By Gerry Nicholls
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
This has previously run in the Toronto Star
Prime Minister Stephen Harper used to believe in free political speech. Back in the days before he was prime minister, while he was still serving as president of the National Citizens Coalition -- I worked with him for five years -- he vehemently opposed government attempts to stifle free expression.
For instance, as NCC president, Harper even went to court to fight what he called the "election gag law."
Enacted in 2000 by then Prime Minister Jean Chrtien, this law imposes severe legal restrictions on how much money citizens or independent groups can spend on "election advertising."
At the time this law was passed, Harper viewed it as an attack on every Canadian's right to free political expression.
And no wonder. The gag law essentially makes it a crime for non-politicians to effectively and freely promote their ideas during federal elections.
Nor did Harper accept the Liberal government's flimsy justification for the gag law -- that we need such laws to stop "the rich from buying elections."
Back then, Harper maintained elections could not be bought, that Canadians made their political decisions based on the issues and facts, not on how much money a candidate or party spent. But that, as they say, was then and this is now.
And now it seems Harper believes that money is a corrupting and evil influence on our democratic process. He now seems to believe voters can be bought.
How else to explain the fact that even after a year in power, Harper has not yet repealed this odious gag law, nor even made a move to modify it? What's worse, under Harper, the Conservative government is actually imposing election gag laws of its own.
Take, for instance, the government's much heralded Federal Accountability Act. It contains a measure making it illegal for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate or political party.
This was done, say the Conservatives, to "eliminate once and for all the influence of rich, wealthy individuals from the political process."
And just recently the Conservatives moved to tighten this law even further when they proposed a law to ban loans of more than $1,100 from individuals to federal leadership contenders.
This new law is apparently needed because during the recent Liberal leadership race, candidates, who also face stringent limits on how much money supporters can donate to them, were seeking loans to help pay for their campaigns.
To the Conservatives, seeking such loans was somehow nefarious.
"When Liberal leadership candidates started financing their campaigns by borrowing huge amounts of money from a handful of wealthy individuals, Canadians saw that big money had found a back door," explained Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan.
What's happening, of course, is the Conservatives are using the same rationale to support their draconian contribution limits as the Liberals used to justify their undemocratic election gag law.
The Liberals, too, used to talk about eliminating the influence of "rich, wealthy individuals," and about "big money."
And make no mistake, the Conservative limits on political loans and contributions do -- like the Liberal election gag law -- infringe on free speech.
When I make a contribution to a political party I am making a political statement. For the state to limit my right to donate my own money to my own political cause is to limit my democratic right of expression.
So why has Harper done an about-face? Why is he suddenly in favour of restricting free expression? Simple.
Like the Liberals before him, Harper sees the real attraction of gag laws. They do nothing to make our elections fairer or less corrupt or to lessen the influence of the "rich" -- but they do effectively stifle opposition critics.
The election gag law, for instance, will silence pesky left-wing groups, not to mention seniors irate over the income trust flip-flop, who may wish to attack the Tories during the next election.
And the contribution limits, meanwhile, will effectively cripple the Liberal party which, unlike the Conservative party, relies on fewer and wealthier donors.
It's a clear case of cynical, political pragmatism trumping principle.
Ironically, Harper detested this kind of political opportunism when he headed the NCC.
But again, that was then.
Gerry Nicholls is a Toronto writer and former vice president of the National Citizens Coalition. Gerry can be reached at Gerry_nicholls@hotmail.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement