Bullies

What the hell is wrong with you people in Canada?

According to the federal agency [Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)], to avoid being 'partisan' means to not address issues on which the competing political parties have opposing views. Dawna Lynn Labonté, a media relations officer for the federal Minister of National Revenue, told LifeSiteNews.com that not only would churches be penalized for telling congregants to vote for a certain party or candidate, they would also be penalized for coming out strongly on an issue on which the parties were opposed, such as abortion or same-sex 'marriage'. In fact, it was specifically on same-sex marriage that the Canada Revenue Agency addressed Leddy and Buckingham.

Having kept one eye on the election process in the U.S., especially on the impact that the Swiftvets have had on the Kerry campaign, it is very distressing to see how different a course we are on in Canada. In Canada, there could never be anything like the Swiftvets campaign. A group like that, as far as I can see, would be required to have a politcal party speak on it's behalf. I can't see how this is anyone's idea of democracy. It restricts our ability to speak to one another, to inform one another, and most importantly, to disagree with one another. For the moment it applies only during an election campaign but that is the most important time. There are huge numbers of apolitcal people who only tune into the country's political scene during the last days of a campain, if at all. The argument that these restrictions will keep the money from controling the debate misses the point very, very badly. The first objection is that no amount of money guartees a vote. People disagree with ads all of the time. This objection reveals that you think the voters are stable animals that can be lead around by the nose. The second object gets right to the heart of the matter. Such advertising allows the voter to attempt to challenge the hegemony of entrenched politcal power - a much graver threat to our freedom than the money of any group of people, no matter how large, or how much money they can commit. The counsel for REAL Women nails it:

Gwen Landolt, legal counsel for REAL Women Canada, which does not have charitable status and is not constrained by the CRA, told LifeSiteNews.com that the CRA guidelines are a Liberal play to silence their opposition. "The Liberal Party is using the CRA as their tool to silence opposition to the Liberal agenda on moral issues, whether it's same-sex marriage or legalization of marijuana." Landolt points out that the United Church of Canada was, even during the election, a strong proponent of same-sex 'marriage' and was not bothered by the CRA. To express your concerns: John McCallum Minister of National Revenue Mccallum.J@parl.gc.ca Brian Pallister Official Opposition Critic for National Revenue Pallister.B@parl.gc.ca

I would urge everyone to express themselves while they still can. Even better, throw the Liberals out of office at the next opportunity. That party is so corrupt and so arrogant that it needs to spend some time in the woods, reflecting on who this country is about. The government exists on our behalf. We do not cower before it. That is not the Anglo tradition in any part of the world. Look at the vibrant, lively campign south of the border. What are you afraid of?

The success of the Swift-boat vets' ads is the tale of the triumph of the nation's alternative media. The mainstreamers didn't want to touch the story with a 10-foot pole, and they didn't. But the alternative media did. Amateur reporters and fact-gatherers offered independent substantiation for some of the charges. It turned out the criticisms of the Swifties weren't quite so easily dismissed. ...

This democratization of the news is clearly a good thing, if only because it increases available sources of information in a democracy. ...

But it isn't a good thing if you're a proud part of an Establishment whose authority is being eroded and whose control of the marketplace is being successfully challenged.

If the kleptocrats at the United Nations decide to take on the blogosphere, who wants to bet the Liberals would not try to sign on?