Saturday, 2 March 2013

Telephones have been and can be undemocratic tools in Australia and Canada

This has come to me from that great naturalist and Networker, Denis Wilson of The Nature of Robertson.  It's from Maud Barlow in her capacity as Chair of The Council of Canadians.  With an election this year, Australians need to be aware of all that is done to influence and/or deflect their vote.  Since Mike Kelly has lost a defamation case about something I thought was an historic fact, everyone needs to be very careful.  So while the case below might have specific Canadian details, similar principles - or should I say lack of principles - can surface in Australia ~~~~~~

From: Maude Barlow <mbarlow@canadians.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Subject: Robocalls case wins another battle
To: Council of Canadians Supporter 


Democracy 24-7

Dear Council of Canadians supporter,

I wanted to share with you the latest good news in the election fraud legal challenge.

Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley has admitted new evidence in the case—documents recently filed by Elections Canada that contain 45 complaints from Rogers telephone customers who reported fraudulent calls around the 2011 federal election. Of particular significance is a declaration from a voter who "was deceived by a misleading call, went to the wrong location and then did not vote."

In his decision, Judge Mosley said of the new evidence: "I find that it may affect the decision that I will make. It will therefore serve the interests of justice and assist the Court for it to be admitted to the record."

It's yet another victory for the applicants in their ongoing legal battle.

Can you believe that it's been a year since reporters blew the lid off of the largest and most sophisticated scheme of voter suppression our country's history? And tomorrow marks one year to the day since the Council of Canadians launched our national campaign to restore voters' rights and the integrity of Canada's democracy.

In the weeks that followed, nine brave Canadians came forward as legal applicants with powerful evidence and unflinching conviction in what has become a landmark case to defend the most fundamental of our democratic rights.

They didn't anticipate the tremendous obstacles they would have to overcome, including relentless attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada and its high-powered legal team to discredit and stop them at every turn.

But they have overcome. And it's in large part thanks to the generous support of Council of Canadians members across the country and around the world. Public donations to the Democracy 24/7 Legal Fund have been crucial in helping the applicants mount the strongest legal case possible, and keeping the wheels of justice turning.

Simply put, without broad public support this case would never have gone to court, and this scandal would be long gone from the headlines.

This legal fight a prime example of the type of hard-hitting public advocacy work the Council of Canadians has been taking on for the last 28 years. In addition to this, right now our people-powered campaigns are leading inspiring struggles to:

Protect our lakes and rivers from oil, gas and mining companies.
Promote trade justice that puts the environment, human rights and the public interest above profit.
Give communities a voice to protect their water, land and air from pipelines and fracking operations.
Speak up for universal public health care in the face of devastating federal cuts.

The court's ruling is expected in the coming weeks, and I will continue to keep you informed on breaking developments. You can read Judge Mosley's decision in full, as well as revisit the past year's timeline of events and court documents, on our website.

Thank you for all you've done and continue to do.

With hope and resolve,

 Maude Barlow
Maude Barlow
National Chairperson

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.

Total Pageviews