Damn I must admit that was savage responses to that fuckery. It looks like Rebel is thankfully gaining enough traction and power to influence things and it looks like they’re worried about that. Unfortunately for blackface, he gave up his rights when you become a public figure. Any public figure deserves to be scrutinized to the highest regard and be made out to the garbage being they really are. Libranos is quite fitting now.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh man, I eat this type of stuff up. I'm a HUGE civil liberties nerd. (How am I still single? I can't figure it out either!)
Anyway, let me say on a personal note that I think Ezra Levant is a piece of shit grifter whose smugnorantly massive ego makes Jack Dorsey look humble.
That said I agree in principle that he should be able to criticise the Prime Minister (or anyone else for that matter). Hell, I do it. Freedom of speech isn't just for speech I like. Too many people don't get that.
As far as the legality of all this is concerned (and I'm not a lawyer, just a legal nerd) the defense that he lays out in his video is null and void IF the text of the letters he received is accurate. (I didn't go find and watch his entire secret video with the 2 Elections Canada officials because my brain cells chose life.)
He says that his book is exempt from the law, but in the section he shows in screen it also says "if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election."
In both of the letters he posted on his website it says "During an interview with investigators, Rebel News' Director admitted that the book's launch had been timed to coincide with the general election."
So since he allegedly admitted he was only making the book available because of the election I'd say he's boned on that defense.
Also, his hyperbole of "being convicted for writing a book" is specious. The violations in question were that he didn't put Rebel's phone number, address and statement saying it was authorized on his signs, and the other is because he spent money on what was clearly pre-election period advertising without registering as a third party. That's hardly Nazi Germany levels of suppression.
As far as this conviction goes page 3 of the letters he got reminds me of a speeding ticket. You get it from the police officer who is the one accusing you and then you have the option to either pay it or contest the charge in court, which is what I'm gathering OPTION B is, though I'd like to learn more about that review, how it works, whether Mr. Levant has the right to attend, bring counsel, etc.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the meeting he was called to, but I don't know if he was subpoenaed or if it was simply an optional meeting, sort of a "Would you mind coming down to the station and answering some questions." type of thing. Regardless he always has the option to remain silent. I'd like to know more about how that meeting came about. I'll research it at some point. I do agree 100% that he has the right to face his accuser. Maybe that happens at the OPTION B review?
In conclusion I'm personally a supporter of campaign finance laws in general, I don't want Canada to become like the U.S. where corporations (Who are not people, my friend) can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy elections. But, that's a personal ideological belief. Also, this is a minority Parliament. If Mr. Levant and anyone who supports him here thinks the Canada Elections Act needs to be amended please contact your MP and the leaders of the opposition parties and demand they do so. Democracy FTW!
I was looking into this as well - the election laws seem to prohibit the advertising of political books during an election, presumably to prevent political parties from circumventing advertising limits.The entire case seems to centre around the use of lawn signs, which are not traditionally used to promote books.
However, I think they have a good defense and can beat the charges.
The sole purpose of their advertising was to sell their book, not influence the election, voting is not mentioned at all
I don't think the lawn signs meet the definition of political advertising in section 2 of the elections act as they don't mention the party by name
The book was published Sep 4, before the writ on Sep 11
The other 18 books released about Justin Trudeau around the election did not receive the same scrutiny, even though some of them were advertised using print media and billboards
You're right, the penalties under the elections act are summary offenses which means trials are not required to issue fines. However, the similarity ends there - the "review" is not a trial, it's just a review of written evidence by a more senior person. See section 521.14.
...Does Ezra want our money again?
Damn I must admit that was savage responses to that fuckery. It looks like Rebel is thankfully gaining enough traction and power to influence things and it looks like they’re worried about that. Unfortunately for blackface, he gave up his rights when you become a public figure. Any public figure deserves to be scrutinized to the highest regard and be made out to the garbage being they really are. Libranos is quite fitting now.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh man, I eat this type of stuff up. I'm a HUGE civil liberties nerd. (How am I still single? I can't figure it out either!)
Anyway, let me say on a personal note that I think Ezra Levant is a piece of shit grifter whose smugnorantly massive ego makes Jack Dorsey look humble.
That said I agree in principle that he should be able to criticise the Prime Minister (or anyone else for that matter). Hell, I do it. Freedom of speech isn't just for speech I like. Too many people don't get that.
As far as the legality of all this is concerned (and I'm not a lawyer, just a legal nerd) the defense that he lays out in his video is null and void IF the text of the letters he received is accurate. (I didn't go find and watch his entire secret video with the 2 Elections Canada officials because my brain cells chose life.)
He says that his book is exempt from the law, but in the section he shows in screen it also says "if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election."
https://imgur.com/a/Erpap0I
In both of the letters he posted on his website it says "During an interview with investigators, Rebel News' Director admitted that the book's launch had been timed to coincide with the general election."
https://imgur.com/a/7til2Te
So since he allegedly admitted he was only making the book available because of the election I'd say he's boned on that defense.
Also, his hyperbole of "being convicted for writing a book" is specious. The violations in question were that he didn't put Rebel's phone number, address and statement saying it was authorized on his signs, and the other is because he spent money on what was clearly pre-election period advertising without registering as a third party. That's hardly Nazi Germany levels of suppression.
As far as this conviction goes page 3 of the letters he got reminds me of a speeding ticket. You get it from the police officer who is the one accusing you and then you have the option to either pay it or contest the charge in court, which is what I'm gathering OPTION B is, though I'd like to learn more about that review, how it works, whether Mr. Levant has the right to attend, bring counsel, etc.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the meeting he was called to, but I don't know if he was subpoenaed or if it was simply an optional meeting, sort of a "Would you mind coming down to the station and answering some questions." type of thing. Regardless he always has the option to remain silent. I'd like to know more about how that meeting came about. I'll research it at some point. I do agree 100% that he has the right to face his accuser. Maybe that happens at the OPTION B review?
In conclusion I'm personally a supporter of campaign finance laws in general, I don't want Canada to become like the U.S. where corporations (Who are not people, my friend) can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy elections. But, that's a personal ideological belief. Also, this is a minority Parliament. If Mr. Levant and anyone who supports him here thinks the Canada Elections Act needs to be amended please contact your MP and the leaders of the opposition parties and demand they do so. Democracy FTW!
I was looking into this as well - the election laws seem to prohibit the advertising of political books during an election, presumably to prevent political parties from circumventing advertising limits.The entire case seems to centre around the use of lawn signs, which are not traditionally used to promote books.
However, I think they have a good defense and can beat the charges.
You're right, the penalties under the elections act are summary offenses which means trials are not required to issue fines. However, the similarity ends there - the "review" is not a trial, it's just a review of written evidence by a more senior person. See section 521.14.