CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: Fine against right-wing media outlet illustrates Canada’s illiberal campaign laws  Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:11 am | |
| The recent plight of the Rebel News Network at the hands of the government of Alberta reminds us that when it comes to free speech, the government is often less interested in censoring the message than in controlling the medium.
That may sound counterintuitive in this case, however. The Rebel, after all, is Canada’s most aggressively right-wing media enterprise. It has been an unapologetic opponent of the progressive New Democratic Party government of Premier Rachel Notley, and she happily returns the disdain.
It is thus easy to presume the government’s decision to fine the Rebel $5,500 (about $4,200 in U.S. dollars) for funding a billboard criticizing Notley’s minister of education must surely be rooted in some ideological spat. The Rebel is certainly keen to cast things this way, using the fine as a pretext for populist fundraising. “Notley wants to shut down The Rebel before the 2019 election,” thundered a recent email from Rebel founder Ezra Levant.
Remove partisanship from the situation, however, and the Notley government’s prosecution of the Rebel is merely an example of the sort of blandly bureaucratic anti-speech initiative any Canadian government would be legally obligated to undertake, given the draconian nature of Canadian campaign finance laws.
Over the last decade, the Alberta legislature has repeatedly, and often unanimously, amended the province’s Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act in order to make it more and more difficult for politically-minded Albertans to share their opinions free of government supervision.
Under the current act, any Albertan or group of Albertans who plan to spend $1,000 (about $760 in U.S. dollars) or more on “political advertising” must first register with the province. “Political advertising,” in turn, is expansively defined to entail the broadcast of any message, or the staging of any event, that “promotes or opposes” any Albertan provincial politician, or simply “takes a position on an issue” with which a provincial politician “is associated.”
Two months ago, the Rebel erected a billboard near the town of Innisfail, between Calgary and Edmonton, decrying the record of Notley’s education minister, David Eggen. “40% OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS FAILED PROVINCIAL EXAMS,” it blared. “ALBERTA CAN DO BETTER THAN DAVID EGGEN.”
In doing this, the Rebel “engaged in political advertising while not registered as a third-party advertiser,” according to a letter the group received last week from Alberta’s Election Commissioner. Eggen is a provincial politician and the Rebel had spent more than $1,000 agitating against him. Therefore, it would face a fine of $5,500 as punishment.
The Rebel is a deeply controversial outlet with historic ties to alt-right celebrities. Many will not be inclined to give the outlet much sympathy. But the Rebel is not being prosecuted for any crime against taste, decency or truth, but simply for expressing a political opinion outside of government oversight. Their dubious offense could have just as easily been committed by a left-wing group praising Eggen for the 60 percent of ninth-graders who didn’t fail.
Laws of this sort have no place in a free society. If private entities choose to spend their money on political activism, it is hardly the government’s business. The notion of a government registry of citizens engaged in political activity is deeply illiberal, if not creepy.
Most Canadians would probably agree with such sentiments in the abstract, but the widespread proliferation of Alberta-style laws regulating and restraining political speech across Canada are a testament to how easy it is for politicians to exploit shallow fear and cynicism in the service of discouraging the exercise of fundamental liberties.
Whether they are from the left, right or center, basically all partisans believe their opponents win elections only because they have some unfair advantage in the propaganda department. It is thus never terribly difficult to muster all-party support for some fresh round of strengthening campaign finance laws, which increasingly seek to make logistically burdensome ambitious political speech and activity in periods far beyond election time.
The Rebel is challenging the election commissioner’s decision as unconstitutional, but the notion that government possesses the inherent right to restrain the political speech of its citizens was previously upheld by a dubious 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 7-to-2 decision, the court found that federal campaign finance laws targeting so-called “third party” advertisers did indeed violate the constitution’s guaranteed right of freedom of expression, but said such violations could be easily justified by government’s need to mitigate the “danger that political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voter.” The court cited no evidence rationalizing belief in this “danger,” merely claiming that “reasoned apprehension that the absence of third party election advertising limits will lead to electoral unfairness is sufficient.”
Such lazy, open-ended logic gives the state free reign to not only regulate the cost of political speech, but its permissible time, place and manner, as well. It is impossible for the government to enforce limits on the cost of political speech without identifying it, and identification begets registration, which begets monitoring. It is similarly impossible for the government to set a coherent time frame for when political advertising officially becomes a “danger” to voters, which begets an endlessly expanding periods of monitoring, which begets fines for unregistered billboards in the middle of nowhere half a year before an election.
The political right is fond of imagining that a robust defense of free speech is one of its distinguishing features. Assuming Alberta elects a conservative government in May, paring back the province’s regressive campaign finance laws would be a good way for a new premier to demonstrate principled leadership to the nation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/30/fine-against-right-wing-media-outlet-illustrates-canadas-illiberal-campaign-laws/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6ad0a7f343b9
 |
|
