Debbye has excellent commentary on the controversy surrounding we alleged “ban breakers”.
I finally and completely understand why Canada has not produced a Dr. King or a Henry David Thoreau. Every blogger up here has only one decision to make: will you fight for liberty? This is an act of civil disobedience, not armed insurrection, for crying out loud. The threat to charge those of us who published certain links, such as the second post in a series about Jean Brault’s testimony before the Gomery Inquiry – The Martin Connection, must be met with only one response: Bring. It. On. I mean it. Let’s drop the gloves once and for all and get some earnest debate up here about liberty and inherent human rights.
To those Liberal politicians now staggering towards the realization that while they slept safely in the incestuous arms of the mainstream Canadian media, the citizenry was quietly bypassing the gatekeepers and taking control of information – and with it the fate of their political leaders – into their own hands, I can only offer this small consolation;
| It could be worse, eh? |
|
is that a politician on the �chafaud or a blogger? just asking … gulp.
I’m no fan of publication bans, especially discretionary ones, but before you all get swept up in revolutionary enthusiasm, let’s bear in mind some of the situations in Canada that are regularly covered by publication bans of one sort or another:
1) Cases involving young offenders;
2) Cases in which a sexual-assault victim doesn’t want her identity made public;
3) Bail hearings and preliminary inquiries (the latter of which correspond to the grand jury proceedings in the US that provide the same procedural protection by not being open to the public at all, a far more draconian approach than ours).
Beware of opening the floodgates: publication bans in the above circumstances sometimes do make sense. You can be damn sure that if the blogosphere decides that in this case there’s an overriding public interest in ignoring the law, at some point in the near future, a more reckless blogger is going to use that as the precedent to do the same thing in a case where some of you might actually think that the ban is a good idea. And just maybe, a real bad guy will go free as a result.
Also, as a letter writer in the Globe & Mail pointed out today, as a criminal accused, Brault has the option not to testify at his criminal trial; he has no such option at the Gomery inquiry. He’s been subpoena’ed and he has to appear. And unlike the US, he can’t “plead the Fifth” if a question comes up that might incriminate him; the protection against self-incrimination under the Charter is narrower than that of the US 5th Amendment.
So if Brault’s criminal trial had gone ahead in May as it was supposed to (or maybe even in June, as it now will), he would be in the position of being forced to answer questions about the very matters he was to go on trial for in a few weeks — and in a proceeding that’s is being closely followed by (apparently) every man, woman and dog in the province of Quebec.
When you look at it that way, Gomery’s decision arguably looks fairly prudent.
Herb:
While some of your points are legitimate (the only one is victim initiated, BTW). I don’t personally see the others as a bad thing. YOA is a total screw-up, bail hearings are a waste of time to cover, and preliminary inquiries are too close to a trial to be one sided, and thus fair.
Also, note, the Canadian bloggers and netizens as a whole are responding to this, that’s a far cry from your fictional “reckless blogger”.
alain renaud speaks to globe and mail before testifying at gomery
g&m.com
Re young offenders, I realize many people feel that the little creeps are far too coddled by the law these days; but you might feel differently when it’s your kid (it could happen), especially if he/she is ultimately acquitted.
Of course my reckless blogger is fictional now. But he won’t be forever.
The arguments for publications bans are sound, so long as they aren’t abused. In a case of this degree of national signifigance – a corruption scandal at the highest level of government – there’s good reason to suspect that the charges laid were timed to produce an opportunity to argue for a ban.
There is a saying about justice not only being done, but seen to be done. Placing the most damaging testimony in a “public hearing” under a ban that in effect creates two classes of citizens is contrary to the basic tenants of freedom of speech.
While I wouldn’t necessary argue all bans should be broken (national security or gory details around victims), the gag orders have helped offenders more than their child victims – often preventing identification of the convicted, even after the fact – especially if they’re a family relative.
I think that rule of law is important, and, in general, ought to be respected. There isn’t the slightest hint that Justice Gomery is incompetent or corrupt, and I have seen nothing in the material covered by the publication ban that makes it vital to violate it now, rather than overturn it legally. (If the Liberals has called a snap election, and the ban remained in place, that would be a different story.) So, when I put an Adscam blogroll on my home page (I don’t have a blog), it was because I think it (a) is a good thing to do, and (b) does not violate the publication ban. I believe that because large news organizations like the CBC, CTV, and the Globe & Mail, which all surely have good lawyers, had already led people to Captain’s Quarters.
But, I think there is also a good argument that blogs directly discussion the testimony, including this one, Angry in the Great White North, and Captain’s Quarters, are not violating the publication ban either. After all, as the above-mentioned Globe article points out, the testimony was already available, directly and in full, to media and political insiders. Those people are not the general public. Neither are blog readers. Blogs are not like newspapers and TV or radio broadcasts. Practically no one will find the information on a blog without actively seeking it out. The only difference between the media/political insiders and the blog-reading “insiders” is that the former happen to be privileged and the latter are self-selected on the basis of their interest in the story — and that makes them precisely the people that neither prosecution nor defense want on a jury anyway. If telling the first group does not violate the ban, neither does telling the second.
Justice Gomery might clarify his intent tomorrow morning. One way or another, he should put the legitimately interested public (which includes all Canadian taxpayers and citizens) on the same footing as the backroom boys: rescind the ban, or hear the evidence in camera.
A few quotes that seem germain;
�Government, in the last analysis, is organized opinion. Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government.�
William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1874-1950
�They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.�
Benjamin Franklin, 1706 – 1790
�I don�t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.�
Will Rogers, 1879 – 1935
The ban has to lifted. Canadians deserve to know how royally we were screwed over by our government. Keeping a inquiry secret just makes this as big a waste of our money has the orginal adscam.
The Gomery inquiry is only a secret to those who are not alive. The inquiry room is open to the public; reporters are present; closed circuit TV is available. The so-called “publication ban” has been circumvented by the blogosphere & bloggers.
The world is now wired & has been for years. We live in a transparent world.
Marshall McLuhan – Canadian- where are you? (Search)
I think there are quite a few good arguments for lifting the ban now — legally. But remember that this thread started as a discussion about whether it would be a noble act of civil disobedience for bloggers to flout the ban while it’s still in place.
not much of a ban when anybody off the street can walk in sit down and have a listen, I think you have to buy a ticket, watch out for the scalpers selling tickets probably liberals, doesnt sound like much of a ban to me
Cliche: A picture is worth a thousand words: 14 comments>
Did not Dr. Guillotine’s blade edge slope from left down to right? More humane it was claimed. e.g. \.
http://www.napoleonguide.com/guillotine.htm
“Did not Dr. Guillotine’s blade edge slope from left down to right? More humane it was claimed.”
Yes, Madame La Guillotine was indeed an advanced, more humane version of the late 15th-early 17th Century number Kate shows here.
Just demonstrates again how “progressive” governments work hard to improve conditions for the people.
One of the previous methods of execution was to draw and quarter people while they were still alive, so there may actually be something to that claim about being more “humane”.
I haven’t weighed in on the pub ban controversy until now. I have to go against current opinion on SDA for once. I think the pub ban isn’t a bad thing (note I didn’t say it was a good thing). The absolute worst scenario would be if the testimony went in-camera like they do in US Grand Juries. In our system the information will be made available, just not in the timeline we would like it. At least we have numerous media organizations that are recording this for the time that the information can be released. As mentioned by someone else above, if an election is called then the ban should absolutely be lifted. If Brault’s criminal trial is delayed then the ban should be lifted. In the meantime though, if we take away pub bans, then we’ll end up with trials like OJ Simpsons where it takes weeks upon weeks to find a relatively untainted jury and who end up being none too bright ’cause they don’t watch TV news and can’t read!
Mr.Breezer; You underestimate the skill of the late Johnnie Cochrane.He was not a household name in the US for nothing.