Proposed gag law is a legal monstrosity

The Supreme Court of Canada will soon be asked to kill a legal monstrosity that has been threatening our basic democratic freedoms for nearly 20 years. This monstrosity is commonly known as an "election gag law." It's an ugly name for an ugly law that has but one aim: to stifle free political expression.

Gag laws essentially make it a crime for independent groups or private citizens to freely and effectively communicate political ideas during elections. It's the kind of law you might expect in totalitarian nations like communist Cuba or North Korea. But believe it or not, the federal Liberal government has enacted such a gag law here in Canada.

So what does that mean?

It means you could be thrown into jail for the "crime" of running newspaper ads during a federal election condemning the government's stand on same-sex "marriages." It means the "speech police" at Elections Canada have the power to burst into your office or home to charge you with an offence if you put up billboards calling on voters to support new abortion laws. It means you could be dragged into a costly criminal trial if you mail out flyers at election time opposing or supporting the Kyoto Accord.

It means, in short, that free political speech in Canada is now a crime. It doesn't matter if you're left-wing or right-wing, or anywhere in the middle. The gag law strips away your right to effectively speak out on virtually any issue.

Hard to believe isn't it? It's hard to believe that such an undemocratic law that clearly infringes on our right to free political expression could possibly exist in Canada. After all, Canada is supposed to be a democracy.

In democracies, citizens should have the right to criticize the government; they should have the freedom to express political opinions and to participate in the process of electing our leaders. But unfortunately, the gag law does exist. It's real and it threatens the rights of all Canadians. And we can thank former prime minister Jean Chretien for that. He enacted this gag law as part of his plan to "reform" our electoral process.

Why would he and other politicians wish to impose such a terrible law?

Simple. They want to give political parties a monopoly on debate during federal elections. They want to shield politicians from tough criticism. They want to silence their opponents.

And Chretien wasn't the first prime minister who tried to impose such an ugly law on the country. That dubious distinction belongs to Pierre Trudeau, who enacted a similar gag law way back in 1983.

It didn't last long. The National Citizens Coalition, a pro-free enterprise organization, challenged Trudeau's gag law in the courts and in 1984, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declared it to be unconstitutional. That ruling should have marked the end of gag laws in Canada. Free expression should have been safe. But, unfortunately, politicians didn't get the message.

In 1993, for instance, then-prime minister Brian Mulroney enacted a gag law of his own. Once again, the NCC went to court to fight for freedom and once again, the Alberta Court threw the gag law into the constitutional trash bin.

Then it was Jean Chretien's turn. In 2000, just before the last federal election, he rammed his version of a gag law through the House of Commons.

The NCC quickly challenged Chretien's gag law and won. In 2001, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled parts of it to be unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling and in December 2002, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the entire gag law was unconstitutional.

Undeterred by these losses, the government's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will hear this historic case on Feb. 10.

And so after 20 years, the battle to protect freedom of expression is heading for a final legal showdown in the highest court of the land.

The government will try to persuade the court that elections should be tightly regulated, that free expression should be controlled and muzzled.

The NCC, on the other hand, will argue that elections should be as free as possible, that citizens of all political stripes should have the right to freely express opinions - through newspaper ads, or radio commercials or with billboards. Elections should be a free marketplace of competing ideas.

Then it will be up to the red-robed justices of the Supreme Court to decide which side is right.

The choice they face will be clear: either they kill the election gag law, or the right to free political speech in Canada dies.

It shouldn't be a tough decision.