Court Ruling puts NDP Election Gag Law on the Ropes
Author:
Victor Vrsnik
2001/07/02
Manitoba Gag Law in Jeopardy after Alberta Court Ruled Federal Gag Law Unconstitutional
WINNIPEG: The Manitoba NDP's election gag law received another blow on Friday when Justice Robert Cairns of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that federal provisions restricting third-party spending during elections are unconstitutional.
"Back-to-back court decisions shooting down election gag laws in British Columbia and now again in Alberta are spoiling the NDP's chances of defending a patently unconstitutional gag law in Manitoba's courts," said Victor Vrsnik, provincial director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has retained legal counsel to launch a court challenge against Bill 4: the Elections Finances Amendment Acts. Bill 4's restrictions on third party election spending passed third reading in the Legislature but have not yet been proclaimed in force.
Last year, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled against a provincial election gag law similar to the Manitoba law.
"Recent rulings rendered by courts in B.C. and Alberta will not be lost on Manitoba judges when the CTF's case is heard," added Vrsnik.
In his judgment, Alberta's Justice Cairns writes, "I agree with the plaintiffs that there is no actual evidence of a disproportionate influence on the electorate because of third-party spending, nor is there any evidence that there has been domination of the electorate because of third-party spending." The National Citizens Coalition launched a constitutional challenge to the federal law last fall.
"This ruling mirrors testimony that the CTF offered before the provincial legislative committee studying third-party spending restrictions in Bill 4. Gag-laws on advertising by citizen groups and citizens during election campaigns are unreasonable infringements of a basic constitutional freedom," stated Vrsnik.
"Friday's ruling is a victory for voters. As in previous challenges to these draconian gag-laws, the court has ruled that free speech is not a government sanctioned privilege," Vrsnik concluded.