Monday, June 02, 2008

Taking on gag laws

Ready for a non-Julie Couillard related story?

If you are, check out a column I have in today's National Post.

It's the latest chapter in my one man crusade to oppose election gag laws and to protect free political speech.

In this case, I explain why gag laws are wrong for British Columbia and Alberta.

3 comments:

Iain G. Foulds said...

...As ever, this is an issue of freedom vs. force.
... As you suggest, is it right to use the force of the state to deny these voluntary associations and efforts of the citizens?
... Yet, unions force money from working people, and thus force them to support political efforts which may be entirely contrary to their own freely-held values.

Anonymous said...

"Yet, unions force money from working people, and thus force them to support political efforts which may be entirely contrary to their own freely-held values."

Couldn't a similar argument be made about corporations? Does owning a share of a company mean a person endorses all the political activities that may be carried out by that corporation? A shareholder who disagrees with a company's political activities could sell their shares (or start a shareholder activism movement) just like a unionized employee could seek to find a new job (or seek to change their union's political activities). These are not necessarily good options, but they are options nonetheless.

Miles Lunn said...

I am a big supporter of Campbell and believe he has done a very good job as premier, but I disagree with him here. In British Columbia, the unions did spend lots of money to try and get him defeated, but business also spent a lot trying to see the NDP didn't win so things pretty much balanced out. I just hope we don't get one here in Ontario. Anyways, I suspect the BC bill will face a court challenge and perhaps get thrown out.