1/ EC is interpreting a bad law as best it can, but this rule is still absurd. Not because we’re the only party with a different perspective which climate alarmists believe is not legitimate. But because it is arbitrary, draconian, and cannot be applied consistently.
https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1163464877677191169
2/ Free speech is a fundamental value for the PPC.
With its changes to the Elections Act, Lib gov has put in place a series of measures that curtail it.
The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name.
With its changes to the Elections Act, Lib gov has put in place a series of measures that curtail it.
The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name.
3/ The article focuses on climate change and PPC position. But there are hundreds of potentially contentious issues that could be considered partisan if this rule were to be applied consistently.
This excessive regulation of free speech has no place in a free society.
This excessive regulation of free speech has no place in a free society.
4/ Now, @theJagmeetSingh, tell us if you oppose this EC rule systematically.
Do you also oppose it if it impacts groups that promote pipelines? Lower immigration levels? That denounce socialism?
Do you really believe in free speech?
Do you also oppose it if it impacts groups that promote pipelines? Lower immigration levels? That denounce socialism?
Do you really believe in free speech?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
