well we would get to know the candidates that way. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
idealisttotheend Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 I have always had a deep voice and I usually make an effort to talk softly. It leads me to this analogy I am having an argument in a room with three other people, everyone is watching this argument. I have a loud voice and can yell much louder than the other three. If I have free expression is it then my right to yell as loudly as I want, completely drowning out the other three? Is their right to participate in the argument, their freedom of speech, not affected by my yelling overtop of their arguments? Is there not a point where I exercise my freedom of speech at the expense of the other three? Further, since I have a loud voice I have a natural advantage in the argument, people hear my side more or to the exclusion of the other sides. But having a loud voice does not make my argument any more valid then any one else's. So is allowing me to yell, because I have "free expression" in the best interests of the Truth? Secondly, that's my damn money the NCC is spending. They got it from businesses who got it from me without my consent for them to use it to buy a commercial to try and influence my vote. Thirdly, why are these people afraid of an equal playing field? Surely if your position is superior than it will be accepted by the majority of citizens who have considered all of the positions . Surely these people do not think so little of the Canadian electorate that they think they can only get their message across through endless repetition instead of sober debate? Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
Argus Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 The groups this law will, in the main, silence, are the likes of the Citizens Coalition and Taxpayers Federation, made up of numerous individuals, not rich corporations or individuals (Izzy Asper anyone?). You sold me: anything that the corporate front group's you named are against must be good for democracy. Now, excuse me while I shed a tear for the millionaire's club that is the NCC. The NCC claims to have 40,000 members. The CTF claims to be non partisan and has 61,000 members. I would be interested in the detailed lists of millionaire members you no doubt can present of either or both these groups. Your fear that somehow or other third party advertising is going to benefit the rich, most of whom are already huge corporate backers of the Liberals, or in some cases the Tories, seems quite - well, quaint. Third party advertising is generally done by groups representing tens of thousands of people, be they the NCC and CTF or various labour unions. Rich people don't need to conduct advertising. They do their business in the back rooms Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 And I certainly don't like groups like the CTF and NCC who cloak themselves in populist rhetoric while pushing an agenda that will, again, benefit a select few (like the mebership of the CTF and NCC, for example.) Yeah, damn taxpayers! Who do they think they are anyway, wanting input on how their money is spent! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 If I have free expression is it then my right to yell as loudly as I want, completely drowning out the other three? Is their right to participate in the argument, their freedom of speech, not affected by my yelling overtop of their arguments? Is there not a point where I exercise my freedom of speech at the expense of the other three? Further, since I have a loud voice I have a natural advantage in the argument, people hear my side more or to the exclusion of the other sides. But having a loud voice does not make my argument any more valid then any one else's. So is allowing me to yell, because I have "free expression" in the best interests of the Truth? Secondly, that's my damn money the NCC is spending. They got it from businesses who got it from me without my consent for them to use it to buy a commercial to try and influence my vote. Thirdly, why are these people afraid of an equal playing field? Surely if your position is superior than it will be accepted by the majority of citizens who have considered all of the positions . Surely these people do not think so little of the Canadian electorate that they think they can only get their message across through endless repetition instead of sober debate? Interesting analogy, but not really valid unless you believe all people who would wish to advertise would be doing so at the same time on the same station. It's also invalid unless you believe that only groups representing one side of an issue or argument would be able to advertise, raise money, get donations, etc. In other words, your fear is that, for example, only people who believe in cutting government spending are capable of getting together and advertising their opinion. People not in favour of cutting government spending, are, of course, incapable of such a complicated undertaking. Second, your indignation that businesses - who you perceive are entirely responsible for groups like the NCC and CTF - might dare to use their money any way they see fit is at odds with, well, reality. - YOUR- money? Uh, no, it's not. And third - an equal playing field? Who is equal to whom here? By this law only the politicians can really engage in advertising, and only to certain preset limits. Everyone knows the Liberals are sitting on a gigantic mint of cash that they are going to use to pour advertising out into every possible mediam ad nauseum once the election starts, completely overwhelming not just what the other parties can afford to spend but what they are allowed to spend. That big pot of cash came, as everyone knows, from rich corporate backers who are expecting (and will get) payback after the election. No indignation on your part about that, just a demand they not be interfered with by any third parties. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
August1991 Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 Further, since I have a loud voice I have a natural advantage in the argument, people hear my side more or to the exclusion of the other sides. Is that how you win arguments? By yelling louder? If you YELL COMPLETE NONSENSE, no one is going to believe you. It should be individuals who decide what constitutes nonsense. (This forum provides ample evidence of how difficult it is to convince other people of an idea they don't like.) Democracy means having the maturity to trust that other citizens have the wisdom to decide wisely. Those in favour of this legislation and the court decision are ultimately being paternalistic. Incidentally, the origin of this Liberal law is ironic in the extreme. The first campaign spending law of this sort was passed by the PQ for the first referendum in 1980. This policy was then put into Quebec's electoral law. Robert Libman, an anglo federalist, now a municipal politician in Montreal, took Quebec to court. He basically lost. The federal Liberals imitated the PQ and put these restrictions into federal electoral law. Today's decision is an extension of the previous Libman decsion. There is a thread of paternalism in Quebec politics and history. It is combined with a sincere joy in thumbing a nose at authority. The true irony? In the 1995 referendum, Quebec had the same spending limits in place. The federal Liberal government completely disregarded them when it literally comandeered all those buses and planes to bring all those people to Montreal. The sponsorship scandal was part of all that. Incidentally, the biggest advertiser by far in Canada is the federal government. And for many people, the Liberal Party is the federal government. Along the same lines, the major tobacco companies were in fact in favour of curbs on advertising. Without advertising, it is very difficult to introduce new brands. Limits to advertising are a way to preserve the status quo. Precisely what the Liberals want. Quote
idealisttotheend Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 That big pot of cash came, as everyone knows, from rich corporate backers who are expecting (and will get) payback after the election. No indignation on your part about that, just a demand they not be interfered with by any third parties. I dislike the Liberal parties fundraising as much (if not more) than any other party. My point is not an attack on the Cons, though it is of the NCC. What I saw in the leadership campaign to "elect" Mr. Martin to me is the very best example of how having so much money involvement is not in the best interests of democracy. In 68 there were something like 9 different candadates, with different visions and such, now the result is known five or six years ahead of time. Mr. Manning is right, it made this country a laughing stock on the democratic stage. The Cons were no better, what the hell is a $100,000 deposit required for to run in the campaign. Chuck Strahl can't run but Belinda Stronach can? Can or cannot the "little people" decide who they want to lead a 'grassroots' party. Layton, I am told, got the machinery of the ridings on his side and won that way also. Money's involvement in politics has gone way too far and I think most people on all sides of the spectrum will agree, except for defenders of the NCC and such organizations that benefit from having money be necessary for democracy. We must seperate voting from buying. The ability to raise money ought not be a prerequisite to whether or not you get to make your point, (besides a small amount raised from individuals). Whatever side you are on. And yes it does favour people who already have money vs those who might have more under a new system. This prevents change. As to my analogy the public has a finite appetite for election advertising. They will not listen to endless amounts it. They will hear what is adveritsed most often in the most popular forum, (the loudest voice). If it is controlled so that everyone has a small but equal portion it will be a discussion among equals. Furthermore don't we want to hear what the politicans think on issues from their own mouth or do we want the spin?!? Time to dumb up the political debate in this country (to say pre TV days) and 30 sec. "Paul Martin has stolen your money" ads won't do that. We elect politions based on what they have to say not on what someone else says the said. well, reality. - YOUR- money? Uh, no, it's not. This my absolute favorite argument. If I give my money to the federal government (expecting services in return) it is my money and I am told to be indignant that it is taken from me. If I give it to Telus (expecting services), it is not my money and Telus can do whatever they want with, (oh wait I can not have a phone right). WTF is the difference? Because I elect one and the other is 'private?' Companies do not exist for their own sake, they exist for the sake of their customers, their employees and their owners. The company must be subservant to the individual. They have no 'buisness' advocating any sort of political position, (and no neither do unions). I respect the CTF, but as to the NCCs let us indeed see their member list shall we. I want to see the 40,000 people who support it without the backing of any corporations or millionaires. Let's see the money trail. That big pot of cash came, as everyone knows, from rich corporate backers who are expecting (and will get) payback after the election. No indignation on your part about that, just a demand they not be interfered with by any third parties. I am very indignant about that sir and that it has been stopped to my mind is perhaps the most important thing Chretien did (maybe he saw the sponsorship scandal when he put it through). Democracy means having the maturity to trust that other citizens have the wisdom to decide wisely. Citizens. Not 'special interest' groups that happen to recieve large amounts of money from companies. Citizens as individuals. And I do. The citizens decided, though their elected goverment to enact this law controlling third part advertising and another law to crub funding to political parties. My argument is that citizens decided wisely to do this while yours is that (apparently) they did not. It is not paternalistic to ask not to be patronized by election ads from groups like the NCC. And perhaps, just perhaps the best way to have a real debate is not to have it in 30sec ads but to find another forum. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
maplesyrup Posted May 19, 2004 Author Report Posted May 19, 2004 If they have nothing to hide why doesn't the National Citizen's Coalition open up their books and share with Canadians who their donors are? Why the secrecy? I have learned in life the fewer secrets one has the better, unless one has something to hide, that is. Maybe there is foreign money funding this secret society. That could explain the reluctance to open the books, wouldn't it? And how come the NCC is not democratic? When are the elections, and how are they run, or is it a dictatorship? Things just seem to be going from bad to worse for the Cons. Stephen, I think you've got some spainin' to do. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
falling leaf Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 Maplesyrup Things just seem to be going from bad to worse for the Cons.Stephen, I think you've got some spainin' to do I don't think so Maplesyrup , What is the NDP hiding? You will eat your words after the election is over. Stephen Harper has nothing to hide. Can't say that for the liberals or NDP. We need some one to lead this country who uses common sense and smarts as well and doesnt go around bad mouthing others like Martin and Layton do. I am going to vote for Stephen Harper and I am sure alot of other Canadians will too. I can't wait till he runs circles around Martin and layton in the debate. Quote
August1991 Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 If this Supreme Court decision were applied to the US election, would Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" be allowed? (He spent more than $150,000 to make it.) Should the government forbid such kind of political commentary during an election? What has happened to the moral compass of this country? Even Trudeau said "create counterweights". He never said the State should silence one group. IMV, this decision is one more evidence of a moribund Canada. Quote
Alliance Fanatic Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 Hey guys remember that the left wing has created many of the worlds greatest democracies. Remember the 1917 revolt led by Lenin, or the Revolution in Cuba. Also remember that left wingers like Trudeau were extremely supportive of the democratic government in China led by Mao. Quote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell's Animal Farm
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.