With Valentine’s Day rapidly approaching, surely the National Citizens Coalition will be investing in some roses and chocolates to show their appreciation to various members of the local and national media. For if it were not for these various media members, the current ad getting the NCC so much attention would doubtlessly have died a quiet, painless death. Instead, the NCC ad has been given not only life, but a temporary national platform for its brief piece which was released during the Liberal Convention.
The 51-second video is rather unremarkable. It simply—and accurately—points out some of the lowlights of arguably one of the worst managed periods of Ontario’s history, the 5 years that Bob Rae’s NDP ruled it. There is no “character assassination” as University of Toronto Professor and Liberal author Stephen Clarkson has outrageously claimed. In fact, had the both the Liberals and media simply left the ad alone, the only issue that would have likely been raised was the ridiculous timing of it. Yes, NCC Director Stephen Taylor released the clip and took to his Twitter account in mid-Convention to alert his 13,000 plus followers of its existence, and yes there was originally no mention of the fact that the NCC authored it, so clearly Taylor was aiming to capitalize on the moment. In this, at least unlike the CBC and their “interview” with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, Taylor didn’t wait in Rae’s driveway to shoot footage.
But precisely what kind of moment was it that the NCC capitalized on? The ad attacks an interim Leader (who is looking less “interim” by the day), less than one year after an election, and some four years before the next. Even if Rae becomes leads his party into the next national election, is anyone really of the opinion that a voter showing up to cast their ballot in 2015 will look back on the calendar and point to the week of January 15th, when they viewed a YouTube ad from a partisan lobby group as being the defining moment for them in deciding who to vote for some four years forward? Had the rather clear absurdity of this notion occurred to those who vehemently condemned the video, only the NCC and its patrons likely ever would have seen it. Instead, by Tuesday it had over 5000 views on YouTube; as I write this on Saturday, that figure has swollen to over 13,000. Whatever the NCC paid for the ad (and judging by the quality, one hopes not much), the amount of free publicity it has received and the undoubtedly increased donations because of it, the organization surely can now afford a small token of gratitude this coming Feb. 14th to the aforementioned media members for helping generate such a wonderful non-troversy for them.
Considerably more troubling however, are the calls coming from various corners to limit the already strictly limited contributions by third-party groups or individuals. In the case of Liberal MP John McCallum, this can and should be seen for what it is: sour grapes from a biased source (much as the ad from Mr. Taylor and his group should have been viewed). However, it becomes a source of concern when arguably the most influential Canadian political columnist takes up the cause.
Certainly Andrew Coyne is entitled to and paid to express his opinion. In fact his article (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/andrew-coyne-a-less-comedic-balance-for-the-political-marketplace/) brings up some very valid arguments which would seem to support easing on the highly-restricted spending Canadians currently suffer under. It falls short though in its final solution: Coyne’s proposed $10,000 ceiling for annual political advocacy.
Mr. Coyne is points out that to the U.S. Supreme Court, ‘“money is speech”: to prevent people from spending money to express a view amounts to preventing them from expressing it.”’ This view however, is only partially true. The moral reality is that the resources of the possessor belong to them; the state has no more right to tell that individual how to use one resource it possesses (say speech or intellectual prowess) then it does another more material one: money. If I am free to use my brain to support the cause of my choice freely, I should be equally free to use as much of my material resources on that same cause provided I do no harm to another, or I am not truly free. “Partial freedom” does not exist in a truly free society.
The inevitable end to capping freedom in any area leads to freedom infringed on other areas. This should be a point of great concern especially in this particular example to the media. To use Mr. Coyne’s example, who determines what group has become overly partisan, and therefore should be governed by his restrictions? When does a publication known for having, for example, left-leaning columnists and articles cross from being a “paper” to being a tool for political advocacy? And who makes that distinction? And now how do we impose our “$10,000” max?
Any system is flawed. Those of questionable moral standards will seek to exploit the weaknesses of it in whatever way they can. However, it is much more preferable to take one’s chances on a system which maximizes the freedom of the individual to use their physical and material gifts as they deem worthy, rather than have any state or third-party impose arbitrary restrictions on them, which history shows will eventually be circumvented by those same people of questionable standards. Restricting freedom of opinion is as oppressive as restricting the freedom of individual commerce; both are acts of censorship. Coming from a profession that regularly stands up for freedom of expression when publication bans are imposed, I would think Mr. Coyne would be more sympathetic to that truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment