July 15, 2004

• I would call first amendment, but then I remembered that Canada has restricted speech. And it would be a little hypocritical of Moore to think that he is not subject to the laws of Canada despite not being a citizen.
• Thanks for the link, rocket88; this was a good find.
• Hell has a very special place for 'Young Republican' pseudointellectual gadflies... especially Canadian ones who trouble their Parliament with such petty, trivial indictments.
• The CBC's take on the matter.
• Geez, don't vote for anybody who put that law into effect. No, wait, now I can never go to Canada for fear of being arrested! Curses.
• "[no] person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate" You can't urge someone to vote for or against a candidate if you're not a citizen? Stupid law. Really stupid law. Don't vote for Stephen Harper. He's a dick. Now sue me.
• And something from the Toronto Star.
• interesting issue, good find.
• The National Citizens Coalition, a right-wing group (although they claim to be non-partisan), has traditionally fought against laws restricting free speech. In this case, however, they're advocating that charges be laid against Moore.
• And it is probably unconstitutional. Canada doesn't have the first amendement, but it has a Charter of rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada sees it, you can limit free speech if it's hate speech or advertisement, but limiting Moore's political expression would be considered silly. (And the part of the charter giving freedom of expression applies to everyone under Canada's jurisdiction, not only to citizens.)
• They need to change that law. It limits the freedom of political expression on the part of non-Canadians and it assumes that Canadians are a bunch of sheep incapable of making these decisions for ourselves. I could see the problem if Moore were passing out red fifties with little "Don't Vote for Harper" stickers covering Mackenzie King's face. I think all this kid will succeed in doing is to make everyone realize how short-sighted this act is.
• And how small-minded this kid is.
• Peace, order, and good government? Well, two outta three ain't bad, eh? ::rimshot::
• Laws like this make me glad I'm not in Canada. Can anyone point to a reason why this law might be necessary? I'm wracking my brain, but nothing's coming to mind.
• Can anyone point to a reason why this law might be necessary? I think this law is intended to prevent big US corporations to start ad campaigns to influence the Canadian voter. Related: Canadian political parties are restricted in the amount of money they can spend on election advertising (unlike their US counterparts). And they could be (and have been) fined if someone else (even Canadians) makes political ads and pays them.
• What's in the water today? f8x, I agree with you quite a bit, actually. When I hear people that tend to agree with my philosophies say how they'd rather be in Canada, I just point to laws like that, or this and say, "For as much as I find wrong about the current state of the US, I'd much rather be here where there is a healthy dose of libertarianism to balance out the authoritarianism." Not that Canada is an authoritative government, just things like censorship of political opinion (no matter how minor) politically squick me. And as much as hate speech is horrible, disgusting, and disruptive, I don't know if I can fully be behind creating laws against it. "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
• I don't think we've had enough Michael Moore threads.
• He's been mentioned in 37 threads. How many of those specifically about him? By comparison. Anything that makes a lot of news and that seems important to people is going to be talked about and posted about.
• Nevermind, I just answered my own question. There are ten posts that are about Moore. Ten. Hardly excessive if you ask me.
• As has been stated above, the law is far more likely in place to prevent candidates from exploiting loopholes than it is to put people like Michael Moore in jail, so I doubt anyone has to worry about this being taken seriously. On a side note, Nejatian loves media attention, and has been quoted in more articles than I can count about various conservative issues. I can't help but think part of his reason for doing this is to get his name in the papers again (just look at his last quote in the National Post story). Shit-disturbing aside, this should be given the attention it deserves, which is to say next to none.
• Seems to me that it hinges on the word "induce" and what an inducement might actually look like. Gray (and Richer) are right in that a law that violates s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unconstitutional and s.2 applies to "everybody", citizen or normally-resident-in-Canada or not. Which generally means that the court will read the law in such a way as to limit it to having only constitutional affect. In this case, something like the slipping-fifties suggested by Orange Swan [OT: I miss the old $50 - so pretty!] -- that is a *real* inducement; Moore's opinion means not a whole lot to a lot of people. So alas, MCT - I don't think you're in much danger. And, chrominance is right - Nejatian is laying the groundwork for another (more serious) run and as such blowing a lotta smoke [personal opinion, not an inducement to vote against him, should the opportunity ever arise.] Generally, Canada and the US have different legal approaches to the same legal problem. With free speech, in Canada EVERYTHING is considered speech or expression and it is selectively excluded from protection on specifically enumerated grounds (e.g. hate speech, various forms of commercial advertisement, etc.) In the US, certain forms of expression are just not considered "speech" in the first place, such that it would be protected under the 1st amendment. Thus, in both countries the same result: all speech is not equal.
• There might be a reason for the National Capital Coalition's position on this.
• I reckon Orange Swan, mare and ilyadeux are pretty much on the mark - if this law has any purpose (other than to enshrine this student's odd belief that Canadians are always "the little guys"), it must be to prevent foreign - not just USian - money from influencing Canadian politics. Possibly they had people like the Reverend Moon or Rupert Murdoch in mind? But I'm not sure "induce" was the word they meant to use. Unless it has some very specific legal meaning, the associations with phrases such as "offering inducements" aren't enough to make it mean anything other than "persuade". Dumb, badly-written, unenforceable law.
• Nothing quite so amusing as seeing (persumably) Americans talk about the draconian speech laws of Canada. The purpose of the law, as has been mentioned by eloquent posters above me, is to keep large entities from swaying the voting population. Some guy saying "This dude is totally not worth voting for!" means absolutely nothing, and is not what the law is for. Yes, the law is ridiculously phrased, I agree. Land of the free indeed. You want unrestricted freedom? Somebody linked to that al-Jazeera thing from Metafilter. Unrestricted freedom of the press? To say whatever they want? Yes, I wish Canada was free enough to have the KKK just like the US, and fundamentalist religious nutcases on TV blaming 9/11 on women's rights and gays. That's awesome! God bless! That's a country where you cannot get elected unless you have eight trillion dollars backing you up. De facto aristocracy. Give me a break, people. *ahem* I had waffles for breakfast. Twice.
• Moore's opinion means not a whole lot to a lot of people. So alas, MCT - I don't think you're in much danger. I find your lack of faith disturbing. Yes, I wish Canada was free enough to have the KKK just like the US, and fundamentalist religious nutcases on TV blaming 9/11 on women's rights and gays. So free speech turns people into racist wackjobs? Or Canada has no racists or religious nuts? Or speech rights are worth preserving only if we agree with what's being said? I'm not jumping on the "damn glad I'm not Canadian" bandwagon here, don't misunderstand. But yeah, if I want to secure the right to speak my mind, I've got to make sure that everybody has it. You're right about the elections, though. If ever there was a country in need of serious electoral overhaul, we're it.
• f8x and shawnj: You think speech rights in Canada are more restrictive than in the US? Both countries have limitations on free speech, and rightly so. Sometimes rights overlap, and courts get to decide which ones have priority. For instance, in the US you lose your right to free speech if you're within 50 feet of an abortion clinic. In any case, this law in question doesn't restrict individual free speech at all, except in Nejatian's narrow, attention-seeking mind.
• Yes, I wish Canada was free enough to have the KKK just like the US, and fundamentalist religious nutcases on TV blaming 9/11 on women's rights and gays. That's awesome! God bless! The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky ad infinitum
• f8x and shawnj: You think speech rights in Canada are more restrictive than in the US? The possibility does exist, however, it does seem that there is a much greater ability to be unpopular with speech in the US than Canada (current FCC nonesense non-withstanding).
• Possibly they had people like the Reverend Moon or Rupert Murdoch in mind? Or George Soros?
• I sincerely (and with some experience to back me up) believe that free expression is equally restrictive in Canada and the US; the restrictive emphasis is merely placed differently and for different purposes. In Canada, the definition of obscene is much broader and the law allows for contemplation of diverse communities where the standards of obscenity differ. As well, acts that in the US do not count as "speech" do in Canada (where the salient term is 'expression'), which allows a broader protection. In the US, hate speech/expression is tolerated because legislators decided the balance ought to favour the kinds of things that JFK, etc. were talking about in shawn's quotes rather than moving proactively parent-like to protect citizens from that kind of abuse. There are arguments for and against both strategies. My personal experience is that regardless of the law (Canada Elections Act or Patriot Act or whatever), what matters is not what country you are in, but what community you are part of. Helena and Chapel Hill are as open-minded as Montreal or Vancouver, and rural Alberta can be as rigidly close-minded as anywhere in middle America (or San Francisco for that matter). What matters is who you run with as to what you can openly say or do. I don't think that you get to say "FCC notwithstanding" in this pissing contest though shawnj -- otherwise, rocket can just say "this section of the Canada Elections Act notwithstanding" too which gets us all nowhere.