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.
“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,
But we also realize that hate speech prevents minorities from engaging in public dialogue as well.
Welcome to Canada, where we actually try to get everyone to get along, and frown upon our political leaders suing for libel.
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
Duceppe agrees to apologize for linking Dion to sponsorships
JACK AUBRY. The Gazette. May 8, 2007. pg. A.11
BQ apology (courtesy of Cherniak):
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.