Who’s Talking About Bill 42?

Pundits, columnists and organizations from across the political spectrum continue to speak out against Bill 42, despite the amendments introduced on May 27. Here’s what some of them are saying:

“The Liberal government’s tinkering does nothing to make this legislation less repugnant.”

“We are also concerned about the timing of this bill. Either the Liberals have deliberately waited to introduce the bill just before the next election to tie the hands of third parties in the next election or they have acted prematurely without adequate deliberation. Either way, this bill is a dark mark on the government and demonstrates a profound disrespect for the democratic process.”

Rob Holmes
President, BC Civil Liberties Association

“Election law should have been scrapped”

“…he [Wally Oppal] should exercise his special prerogative as attorney general and tell Campbell this dog of a bill needs to be put down.

Instead, good old Wally was front and centre Thursday evening, not only voting for it, but ramming it down the throats of the Opposition. In all the parliamentary gamesmanship that breaks out as a session comes to an end, Liberals had the gall to include the election amendment in the batch on which they cut off debate and forced through.”

Les Leyne
Victoria Times Colonist, May 31, 2008

“…just as B.C. Liberals are rolling out the pre-election goodies at taxpayer expense, their gag law will begin stifling third-party advertising.”

Want to take out some ads protesting the failure to fund social programs? You’re gagged. Don’t like the tax changes? Ditto.

Meanwhile, there’s all that free media attention for the Liberal budget and throne speech.

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun, May 28, 2008

“Gordon Campbell’s gag-law switch”

“…Election campaigns should be an open exchange of ideas, but that cannot be the case if only politicians have their voices heard. To impose a high ceiling on the amount spent by interest groups during the official campaign period would be one thing; to effectively silence them for nearly half a year is inexcusable.”

Editorial
Globe and Mail, May 20, 2008

“Spending flip flop breathtaking”

“…[T]here are occasionally situations where politicians flabbergast everyone with a stunning flip-flop that not only seems so unnecessary, but looks like a classic case of power erasing common sense and ethics.

That is the situation we now face with the B.C. Liberal government’s rather astonishing attempt to vastly limit free speech when it comes to an election campaign and the four months preceding it…

While many find such a gag law offensive (the criticism to these amendments crosses the political spectrum, uniting such disparate groups as unions, business organizations, civil libertarians and lawyers) one can also accuse the Liberals of rank hypocrisy…

Because the Liberals’ law is actually worse than the one they fought back in the 1990s. That four-month extension of the gag law (the NDP’s law applied only to the 28-day campaign itself) is breathtaking.

Perhaps the B.C. Liberals will come to their senses and withdraw the amendments to the Election Act.” Read the full article here.

Keith Baldry, chief political reporter for Global B.C.
Richmond News, May 20, 2008

“Gag law insults citizens”

Ultimately, gag laws are about silencing voices and controlling the debate during an election. That the government of B.C. has decided it wants to do so for a full five months is frightening. Gordon Campbell’s government has indicated it is prepared to invoke closure to ensure Bill 42 becomes law within a month. With the next election a full year away, as of mid-December it will be very difficult to purchase advertising for the purposes of criticizing the government or its policies.

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this government, they should be very concerned about a gag law of this magnitude…

For Gordon Campbell to bring in a law five times more restrictive than the one he opposed when the NDP were in power is shameful.” Read the full article here.

John Martin, Criminologist
Maple Ridge Times, May 20, 2008

“This attempt to manipulate and control what people hear… is patently offensive to democratic principles.”

“While banning advertising by concerned citizens and groups, the government gives itself free rein to fill the airwaves and newspapers with ‘feel good’ advertising promoting itself at public expense and promote itself further with taxpayer-subsidized political contributions. Governments should be held to account at all times through free and full public debate.” Read the full news release here.

Rob Holmes
President, BC Civil Liberties Association

“Premier’s gag order aims to silence public-sector unions”

“…What a difference from Campbell’s attitude when he was leader of the Opposition. Back then, the NDP government of the day brought in a gag law against third-party advertising that was clearly aimed at the Liberals’ deep-pocketed business buddies.

Campbell was wild with indignation.

“A gag order on third-party interests is simply wrong,” he thundered in the legislature…

The NDP’s gag order, Campbell preached, was “simply inexcusable, it is simply unconstitutional and it should not be there. It clearly should not be there as a way of restricting full expression.”

Funny how freedom of speech becomes less of a priority once you’re the guy in power, huh?” Read the full article here.

Michael Smyth
The Province, May 16, 2008

“Bill 42 Suppresses Any and All Voices Opposed to the BC Government”

“Bill 42 is shameful. Its effects will be severely harmful to citizens and organizations in need of exercising their right to free speech. Freedom of expression is supposed to be fundamental throughout our country. It is also fundamentally important when it is comes to issues of concern to individuals and society as a whole.”

Stephen Frame
President, Trial Lawyers Association of BC

“Hypocritical Libs are killing free speech; B.C. gov’t playing mean to keep critics off its back.”

“Now the Campbell government is …bringing in a law that tramples on democracy’s most cherished principle — freedom of speech.

“By clamping down on advertising for a full five months before the May 2009 election, the Liberals’ critics will be held in check during the budget, the throne speech and whatever election-driven legislation the government brings in next spring.

“That howling siren you hear is the hypocrisy meter. When the NDP government put a cap on third-party advertising in the 1990s, the Liberals complained bitterly that their friends in the business community were being silenced for political reasons.

“If a union or a business group — or any organization — wants to speak out on the important issues facing our province, they should be able to.”

Michael Smyth
The Province, May 2, 2008

“Third-party spending laws are unnecessary and unwarranted.”

“So for five months, no organization will be able to mount a public interest advertising campaign that exceeds the spending limit either in support of a party or potential candidate or more insidiously that
takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated.

“One argument often heard for limiting third-party advertising is that using allied groups provides political parties a way of exceeding spending limits.

“But in this case, that argument is rendered mute by another amendment that sets new spending limits for political parties that are so generous that, based on past experience, the NDP may dream about but only the Liberals will be able to achieve, a total of $18.5 million for the election and the 120-day period leading up to the campaign.

“There’s nothing new in a party in power revising the rules to give itself a better chance of staying in power.

“What was right when the Liberals were in Opposition is still right. Third-party spending limits are an unwarranted and unnecessary abrogation of the right of free speech. The Liberals should withdraw this bill.

“…just because other governments use their power to try to create a perpetual advantage, it’s still not right.”

Editorial, Vancouver Sun, May 6, 2008

“Campbell goes with his interests now, not his principles from the past.”

“…[H]is government is deciding the election rules in a way that suits its current interests, not the principles he articulated 13 years ago.

“…Among its provisions, restrictions on third-party advertising that are in some ways tighter than those enacted by the NDP a generation ago.

“The dollar limit is less severe — $150,000 versus $5,000. But the Liberals would extend the gag order over the five months leading up to election day, where the NDP ban only lasted for a month. The Liberals have been called hypocrites for their that-was-then, this-is-now stance.

“But the complete reversal, unaccompanied by any acknowledgment of the amazing convenience of the switch, invites stronger language.

“Extreme, I’m thinking, and treacherous. Or maybe profoundly false and dishonest.”

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun, May 7, 2008

“Campbell’s Gag Law”

“It is inconceivable that Bill 42 will withstand a constitutional challenge, but as it did with its contract breaking Bill 29 (2002), the Campbell government appears willing to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms until someone goes to the time and expense of taking them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.”

David Schreck, political pundit
Strategicthoughts.com