Speech isn't actually free, University of Victoria political scientist Dennis Pilon tells me. Of course he doesn't mean that we are not free to say, publish and broadcast what we please. His point is that only those with enough money are able to make their voices heard via owning a media outlet or through advertising. "Influencing public opinion costs a lot of money," he says.
And that influencing of public opinion is just what the B.C. Liberals had targeted when they passed Bill 42 last spring. No longer are third party groups able to freely advertise their political opinions within 88 days of a provincial election. Naturally, third party groups like the Canadian Union of Public Employees or the B.C. Teachers' Federation are none too pleased. Oh and, by the way, guess how the NDP feels?
This was a calculated political move of self-interest by the Liberals, thinly veiled as a step to protect democracy. If you're not convinced, try thinking how this would look with the roles reversed. Would the Liberals have dared do this if it were their supporters who were going to be left silent? Not likely.
The Liberals already enjoy a lock on centre-right voters and funding from the business community, leaving the NDP to find support and funds where they can. The Liberals had nothing to lose by keeping unions out of the political fray, while the NDP has nothing to gain.
Using public office to silence political enemies is a draconian measure, regardless of the political leanings of those affected. "Draconian," by the way, was the term Pilon used to describe Bill 42.
If a dominant political party wants to make changes to election laws that clearly only benefit themselves, it should be plain to see there is something unconscionable going on.
For the record, Pilon supports limits to third party influence, and with good reason. When it comes down to election time, people should be looking to the actual promise/policy makers who will be in the legislature. But Pilon doesn't support blanketing bans on groups' rights to organize and get their message out.
The issue has also made strange political bedfellows, according to Pilon. Even traditionally right wing groups like the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation do not support the bill. Then there is the issue of charter rights. Frankly, I am a little astounded the bill survived its first constitutional challenge in the B.C. Supreme Court. Scholars will tell you not to be too surprised if a seemingly unconstitutional law survives a court challenge so long as it is justified within "reasonable limits" as laid out in the first article of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it seems the reasonable limit in this case was not painting the B.C. Liberals in a negative light.
According to Pilon, similar attempts at restricting third party advertising have been put forward at the federal level, but have been repeatedly struck down in courts. When this gag law reaches the Supreme Court of Canada (and it will), I would bet on it being struck down.
Also bear in mind that third party does not mean just unions. It also means think tanks and interest groups and, by definition, it means you and me.
