WHAT: Beginning Monday, the most important legal cases in the history of Canadian elections will be argued before the Federal Court: the applications to contest the outcome of 2011 federal election in six ridings.
WHEN: 9:30am, Monday, December 10 (International Human Rights Day). The full federal court hearing of the election fraud cases is scheduled to take place from Monday, December 10 to Friday, December 14.
WHERE: East Court, Supreme Court of Canada building.
WHO: Tom Parlee, applicant from the Yukon; and Garry Neil, executive director of the Council of Canadians will be in Ottawa for the hearings and available for comment.
The Council of Canadians is supporting the legal cases and is encouraging donations to the Democracy 24-7 Legal Fund to support these important legal challenges.
For more information:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685, firstname.lastname@example.org
www.canadians.org/democracy247 | Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs & #Democracy247
By: Obert Madondo | The Canadian Progressive:
I’m pleased to publish and share with you the letter below, from Maude Barlow (pictured), the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, regarding the ongoing robocalls election fraud case currently before the Federal Court. The Council of Canadians is backing nine residents who have filed a legal challenge asking the courts to set aside the results in seven of the more than 40 ridings affected by robocalls during the May 2011 federal election.
Tthousands of Canadians were robbed of their voter and democratic rights through robocalls and other U.S.-style voter suppression methods. These misleading and harassing tactics kept scores of Canadians from voting. They handed Stephen Harper and the Conservatives an undeserved majority government.
But, instead of allowing the courts to hear the “disturbing and compelling” evidence and legally recover voters’ stolen democratic rights, the Conservatives are resorting to politicking and dirty tactics. So far the tactics include: delaying the cases to drive up legal costs; undermining the judiciary process, attacking Barlow’s reputation and propaganda.