I Rest My Case, Your Honour

A recent article in the Toronto Star illustrates the quietly bizarre nature of Canadian politics in the twenty-first century.

The current federal Conservative minority government, headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has long been referred to as Canada's version of the American religious right, and has been taken to task by the other three political parties and the media for its views on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, health care, funding increases for the military and funding decreases for the arts, and its unflinching support of the Bush administration, etc.

Now, regardless of how you feel about those issues, the Harper Conservatives have made a move that seems to threaten the institution of democratic government. When the opposition Liberal party made allegations of corruption against the sitting Conservatives, they took them to court for libel / defamation. The story goes that the Liberals uncovered evidence, including an audio tape, that proves the Conservatives bribed dying independent Member of Parliament Chuck Cadman with a lucrative life insurance policy, so he would side against the previous Liberal government in the no-confidence vote that led to the last federal election.

The shit flies pretty thick in the House of Commons, and it's not unusual for charges of corruption to be made. In fact, whether or not they bribed Cadman, the Conservatives won the last election largely by pointing out Liberal corruption (notably in the sponsorship scandal). But generally speaking the parties have thick hides--they don't typically resort to legal action over scandals that arise or what is said in the house.

The question is: doesn't dragging your political opponents into court undermine the very nature and purpose of legislative process?

The Harper government has been critized before for a number of undemocratic moves, particularly an unprecedented lack of media transparency despite claiming to be trying to create a more honest and open government.

During the libel suit, the Liberals added testimony from University of Toronto political science professor Peter Russell, who said: "This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments," arguing out that the routine charges made in the House of Commons are simply part of free political debate.

This was submitted as evidence from the Liberal party that the Conservatives are trying to suppress contradictory opinions. Friday, Conservative lawyers will argue that Russell's testimony is irrelevant to the lawsuit, and that the judge should ignore it.

So, in addition to suing another party for libel, the Harper government will try to silence a statement about how they're silencing things. As ridiculous as the whole situation is, perhaps even if the statement is struck from the record, the Liberals have proven their point. The court may have to forget the statement, but the Canadian public won't. With Harper hinting that he'll call an early election this fall, this could be a deciding issue.

My question for Omninerds is: do you think it's authoritarian to sue your political opponents when you don't like what they say about your government? Is there ever a good reason for one political party to take another to court, or is such a thing counter to democracy?

Star This to Save in Your Profile