John Turmel is vowing to continue his fight against what he claims was inequitable treatment during a televised local candidates debate during the recent provincial election.
Turmel, a independent candidate in Brant riding, was ejected from the September Rogers Television debate by police after moderator Tim Philp ordered him removed for breaking a debate rule that said no props, buttons or other promotional materials were allowed.
Turmel says his removal early in the debate was undemocratic, inequitable and against regulations governing broadcasts during election campaigns. He launched a court challenge asking for equitable time on Rogers following the incident.
The Federal Court of appeal recently dismissed one motion put forward by Turmel, saying it didn't have the authority to immediately rule on the matter, but the court is preparing to hear arguments as to the fairness of Turmel's ejection.
Turmel and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which governs broadcast standards on TV stations, including Rogers, are now in the process of filing arguments with the court.
"They are going to have to argue somehow that (my ejection) was fair," Turmel said during an interview. "We haven't found out why Philp decided that party buttons were not allowed.
"My hope is for the CRTC to be chastised for not having supervised that I got equitable time."
A CRTC spokesperson this week said the commission can't comment on the case because it is still before the courts.
Philp, a columnist in The Expositor, said he isn't surprised that Turmel is pushing the case forward.
"He's got a long history of doing this sort of stuff," Philp said. "He doesn't really care if he wins this or not. He's really doing this to embarrass me, but I think the only thing he will do is embarrass himself."
Court documents filed by the CRTC mention Turmel's record of filing numerous complaints against the broadcasting regulator during the 1980s. Turmel has run in 66 elections for various offices, a Guinness World Record, but has never won.
"It is worth noting that the applicant has brought similar applications against the respondent in the past and that they have been rejected by the court," the documents say.
Philp said Turmel's actions during the televised debate - wearing a promotional sticker on his jacket and interrupting another candidate - served to make a mockery of the political process. Philp said he acted fairly and appropriately in ejecting him.
Turmel said he doesn't expect a final resolution to the case for at least six months.
I am, of course, convinced that Turmel is doing this mainly for the fun of it - as stupid as it sounds, I can see the appeal in playing 'village idiot' for a large audience. Also, I have to admit that from the little bit I've seen of Philp, he seems a little more opinionated (or at least more willing to share his opinions) than the average media member from a city of Brantford's size. None of this changes the fact that what Turmel just did makes no sense whatsoever.
Fact: the debate had rules, and while Philp was likely not the one to set them, he was the one who had to enforce them. Fact: Turmel broke those rules, was given more than fair warning, and refused to change his stance.
I can understand Turmel wanting to challenge the validity of the rules - but I don't see what the CRTC can possibly do in this matter. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I think that if there's ANY federal institution which has jurisdiction over election debates, it would be Elections Canada. I have no problem with him going through the courts, either - I just don't see how the CRTC has anything to do with this.
--Ryan
P.S. Yes, I know there's a new theatre opening up in Market Square soon - I'll explain why it's not going to work some other time.
No comments:
Post a Comment