Harper Abusing Legal System

By: Law is Cool · August 9, 2008 · Filed Under Constitutional Law, Politics · 2 Comments

Tim Naumetz of The Star reports,

“This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments,” Russell says in an expert opinion obtained by Toronto lawyer Chris Paliare, representing the Liberals.

“It is incompatible with democratic government,” argues Russell, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the university.

The reference to authoritarian rule and the rare constitutional challenge of Harper’s libel action revolve around his request for a court order to prevent the Liberal party from using or distributing copies of an audio tape at the centre of the suit.

According to Paliare, the Liberals will test the constitutionality of Harper’s actions on the basis that it has been launched as a Prime Minister, rather than a private citizen.

Post tags: Stephen Harper

Comments

2 Responses to “Harper Abusing Legal System”

Karry on August 9th, 2008 1:14 pm

“This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments”

Much like the use of legal action to silence Maclean’s and its writer is characteristic of…?

Law is Cool:

One of the basic skills lawyers develop is the ability to distinguish cases. But the differences here are so obvious that anyone really should be able to see it.

The first instance is one of an elected official charging libel based on political confrontations.

The latter is one where a community was allegedly falsely and maliciously placed in a negative light. There was no silencing in this case, in fact quite the opposite was requested – they wanted more dialogue, with people more than a high school education shedding light on one of the most complicated issues in the world today.

It’s not even apples and oranges. It’s apples and fuzzy kittens. It’s also worth noting that many other communities have done exactly the same.

The latter is also justifiable under the goals of achieving a free and democratic society. We value free speech so much that we really don’t like it when politicians infringe on it.

R v. Keegstra stated,

…the reach of s. 2(b) is potentially very wide, expression being deserving of constitutional protection if “it serves individual and societal values in a free and democratic society”. In subsequent cases, the Court has not lost sight of this broad view of the values underlying the freedom of expression, though the majority decision in Irwin Toy perhaps goes further towards stressing as primary the “democratic commitment” said to delineate the protected sphere of liberty (p. 971). Moreover, the Court has attempted to articulate more precisely some of the convictions fueling the freedom of expression, these being summarized in Irwin Toy (at p. 976) as follows: (1) seeking and attaining truth is an inherently good activity; (2) participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged; and (3) diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in a tolerant and welcoming environment for the sake of both those who convey a meaning and those to whom meaning is conveyed.

But we also realize that hate speech prevents minorities from engaging in public dialogue as well.

It is thus not inconceivable that the active dissemination of hate propaganda can attract individuals to its cause, and in the process create serious discord between various cultural groups in society. Moreover, the alteration of views held by the recipients of hate propaganda may occur subtlely, and is not always attendant upon conscious acceptance of the communicated ideas. Even if the message of hate propaganda is outwardly rejected, there is evidence that its premise of racial or religious inferiority may persist in a recipient’s mind as an idea that holds some truth, an incipient effect not to be entirely discounted (see Matsuda, op. cit., at pp. 2339-40).

The threat to the self-dignity of target group members is thus matched by the possibility that prejudiced messages will gain some credence, with the attendant result of discrimination, and perhaps even violence, against minority groups in Canadian society.

Welcome to Canada, where we actually try to get everyone to get along, and frown upon our political leaders suing for libel.
Mike on August 10th, 2008 1:59 am

I seem to recall Stephane Dion launchin a libel suit against Gilles Duceppe. Did you, or the Toronto Star, have issues with that, or is there a problem now only because the plaintiff is a Conservative?

Also, I think Paliare’s claim is ridiculous. Just because Harper happens to be the Prime Minister, doesn’t mean the suit has been filed by virtue of the office, which would bring the Charter into play.

Sponsorship fallout: Dion suing Duceppe
Bill Curry. The Globe and Mail. Mar 8, 2007. pg. A.4

OTTAWA — Lawyers representing Stéphane Dion are demanding to see the bank records of Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe as part of a $400,000 lawsuit Mr. Dion launched before he became Liberal Party Leader in December…
According to court records, the Bloc maintains the pamphlet is legitimate political comment allowed as part of free speech.
…the next court date likely won’t be until 2008.
[emphasis added]

Duceppe agrees to apologize for linking Dion to sponsorships
JACK AUBRY. The Gazette. May 8, 2007. pg. A.11

…A spokesperson for Duceppe’s office confirmed that he will sign an apology in a similar pamphlet to be distributed in the same 22 ridings in June.

In a scrum with reporters yesterday, Duceppe was reluctant to talk about the matter.

“Well, it’s a confidential settlement and I had said at the time that there was no way that we had said (in the pamphlet) that he had done anything wrong. So we will say it again in our next parliamentary pamphlet, which you can all read,” he said curtly.
[emphasis added]

BQ apology (courtesy of Cherniak):

In the fall of 2005, the Bloc Québécois published an article in the parliamentary bulletin, entitled “The sponsorship scandal – the money trail”, which stated that as President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Mr. Stéphane Dion, had (quote) “appeared before the Gomery Commission”.

According to Mr. Dion’s interpretation, the graphic presentation of the article suggested that he had participated or had been involved in the sponsorship scandal. Although the article could plausibly be interpreted in that manner, that was never our intention.

The same message appeared on the Bloc Québécois website for several months in the fall of 2005.

Since Mr. Dion considers that the contents of the above mentioned parliamentary bulletin attacked his integrity, I wish to extend my apologies to him and to his family, on my behalf as well as that of the Bloc Québécois and its entire caucus.

The difference in political offices, and the confidential nature of the settlement, prevent any further comparisons in that regard. There is no indication whether the BQ retracted their claim of 2(b) protection.