this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025

48 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9549 readers

878 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

mp3@lemmy.ca

otters_raft@lemmy.ca

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down Ford government’s third-party political ads law. Restrictions on third-party advertising… let political parties ‘drown out’ other groups such as unions|TheTrillium (www.thetrillium.ca)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/40228347

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a Ford government law that restricted political advertising by third parties, such as unions, in the year ahead of a scheduled election campaign.

The top court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the law allowed for political parties’ ads to “drown out” those of third-party groups, infringing on citizens' right to meaningfully participate in the democratic process.

“The information available to voters in Ontario in the year before an election must include the interests, voices and views of different citizens and parties,” reads the majority decision written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis.

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 22 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is good for unions and other above-board groups, but I can't help but wonder how this affects the various "dark money" lobby groups that have unclear ownership, but have been buying political ads across the country.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

please, I beg of you, control this closely. the citizens united case in the us drove a stake through the heart of this country.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is exactly what I thought of when I read it. Although moneyed interests always have ways of influencing politics, a decision like this will help the bosses more than the unions.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

I wrote a list of most promising counters to dark money.

[+] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is good for unions and other above-board groups, but I can’t help but wonder how this affects the various “dark money” lobby groups that have unclear ownership, but have been buying political ads across the country.

As long as they are citizens it is their right to " meaningfully participate in the democratic process" whether you agree with them, like it, or not.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue that we at least have the right to know who they are. In the case of unions, that's certainly the case.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue that if you don't like the system you should work to change the system and ensure that all Political advertisements must make available who paid for it. Which to my knowledge is already a thing in Canada.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is it? Because we seem to be highly dependent on investagative journalists for that sort of thing.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is it? Because we seem to be highly dependent on investagative journalists for that sort of thing.

Who use access to information requests to get information for their investigations. Which you, as a citizen, can also make in order to obtain aforementioned information.

If you want the information go and get it instead of being highly dependent on others to tell you what the truth is.

[–] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Search "Canada access to information broken" to understand previous comments...

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Search “Canada access to information broken” to understand previous comments…

Search "Canada access to information" to find the portal to make a request to access information and find that it is functional. Which is the opposite of "broken".

[–] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, I see. It's not about understanding. You just want to debate.

No thanks.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, I see. It’s not about understanding. You just want to debate.

No thanks.

This isn't, and was never, a debate.

You are just wrong. Take the L and walk away.

[–] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Right. You avoid doing the research. Tell me I'm wrong. Then tell me I'm a loser.

Well, when I throw the L back at you, it means "lazy troll".

Edit: LOL then they double down on the trolling...

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 month ago

Right. You avoid doing the research.

I haven't avoided doing any research. I am not going to waste my time demonstrating to you why you are wrong.

If the system was broken journalists wouldn't be able to access the information you say is impossible to obtain because the "system is broken" you absolute genius.

Tell me I’m wrong. Then tell me I’m a loser.

You are wrong, I never called you a loser, but I won't disagree with your choice of words to describe yourself.

Well, when I throw the L back at you, it means “lazy troll”.

Projection at its best.

Go upstairs and cry to your mom about it.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The thing is, should people have the right for their voice to be louder than others, and to participate with more force, just because they have more money?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 month ago

People don't have the right to have their voice be louder, they have the option because they have more money and that is what is valued in our society.

If you don't like the system change it.

Don't try to start arguments asking questions that don't matter to someone simply pointing out a fact regarding universal rights for citizens.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

In an alternative, better world, Doug Ford would have a lot less power right now | Toronto Star.