Cable companies buying the competition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CanWest communications stock, a very good pick. Don't place all your eggs in one basket. Buy some shares so together we can combine our votes.
Good value in the new HD definition channel industry, for CGS (CanWest) to enter, and offer several new high definition channel frequencies, in larger markets. CGS will help subsidize local TV news, for extra HD channel rights.
The new VI news style format (a email-phone in-comments to the news broadcast / and a video box for people to speech at) as one of the features of one of channels is an opportunity for CanWest to expand. Trying to create a dual information matrix, say one thing, and in another section say the reverse, this fosters freedom of expression for diverse opinion, and removes propaganda effectiveness, through humour.
Entering the price support of 25-30 cents for CGS.A, the ten vote shares.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Petition championing democracy
No: 09-1067
Victoria Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER
AND: British Columbia (Attorney General)
RESPONDENT
PETITION TO THE COURT
THIS IS THE PETITION OF:
ON NOTICE TO:
Attorney General of British Columbia, 1001 Douglas St.
Box 9280, Victoria, B.C. V8W 2C5
Let all persons whose interests may be affected by the order sought TAKE NOTICE that the petitioner applies to the Court for the relief set out in this Petition.
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED of any further proceedings, YOU MUST GIVE
NOTICE of your intention by filing a form entitled "Appearance" in the above registry of this court within the Time for Appearance and YOU MUST ALSO DELIVER a copy of the "Appearance" to the petitioner's address for delivery, which is set out in this petition.
YOU OR YOUR SOLICITOR may file the "Appearance". You may obtain a form of "Appearance" at the registry.
IF YOU FAIL to file the "Appearance" within the proper Time for Appearance, the petitioner may continue this application without further notice.
TIME FOR APPEARANCE
Where this Petition is served on a person in British Columbia, the time for appearance by that person is 7 days from the service (not including the day of service).
Where this petition is served on a person outside British Columbia, the time for appearance by that person after service, is 21 days in the case of a person residing anywhere within Canada, 28 days in the case of a person residing in the United States of America, and 42 days in the case of a person residing elsewhere.
[or, where the time for appearance has been set by order of the court, within that time.]
TIME FOR RESPONSE
IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND to the application, you must, on or before the 8th day after you have entered an appearance,
(a) deliver to the petitioner
(i) 2 copies of a response in Form 124, and
(ii) 2 copies of each affidavit on which you intend to rely at the hearing, and
(b) deliver to every other party of record
(i) one copy of a response in Form 124, and
(ii) one copy of each affidavit on which you intend to rely at the hearing.
The address of the Court Registry is: Victoria Court Registry 2 – 850 Burdett Ave.
Victoria, BC V8W 1B4
The ADDRESS FOR DELIVERY is:
The name and address of plaintiff’s solicitor is: self represented
The Petitioner applies for these orders:
[1] I am very concerned that the Law is being used to crack down on political criticism. It should not be against the Law to write on a poster, "Don't vote for Gordon Campbell, or Carole James; Vote yes on STV!" It should not be against the Law to place on a poster what a candidate says, if the candidate's comments cover more than STV. Do we not have the right to repeat what a candidate says? To deny such rights restricts accountability!
[2] Petitioning the Supreme Court of British Columbia: (A) Declare that the BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation S.29.4 Referendum advertising must not, directly or indirectly, (a) promote or oppose a registered political party or the election of a candidate, or (b) form part of election advertising – -- infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom unreasonably; therefore is unconstitional. If this Petition can be heard before the May 12/05 Referendum, seeking the Court declare S.29.4a&b are of no-force-and-effect. Breaches of Charter Sections:1,2(b),3,15. Freedom of expression is a core Charter value that must be jealously guarded!
[3] (B) Declare that the BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation, S.1 definition --"referendum campaign period" means, in relation to the referendum, the period beginning on February 1, 2009 and ending at the close of general voting for the referendum – violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms unreasonably; and therefore is unconstitional. If this Petition can be heard before the May 12/05 Referendum, seeking the Court declare these this referendum campaign period is of no force-and-effect. Breaches of Charter Sections 1,2(b),3,7,15. In British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436, the Court declared that the 60 days rule limiting election advertising prior to the election writ was unconstitutional (unethical); it follows that this longer prohibition period is also excessive. The deleterious effects of the impugned provision exceed their salutary effects.
[4] (C) Declare that these impugned regulations are not authorized by the Interpretation Act S.41.1a. I am concerned with the jurisprudence, Grace v. British Columbia (Lieutenant Governor in Council), 2000 BCSC 923 that no Charter interpretation is given, if the regulation is found not to be authorized in the proper manner. Failure to do so, profits the makers of unconstitutional regulations, to construct Acts that do not authorize regulations with the proper legal content. This is no doubt why the Teachers Federation challenging Bill 42 did not make the ultra vires argument. The Legislature did not grant the authority to influence the election – referendum regulations compound Bill 42's infringement. An example: the previous Referendum Act 2005 S.6 wording does not formally mention the Interpretation Act. It is fundamental to the public interest to have a Charter interpretation. If it is not agreed in Chambers, that a Charter interpretation must be given, then there will be no challenge questioning the Interpretation Act’s authority to enact the impugned regulations.
[5] (D) Seeking an interlocutory injunction. Filing notice of motion and hearing: the bans and time limit, must not be allowed to interfere with the democratic process. Petitioning that STV advertising, that is considered election advertising, be regulated as it was in the May 2005 Referendum. Quote from Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57: “[34] … For the courts to insist rigidly that all legislation be enforced to the letter until the moment that it is struck down as unconstitutional might in some instances be to condone the most blatant violation of Charter rights. Such a practice would undermine the spirit and purpose of the Charter.”
[6] (E) Award exemplary, aggravated, and punitive damages, when it is judged that these unethical regulations violate the Canadian Charter, and provide unfair advantages, and cause harm. These regulations make me a political criminal, and I am under threat of imprisonment for my political beliefs! The government has no right to interfere in my promoting STV. It is sinister, undemocratic, and malicious to interfere with the referendum/election through illegal means, and not forfeit the benefits. The referendum results are tainted. There must be punishment! In the United States, it is a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. A measure of democracy is how it deals with those that cheat democracy!
[7] (F) Requesting that the Court's decision, make reference and comment on how these impugned regulations were handled (made known) by the mainstream newspapers: Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun, and the Province. There has been a huge public outcry over Bill 42. It stands to reason then, there also would be some sort of newspaper comment on the referendum gag laws. If only a few mainstream newspaper clippings can be produced, this would seem to be an incredible irregularity that deserves comment by the Court. If the Attorney General of BC determines this has merit, the Court must hold the Attorney General accountable, if the Attorney General fails to act. The Attorney General of Canada has a fiduciary duty to monitor this scam. [Not referring to the amendment exempting politicians from these referendum gag laws.] I will remove this request for the Court to mention how these newspapers handled informing the public on this inconvenient truth, if the respondent can show that the Times Colonist, or the Vancouver Sun, or the Province, made an honest attempt to make known the referendum time limit and ban gag laws.
[8] (G) The desire to settle the matter of the Respondent's costs, is an important concern for Petitioner. I hope the Respondent will agree to wave the right to recover costs. The Court's guidance and wisdom should be welcome. The Petition is of public interest and falls under Appendix B, Party and Party Costs, 3(b) “general interest.” The current Government has already been found guilty of advocating illegal election laws, and there has been no apology! STV is a gift from our Generation to Canada -- it is not just to threaten financial ruin on those who question laws created to cheat the dream! The Court is asked to punish the Respondent with punitive damages even further, if costs are requested.
(9) (H) Reimbursement of costs: scale 3. In generations to come, this decision and jurisprudence, will have a life of its own.
The Petitioner will rely on [set out rule or enactment relied on]:
[1] Infringes unreasonably on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Sections:1,2(b),3, &15.
[2] Supreme Court Act: R. 2(1) Unless the court otherwise orders, a failure to comply with these rules shall be treated as an irregularity and does not nullify a proceeding. Technicalities must not stifle this application. The petitioner is seeking latitude. When the law is used to ban political criticism, it is in the Public Interest to access the Court's guidance and wisdom. It is of fundamental importance to Canadian democracy.
[3] Supreme Court Act: S.18 The Attorney General is not entitled to claim that this matter is already before the Court. It is not a repetition. These issues have not been raised in an earlier proceeding -- specifically the B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436. This is different Act. There is no mention of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, and its regulations. This is much more than limiting election advertising. It is a complete ban on election advertising.
[4] Constitutional Questions Act: S.3. This is a constitutional validity question. The Attorney General of Canada must be notified of the hearing, and must be heard if they see fit. The method of notification to Attorney General of Canada will be through a fax, a cover memorandum. S.8.4 The notice must (a) be headed in the cause, matter or other proceeding, (b) state(i) the law in question, or(ii) the right or freedom alleged to be infringed or denied, (c) state the day on which the challenge or application under subsection (2) or (3) is to be argued, and (d) give particulars necessary to show the point to be argued. S.5 of Act states, the Court may direct notification to interested persons, or class of persons. The notification list should include: political parties; the yes and no side government funded groups; the manager for the STV information hotline Neil Riemer; and the Teachers Federation. I welcome direction here.
[5] Notification will be delivered to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The petitioner wishes for an intervenor, and hopes the B.C. Civil Liberties Association will be this honourable defender. We must be very careful how this is approached, as was evidenced by the BC Teachers' Federation v. BC (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436. An intervenor will add credibility, and authority to the Decision.
[6] Law and Equity Act: S.39 Injunction procedure: Court discretion to design an injunction order. Petitioning that the 2005 Referendum advertising rules apply – and obviously, that STV/Referendum advertising, which is considered election advertising, must comply with Bill 42’s election spending limits. Reasonable compromise. Context of consideration set forth in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57: (i) serious issue to be tried; (ii) whether absent an injunction, there will be irreparable harm; and (iii) the balance of (in)convenience. This is a serious issue to be tried. It is in the public good to suspend ban. Restrictions do far more than, might occasion irreparable harm the capacity of third parities to participate as they wish.
[7] Interpretation Act: S41.1(a) Restricts enacting regulations that are inconsistent with carrying out the enactment. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act S.8(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in S.41 of the Interpretation Act. S.8(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the manner by which the referendum is to be conducted. Not authorized to influence the election. Banning STV election advertising, undermines the intention of Bill 42, and compounds Bill 42's Charter infringement. Not authorized to make political prisoners!
[8] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates it is the onus of the Attorney General to establish the impugned regulations are reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable. B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436: “[108] The burden rests upon the Attorney General to establish that the impugned provisions constitute a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The relevant analytical framework was set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200, with certain refinements regarding the third step of the proportionality test in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, 120 D.L.R. (4th) 12, as follows: a. the law must be directed towards an objective that is sufficiently pressing and substantial to justify limiting a Charter right; and b. the law must be proportionate, in the sense that i. the measures chosen are rationally connected to the objective; ii. those measures impair as little as possible the Charter right in question; and iii. there is proportionality both between the objective and the deleterious effects of the statutory restrictions, and between the deleterious and salutary effects of those restrictions.”
At the hearing of this petition will be read the affidavit of:
the depondent
Copy of which is served herewith.
The facts upon which this petition is based are as follows:
[1] This case is of fundamental importance to British Columbia, and Canada.
[2] This is a plea to the Supreme Court to defend British Columbia’s democracy. It is alleged that Laws have been enacted to manipulate the Province's political system: for self-interest; to harm and suppress the competition; to stifle detractors; and to undermine the STV referendum, and provincial election. The makers of these Laws do not fear the Court, and believe there is no punishment for running illegal laws up the flag pole, so why not try? The Court is entrusted with a sacred duty to defend against corruption! The Court must harshly punish transgressions attacking our sacred democracy! In our legal system, the Court needs a petitioner to act. This case gives the Court the right to act.
[3] Range/standard of arguments to be considered. In B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General) 2009 BCSC 436, it stated: "[163] Bastarache J. noted in Harper that “the Legislature is not required to provide scientific proof based on concrete evidence of the problem it seeks to address. Where the court is faced with inconclusive or competing social science evidence relating the harm to the Legislature’s measures, it may rely on a reasoned apprehension of that harm” (para. 77). He referred to a number of cases where the Court had, in the absence of determinative scientific evidence, relied on logic, reason and some social science evidence in the course of the justification analysis; see R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 at 503, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 449; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 at 768 and 776, [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 at para. 137, 127 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Thomson Newspapers, at paras. 104-7; and R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45."
[4] The Attorney General has a duty to highlight the problems with these impugned regulations. The Attorney General of British Columbia and Canada, are not pawns of the current elected managers of the government. They have a higher responsibility to advocate for democratic fairness, and to represent the entire society -- all the people -- not just special interests. Let there not be a repeat of the B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436, where the Attorney General instructs the Court to ignore certain arguments on technical grounds. If the respondent truly believes these enactments are reasonable and just, why then not engage the material, and acknowledge the dynamics that are troublesome.
[5] Let this case avoid the past mistakes with the Attorney General of Canada's lack of substance in advocating limiting political participation. Justice Major wrote in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) SCC 2000: “[23] The Attorney General admitted that there was a violation of s. 2(b), and offered not a scintilla of evidence showing that the injunction would cause some harm.” “[13] … The Government simply asserts that third-party spending limits, if not controlled, may (and this is notional only) impact adversely on the fairness of elections. Yet, it can point to no evidence to illustrate unfairness in the Canadian elections caused by third-party spending.” It is gross negligence to not recognize damages!
[6] The British Columbia Single-Transferable-Vote referendum will be very close. The majority of British Columbians voted 58% last time for STV. It fall short, requires 60%. The impact of impugned regulations favours the no vote. To set such a high bar to pass, not just also then to restrict the freedom of speech.
[7] Comments from Legislature, Hon. Horgan: "I do still believe that the supermajority is a challenge and an obstacle.” [Hansard, p12800] Hon. Horgan, "I don't have a quarrel with our system. I believe in representing an area rather than representing a point of view, so I'm quite comfortable with what we've got. But as I've said in the debate, I do hear from a lot of people in the community — not just my own, but since I've been taking an interest in this — that by putting forward a supermajority, we are protecting our self-interest." [Hansard, p10643]
[8] There is sparse jurisprudence to support ban -- unprecedented; whereas, there is volumes of jurisprudence guarding the right to freedom of speech. Justice Cole wrote “[269] Freedom of expression is a core Charter value that must be jealously guarded. The minority judges in Harper spoke emphatically and eloquently about the importance of political speech at paras. 11–12 and 16-18: … [17] Freedom of expression protects not only the individual who speaks the message, but also the recipient. Members of the public – as viewers, listeners and readers – have a right to information on public governance, absent which they cannot cast an informed vote; see Edmonton Journal, supra, at pp. 1339-40. Thus the Charter protects listeners as well as speakers; see Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, at pp. 766-67."
[9] Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) 2000,SCC 57: “[20] In this application, we are dealing with one of the most valuable forms of speech: political speech. Canadians cherish the unimpeded diffusion of political ideas and opinions, and this Court has long recognized that freedom of expression is “essential to the working of a parliamentary democracy such as ours” (Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, per Abbott J., at p. 326). Hence we must tread carefully in limiting political speech. It is speech that we recognize as invaluable, given its significance in our democratic process. We should be loathe to interfere with it, especially in the midst of a federal election."
[10] Please appreciate that the impugned regulations are not an Act; they are regulations created by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and therefore, have not undergone the same Legislative scrutiny. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act states: 8(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. 8(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the manner by which the referendum is to be conducted. Note, these regulations were not released until Oct 9/08, and there was an amendment to the regulations made in Dec 12/08, when the Legislature was not sitting. Why did the NDP fail to raise the lack of an exemption for candidates, in the emergency fall session? Regulations were created by BC Liberals and NDP that have a vested interest. Not in the public good.
[11] The Teachers Federation referring to the spending limit on election advertising said bluntly, in Justice Cole’s decision: “[145] The plaintiffs say that this evidence strongly suggests that the impugned provisions were designed, at least in part, to tilt the electoral playing field in favour of the Liberal Party.” “[130] The plaintiffs do not accept that electoral fairness is the objective of the impugned provisions, and instead submit that the evidence reveals a number of other more likely objectives: a. allowing the government to control its public message as it prepares for the upcoming election and not to be taken off that message by third parties;b. targeting unions that the government considers too “friendly” to the NDP and thereby enhancing the government’s chances of re-election.”
[12] Referendum gag law profits both parities. They are in bed together. It is as if, the two parties take turns being the King. Antiquity democratic method. The method of choosing political representation not changed since Confederation -- same as it was, before there were planes, automobiles, electricity, or telephones. Depressing, there should be progress.
[13] This is a very unpopular Government in some circles. It is unjust that the Government refused to recognize an official opposition in their first term, and has tried to lock-out the Legislature Fall session several times, and yet has sold billions in public assets. The Legislature is closing early because of the fixed election date, the Government must have know this, when they announced there would be no fall Legislature last year. There was a partial fall session because of the world economic crisis. There is a history of trying to suppress voters through changing election laws in favour of the current Government. The first reading of Bill 42 attempted to amend Election Act S.41.3 and required identification and prove-of-residence to vote.
[14] It is hard not to be cynical of BC politics. The BC Liberals received tons of votes, not because these voters love them, rather because they hate the NDP. Likewise the NDP received some votes, not because these voters agree with the NDP, rather because voters fear Gordon Campbell. STV helps get us out of this rut. A very interesting feature of STV is that parties will no longer run a full slate. If a party does run a full slate, they run the risk of winning fewer seats, then if they only ran only as many candidates, plus one, as their percentage of support suggests they have. There is no need to fear Gordon Campbell or the NDP anymore: if we vote for STV. We must have the right to say this on posters, but the impugned regulations ban such comment. We are cynical for good reason!
[15] According to BC election officials, the stated purpose is to remove short term goals from interfering. They believe short term biases should not play a role. The proposed STV Legislative structure is a lasting effect. They are worried that dislike for certain politicians would favour STV!
[16] Referendum gag law isn’t necessary to achieve the State objective. Other alternatives are available to accomplish that the electorate consider long term interests -- for example: an educational campaign to tell citizens to ignore short term interests; and/or have all referendum advertising empathizing the importance of considering the long term consequences. Gag law does serious harm to the goals of all other political parities.
[17] The effect of the impugned regulations are not minimal impairments to the benefits sought. They are disproportionate. They are too sweeping in relation to the objective -- over breath. They do not enhance meaningful participation. The ban undermines voters’ confidence in both the referendum and election processes. The extreme deleterious effects overshadow the salutary effects!
[18] Maintaining confidence in the electoral process is essential to preserve the integrity of the electoral system which is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy! In R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136, Dickson C.J. concluded that faith in social and political institutions, which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society, is of central importance in a free and democratic society. If Canadians lack confidence in the electoral system, they will be discouraged from participating in a meaningful way in the electoral process. More importantly, they will lack faith in their elected representatives. Confidence in the electoral process is, therefore, a pressing and substantial objective.
[19] We have the right to vote in changing the Legislature from first past the post, to a single transferable vote structure based on current politics. There is no jurisprudence to say we can not use current politics to influence our vote.
[20] Banning specific political commentary in STV, steals valuable points of consideration that STV voters have a right to consider. Referencing political parties is not done only to forward short term goals. Political language needs access to names of political parties, and candidates, and the like, to express long term positions, and connect to our history. The impugned regulations favour the no STV side, in that change requires specifics.
[21] It has not been established that British Columbia’s voters are so vulnerable a group, to warrant this serious invasion on the freedom of speech.
[22] We have a right to the defense of truth. If I feel something, and it is true, I have the right to say so!
[23] How does one support a candidate specifically because they support STV, when one cannot associate STV with that candidate? It is illegal to promote STV politicians, if STV is mentioned. Where are the fundamental rights to promote/oppose candidates based on their positions? Curtailment of STV demonstrates again this referendum law has a feedback loop on the election.
[24] We have the right to criticize the referendum gag law, and the people who unleashed this dirty dog, independent of the referendum and election. Similar, Justice Cole wrote “[253]: … [I]f Bill 42 had been introduced during or just prior to an election pre-campaign period, the “Just Shut Up” advertising campaign opposing that Bill would have been captured as advertising that took a position on an issue with which a party (the governing Liberal Party) was associated. In so doing, it would have captured expression that had nothing to do with electoral fairness.”
[25] The B.C. Liberal Government restricts STV comment on current events. Justice Cole wrote “[175] The plaintiffs submit that the extension of the spending restrictions to the pre-campaign period substantially skews the balance sought to be achieved by the legislation upheld in Harper. The impugned provisions restrict public discussion of the government while it is in session, which they describe as anathema to the principles of democracy and an assault on democratic traditions.”
[26] Sadly, a large percentage of British Columbians do not exercise their right to vote. STV rules ban advertising pitches like: don't vote for either the Liberals or the NDP -- both horrible! But come out and vote for STV. We need access to political commentary to make pitches effective. It will be disastrous for democracy if this is outlawed. It is assumed that a huge percentage of British Columbians who don't vote, do support STV. If these disenfranchised voters came out and voted for STV, they very well might vote in the election. This would not bode well for the BC Liberals.
[27] Bill 42 has already infringed and limited freedom of speech. It is already infringing on voters’ Charter liberties. It is unfair to infringe on them further with the impugned regulations. B.C. election advertising definition was made extremely broad to capture in its definition several loopholes in advertising speeding. By making such a broad definition, then how is it fair to deny STV advertising from any part of this definition? They can’t have it both ways.
[28] The election spending is issue specific and certain issues extend into future generations, and therefore have a role in STV.
[29] STV advertising must be able to include aspects of the election advertising definition. BC election advertising is extremely broad, any position of a candidate. Justice Cole wisely observed, "[246] I would, nevertheless, observe that Bastarache J.’s comment in Harper to the effect that third parties may partake in unlimited advertising campaigns regarding issues that are not associated to a political party or candidate does not accord with the reality of election advertising in this province. Practically speaking, it is not readily apparent when an issue is not associated with a candidate or political party. The Liberal Party’s campaign platform for the 2005 election demonstrates the extent to which this is the case. Entitled A Proven Plan for a Golden Decade, the document (BC Liberal Party: 2005) sets out the party’s platform regarding a wide range of topics: education, including life-long learning and advanced education; the arts; cultural diversity; healthier living and physical fitness; health care; seniors; children and families; First Nations; women; public safety; democratic reform; partnerships with local governments; parks; environmental protection; job creation; free enterprise; income taxes; research and technology; forestry industry; sustainable development in the energy and mining industries; the 2010 Olympics; tourism; new “gateways” to the Asia Pacific; transportation; northern development; regional growth; and relations with the federal government and other provinces. Against this platform, it is difficult to conceive of an issue that is not associated with the Liberal Party."
[30] The election/referendum gag laws obstruct the evolution of the Central Bank's access to advanced Monetary Theory -- Keynes’ Keys. Times are changing, as many Nations are crippled with overwhelming government debt. Advanced democracy and the modern money supply are wedded. Inefficient democracy, stuck in the dark ages, undermines the validity of the Bank of Canada to begin borrowing from the zero percent interest matrix -- M4 money supply -- and lend (supply) these created funds to balance the Federal and Provincial Governments' books, saving a mountain of tax dollars. Until recently, this idea would be thought as crazy. It is now a reality in other major Nations. The US Federal Reserve is doubling its Reserve from one trillion to two trillion dollars. The European Union is following suit. It is the hope of humankind!
[31] Law and order argument. The Court's prime raison d’etre is to maintain law and order, and protect the peace. The impugned regulations undermine this. Banning peaceful political expression breeds violence. In most cases, when a person promotes their political opinion, no one cares. It's irrelevant; nevertheless, to that person it matters greatly, and is fundamental to keeping national harmony and peace.
[32] The right to meaningful participation in the electoral process includes an informational component.
[33] Justice Cole wrote, “[98] … The right to meaningful participation in the electoral process includes an informational component. As the majority described at para. 71 of Harper: The citizen must also be able to consider opposing aspects of issues associated with certain candidates and political parties where they exist. In short, the voter has the right to be “reasonably informed of all the possible choices.”
[34] Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General) 1989 BCSC, “Its purpose “includes not only the right of each citizen to have and to vote for an elected representative in Parliament or a legislative assembly, but also the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.””
[35] Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 “It thus follows that participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections. To be certain, the electoral process is the means by which elected representatives are selected and governments formed, but it is also the primary means by which the average citizen participates in the open debate that animates the determination of social policy. The right to run for office provides each citizen with the opportunity to present certain ideas and opinions to the electorate as a viable policy option; the right to vote provides each citizen with the opportunity to express support for the ideas and opinions that a particular candidate endorses. In each instance, the democratic rights entrenched in s.3 ensure that each citizen has an opportunity to express an opinion about the formation of public policy and the functioning of public institutions through participation in the electoral process.”
[36] Sauvé v. Canada, 2002 SCC. The rights of inmates to vote in federal elections for inmates was denied, in part because of lack of an informed vote. If the right to vote could once be denied because there is a qualifying information component, how can the impugned regulations ban election advertising from STV?
[37] Justice Cole wrote, "[269] … This is not a Canadian idiosyncrasy. The right to receive information is enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. 810, at 71 (1948), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47. Canada is a signatory to both. American listeners enjoy the same right; see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), at p. 390; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943),, at p. 143. The words of Marshall J., dissenting, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), at p. 775, ring as true in this country as they do in our neighbor to the south[.]”
[38] Grayness of law issue: Impugned regulations capture in their terminology more than it actually regulates. Arbitrary to what BC Elections consider violations, for example: mentioning the political results of past elections, are candidate positions; and therefore, under Election Law Act S. 228’s definition, is considered election advertising. The pro STV side advertises, "the wrong winner won the 1996 election." Another example to note: the Pro STV sponsor is supplying the Green Party Office on Fort St, Victoria, B.C., pro STV material, for the Green party to give out to attract voters. This sponsor has promised BC Elections not to sponsor (or together) referendum advertising on behalf of or together with a candidate, registered political party, or registered constituency association. BC Elections has acknowledged that it was queried about the Green Party being given this free material, and it is fine with it.
[39] Charter S.15, equality arguments: Candidates can combine STV and their other positions. The government tried to limit candidates from combing the two, but backed down. If candidates are allowed to combine the two issues, Charter S.15 should also allow the People to combine STV and other political positions.
[40] It is a reality British Columbia suffers from a newspaper monopoly. Newspapers have the ability to set the public agenda, and create voter awareness of issues. The Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the National Post, are all owned by the same company, which also owns several smaller papers, and some local TV stations. Lack of investigative journalism, for example the Legislature raid/Basi affair: and how only after the May05 election did it come out that the BC Liberals had financed Basi to protest NDP gatherings; and the recent revelation, that the former co chair of the BC Liberal Party Patrick Kinsella, took monies from BC Rail; the newspapers have still not ran that the originally disclosed 255 million BC Rail tax indemnity sold to CN (at zero book value), actually turned out to be 415 million. This equals a 41 percent refund of federal tax dollars, on selling this crown jewel. The Attorney General is also involved in this deception, as no mention of the BC Rail tax indemnity has surfaced yet in the Basi trail. The failure of CanWest Global to cover these issues years ago is deplorable. Very germane to the Charter S.15 equality argument. Newspaper special interests are exempt from the impugned regulations; and therefore so should we be free to promote our convictions.
[41] How on earth did the referendum gag law fail to make the radar screen in BC's main newspapers ? How could there be an uproar about the election gag law, and little mention of STV gag law? Is the Respondent going to claim that because there was no uproar regarding the referendum gag law, it must not be a public concern? Again the challenge is made to the Respondent is to produce newspaper clips from the Times Colonist, Vancouver Sun, and the Province where the impugned regulations are quoted.
[42] It is alleged that the Government has failed to adequately publicize the STV advertising ban rules, and time limitation. There is a duty here to publish beyond the minimal Gazette standard set out in the Regulation Act, S.5. There is a duty to make widely known. Yes, information is available from BC Elections. Nevertheless, what percentage of voters are actually aware of the ban? Knowledge of this ban could change how one votes. The impugned regulations deal with advertisers, but the effect desired has to do with voters, so shouldn’t voters be informed then? If voters are not told not to base their vote on current politics, then why wouldn’t they?
[43] Hon. W. Oppal: “Well, there'll be extensive public notices made available so that the members of the public know that they have the right to align themselves on either side of the debate. I don't think there'll be any shortage of information out there that advocacy groups can get involved.” [Hansard, P 10647 ] There has been no extensive public notices. There has been a lack of build up to engage British Columbia. The Province is donating half a million to the STV pro and con side -- basically to allowed the current Government to wash their hands of advertising STV. The Province should have been gearing people up for STV years in advance.
[44] The Electoral Reform Referendum Information Office webpage does not cite the Referendum gag law. This is the extent on their webpage on this topic. "What if I want to get involved and sponsor referendum advertising? Referendum advertising sponsors must be registered with Election BC, the independent office of the Legislature responsible for administering the electoral process in British Columbia. There are no spending limits on referendum advertising, but sponsors must register even if the referendum advertising they are conducting does not cost any money." Their call centre at toll free 1-800-668-2800 directs the caller to BC Elections if he/she has questions about sponsoring STV advertising. Their purpose is to explain how STV works, which they do very well at!
[45] Viewing the official pros and cons STV websites, the Electoral Reform Referendum Information Office webpage, and the Citizens' Assembly of Electoral Reform webpage, found no mention of the impugned regulations. I did find some reference to the gag law on facebook. The Respondent is welcome to try to disprove this. A sad statement.
[46] Anecdotal evidence that the Referendum Act prohibition is built by a bad carpenter. The faction managing the government, has acknowledged that yes certain election laws that they tried to make into Law are problematic, and would have unfairly influenced the election/referendum. The Honourable Mr. Justice Cole wrote in the application for an injunction, "Mr. de Jong [Government house leader] also acknowledged concerns raised by the limit on third party spending prior to an election campaign, and whether 120 days [148 days] is "perhaps too long." He said: "To put it bluntly, upon reflection, the government agrees. The government thinks that the 120 days is too long, and that's why the Attorney General has tabled amendments... [that]... would reduce the period from 120 days to 60 days." [Hansard, May 29, 2008, p12037]"
[47] Commenting on the election gag law being thrown out, in the Victoria News Daily, April 3,09, "Oppal said government lawyers took the issue to the B.C. Court of Appeal to preserve restrictions for the days remaining before the campaign formally begins on April 14, because Cole's ruling confirmed the law is a "well intentioned” effort to level the playing field. He added the Cole 'went out of his way" to cite precedents of similar restrictions, showing it is not an anti-democratic "gag law." "I know this is a motherhood and apple pie issue for you people in the media, as it should be, but the fact is no right in the constitution is absolute," Oppal said." What else is a politician going to say, when a law is not well intended? If the current Government feels it has the mandate to impose the election/referendum gag laws, very welcome to promote this in their re-election campaign literature.
[48] Quote from the Times Colonist, March 28/09. "Oppal initially tried to impose more sweeping restrictions. An early version of Bill 42 called for the third party spending limits to apply in the five months before election day... But Oppal backed down in the face of a public out cry...[Oppal said]"I think we ran something up the flagpole and it didn't fly like we thought it would," he told reporters at the time. "I think we're doing the right thing by compromising."” The flag is the very symbol of our freedom. It is a disgrace to play with the election/referendum rules to cheat. Right to raise your flag and govern must be earned, and not obtained through pretending the Charter does not exist.
[49] Quote from the Times Colonist, March 28/09. "NDP house leader Mike Farnworth said yesterday the ruling shows that Oppal and the government went too far. "I think it's just another example of how this government has been arrogant and thinks it can do what it wants, when it wants, and doesn't care one whit about what regular people think," he said."
[50] Quote from the Victoria News Daily, April 6/09. ""Because the court only brought down its ruling last week, the government has already succeeded in limiting the free speech rights of British Columbians in an unconstitutional manner for more than six weeks." BCNU president Debra McPearson said."
[51] In the Hansard Legislature Debates there is no mention of the referendum bans impugned regulations. It lacks real review. The First Reading of Bill ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2009 ACT on THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008, was very short. The Second Reading on MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008, there was no mention. The Third Reading on MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008, there was no mention. Zero acknowledgement of the government's intention to change drastically how the 2005 Referendum regulates STV advertising. The fall session was cancelled, then it was reopened to deal with the current financial crisis; again, there was no mention of the referendum bans or time limit change. Challenge the Respondent to disprove this fact, and specifically quote where in Hansard, the time limit and bans, were raised in the Legislature.
[52] Clarification important to British Columbia and Canada: The Nation has waited a long time for democratic reform. It is unjust to sabotage the dream. Upon the Supreme Court's reflection, the time limit and Section 29.4a&b bans, are not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. Freedom is the right to political debate.
The petitioner estimates that the application will take: 5 days.
Dated .
Petitioner
Victoria Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER
AND: British Columbia (Attorney General)
RESPONDENT
PETITION TO THE COURT
THIS IS THE PETITION OF:
ON NOTICE TO:
Attorney General of British Columbia, 1001 Douglas St.
Box 9280, Victoria, B.C. V8W 2C5
Let all persons whose interests may be affected by the order sought TAKE NOTICE that the petitioner applies to the Court for the relief set out in this Petition.
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED of any further proceedings, YOU MUST GIVE
NOTICE of your intention by filing a form entitled "Appearance" in the above registry of this court within the Time for Appearance and YOU MUST ALSO DELIVER a copy of the "Appearance" to the petitioner's address for delivery, which is set out in this petition.
YOU OR YOUR SOLICITOR may file the "Appearance". You may obtain a form of "Appearance" at the registry.
IF YOU FAIL to file the "Appearance" within the proper Time for Appearance, the petitioner may continue this application without further notice.
TIME FOR APPEARANCE
Where this Petition is served on a person in British Columbia, the time for appearance by that person is 7 days from the service (not including the day of service).
Where this petition is served on a person outside British Columbia, the time for appearance by that person after service, is 21 days in the case of a person residing anywhere within Canada, 28 days in the case of a person residing in the United States of America, and 42 days in the case of a person residing elsewhere.
[or, where the time for appearance has been set by order of the court, within that time.]
TIME FOR RESPONSE
IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND to the application, you must, on or before the 8th day after you have entered an appearance,
(a) deliver to the petitioner
(i) 2 copies of a response in Form 124, and
(ii) 2 copies of each affidavit on which you intend to rely at the hearing, and
(b) deliver to every other party of record
(i) one copy of a response in Form 124, and
(ii) one copy of each affidavit on which you intend to rely at the hearing.
The address of the Court Registry is: Victoria Court Registry 2 – 850 Burdett Ave.
Victoria, BC V8W 1B4
The ADDRESS FOR DELIVERY is:
The name and address of plaintiff’s solicitor is: self represented
The Petitioner applies for these orders:
[1] I am very concerned that the Law is being used to crack down on political criticism. It should not be against the Law to write on a poster, "Don't vote for Gordon Campbell, or Carole James; Vote yes on STV!" It should not be against the Law to place on a poster what a candidate says, if the candidate's comments cover more than STV. Do we not have the right to repeat what a candidate says? To deny such rights restricts accountability!
[2] Petitioning the Supreme Court of British Columbia: (A) Declare that the BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation S.29.4 Referendum advertising must not, directly or indirectly, (a) promote or oppose a registered political party or the election of a candidate, or (b) form part of election advertising – -- infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom unreasonably; therefore is unconstitional. If this Petition can be heard before the May 12/05 Referendum, seeking the Court declare S.29.4a&b are of no-force-and-effect. Breaches of Charter Sections:1,2(b),3,15. Freedom of expression is a core Charter value that must be jealously guarded!
[3] (B) Declare that the BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation, S.1 definition --"referendum campaign period" means, in relation to the referendum, the period beginning on February 1, 2009 and ending at the close of general voting for the referendum – violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms unreasonably; and therefore is unconstitional. If this Petition can be heard before the May 12/05 Referendum, seeking the Court declare these this referendum campaign period is of no force-and-effect. Breaches of Charter Sections 1,2(b),3,7,15. In British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436, the Court declared that the 60 days rule limiting election advertising prior to the election writ was unconstitutional (unethical); it follows that this longer prohibition period is also excessive. The deleterious effects of the impugned provision exceed their salutary effects.
[4] (C) Declare that these impugned regulations are not authorized by the Interpretation Act S.41.1a. I am concerned with the jurisprudence, Grace v. British Columbia (Lieutenant Governor in Council), 2000 BCSC 923 that no Charter interpretation is given, if the regulation is found not to be authorized in the proper manner. Failure to do so, profits the makers of unconstitutional regulations, to construct Acts that do not authorize regulations with the proper legal content. This is no doubt why the Teachers Federation challenging Bill 42 did not make the ultra vires argument. The Legislature did not grant the authority to influence the election – referendum regulations compound Bill 42's infringement. An example: the previous Referendum Act 2005 S.6 wording does not formally mention the Interpretation Act. It is fundamental to the public interest to have a Charter interpretation. If it is not agreed in Chambers, that a Charter interpretation must be given, then there will be no challenge questioning the Interpretation Act’s authority to enact the impugned regulations.
[5] (D) Seeking an interlocutory injunction. Filing notice of motion and hearing: the bans and time limit, must not be allowed to interfere with the democratic process. Petitioning that STV advertising, that is considered election advertising, be regulated as it was in the May 2005 Referendum. Quote from Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57: “[34] … For the courts to insist rigidly that all legislation be enforced to the letter until the moment that it is struck down as unconstitutional might in some instances be to condone the most blatant violation of Charter rights. Such a practice would undermine the spirit and purpose of the Charter.”
[6] (E) Award exemplary, aggravated, and punitive damages, when it is judged that these unethical regulations violate the Canadian Charter, and provide unfair advantages, and cause harm. These regulations make me a political criminal, and I am under threat of imprisonment for my political beliefs! The government has no right to interfere in my promoting STV. It is sinister, undemocratic, and malicious to interfere with the referendum/election through illegal means, and not forfeit the benefits. The referendum results are tainted. There must be punishment! In the United States, it is a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. A measure of democracy is how it deals with those that cheat democracy!
[7] (F) Requesting that the Court's decision, make reference and comment on how these impugned regulations were handled (made known) by the mainstream newspapers: Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun, and the Province. There has been a huge public outcry over Bill 42. It stands to reason then, there also would be some sort of newspaper comment on the referendum gag laws. If only a few mainstream newspaper clippings can be produced, this would seem to be an incredible irregularity that deserves comment by the Court. If the Attorney General of BC determines this has merit, the Court must hold the Attorney General accountable, if the Attorney General fails to act. The Attorney General of Canada has a fiduciary duty to monitor this scam. [Not referring to the amendment exempting politicians from these referendum gag laws.] I will remove this request for the Court to mention how these newspapers handled informing the public on this inconvenient truth, if the respondent can show that the Times Colonist, or the Vancouver Sun, or the Province, made an honest attempt to make known the referendum time limit and ban gag laws.
[8] (G) The desire to settle the matter of the Respondent's costs, is an important concern for Petitioner. I hope the Respondent will agree to wave the right to recover costs. The Court's guidance and wisdom should be welcome. The Petition is of public interest and falls under Appendix B, Party and Party Costs, 3(b) “general interest.” The current Government has already been found guilty of advocating illegal election laws, and there has been no apology! STV is a gift from our Generation to Canada -- it is not just to threaten financial ruin on those who question laws created to cheat the dream! The Court is asked to punish the Respondent with punitive damages even further, if costs are requested.
(9) (H) Reimbursement of costs: scale 3. In generations to come, this decision and jurisprudence, will have a life of its own.
The Petitioner will rely on [set out rule or enactment relied on]:
[1] Infringes unreasonably on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Sections:1,2(b),3, &15.
[2] Supreme Court Act: R. 2(1) Unless the court otherwise orders, a failure to comply with these rules shall be treated as an irregularity and does not nullify a proceeding. Technicalities must not stifle this application. The petitioner is seeking latitude. When the law is used to ban political criticism, it is in the Public Interest to access the Court's guidance and wisdom. It is of fundamental importance to Canadian democracy.
[3] Supreme Court Act: S.18 The Attorney General is not entitled to claim that this matter is already before the Court. It is not a repetition. These issues have not been raised in an earlier proceeding -- specifically the B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436. This is different Act. There is no mention of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, and its regulations. This is much more than limiting election advertising. It is a complete ban on election advertising.
[4] Constitutional Questions Act: S.3. This is a constitutional validity question. The Attorney General of Canada must be notified of the hearing, and must be heard if they see fit. The method of notification to Attorney General of Canada will be through a fax, a cover memorandum. S.8.4 The notice must (a) be headed in the cause, matter or other proceeding, (b) state(i) the law in question, or(ii) the right or freedom alleged to be infringed or denied, (c) state the day on which the challenge or application under subsection (2) or (3) is to be argued, and (d) give particulars necessary to show the point to be argued. S.5 of Act states, the Court may direct notification to interested persons, or class of persons. The notification list should include: political parties; the yes and no side government funded groups; the manager for the STV information hotline Neil Riemer; and the Teachers Federation. I welcome direction here.
[5] Notification will be delivered to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The petitioner wishes for an intervenor, and hopes the B.C. Civil Liberties Association will be this honourable defender. We must be very careful how this is approached, as was evidenced by the BC Teachers' Federation v. BC (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436. An intervenor will add credibility, and authority to the Decision.
[6] Law and Equity Act: S.39 Injunction procedure: Court discretion to design an injunction order. Petitioning that the 2005 Referendum advertising rules apply – and obviously, that STV/Referendum advertising, which is considered election advertising, must comply with Bill 42’s election spending limits. Reasonable compromise. Context of consideration set forth in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57: (i) serious issue to be tried; (ii) whether absent an injunction, there will be irreparable harm; and (iii) the balance of (in)convenience. This is a serious issue to be tried. It is in the public good to suspend ban. Restrictions do far more than, might occasion irreparable harm the capacity of third parities to participate as they wish.
[7] Interpretation Act: S41.1(a) Restricts enacting regulations that are inconsistent with carrying out the enactment. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act S.8(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in S.41 of the Interpretation Act. S.8(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the manner by which the referendum is to be conducted. Not authorized to influence the election. Banning STV election advertising, undermines the intention of Bill 42, and compounds Bill 42's Charter infringement. Not authorized to make political prisoners!
[8] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates it is the onus of the Attorney General to establish the impugned regulations are reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable. B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436: “[108] The burden rests upon the Attorney General to establish that the impugned provisions constitute a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The relevant analytical framework was set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200, with certain refinements regarding the third step of the proportionality test in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, 120 D.L.R. (4th) 12, as follows: a. the law must be directed towards an objective that is sufficiently pressing and substantial to justify limiting a Charter right; and b. the law must be proportionate, in the sense that i. the measures chosen are rationally connected to the objective; ii. those measures impair as little as possible the Charter right in question; and iii. there is proportionality both between the objective and the deleterious effects of the statutory restrictions, and between the deleterious and salutary effects of those restrictions.”
At the hearing of this petition will be read the affidavit of:
the depondent
Copy of which is served herewith.
The facts upon which this petition is based are as follows:
[1] This case is of fundamental importance to British Columbia, and Canada.
[2] This is a plea to the Supreme Court to defend British Columbia’s democracy. It is alleged that Laws have been enacted to manipulate the Province's political system: for self-interest; to harm and suppress the competition; to stifle detractors; and to undermine the STV referendum, and provincial election. The makers of these Laws do not fear the Court, and believe there is no punishment for running illegal laws up the flag pole, so why not try? The Court is entrusted with a sacred duty to defend against corruption! The Court must harshly punish transgressions attacking our sacred democracy! In our legal system, the Court needs a petitioner to act. This case gives the Court the right to act.
[3] Range/standard of arguments to be considered. In B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General) 2009 BCSC 436, it stated: "[163] Bastarache J. noted in Harper that “the Legislature is not required to provide scientific proof based on concrete evidence of the problem it seeks to address. Where the court is faced with inconclusive or competing social science evidence relating the harm to the Legislature’s measures, it may rely on a reasoned apprehension of that harm” (para. 77). He referred to a number of cases where the Court had, in the absence of determinative scientific evidence, relied on logic, reason and some social science evidence in the course of the justification analysis; see R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 at 503, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 449; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 at 768 and 776, [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 at para. 137, 127 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Thomson Newspapers, at paras. 104-7; and R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45."
[4] The Attorney General has a duty to highlight the problems with these impugned regulations. The Attorney General of British Columbia and Canada, are not pawns of the current elected managers of the government. They have a higher responsibility to advocate for democratic fairness, and to represent the entire society -- all the people -- not just special interests. Let there not be a repeat of the B.C. Teachers' Federation v. B.C. (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436, where the Attorney General instructs the Court to ignore certain arguments on technical grounds. If the respondent truly believes these enactments are reasonable and just, why then not engage the material, and acknowledge the dynamics that are troublesome.
[5] Let this case avoid the past mistakes with the Attorney General of Canada's lack of substance in advocating limiting political participation. Justice Major wrote in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) SCC 2000: “[23] The Attorney General admitted that there was a violation of s. 2(b), and offered not a scintilla of evidence showing that the injunction would cause some harm.” “[13] … The Government simply asserts that third-party spending limits, if not controlled, may (and this is notional only) impact adversely on the fairness of elections. Yet, it can point to no evidence to illustrate unfairness in the Canadian elections caused by third-party spending.” It is gross negligence to not recognize damages!
[6] The British Columbia Single-Transferable-Vote referendum will be very close. The majority of British Columbians voted 58% last time for STV. It fall short, requires 60%. The impact of impugned regulations favours the no vote. To set such a high bar to pass, not just also then to restrict the freedom of speech.
[7] Comments from Legislature, Hon. Horgan: "I do still believe that the supermajority is a challenge and an obstacle.” [Hansard, p12800] Hon. Horgan, "I don't have a quarrel with our system. I believe in representing an area rather than representing a point of view, so I'm quite comfortable with what we've got. But as I've said in the debate, I do hear from a lot of people in the community — not just my own, but since I've been taking an interest in this — that by putting forward a supermajority, we are protecting our self-interest." [Hansard, p10643]
[8] There is sparse jurisprudence to support ban -- unprecedented; whereas, there is volumes of jurisprudence guarding the right to freedom of speech. Justice Cole wrote “[269] Freedom of expression is a core Charter value that must be jealously guarded. The minority judges in Harper spoke emphatically and eloquently about the importance of political speech at paras. 11–12 and 16-18: … [17] Freedom of expression protects not only the individual who speaks the message, but also the recipient. Members of the public – as viewers, listeners and readers – have a right to information on public governance, absent which they cannot cast an informed vote; see Edmonton Journal, supra, at pp. 1339-40. Thus the Charter protects listeners as well as speakers; see Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, at pp. 766-67."
[9] Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) 2000,SCC 57: “[20] In this application, we are dealing with one of the most valuable forms of speech: political speech. Canadians cherish the unimpeded diffusion of political ideas and opinions, and this Court has long recognized that freedom of expression is “essential to the working of a parliamentary democracy such as ours” (Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, per Abbott J., at p. 326). Hence we must tread carefully in limiting political speech. It is speech that we recognize as invaluable, given its significance in our democratic process. We should be loathe to interfere with it, especially in the midst of a federal election."
[10] Please appreciate that the impugned regulations are not an Act; they are regulations created by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and therefore, have not undergone the same Legislative scrutiny. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act states: 8(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. 8(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the manner by which the referendum is to be conducted. Note, these regulations were not released until Oct 9/08, and there was an amendment to the regulations made in Dec 12/08, when the Legislature was not sitting. Why did the NDP fail to raise the lack of an exemption for candidates, in the emergency fall session? Regulations were created by BC Liberals and NDP that have a vested interest. Not in the public good.
[11] The Teachers Federation referring to the spending limit on election advertising said bluntly, in Justice Cole’s decision: “[145] The plaintiffs say that this evidence strongly suggests that the impugned provisions were designed, at least in part, to tilt the electoral playing field in favour of the Liberal Party.” “[130] The plaintiffs do not accept that electoral fairness is the objective of the impugned provisions, and instead submit that the evidence reveals a number of other more likely objectives: a. allowing the government to control its public message as it prepares for the upcoming election and not to be taken off that message by third parties;b. targeting unions that the government considers too “friendly” to the NDP and thereby enhancing the government’s chances of re-election.”
[12] Referendum gag law profits both parities. They are in bed together. It is as if, the two parties take turns being the King. Antiquity democratic method. The method of choosing political representation not changed since Confederation -- same as it was, before there were planes, automobiles, electricity, or telephones. Depressing, there should be progress.
[13] This is a very unpopular Government in some circles. It is unjust that the Government refused to recognize an official opposition in their first term, and has tried to lock-out the Legislature Fall session several times, and yet has sold billions in public assets. The Legislature is closing early because of the fixed election date, the Government must have know this, when they announced there would be no fall Legislature last year. There was a partial fall session because of the world economic crisis. There is a history of trying to suppress voters through changing election laws in favour of the current Government. The first reading of Bill 42 attempted to amend Election Act S.41.3 and required identification and prove-of-residence to vote.
[14] It is hard not to be cynical of BC politics. The BC Liberals received tons of votes, not because these voters love them, rather because they hate the NDP. Likewise the NDP received some votes, not because these voters agree with the NDP, rather because voters fear Gordon Campbell. STV helps get us out of this rut. A very interesting feature of STV is that parties will no longer run a full slate. If a party does run a full slate, they run the risk of winning fewer seats, then if they only ran only as many candidates, plus one, as their percentage of support suggests they have. There is no need to fear Gordon Campbell or the NDP anymore: if we vote for STV. We must have the right to say this on posters, but the impugned regulations ban such comment. We are cynical for good reason!
[15] According to BC election officials, the stated purpose is to remove short term goals from interfering. They believe short term biases should not play a role. The proposed STV Legislative structure is a lasting effect. They are worried that dislike for certain politicians would favour STV!
[16] Referendum gag law isn’t necessary to achieve the State objective. Other alternatives are available to accomplish that the electorate consider long term interests -- for example: an educational campaign to tell citizens to ignore short term interests; and/or have all referendum advertising empathizing the importance of considering the long term consequences. Gag law does serious harm to the goals of all other political parities.
[17] The effect of the impugned regulations are not minimal impairments to the benefits sought. They are disproportionate. They are too sweeping in relation to the objective -- over breath. They do not enhance meaningful participation. The ban undermines voters’ confidence in both the referendum and election processes. The extreme deleterious effects overshadow the salutary effects!
[18] Maintaining confidence in the electoral process is essential to preserve the integrity of the electoral system which is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy! In R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136, Dickson C.J. concluded that faith in social and political institutions, which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society, is of central importance in a free and democratic society. If Canadians lack confidence in the electoral system, they will be discouraged from participating in a meaningful way in the electoral process. More importantly, they will lack faith in their elected representatives. Confidence in the electoral process is, therefore, a pressing and substantial objective.
[19] We have the right to vote in changing the Legislature from first past the post, to a single transferable vote structure based on current politics. There is no jurisprudence to say we can not use current politics to influence our vote.
[20] Banning specific political commentary in STV, steals valuable points of consideration that STV voters have a right to consider. Referencing political parties is not done only to forward short term goals. Political language needs access to names of political parties, and candidates, and the like, to express long term positions, and connect to our history. The impugned regulations favour the no STV side, in that change requires specifics.
[21] It has not been established that British Columbia’s voters are so vulnerable a group, to warrant this serious invasion on the freedom of speech.
[22] We have a right to the defense of truth. If I feel something, and it is true, I have the right to say so!
[23] How does one support a candidate specifically because they support STV, when one cannot associate STV with that candidate? It is illegal to promote STV politicians, if STV is mentioned. Where are the fundamental rights to promote/oppose candidates based on their positions? Curtailment of STV demonstrates again this referendum law has a feedback loop on the election.
[24] We have the right to criticize the referendum gag law, and the people who unleashed this dirty dog, independent of the referendum and election. Similar, Justice Cole wrote “[253]: … [I]f Bill 42 had been introduced during or just prior to an election pre-campaign period, the “Just Shut Up” advertising campaign opposing that Bill would have been captured as advertising that took a position on an issue with which a party (the governing Liberal Party) was associated. In so doing, it would have captured expression that had nothing to do with electoral fairness.”
[25] The B.C. Liberal Government restricts STV comment on current events. Justice Cole wrote “[175] The plaintiffs submit that the extension of the spending restrictions to the pre-campaign period substantially skews the balance sought to be achieved by the legislation upheld in Harper. The impugned provisions restrict public discussion of the government while it is in session, which they describe as anathema to the principles of democracy and an assault on democratic traditions.”
[26] Sadly, a large percentage of British Columbians do not exercise their right to vote. STV rules ban advertising pitches like: don't vote for either the Liberals or the NDP -- both horrible! But come out and vote for STV. We need access to political commentary to make pitches effective. It will be disastrous for democracy if this is outlawed. It is assumed that a huge percentage of British Columbians who don't vote, do support STV. If these disenfranchised voters came out and voted for STV, they very well might vote in the election. This would not bode well for the BC Liberals.
[27] Bill 42 has already infringed and limited freedom of speech. It is already infringing on voters’ Charter liberties. It is unfair to infringe on them further with the impugned regulations. B.C. election advertising definition was made extremely broad to capture in its definition several loopholes in advertising speeding. By making such a broad definition, then how is it fair to deny STV advertising from any part of this definition? They can’t have it both ways.
[28] The election spending is issue specific and certain issues extend into future generations, and therefore have a role in STV.
[29] STV advertising must be able to include aspects of the election advertising definition. BC election advertising is extremely broad, any position of a candidate. Justice Cole wisely observed, "[246] I would, nevertheless, observe that Bastarache J.’s comment in Harper to the effect that third parties may partake in unlimited advertising campaigns regarding issues that are not associated to a political party or candidate does not accord with the reality of election advertising in this province. Practically speaking, it is not readily apparent when an issue is not associated with a candidate or political party. The Liberal Party’s campaign platform for the 2005 election demonstrates the extent to which this is the case. Entitled A Proven Plan for a Golden Decade, the document (BC Liberal Party: 2005) sets out the party’s platform regarding a wide range of topics: education, including life-long learning and advanced education; the arts; cultural diversity; healthier living and physical fitness; health care; seniors; children and families; First Nations; women; public safety; democratic reform; partnerships with local governments; parks; environmental protection; job creation; free enterprise; income taxes; research and technology; forestry industry; sustainable development in the energy and mining industries; the 2010 Olympics; tourism; new “gateways” to the Asia Pacific; transportation; northern development; regional growth; and relations with the federal government and other provinces. Against this platform, it is difficult to conceive of an issue that is not associated with the Liberal Party."
[30] The election/referendum gag laws obstruct the evolution of the Central Bank's access to advanced Monetary Theory -- Keynes’ Keys. Times are changing, as many Nations are crippled with overwhelming government debt. Advanced democracy and the modern money supply are wedded. Inefficient democracy, stuck in the dark ages, undermines the validity of the Bank of Canada to begin borrowing from the zero percent interest matrix -- M4 money supply -- and lend (supply) these created funds to balance the Federal and Provincial Governments' books, saving a mountain of tax dollars. Until recently, this idea would be thought as crazy. It is now a reality in other major Nations. The US Federal Reserve is doubling its Reserve from one trillion to two trillion dollars. The European Union is following suit. It is the hope of humankind!
[31] Law and order argument. The Court's prime raison d’etre is to maintain law and order, and protect the peace. The impugned regulations undermine this. Banning peaceful political expression breeds violence. In most cases, when a person promotes their political opinion, no one cares. It's irrelevant; nevertheless, to that person it matters greatly, and is fundamental to keeping national harmony and peace.
[32] The right to meaningful participation in the electoral process includes an informational component.
[33] Justice Cole wrote, “[98] … The right to meaningful participation in the electoral process includes an informational component. As the majority described at para. 71 of Harper: The citizen must also be able to consider opposing aspects of issues associated with certain candidates and political parties where they exist. In short, the voter has the right to be “reasonably informed of all the possible choices.”
[34] Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General) 1989 BCSC, “Its purpose “includes not only the right of each citizen to have and to vote for an elected representative in Parliament or a legislative assembly, but also the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.””
[35] Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 “It thus follows that participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections. To be certain, the electoral process is the means by which elected representatives are selected and governments formed, but it is also the primary means by which the average citizen participates in the open debate that animates the determination of social policy. The right to run for office provides each citizen with the opportunity to present certain ideas and opinions to the electorate as a viable policy option; the right to vote provides each citizen with the opportunity to express support for the ideas and opinions that a particular candidate endorses. In each instance, the democratic rights entrenched in s.3 ensure that each citizen has an opportunity to express an opinion about the formation of public policy and the functioning of public institutions through participation in the electoral process.”
[36] Sauvé v. Canada, 2002 SCC. The rights of inmates to vote in federal elections for inmates was denied, in part because of lack of an informed vote. If the right to vote could once be denied because there is a qualifying information component, how can the impugned regulations ban election advertising from STV?
[37] Justice Cole wrote, "[269] … This is not a Canadian idiosyncrasy. The right to receive information is enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. 810, at 71 (1948), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47. Canada is a signatory to both. American listeners enjoy the same right; see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), at p. 390; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943),, at p. 143. The words of Marshall J., dissenting, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), at p. 775, ring as true in this country as they do in our neighbor to the south[.]”
[38] Grayness of law issue: Impugned regulations capture in their terminology more than it actually regulates. Arbitrary to what BC Elections consider violations, for example: mentioning the political results of past elections, are candidate positions; and therefore, under Election Law Act S. 228’s definition, is considered election advertising. The pro STV side advertises, "the wrong winner won the 1996 election." Another example to note: the Pro STV sponsor is supplying the Green Party Office on Fort St, Victoria, B.C., pro STV material, for the Green party to give out to attract voters. This sponsor has promised BC Elections not to sponsor (or together) referendum advertising on behalf of or together with a candidate, registered political party, or registered constituency association. BC Elections has acknowledged that it was queried about the Green Party being given this free material, and it is fine with it.
[39] Charter S.15, equality arguments: Candidates can combine STV and their other positions. The government tried to limit candidates from combing the two, but backed down. If candidates are allowed to combine the two issues, Charter S.15 should also allow the People to combine STV and other political positions.
[40] It is a reality British Columbia suffers from a newspaper monopoly. Newspapers have the ability to set the public agenda, and create voter awareness of issues. The Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the National Post, are all owned by the same company, which also owns several smaller papers, and some local TV stations. Lack of investigative journalism, for example the Legislature raid/Basi affair: and how only after the May05 election did it come out that the BC Liberals had financed Basi to protest NDP gatherings; and the recent revelation, that the former co chair of the BC Liberal Party Patrick Kinsella, took monies from BC Rail; the newspapers have still not ran that the originally disclosed 255 million BC Rail tax indemnity sold to CN (at zero book value), actually turned out to be 415 million. This equals a 41 percent refund of federal tax dollars, on selling this crown jewel. The Attorney General is also involved in this deception, as no mention of the BC Rail tax indemnity has surfaced yet in the Basi trail. The failure of CanWest Global to cover these issues years ago is deplorable. Very germane to the Charter S.15 equality argument. Newspaper special interests are exempt from the impugned regulations; and therefore so should we be free to promote our convictions.
[41] How on earth did the referendum gag law fail to make the radar screen in BC's main newspapers ? How could there be an uproar about the election gag law, and little mention of STV gag law? Is the Respondent going to claim that because there was no uproar regarding the referendum gag law, it must not be a public concern? Again the challenge is made to the Respondent is to produce newspaper clips from the Times Colonist, Vancouver Sun, and the Province where the impugned regulations are quoted.
[42] It is alleged that the Government has failed to adequately publicize the STV advertising ban rules, and time limitation. There is a duty here to publish beyond the minimal Gazette standard set out in the Regulation Act, S.5. There is a duty to make widely known. Yes, information is available from BC Elections. Nevertheless, what percentage of voters are actually aware of the ban? Knowledge of this ban could change how one votes. The impugned regulations deal with advertisers, but the effect desired has to do with voters, so shouldn’t voters be informed then? If voters are not told not to base their vote on current politics, then why wouldn’t they?
[43] Hon. W. Oppal: “Well, there'll be extensive public notices made available so that the members of the public know that they have the right to align themselves on either side of the debate. I don't think there'll be any shortage of information out there that advocacy groups can get involved.” [Hansard, P 10647 ] There has been no extensive public notices. There has been a lack of build up to engage British Columbia. The Province is donating half a million to the STV pro and con side -- basically to allowed the current Government to wash their hands of advertising STV. The Province should have been gearing people up for STV years in advance.
[44] The Electoral Reform Referendum Information Office webpage does not cite the Referendum gag law. This is the extent on their webpage on this topic. "What if I want to get involved and sponsor referendum advertising? Referendum advertising sponsors must be registered with Election BC, the independent office of the Legislature responsible for administering the electoral process in British Columbia. There are no spending limits on referendum advertising, but sponsors must register even if the referendum advertising they are conducting does not cost any money." Their call centre at toll free 1-800-668-2800 directs the caller to BC Elections if he/she has questions about sponsoring STV advertising. Their purpose is to explain how STV works, which they do very well at!
[45] Viewing the official pros and cons STV websites, the Electoral Reform Referendum Information Office webpage, and the Citizens' Assembly of Electoral Reform webpage, found no mention of the impugned regulations. I did find some reference to the gag law on facebook. The Respondent is welcome to try to disprove this. A sad statement.
[46] Anecdotal evidence that the Referendum Act prohibition is built by a bad carpenter. The faction managing the government, has acknowledged that yes certain election laws that they tried to make into Law are problematic, and would have unfairly influenced the election/referendum. The Honourable Mr. Justice Cole wrote in the application for an injunction, "Mr. de Jong [Government house leader] also acknowledged concerns raised by the limit on third party spending prior to an election campaign, and whether 120 days [148 days] is "perhaps too long." He said: "To put it bluntly, upon reflection, the government agrees. The government thinks that the 120 days is too long, and that's why the Attorney General has tabled amendments... [that]... would reduce the period from 120 days to 60 days." [Hansard, May 29, 2008, p12037]"
[47] Commenting on the election gag law being thrown out, in the Victoria News Daily, April 3,09, "Oppal said government lawyers took the issue to the B.C. Court of Appeal to preserve restrictions for the days remaining before the campaign formally begins on April 14, because Cole's ruling confirmed the law is a "well intentioned” effort to level the playing field. He added the Cole 'went out of his way" to cite precedents of similar restrictions, showing it is not an anti-democratic "gag law." "I know this is a motherhood and apple pie issue for you people in the media, as it should be, but the fact is no right in the constitution is absolute," Oppal said." What else is a politician going to say, when a law is not well intended? If the current Government feels it has the mandate to impose the election/referendum gag laws, very welcome to promote this in their re-election campaign literature.
[48] Quote from the Times Colonist, March 28/09. "Oppal initially tried to impose more sweeping restrictions. An early version of Bill 42 called for the third party spending limits to apply in the five months before election day... But Oppal backed down in the face of a public out cry...[Oppal said]"I think we ran something up the flagpole and it didn't fly like we thought it would," he told reporters at the time. "I think we're doing the right thing by compromising."” The flag is the very symbol of our freedom. It is a disgrace to play with the election/referendum rules to cheat. Right to raise your flag and govern must be earned, and not obtained through pretending the Charter does not exist.
[49] Quote from the Times Colonist, March 28/09. "NDP house leader Mike Farnworth said yesterday the ruling shows that Oppal and the government went too far. "I think it's just another example of how this government has been arrogant and thinks it can do what it wants, when it wants, and doesn't care one whit about what regular people think," he said."
[50] Quote from the Victoria News Daily, April 6/09. ""Because the court only brought down its ruling last week, the government has already succeeded in limiting the free speech rights of British Columbians in an unconstitutional manner for more than six weeks." BCNU president Debra McPearson said."
[51] In the Hansard Legislature Debates there is no mention of the referendum bans impugned regulations. It lacks real review. The First Reading of Bill ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2009 ACT on THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008, was very short. The Second Reading on MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008, there was no mention. The Third Reading on MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008, there was no mention. Zero acknowledgement of the government's intention to change drastically how the 2005 Referendum regulates STV advertising. The fall session was cancelled, then it was reopened to deal with the current financial crisis; again, there was no mention of the referendum bans or time limit change. Challenge the Respondent to disprove this fact, and specifically quote where in Hansard, the time limit and bans, were raised in the Legislature.
[52] Clarification important to British Columbia and Canada: The Nation has waited a long time for democratic reform. It is unjust to sabotage the dream. Upon the Supreme Court's reflection, the time limit and Section 29.4a&b bans, are not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. Freedom is the right to political debate.
The petitioner estimates that the application will take: 5 days.
Dated .
Petitioner
No. 09-1067 Victoria Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER
AND: British Columbia (Attorney General)
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, writer
MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: [or SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND SAY THAT:]
[1] I am the deponent in the Petition. I am a registered referendum advertising sponsor.
[2] I put up posters – STV tags -- in and around Victoria. My promoting STV is being undermined, and irrevocably harmed by the “Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulations” -- robs me of my slogans. I am very upset by this intolerable situation. The regulations are malicious, and are costing me my right to express what I want to say. The current Government is undermining my faith in democracy.
[4] I swear that I have not read about the impugned referendum regulations in any mainstream newspaper. I am sure they must be published at least a few times somewhere, but can not find it. I am trying to change this. I have past experience lobbying local newspapers, but have never been successful. I found a way to access reporters on this issue, by phoning the Legislature Press Gallery. Various reporters take turns answering the phone. I am preparing a report to the Court to who I talked to – interviewed -- and their position. Hoping to convience them to do the right thing.
[5] These regulations have the made me a political criminal. I am under threat of imprisonment for my political beliefs. I have tried not to break the Law here, but I have put up a few tags that said, “Don’t Vote for either the NDP or Gordon Campbell; but do vote STV.” I have now refrained from doing so, as I have a way focus my disdain for these unlawful laws, by taking them to Court.
Sworn [or AFFIRMED] BEFORE ME at
)
In the Province of British Columbia, this )
day of 2009 )
)
)
Name: )
A commissioner for taking )
affidavits of British Columbia. )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER
AND: British Columbia (Attorney General)
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, writer
MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: [or SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND SAY THAT:]
[1] I am the deponent in the Petition. I am a registered referendum advertising sponsor.
[2] I put up posters – STV tags -- in and around Victoria. My promoting STV is being undermined, and irrevocably harmed by the “Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulations” -- robs me of my slogans. I am very upset by this intolerable situation. The regulations are malicious, and are costing me my right to express what I want to say. The current Government is undermining my faith in democracy.
[4] I swear that I have not read about the impugned referendum regulations in any mainstream newspaper. I am sure they must be published at least a few times somewhere, but can not find it. I am trying to change this. I have past experience lobbying local newspapers, but have never been successful. I found a way to access reporters on this issue, by phoning the Legislature Press Gallery. Various reporters take turns answering the phone. I am preparing a report to the Court to who I talked to – interviewed -- and their position. Hoping to convience them to do the right thing.
[5] These regulations have the made me a political criminal. I am under threat of imprisonment for my political beliefs. I have tried not to break the Law here, but I have put up a few tags that said, “Don’t Vote for either the NDP or Gordon Campbell; but do vote STV.” I have now refrained from doing so, as I have a way focus my disdain for these unlawful laws, by taking them to Court.
Sworn [or AFFIRMED] BEFORE ME at
)
In the Province of British Columbia, this )
day of 2009 )
)
)
Name: )
A commissioner for taking )
affidavits of British Columbia. )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)