Although a Canadian can not vote in the United States, I am quite sure that any Canadian inside the United States would be allowed to express her/his political opinions on a US Presidential election. What if I was in Canada? Could any opinions I express on the upcoming election have me arrested? Declared PNG? Deny me entrance to Canada in the future?
Well, provided you didn’t violate Canada’s hate speach legislation you should be OK.
What kind of bass-ackward banana republic do you think Canada is? I mean, I know that they drive cars with square wheels and all, but it’s not like they’re commies.
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
The Charter is our equivalent to the Bill of Rights and provides constitutional protection for the rights and freedoms it sets out.
You’ll see that the guarantee of freedom of expression applies to “everyone”, not just Canadian citizens.
To add to Northern Piper’s point, it says “Everyone” quite specifically in order to cover foreigners. It’s a very deliberate term. The parts that grant voting rights and the right to enter and leave the country are phrased differently, using the term “citizen of Canada” to distinguish them.
Well, you’re not supposed to publish opinion poll results less than three days before an election takes place or publish projected results for an area while voting for that area is still going on… Those are about the only election-related limitations I can think of.
I’m afraid the answer to the question, as asked, is not as clear as many would like.
Here in Canada, we have a portion of the Canada Elections Act that is commonly known as the “gag law”. It states that no citizen or group other than the political parties may spend more than $150,000 in advertising nationwide, nor more than $3,000 in any one riding. The penalty for breaking this law can include incarceration.
So, by all means, come to Canada and voice your opinion. But don’t spend any more than $3,000 doing it. Cuz we’ll toss you in the slammer. Can’t have people goin’ around spoutin their opinion goddammit.
How do Canadian legal scholars square the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the so-called hate speech laws? It doesn’t seem to fit the “fire!” in a crowded theater exception cited by Americans as an exception to their First Amendment privileges because that’s not an opinion.
Section 1 of the Charter specifically limits all the rights and freedoms in it “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
I think “FIRE!” falls quite nicely into that limiting clause. 
We’ve had a lot of previous threads about this.
If you actually read the legislation, the proscribed behaviours are mostly stuff that’s pretty comparable to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.
Section 318: Promoting genocide against an identifiable group
Section 319(1): Inciting hatred in such as way as to breach the peace
Section 319(2): Public incitement of hatred.
No reasonable person would argue that inciting violence is speech that deserves protection, so 318 and 319 (1) are, I think, reasonable limits. 319 (2) is less clear, and IS a controversial issue in Canada. I personally believe that 319 (2) should be repealed.
I would point out, however, that it is simply false to state that the United States uses only the fire-in-a-crowded-theater standard for banning speech; the USA and its states have a variety of laws banning “obscenity,” for instance, which does not meet such a standard. You also hint that protected speech constitutes “opinions,” which could lead to a variety of things being banned. The Constitution of the United States, I must point out, doesn’t say it only protects “opinions.” The usual American response to my point about porn laws is “well, it’s not protected speech according to the courts,” which strikes me as being one of the more circular arguments ever used; “we protect all speech unless we don’t protect it.” At least we’re up front in legislation about what isn’t protected speech.
The “Fire in a Crowded Theater” ruling wasn’t "common sense’, but was one of our most regrettable precedents.
The case was Schenk v. United States. Schenck printed 15,000 leaflets, some of which ended up with draftees. (Most wern’t distributed at all.) The first page contained the text of Section I of Amendment XIII to the US Constitution and other constitutional passages The back used phrases like: “Do not submit to intimidation”, “Assert your Rights”, “your right to assert your opposition to the draft”, and “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.”
Schenk spent over a decade in jail for informing citizens of their constitutional rights. The tissue thin rationalization was that draftees or potential recruits who read the pamphlet might not be as eager to enlist: the Espionage Act of 1917 made it illegal to obstruct draft, recruiting or enlistment efforts.
For the rest of the century, the Supreme Court made ruling after ruling weakening the Schenck standard. Had it been upheld, every protestor of any US war (e.g. Vietnam) would have been a de facto felon, with no defense. For a few decades, attempts were made to extend it (some successfully) to criticism of government (even local government) policies, to organizing unions, revealing corruption, etc.
It’s impossible to overstate the chilling effect that Schenk and similar rulings had on public discourse, one common protest technique in the 1920s/30s was to have celebrities read brief excerpts from the Constitution at public meetings after local authorities had warned against “agitating”. Police (or “security agents” hired by private companies) would always be on hand to make sure no one “agitated”, so the celebrities would be dragged from the podium and arrested almost as soon as they began. No social/political commentator or reporter (e.g. Samuel Clems aka Mark Twain, or Pulitzer Prize winner Nellie Bly and Pulitzer/Nobel laureate Upton Sinclair) was immune to such arrests–both Pulitzer winners were arrested repeatedly (if you don’t know their works, I strongly suggest you read them, they forced huge reforms in everything from the fundamental structure of US medicine to the food industries; it’s no exaggeration to say they saved tens of millions of lives each)
Finally, while it is wrong to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, a reasonable citizen has a social obligation to warn his fellow man of a genuine fire. The “stampede” argument is frivolous and frankly stupid: more people would die in the stampede (and fire) when the smoke and flames became obvious; a warning could only allow more time for more people to escape safely. Would you truly want to live in a world where it was a crime to tell the truth about a life threatening fire? Yet in the Schenk case, and others, it was explicitly conceded that the plaintiffs were telling the truth, and this fact was dismissed as irrelevant.
“Yelling fire in a crowded theater” is nothing more than a catchphrase, and I’ve always been dismayed by the way it’s abused. Do we truly have so little sense that we believe it is wrong to warn people of a fire, just because we’ve been raised by a jingoist motto? Would you really want people to flee quietly and save themselves, with no regard for their fellow citizens? Would you truly not yell “Fire!” if there were one? How many great tragedies were the result of either a failure to spread such warnings (e.g. the Titanic, the General Slocum) or by panics when the crowd actually saw the flames (e.g. Coconut Grove).
Bolding mine, from your own cite, KP.
KP, Samuel Clemens died in 1910, 9 years before the Schenk ruling, so him being arrested in the 20’s & 30’s based on Schenk would have been quite a feat.
Well, considering that one of the candidates for Prime Minister here accused another (actually, two others) of supporting child pornography, I think that free speech is allowed during an election campaign. One notable exception is that there are restrictions on what government employees can say during the campaign – they can’t campaign during working hours or use information they received while working for the government to support a campaign. Another, already mentioned, is that there are limits on the amount of money that can be donated to a campaign and on the amount that can be spent on advertising.
One unwritten rule, commonly expressed by the media and politicians alike, is that ‘American-style’ negative campaigning is frowned upon. Generally, negative ads will appear during a campaign, but the candidate being attacked always gets to complain that their opponent is using negative ads before launching a negative campaign of their own.
There are restrictions on campaigning the day of an election.
But something neat is happening today. In the past, there has been a media blackout on getting election results while voting was still going on in your region. I believe today is the first time ever that voters in the West will be able to go to the polls knowing who people in the East have elected.
Yes, that’s right. Polls here don’t close for an hour and a half, and I’m watching the early returns from Atlantic Canada. I’ve never seen them before. Ordinarily, when coverage starts here the announcer informs us of who’s forming government, not what the first 60 votes in Newfoundland are. Course, this year the polls from Alberta to Quebec close at the same time, i.e., 9:30 EDT, 8:30 CDT, and 7:30 CST & MDT, so they wouldn’t have been able to tell us who’d won anyways.
WHat I find interesting is the definition of Hate speech. There is no legal definition in that legislation, however there have been a few syndicated radio shows which have been pulled due to “Hate speech” when nothing violence related or slur wise was involved.
A recent example was the Tom Leykis show out of Los Angeles was played on a station in Vancouver B.C… Because of his somewhat mysoginistic topics, he was pulled although not once was violence towards women mentioned or condoned on his show. The funny part is they never warned him or informed him they pulled the show, a listener from Canada had to email him and tell him the show was removed.
Well apparently the complaint was about
Which the CRTC found to contravene
The program simply contravened Canadian broadcasting law.
Think of the FCC and Janet Jackson.
The CRTC’s report can be found here
Hmm interesting, I hadn’t heard that part of the broadcast that day.
Still Canada does have a much more strict rule on free speech than the US.
Not saying that’s better or worse in this particular circumstance, but definately more rigid on what can and can’t be said in a broadcast.
Sort of like the FCC crackdowns… a new age of censorship is upon us.
But I digress.
Sorry, your cite for Canada having stricter rules on free speech is a regulation of the broadcast licensing body? I think you really need to review Canadian TV in comparison to American TV. Your average FCC flunky would die of apoplexy in about two hours, even if you only consider terrestrial broadcasts. American television is ridiculously censored by Canadian standards.