Liberals' gag law struck down again

Manisha Krishnan/North Shore News / Staff writer
October 23, 2012 01:00 AM

The B.C. Supreme Court has once again ruled against a government bid to restrict political advertising before elections - a decision being hailed as a win for democracy amongst educators in the province.

The so-called "gag law" was an amendment to the Election Act, aimed to limit third-party ad spending to $150,000 in the 40 days prior to a 28-day political campaign.

The B.C. Liberals brought their latest incarnation of the law directly to the Court of Appeal only to have it rejected on grounds of unconstitutionality.

"We are quite pleased with the ruling," said Susan Lambert, president of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. "We recognize as teachers the need to preserve the space for democratic discussions to happen especially around an election."

The teachers' federation challenged the original gag law after the Liberals passed it in 2008 restricting advertising for 60-days prior to a campaign. The Supreme Court later deemed the law to be an unnecessary infringement of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.

In the latest decision, Justice P.D. Lowry said the amendments do not go far enough in altering limitations on third-party spending or specifying what constitutes election advertising.

"Given that this court has held the earlier amendments to be constitutionally invalid principally because of the over-breadth of the definition of election advertising, it is difficult to see on what basis the current amendments could be said to be constitutionally sound in respect to the same period when they contain essentially the same definition," he said.

The government said it would not appeal the latest decision. The law was an attempt to address imbalances in jurisdictions with fixed elections, said Shirley Bond, Minister of State and Attorney General, in a written statement.

"We argued that a fair and equitable process is necessary to prevent those individuals and organizations with the most wealth from dominating the discussion."

But critics, such as the teachers' federation, feel differently.

"The motivation seemed to be to curtail public debate that would amount to protecting from scrutiny government actions," said Lambert. "It's quite an indictment a government wanted to throw away public tax dollars on court challenges of basic democratic charter-guaranteed rights."


© Coast Reporter

Comments

NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Coast Reporter welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus
Coast Reporter

Email to a Friend

Close

QUESTION OF THE WEEK POLL

Are you satisfied with the SCRD’s response to the recent logging activity in Chapman Creek watershed?

or  view results

Popular Coast Reporter

Community Event Calendar


Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events.