Friday, March 16, 2007

Supremely Archaic

Sometimes you just have to wonder.

Our Supreme Court seems so progressive and forward-thinking in areas of social engineering like same-sex marriage, abortion and swingers' clubs, yet so slow in others.


vicki said...

Either they don't know how the internet works,(duh!) or they are deluded enough that they think 'a law' will just stop spread of info on election night.
Delusions of grandeur.
BTW..SCC is there to interpret law. How do they interpret the spread of info on election night to be a threat to Canadians?

Blackstone said...

No no, you crazy right wingers don't get it!

Censorship is a progressive value. More power to the state! And especially more power to the 9 unelected members of the Supreme Court!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Blackstone - They must not have heard about the great inventions of satellite TV and the internet.

Vicki - How do they interpret the spread of info on election night to be a threat to Canadians?

I guess that the dissemination of knowledge is under the purview of the courts.

Gabby in QC said...

I usually agree with you, Joanne, but not on this.

I do not agree with the SC decisions that you mentioned, but I do agree that election results should not be broadcast before ALL polls have closed.

Yes, it's true that it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to enforce non-broadcast of results by those who set out to flout the law, or results transmitted via the US or other countries.

The simple solution is to start counting the ballots ONLY after all polls have closed, either that same night or the following day.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gabby, actually, I tend to agree with you. I just don't see it as realistic.

Your idea might work though. From what I hear there is an option to make changes to the law, which might be a good idea.

Gabby in QC said...

Changing the law? Oh, geez, more job creation for lawyers.

I don't know whether we should go that route. I don't know if merely delaying the opening up of the ballot boxes would necessitate changing the law.

As usual, common sense should prevail - but common sense is not so common.

John M Reynolds said...

This has been a problem since the telephone. The Internet just made it worse. Those who want the results before they vote will find them. I check them after I have voted. Mind you, living in Ontario makes that easy.

The SCC role is to interpret law and create rights, apparently. Video stores do not rent movies for more than a week other wise they won't be able to depreciate their tapes and DVDs 100% in a year. That is a law in Canada that affects video tapes. In light of this, it would not surprise me if a law would have to change to alter the start times of the count or the close times of the polls.

liberal supporter said...

Common sense is what this ruling gives. It ensures that the broadcasters will not able to advertise in BC "watch our show, see the polling results before the polls close here". If it was "legal", you can be sure they would.

Common sense is that the broadcasters will not put the results on their websites or satellite services.

Then if you want to get results early, you will have to do it the old fashioned way, call somebody in the area where polls have closed and local TV is showing it.

I'm sure there will be bloggers, hungry for hits, that will post results early, visible to anyone anywere. Some of them may even post accurate results.

But sorry folks, bloggers are still just the porn stars of the information industry. As long as the major media are not showing results on their major outlets, viewable on standard TV sets in the wrong area, the number of people going to the polls after seeing results from elsewhere will be small.

Anonymous said...

The Supremes cherry pick the Charter to suit their left leaning agenda, they're a very narrow-minded group.