Accountant tackles odious

THERE is one key
battle from the last
provincial election that
is still being waged.

Accountant Garry Nixon
is the spear-carrier on this
one, but the North Shore
News was at the centre of
the controversy during the
rough and tumble 1996 cam-
paign.

Skirmishes have been
ongoing ever since. But they
have taken place largely out
of the public eye.

You might remember the
News’ ad campaign. It fea-
tured citizens gagged with
duct tape beneath headlines
such as “Speech is no longer
free in B.C.”

The ads ran in News

- issues throughout the clec-
tion campaign and they also
eventually ran in community
newspapers elsewhere in B.C.

It was a call to arms of
sort — a determined attempt
to wake the craditionally
somnolent voting public to
the dangers posed by the
NDP’s Bill 28 election gag
Jaw.

Not only the voting pub-
lic, bur other media, which,
to my mind, were more than
a touch indifferent to the
whole thing.

Hey, it’s just the North
Shore News. Off the deep
end again, folks. Not a big,
deal.

Well, it was a big deal
then and it remains a big
deal now. :

Pacific Press eventually
chose 4 less dramatic route
than the News’ ad campaign.
It launched a court challenge

“to the constitutionality of the,

legislation, which continues

to wind its way through the —_-

legal system,
But the legislation
“ remains. Thus the deter-
mined Mr. Nixon and his ©

: . dogged and principled pur-

suit of more bad freedom--_
hobbling NDP legislation.
Passed as’ part of the new
-Election Act on July 13, °

ripping
yarns

1995, Bill 28 set a $5,000
limit on election advertising
by any individual or group.
Political parties, on the other
hand, were restricted to
spending upwards of $2.5
nullion.

Election advertising is
generally defined as any
advertisement that has the
effect of promoting or
opposing any candidate or
party, directly or indirectly.

That promotion or oppo-
sition could take the form of
election issues, etc. -

So a better definition
would be forbidding any pri-
vate citizen or group from
taking part by advertisement
in an election campaign.

In Nixon’s case, the
Vancouver accountant,
incensed over the intrusive-
ness of the legislation, openly
defied the law by spending
$6,329 on newspaper and
radio ads condemning the
NDP government’s fiscal
mismanagement.

As it turned out fiscal
mismanagers would be a
charitable descripticn for the

mailbox

budget blarnev-spinners the
NDP turned out to be.

Nixon should have be
presented with a public ser-
vice citation tor good works.

Instead he has been tried
and convicted sinder the leg-
islation without the benefit
of a trial or other public
hearing and fined $13,000.

Such is the Innatic state of
affairs as it relates to free
expression west of the
Rockies.

‘The News, already under
full-scale government and
media assault in its batrle
against the NDP’s Bill 33
and 32 amendments to the
Human Rights Colle, risked
further prosecution under
Bill 28 with its advertising
campaign, 23 did the other
community newspapers
around B.C. that joined the
outcry. But Nixon was the
eventual government target.
He has now launched his
own legai challenge to the
gag law.

Nixon has been support-
ed in his battle all along by
the invaluable National
Citizens’ Coalition, which
itself fought the good fight
during the election campaign
by attacking the law and
urgiag listeners not to vote
for the NDP in anti-NDP
ads on U.S. television and
radio stations.

The NCC, of course, did
equally good work in bring-
ing down a 1984 Liberal

government ciection gag law
and a 1993 federal gag law
devised by Brian Mulroney
and the rest of his Tory party
hased on the same shabby
premise. It limited individu-
als to spending $1,000 dur-
ing federal election cam-
paigas.

Bur the Tories were not
alone in the government
conspiracy to silence the
public during elections.

The faw was drafted in
secrecy by representatives of
all three major political par-
ties and pushed through the
House of Commons without
opposition.

And why would any of
the Big Three have objected?
The legislation is designed to
shut out any non-members
of the exclusive political club.
Unpleasant dissenting voices
from the great unwashed
need not apply.

Not only that, but the
feds pursucd the issue
through a host of courts and
appeals with a vengeance that
only public money can
inspire.

Spending taxpayers’
money to limic what those
taxpayers can say during elec-
tion time. Tronic, ¢h wor?

Another election gag that
is far from amusing.

The justification tor
spending limits during elec-
tion campaigns revolves
around the marginal logic
that they will prevent elec-

There’s no resting for defence

Dear Editor:
I read with interest today’s

(May 17) North. Shore

News. I thank contributing

" writer Liam. Lahcy for report-
‘ing the defence case at bar.

I was starting to get the

“impression that our side was

not going to be reported. I

thank Mr. Lahey for printing
some truths which other
Papers are not reporting.
However, Ms. Lahey — at
no point on the first day of
my trial was I even close to

sleeping — I am so wired

with adrenalin I donot get .

that pleasure even most
nights!

Gillian Guess

North Vancouver

yi 21 pt. Safety check, 1£: minutes - FAST!
includes’ up to 5 litres of 1Ow30 Quekerstate

Sunday, May 24, 1998 — North Shore News - 7

Election Act

tions trom being bought by
powertul lobby groups and
business interests. But the
defeat of the Charlottetown
Accord leng ago Jaid that
reasoning to rest.

The real reason behind
such legislation is far less
high-minded: to stifle the
free exchange of ideas that
are not part of the agendas
beiag promoted by the main
poliucal parties.

During elections concerns
from all sectors need airing.
The good with the bad, the
reasoned with the emotional,
the datfy with the sane.

As Heather Maconachic
wrote in the March 1996
edition of The Advocate: *
election spending limits on
third parties impose drastic
restrictions on fundamental
democratic values and
Charter rights: liberty, free-
dom of expression and asso-
ciation, and the right to an
informed vote.

“They make parties the
primary participants in elec-

tion campaigns. In effect,
spending limits on third par-
ues allow the political parties,
their candidates and the
media to define the issues
and how they are debated.
Private citizens and groups
are relegated to the sidelines
of the debate, withour the
ability to effectively promote
or criticize the very peeple
who are secking to govern
them.

“Political speech is severc-
ly circumscribed during the
most important time in a
democracy. — the election
campaign.”

Government has no place
telling the public what can
and cannot he discussed and
what can and cannot be
published in newspapers
during elections or any
other time.

Mr. Nixon is putting his
money and time on the line
to protect that principle in
furure B.C. elections.

He deserves ail the help
and support he can get.

PERSONAL INJURY

Free Initial Consulration

Douglas W. Lahay
CLARK, WILSON

BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

800-885 West Georgia Street, Van.

687-5700

24 HOUR MESSAGE 643-3161 [aaa

ICBC's policies are not law. 1 will get
you a fair settlement or trial award. -

4

yy
Oll, Lube & Fitter ms ry

“A

14362 Marine Drive 980-9NSs .
Mor-Sat B:00an-6:00pm. Si Sun. mn. 9:00arr- 5:00pm =e May 29, 96

fh
/

A Cultural
Revolution

“© Improve intestinal health
© Reduced blood cholesterol levels
© Strengthen the immune system

"© Improve absorption of nutrients if

- Bio- Ket Kafe

‘It It Works.

1929-Lonsdale Ave.. N. Van.
2470 Marine Dr,. W. Van.
(2635 West 4th Ave.. Van.

. Enter to win FREE citizen watch. |
~ $250 value. Ballots in store.
* Draw to be held June 19/98

DIAMOND SW GOLDMAN |
JEWELLERS

#730-2002 Park Royal North =. 926-3738.

Another one of our designs.
For Free Estimate call

922-4975 or 987-2966
(Ask about our Seaiiors Discount)
Labour £12.50 per panel unlined, $13.50 lined.

Custom Rods, Upholstery & Bedspreads
Low Low Prices

980-5545
* "922-0433
733-5210

_, Mall hours: Mon - Wed
Thurs & Fri
- Saereay

:, Sunday: .
: A Stat, “Holldays 12 Noon - - 6PM 7G

9:30AM - 7PM
9:30AM - SPM §
9:30AM - GPM