The shift from 'free expression' to 'right to vote' means the notwithstanding clause no longer shields the legislation from judicial invalidation - but is the Court right?
Where in the Charter does it state that third parties have rights? I don't think that anyone can reasonably believe that every union member endorses the message for which a portion of their dues was used.
The Charter gives everyone the right to opinion and expression. There are no rights guaranteed to organizations. An argument might be made that an organization is putting forth the collective opinion of the members, but that argument would have to be accompanied by proof that that is the case, IMHO.
WRT the right to vote, I don't think we have proxy voting in Canada, so any right guaranteed to a citizen cannot be transferred to an organization. It follows that no organization has any Charter right regarding voting. I can't understand why a court would consent to hearing such a case.
The SCOC has elaborated the right to vote into a corresponding right to be informed (passive), but that does not necessarily flow into a right to inform (active). That right is covered under freedom of expression (subject to S.33). To a bystander like me, it appears the SCOC favours an end and is trying to concoct the means.
At any rate, if we voters have a Charter right to be informed to accompany our right to vote, then I would like to see someone bring the Government to court to inform us us of the role of the Chinese Government and the PM in selecting and endorsing a certain Liberal candidate.
I don’t understand why it would lawful at 6 months, but not 12. It’s a principle, not an accounting question.
This seems to be a flaw in having fixed election dates. If you don’t have a fixed date, you don’t set a target for people to advertise against.
Where in the Charter does it state that third parties have rights? I don't think that anyone can reasonably believe that every union member endorses the message for which a portion of their dues was used.
I still pay taxes and the government doesn’t do what I want.
The Charter gives everyone the right to opinion and expression. There are no rights guaranteed to organizations. An argument might be made that an organization is putting forth the collective opinion of the members, but that argument would have to be accompanied by proof that that is the case, IMHO.
WRT the right to vote, I don't think we have proxy voting in Canada, so any right guaranteed to a citizen cannot be transferred to an organization. It follows that no organization has any Charter right regarding voting. I can't understand why a court would consent to hearing such a case.
The SCOC has elaborated the right to vote into a corresponding right to be informed (passive), but that does not necessarily flow into a right to inform (active). That right is covered under freedom of expression (subject to S.33). To a bystander like me, it appears the SCOC favours an end and is trying to concoct the means.
At any rate, if we voters have a Charter right to be informed to accompany our right to vote, then I would like to see someone bring the Government to court to inform us us of the role of the Chinese Government and the PM in selecting and endorsing a certain Liberal candidate.
That was quite rambling