A federal judge has ruled that lawn signs promoting an anti-Trudeau book during the 2019 federal election campaign were subject to regulations under The Elections Act.According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Rebel News Network, the publisher, challenged a $3,000 fine for not registering as a campaign advertiser.“The lawn signs were election advertising,” wrote Justice Cecily Strickland. She added that the fine was unrelated to the book’s title or content.“A partisan book is not election advertising,” said the Court. Strickland concluded that the fine was imposed due to the promotion of a partisan book timed to coincide with a general election, during which all partisan messaging is subject to regulation.Rebel News published the book Librano$: What the Media Won't Tell You About Justin Trudeau's Corruption and promoted it with signage throughout the 2019 election campaign.The Elections Act mandates regulation of all campaign activity, though section 349 permits “distribution of a book or the promotion of the sale of a book.”The Elections Commissioner had determined that the Librano$ lawn signs were not just regular promotional materials but campaign advertising subject to regulation. This decision was made because it appeared that the book's release was timed to occur simultaneously with the 2019 election.“It is clear the so-called book exemption applies only in relation to a book that would have been published whether or not the election was called,” said the Commissioner.Investigators in Notices of Violation said Rebel signs “contained the book title’s reference to Librano$, which was designed to create an association between the name of a registered party and The Sopranos, a mafia-themed television show, and to link the party to corruption.”“The book’s launch two days before the beginning of a general election held at a fixed date, the decision to promote the book using lawn signs – a staple of election campaigns but not of book launches – statements by Rebel News and its director linking the signs to the election, and the advertising message’s content that clearly opposed a registered party and its leader give reasonable grounds to believe Rebel News carried out ‘election advertising,’” said the Notices of Violation.“There is little doubt the lawn signs were intended to, and did, oppose a registered party,” wrote federal investigators. “That they may also have been intended to promote the referenced book during the election period does not change the fact.”In a 2021 submission to the Federal Court, Rebel’s lawyers argued that the "Librano$" case raised concerns about free speech.“Books are and have historically been critical instruments to express opinions on matters of public interest and concern, especially during elections, the pinnacle of a democracy,” wrote lawyers.“The Charter guarantees ‘freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication,’” said the Federal Court application. “Among other things, this protection promotes participation in social and political decision-making and denies the state the power to suppress opinion and commentary.”
A federal judge has ruled that lawn signs promoting an anti-Trudeau book during the 2019 federal election campaign were subject to regulations under The Elections Act.According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Rebel News Network, the publisher, challenged a $3,000 fine for not registering as a campaign advertiser.“The lawn signs were election advertising,” wrote Justice Cecily Strickland. She added that the fine was unrelated to the book’s title or content.“A partisan book is not election advertising,” said the Court. Strickland concluded that the fine was imposed due to the promotion of a partisan book timed to coincide with a general election, during which all partisan messaging is subject to regulation.Rebel News published the book Librano$: What the Media Won't Tell You About Justin Trudeau's Corruption and promoted it with signage throughout the 2019 election campaign.The Elections Act mandates regulation of all campaign activity, though section 349 permits “distribution of a book or the promotion of the sale of a book.”The Elections Commissioner had determined that the Librano$ lawn signs were not just regular promotional materials but campaign advertising subject to regulation. This decision was made because it appeared that the book's release was timed to occur simultaneously with the 2019 election.“It is clear the so-called book exemption applies only in relation to a book that would have been published whether or not the election was called,” said the Commissioner.Investigators in Notices of Violation said Rebel signs “contained the book title’s reference to Librano$, which was designed to create an association between the name of a registered party and The Sopranos, a mafia-themed television show, and to link the party to corruption.”“The book’s launch two days before the beginning of a general election held at a fixed date, the decision to promote the book using lawn signs – a staple of election campaigns but not of book launches – statements by Rebel News and its director linking the signs to the election, and the advertising message’s content that clearly opposed a registered party and its leader give reasonable grounds to believe Rebel News carried out ‘election advertising,’” said the Notices of Violation.“There is little doubt the lawn signs were intended to, and did, oppose a registered party,” wrote federal investigators. “That they may also have been intended to promote the referenced book during the election period does not change the fact.”In a 2021 submission to the Federal Court, Rebel’s lawyers argued that the "Librano$" case raised concerns about free speech.“Books are and have historically been critical instruments to express opinions on matters of public interest and concern, especially during elections, the pinnacle of a democracy,” wrote lawyers.“The Charter guarantees ‘freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication,’” said the Federal Court application. “Among other things, this protection promotes participation in social and political decision-making and denies the state the power to suppress opinion and commentary.”
