Can’t stifle climate debate
Re Is talking about climate change a partisan activity? Aug. 19
What is happening at Elections Canada? First, the conflict of the election date with a major Jewish holiday, which will affect the ability of observant Jewish candidates to campaign, was sloughed off, even after a court asked the chief electoral officer to reconsider.
Now, environmental charities are being told that, since one party denies that climate change is real, if they promote the science of the dangers of climate change during the federal election campaign, that could be regarded as partisan activity and threaten their charitable status.
Is the next step that charitable organizations will be gagged from taking action against the other policies of that party, which supports ending official multiculturalism and its funding, and reducing immigration and refugee access? Gagged from acting when parties promote racist agendas?
When I served as a federal returning officer, the clear policy of Elections Canada was to do everything possible to enable Canadian citizens to vote. They seem to have lost sight of their prime directive.
Marcia Zalev, Toronto Elections Canada is suppressing the truth about our climate emergency when it threatens organizations with audits if they spend more than $500 on messaging about climate change.
The climate crisis affects everyone on Earth’s surface. Telling the truth about climate change as an emergency or carbon dioxide as a pollutant is not a partisan activity. Elections Canada must make it clear it will not suppress these basic truths about our climate crisis.
Marlo Firme, Vancouver So, if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said they didn’t believe People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier was real, what would Elections Canada’s ruling be?
Elizabeth Legge, Toronto I am feeling some sense of despair for democracy in Canada after reading this story. Elections Canada has warned legitimate environmental groups not to get involved in the federal election campaign.
Tim Gray of Environmental Defence is quoted as saying, “Any partisan activity — including advertising, surveys or any kind of campaign costing more than $500 — would require a charity to register as a third party for the election, an onerous requirement that could jeopardize a group’s charitable tax status.”
Last week, the Star reported the results of an Abacus Data national opinion poll that surveyed 2,000 Canadian adults about their beliefs and attitudes on climate change. Compared to five other topics, climate change was seen as an “extremely serious problem” by more than 82 per cent of participants, garnering more concern than income and wealth inequality, automation and the loss of jobs, and increased immigration to Canada.
How convenient this is for all those who do not wish to debate climate change during this coming election — and that includes more than the People’s Party of Canada.
Allan Baker, Toronto How on Earth can Elections Canada limit politicians and others from talking about managing climate change? This is the most important issue our government and all of us need to address.
We need to know that those seeking election have thought deeply about how best to do this and are prepared to fund research and activities to keep this planet livable for our children and grandchildren. We also need to support organizations that keep this conversation alive so we and our politicians cannot forget the importance of this issue.
Lynda Perry, Toronto A healthy democracy is a process of constant dialogue between the representatives and the represented.
In Canada, our voices are already systemically excluded from the discussions in our Parliaments. The remaining conversation is at its most pointed during our election periods, yet Elections Canada wants to put a gag on one half of that conversation at this crucial juncture on the most tenuous of grounds.
Elections Canada has clearly misapplied logic here. Any party is perfectly free to make its platform conform to the will of the people (or not). If the parties are free to do so and campaign on that basis to win the support of the voters (or not), then so must the electorate be free to express how the parties may do so.
However, if one special interest group on one side of a debate can put an end to the contribution of those on the other side, then democracy is truly dead.
The People’s Party of Canada is free to choose what it stands for and what it wants to respond to in its offering to the electorate.
If it wants to assemble a platform from planks that are illogical, factfanciful or unresponsive to the general public, that’s its prerogative.
Mark Henschel, Toronto I was astounded to read that Elections Canada might deem reasonable discourse on climate change by charities a “partisan activity.”
It appears that political parties can promote any point of view or policy they wish, but charitable groups, like groups concerned about the environment, possible restrictions of human rights, racism, etc., are told to shut up during an election campaign.
Climate change is a scientific fact, regardless of Maxime Bernier’s mistaken opinion on this matter. That a political party at any level of government could limit the level of discussion of their platform in the community is incredible.
Susan Fraser, Toronto It is appalling that Elections Canada is prepared to treat environmental advocacy as a partisan activity.
The fact that all but one of our major political parties recognize that climate change is caused by humans is evidence that it is not a partisan issue. Never mind that the United Nations has warned of irreversible damage from climate change if significant action is not taken within the next decade.
Would Elections Canada respond similarly if a political candidate were to dismiss the science regarding drinking and driving, or immunizations, for example?
Would they choose to legitimize a candidate’s obvious ignorance by restricting groups’ advocacy on those issues?
Elizabeth Eastwood, Dundas, Ont. Send email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via Web at thestar.ca/letters. Include full name, address, phone numbers of sender; only name and city will be published. Letter writers should disclose any personal interest they have in the subject matter. We reserve the right to edit letters, which run 50-150 words.