I am not a lawyer so I am hoping someone can explain to me the Liberal strategy involving the expert paper submitted as part of Liberal defence. The paper was written by a political scientist. As an aside, why they heck are they called scientists?
I don't see how attempting to link the Cadman affair previous scandals involving Mackenzie King and Sir John A MacDonald helps the Liberals. The premise seems to be that these Prime Ministers didn't sue their opponents so Harper shouldn't either. This logic seems tortured.
- The Sir John A MacDonald scandal was proven
- The Mackenzie King scandal was proven
- The Cadman scandal has not been proven (add your own yet if you so wish)
As for this passage:
“The Prime Minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents,” wrote Mr. Russell [the author of the paper].
“Such an injection of legal action into our political debates, were it to succeed, would give the government party a political advantage over its opponents.”
That is utter bullcrap. Perhaps the threat of libel suits would keep the MPs from all sides a little more civil, and and little more honest in their mudslinging. You can say anything in QP and be protected from legal action, this only invites smear and unfounded allegations from MPs on all sides of the political spectrum. Watching QP is a waste of time, nothing productive comes out of it. Everyone acts like spoiled children.
7 comments:
Funny how CBC, CTV and CPAC can broadcast and discuss what was said in Question Period, and the MP's are protected. Everything they blurt out gets into the MSM, but because the MP is in the Commons, they can't be sued, this has to change.
In the days of no TV, this worked, now, it's outdated. A new law should be, anything said is actionable if it's televised. This would stop the mudslinging.
How does this suit limit the oppositions freedom of expression? The opposition can make all the claims they like inside the house. This legal action centres around a statement on the Liberal web site that the authors claimed was factual. Had they even tempered it with a few weasel words they could have gotten away with it. Had the same statement been made in the house it is possible the speaker may have insisted the remark be withdrawn...or not. In either case there would be no grounds for filing a suit.
The Liberals, in their usual over-the-top arrogance, are the authors of their own conundrum and I hope the PM follows through all the way
The Liberals cry out for the 'rights' of the likes of Omar Khadar and Ronald Allen Smith, but here they are before a court in Canada trying to suppress the rights of another Canadian citizen.
The party of the charter alright.
Powell, I would argue they shouldn't be able to lie and smear in the house either.
All MPs should grow up.
There doesn't seem to be many champions of free speech on this blog.
cowtown, even with the right of freedom of speech, you must exercise that responsibly.
You can't call FIRE FIRE FIRE in a crowded theater and expect to be protected by freedom of speech.
You can't slander/libel someone without proof and expect to be free from any recrimination.
Post a Comment