Regina v. Moore?

Today's National Post reports that a formal complaint has been filed against Mr. Moore with Elections Canada. The complaint alleges Mr. Moore breached the Elections Act when he encouraged voters not to vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Apparently there is a section of the Act that prohibits non-residents of Canada (who are not citizens) from encouraging "electors to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate." The penalty for an offense under this section of the Act is a $2000 fine or six months in jail.

There is no question it was Michael Moore's intent to get people to vote against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, so Elections Canada should charge him, right?

Wrong. This is a bad law that was undoubtedly designed to prevent some nefarious external force (perhaps American political professionals?) from influencing Canadian elections. Surely elections are the time to have meaningful debates and if it requires an external force we should not discourage it. The informed and the uninformed, the stupid and the smart, the right and the left, the experts and the amateurs, the insiders and the outsiders must all have the right to express themselves in the course of an election campaign - that is democracy.

The Conservatives should step up and announce that they support Michael Moore's right to free speech. Not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will show him Conservatives aren't the scary monsters he made them out to be.

Friends he doesn't need:

According to WorldNetDaily Mr. Moore's latest film has the support of a Middle Eastern terror group. Fahrenheit 9/11's distributor in the region is quoted saying, "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria." This leaves the impresssion that a good box office take is more improtant than Mr. Moore's integrity.

At first glance, I found this claim to be outrageous. Surely Mr. Moore wouldn't allow his work to be compromised by this kind of allegation. So I spent two hours combing through his website looking for the denial - I couldn't find it.

Instead I found a website where considerable effort has been made to put down and mock his detractors.

Forgetting his roots:

Another filmmaker, Michael Wilson, has been so inspired by Michael Moore's new genre of "documentary" that he has decided to do a Moore-style film about Michael Moore. The unfairly titled Michael Moore Hates America (let's be clear, Mr. Moore doesn't hate America, he hates America's corporate and political leaders) will, according to its promotional website, "deconstruct the genre of documentary film to show you how filmmakers can manipulate interviews and statistics to communicate a desired message, and then how the media runs with that message."

Mr. Wilson says he has made more than 50 attempts to get Mr. Moore to agree to an interview for the film, only to be turned down each time. Fair enough, I suppose. Why would anyone want to sit down for an interview with someone who wants to take a shot at them?

However, for Mr. Moore, his decision not to be interviewed is (to put it generously) intellectually inconsistent with the stance he took in his film Roger & Me which chronicled his failed attempts to get an interview with General Motors bigwig Roger Smith. That film was, in part, a criticism of Mr. Smith's unwillingness to be interviewed.

Mr. Moore's critics have been no less hypocritical in their attacks, resulting in a dearth of meaningful debate on the issues he raises. Still, I expect better from him.

It seems Mr. Moore has been breathing his own air for so long that he is now exhibiting the same characteristics he criticizes in his films: greed and a distain for thoughtful dissent. How ironic.