U.S. Blogger Breaches Canadian Publication Ban 735
nnet writes "The Toronto Sun is reporting that a U.S. blogger has been breaching a Canadian publication ban on AdScam. While The Sun hasn't given the URL for the blog itself, in fear of a contempt of court charge, this isn't the first time an American has breached a Canadian publication ban according to the article." The Sun story, though, does give a nice title for which to search, and this quickly yields the story in question.
The article... (Score:4, Informative)
Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open
A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called "sponsorship scandal" - tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)
Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.
And well they might, if Brault's testimony gives any indication of what they will face. Thanks to a friend of mine, CQ readers can get a taste of what Brault has already told the Gomery Commission. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal this person's name or position, but this person is in a position to have the information. Bear in mind that this comes from a single source, so while I have confidence in the information, you should consider the sourcing carefully.
Payoffs And Kickbacks
On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.
Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring "employees" -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.
Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles ("Chuck") Guité and told him that "there was room for everybody." Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government "sponsorship" advertising (e.g. federal
advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.
In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, a
Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Funny)
Politely, of course.
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in Canada, and I'm emailing it to everyone I know.
Fuck it, and fuck everyone who's involved. No wonder there was so much pressure from the former PM to close down the inquiry.
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at the Hansard from early last year it was clear that the Liberal MAJORITY goverment was pushing for an enquiry while the Conservative Opposition was quite plainly against it. The reason why the publican ban is ordered by Justice Gomery is to allow those involved to have a fair trial, a right given to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You have no right to subvert the law in this case, an
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Insightful)
Chretien's lawyers tried to have the Gomery inquiry stopped.
Here's http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1106682011080_102091211 [www.ctv.ca] one of MANY links.
It was already subverted, asswipe. Once it's out, there's no putting it back in the can.As for his "fair trial", that can still be done - I'm sure we can find a dozen people who've been living in caves the last 5 years.
A simple solution to finding a fair jury (Score:3, Funny)
It's much easier than that. Just get a bunch of Americans and Europeans to volunteer to be on the jury. I mean, most Americans have only the vaguest notion of where Canada is even located. Europeans in my experience know where Canada is, but unless they're French they don't see any reason why anyone would want to go there.
Speaking personally, I've visited Canada twice and
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Interesting)
Colby Cosh [colbycosh.com] has a very interesting post on this issue (despite being a Canuck, and subject to the ban.) Sample:
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Insightful)
But not too many seem to have clued in to the fact that, contrary to the catcalls of censorship, all of the testimony was made available to the press which is why we are reading it. The "publication ban" is a temporary measure intended to ensure a fair and impartial jury trial. Providing a fair and impartial jury trial requires either withholding the testimony from the public until the jury has reached a verdict, or disclosing it but keeping it from publication.
You all seem to think that this guy is some sort of "hero" for publishing this stuff. But all he's done is present one portion of the facts and testimony in isolation from the others. Far from informing, this is just leading those who aren't mentally disciplined enough to withhold judgement until getting all the facts to a knee jerk reaction that will be discussed around the water cooler until it has taken on the authority of repetition. It's basically taking us further and further away from any possibility of justice and towards a witch hunt.
Whoever this "secret source" is, I for one am totally disgusted with his or her demonstrated lack of integrity, and am hoping that they go to jail for this and never hold a position of trust again for the rest of their life.
I hope the courts will learn from this, and start preventing the press from being present for these sorts of testimonies at all. They have demonstrated that they can neither be trusted nor compelled not skew the trial, so they just shouldn't be there. They should recieve and report on the complete facts of the case when the court documents are released. Aside from being in the interests of justice, that would be responsible journalism, which this clearly is not.
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that we may be heading into a snap election because the government wants us to vote BEFORE all this stuff leaks out, I think the ban was more harmful to the common good than just disclosing everything.
Would any of this have made slashdot if it HADN'T been banned? Of course not.
The ban was stupid, and it didn't work. It was inevitable that it wouldn't work.
Oh, BTW, the CRTC (the Canadian equivalent of the FCC) has already stated plenty of times that they will NOT regulate the internet. That's because:
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it did make the CTV news, and the newspapers across the country ...
The guy's gotten over a quarter-million hits so far today. 7% are from the gc.ca domain. That's what, about 20,000? Seems a lot of people in government want to know.
Check out http://ww [sitemeter.com]
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:5, Insightful)
We do. We just recognize the infallibly of men, historically and experientially, and the exceptional ability of men in power to rationalize anything to stay in power. Those who don't are the sheep for those that are.
John Milton (of Paradise Lost fame) wrote about this in the 1600s in a little essay called Areopagitica. Back then, the King of England rationalized prior restraint on the printing presses under the rationalization that without such restraint, someone might print a falsehood and god forbid the harm that might cause innocent people. Milton correctly pointed out that nobody knows what is a falsehood from a truth unless we let them "grapple" with each other in an open process.
Those who deal with information technology security know the corrolary to this is very true. Security by obscurity never works. Security through open exposure of ideas to numerous different perspectives results in the discovery of flaws in the idea and the eventual development of stronger security mechanisms. Read Bruce Schneier's newsletter or books to get a foundation here - I'd definitely recommend Bruce's Secrets & Lies [amazon.com] (apologies for the Amazon link) as a good start here.
The scientific community has also embraced this approach ala peer review of ideas. They require new ideas to be openly communicated through the process of publishing them in appropriate journals, and then subject them to criticism. Followers of the cold fusion debate can confirm my thoughts here - those who short circuit the process usually have an ulterior motive (power, money or hot chicks... your pick!).
So why do Canadian liberals reject this process? Only because the process discovers truth, and this is clearly an undesired product. Naturally, you'll see this same dynamic in the debate of ideas. For instance, most liberals are unable to express rational thought in any dialog and resort to name calling, intimidation and other techniques perfected by their national socialist brethern. Ideas and the discovery of truth are counterproductive to their goals.
There comes a point where we all have to decide whether we're sheep, wolves or shepherds...
*scoove*
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's my post in a nutshell:
-The purpose of a gag order is to _limit_ the spread of information before the upcoming criminal trial. It is not to actually supress the information, and there will be plenty of sources reporting on it in depth once the gag order is lifted.
-Of course a gag order can't stop anonymous websites....
-...but that's entirely irrelevant. 90% of Canadians being saturated with the info in headline snippet form (the wor
A simple response... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything that slows down the transparency in government, or the free telling of the occurrences in government, is in essence, is censorship.
This just happens to be time censorship.
In America, there would have been cameras in the meetings and conversation all over the country. All this does is not make any public videotape available to those that would like to know, and helps minimize the impact and importance to the public.
Man, every time I screwed up, I would love to make everyone talk abou
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please... You really shouldn't mention the shear unadulterated incompetence that Chretien showed on the Quebec file if you're trying to say the Liberals have proven themselves. That was among the most pathetic behaviour I have ever seen or heard of in Canadian history. The man came within a whisker of losing that referendum and Parizeau was perfectly right when he said the separatists lost because of money and the ethnic vote. It was a s
Re:Watch out CmdrTaco! (Score:3, Informative)
no french no care (Score:4, Funny)
Re:no french no care (Score:5, Funny)
Poliment, naturellement.
--
You have been warned.
Vous avez été averti.
Re:no french no care (Score:4, Funny)
The French text needs to be in a larger font than the rest of the English on this page. (Notwithstanding universal human rights.)
Re:no french no care (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The article... (Score:2, Funny)
The deadly Canadian mafia is not to be meddled with. They will sign you up to furniture catalogues, topple your lawn gnomes and even put flaming bags of poo on your porch! Heh heh[ NO CARRIER ]
(yes, I live in Canada, and yes, I am aware that there is a lot of dangerous mob activity, despite the friendly image of the country)
Synopsis & commentary (Score:5, Insightful)
Canadians have a serious problem: corruption in government, with money being funneled in illegal ways.
This scandal implicates the previous prime-minister, the current prime-minister, and a slew of relatively wealthy people.
A huge inquiry ensues, and costs an amount similar to the amount of money that was originally stolen (perhaps, misused is a better word). In particular, around 250 million is supposedly improperly accounted for, and the commission investigating the problem is costing another 130 million.
Since the inquiry isn't a criminal case against the individuals involved, the commissioner in charge of the inquiry has asked that journalists not publicise the events, so that an unbiased jury can be found for the real criminal proceeedings.
Members of the public are still welcome to go see the events, just not to publicly report them. (keep in mind that until the publication ban was put in place, the TV channel with the live hearings was getting amazing ratings in Quebec- hence constituting a serious problem for finding an unbiased jury)
I think it is pretty sad that someone finds it necessary to publicise their own version of events on their blog, in defiance of the ban, because it presents all kinds of problems in actually prosecuting the people who have allegedly committed serious crimes.
As per the slashdotting, a pity even the slashdot effect hasn't torn the site down.
The whole freedom of speech issue is not really a big problem for most people I know in Montreal, as there is no permanent secrecy being imposed. The events being investigated happened several years ago, and it doesn't make a huge difference if the details are known today or in a few months- except for the prosecution aspect.
The really scary freedom restrictions here are the 'security certificates' which allow the government to throw people in jail, and not tell people what evidence they are being convicted with.
Then again, the same thing seems to happen in the US, only justified with terms like 'enemy combatant', instead of 'security certificate'.
Re:Synopsis & commentary (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001630.h
and http://www.instapundit.com/ [instapundit.com]
etc.
When the number one TV News program in the country tells everyone where to go to get the details, the ban is pretty much toast from that point on. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably being fed from a tube.
Corruption in Government... (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to recall that China treats corruption as a
Re:The article... (Score:5, Informative)
Canada is starting to resemble Orwell's 1984. There are all kinds of things you can't say there now.
From TFA:
This thing actually happens fairly often up here. In some cases, it's fairly reasonable. In this case, however, it does seem to be a bit over the top, and a stretch.
A far cry from 1984, though.
Re:The article... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to talk about Orwell's future, start taking about being sent to jail based on "classified information". This is happening right now in Canada, US and other coutries (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc..).
Re:The article... (Score:2)
poor baby (Score:2)
Re:poor baby (Score:4, Interesting)
Never? It will *NEVER* work? My, that's a bold statement.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Re:poor baby (Score:4, Insightful)
You should tell that to the US navy, which has been largely successful in its trials: five hits in (I think) six attempts. See here [raytheon.com] for example. I agree that the USAF's program, which has received more press, has been dismal.
I don't get why people keep saying it will "never" work. It's a hard problem, but I'm aware of no physical laws that are violated by BMD.
But more generally, the way things are now, the only thing defending you from nuclear attack is that the USA is prepared to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death, which incidentally conveys no protection from insanity, error, or equipment failure. As a first line of defence, I would much rather be protected by a system that could destroy the incoming warhead -- even if it had a certain percentage chance of failure.
Re:poor baby (Score:3, Interesting)
BMD (shield) isn't dumb because it won't work, but because it's just plain dumb.
Re:poor baby (Score:3, Interesting)
I love this argument. So in your opinion, an enemy will either:
- smuggle nuclear weapons -- not just one, but dozens -- into the United States during peacetime, knowing that the discovery of even one will be tantamount to a declaration of war; and somehow maintain secret absolute command and control over those we
Re:poor baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Well no, it won't. Unless, of course, you make your dummy warheads the exact same size and density, etc, as the real thing (otherwise they won't have the same flight characteristics.) Since ICBM launchers are expensive, you might as well, in that case, just use the real thing.
Either way, the cost of mounting an attack just went way up, and the certainty of it succeeding to the point where no retaliation is possib
Re:The article... (Score:3, Insightful)
The current and former Liberal government already treats us like shit, so yes.
Re:The article... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The article... (Score:3, Insightful)
US Public Debt (the part that isn't one part of the government owing another part of the government money) is ~$4.6 trillion. US GDP is ~$11 trillion. So our Debt is ~42% of GDP.
Publication bans? On events *open to the public?* (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Quaint indeeed...
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:2)
then try a closed trial... put the transcripts in the public eye once your jury has been chosen and can be shown to be reasonably un-biased.
this is just stupid. Here in america we have enough trouble keeping sealed grand jury testimony a secret... take a look at the BALCO investigation and the shit-storm it has generated with the baseball/steroid thing... and thats not even important stuff.
this info needs to be public... if you want it to stay out of the public eye to allow for unbiased jury selection t
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Interesting)
Canada takes quite seriously the concept of making sure that suspects receive a fair trial. When the publication of evidence in advance of the trial would make it impossible for someone to receive a fair trial, a publication ban is entirely reasonable.
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:2)
But apparently they don't go far enough. They clearly see that the jury system has significant problems, but yet they resort to workarounds which are less and less effective, instead of abolishing it.
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:2)
IN related news . . . (Score:4, Funny)
hawk
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Canada, a fair amount of the law relies on common sense and good will. The intent of these publication bans is to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. This is essentially the judge saying to the press, "Look, if the whole world hears this testimony before the trial gets fully underway and everything can be put into a proper context, it will be really hard to get a reasonably impartial jury so this person gets a fair trial." They know very well that it's impossible to guarantee it won't come out, but Canadian journalists typically respect it.
What's more important? Having one newspaper scoop another in an attempt to splash the headlines with more sensationalism? Or having an accused person get a fair trial?
Note that this isn't censorship or a closed trial or any of that nonsense. You can physically go down and sit in the courtroom if you really want to (and lots of the public do). Sometimes conflicting rights have to be balanced, and most Canadians that I know feel that, in this case, the right of the accused to receive a fair trial outweigh the rights of media to publish this stuff immediately.
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Informative)
You can make cases for why it's important and a good thing, and you can argue about that if you want, but I don't see how you can possibly claim that this isn't censorship.
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:2)
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Informative)
There is currently a royal inquiry going on into some mishandling of federal advertisement contracts. A royal inquiry is similar to congressional hearings in the US, except this one is not lead by congressmen, but by a retired judge. When finished he gets to report back to parliament on his findings.
Now, some of the people subpeonaed to give testimony at the inquiry are also being charged with crimes related to the events under discussion. They will go to court in the next several months on those charges.
The publication ban was put in place to ensure things that these people say at the inquiry will not affect their chances of a fair jury trial. (Compare this to the baseball hearings where they players wanted immunity for their testimony, for many of the same reasons.) The ban will be ended after the jury has been sequestered, at which all that was said during the ban can be made public.
Note that this is only a publication ban -- it doesn't prevent people from actually going to the hearings to hear for themselves; it just attempts to limit what the jury pool will hear outside of the court case.
Publication bans are common in Canada, and typically have a similar duration and purpose -- to prevent the jury on high profile cases from getting the "facts" of the case from anywhere but the courtroom. The media typically fight the ban, and often win certain relaxations on the ban (you can report the events, but not identify the person giving testimony, etc.). In this case, Judge Gomery has said the media can ask at the end of each day what of that day's testimony can be released.
I'm generally in favour of such time limited bans, since they are designed to help ensure a fair trial. However, it looks like maintaining such bans is getting more and more difficult in the era of the Internet. Other cases where Canadian publication bans have been breached by American organizations include the Air India case (IIRC), and the Paul Bernardo case.
E.
Re:Publication bans? On events *open to the public (Score:5, Informative)
Bloggers as Journalists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:2, Interesting)
Mainstream journalists work for businesses. Their only incentive to be truthful is business and reputation. For bloggers, it's mostly just reputation.
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:2)
From your post, we can conclude that bloggers have half as much incentive to be truthful, which sounds about right.
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:2)
If flesh-and-blood reporters felt too ethical to report the story, no publication ban would be needed. The publication ban is there to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Evidently, there are journalists who want to. Is there in fact any evidence that this story wasn't in some way written up or leaked by a flesh-
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:4, Insightful)
Most REAL Journalists are the slimyiest bunch of pond scum out there.
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the journalists who think they should be entitled to special privileges and protections, and that bloggers shouldn't.
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Canada is certainly not the only country in the world to curtail the freedom of speech purportedly in order to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. And if Canadians want to have that rule, that's fine. But to try to impose such rules on American citizens for publishing something in America, that's just wrong. That's trying to impose Canadian laws on us. And to try to prohibit Canadians from simply linking to an American website is just stup
Re:Bloggers as Journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
And why d
ethics my arse (Score:3, Interesting)
I now how to enforce the publication ban! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, no, the sky has fallen, boo frickin' hoo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what? Canadian gag-orders don't apply in the US (and vice-versa). US cryptography export restrictions don't apply from Norway. Just about any of the BS Sharia laws don't apply outside the Middle East. Pretty much nothing applies in Vanuatu.
Welcome to the dawn of a new era. Wake up, world leaders, and smell the coffee - Doesn't it smell so deliciously like your obsolescence? Your petty little regional fiefdoms no longer exist. If the entire planet doesn't agree with you, you lose.
Re:Oh, no, the sky has fallen, boo frickin' hoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The information, I gather, is very, very damaging and very prejudicial," Shanoff said.
if this gets out this can cause alot of problems. Now i agree you cant stop change , but you must learn to use it responsibly.
The sky may not have falen for most of us , but the person on trial has just potentialy had their life ruined(i repeat i do not know much about this case , so maybe they deserve it) so perhaps this is not a legal issue , but the person who posted the blog should not have done this right now (the person who leaked it should definantly be nailed to the wall though) from an ethics standpoint , If bloggers want to be seen as journalists then ethics should really be important.
The gag order does not apply , but the blogger must of known about it and for this reason is in the USA.There is perhaps no legal issue , but the ethics are definantly in question here
isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
i misread this as "charles guilté" and was immediately confused as to how he'd not already been convicted.
My perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there is a publication ban. However, Canadian courts have no jurisdiction outside of Canada's borders. Just as US courts have no pull inside of Canada's borders.
If there was a publication ban on a case in the states - Canadians could feel free to ignore it.
However, if this is a Canadian posting on a US blog site... he should be prepared to spend some time in jail.
Re:My perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Currently at least one Canadian blog is in trouble for posting a LINK to captainsquartersblog.com.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/0
Begin "Operation: Human Shield" at once (Score:5, Funny)
at best heresay... (Score:4, Interesting)
The gist of the article is "i know a guy who told me what the secret testimony was". Most likely Gomery banned the publication of this information on the basis that it was unsubstantiated in court, and could be damaging to the Liberals even if untrue. For Slashdotters not familiar with the case, Gomery has been exceedingly level handed and fair and in fact if anything is more likely biased against the Liberals than not.
If all of this DOES turn out to be true I wouldn't be surprised, given that the advertisement scandal gets deeper and deeper every day, but I don't think this blogger amounts to much.
Before everyone starts yelling "too bad Canadians don't have the 4th amendment!" blah blah blah, just ask yourself how you'll feel when the next multiple-murderer gets off in the US due to jury tampering because of a Canadian publication.
Re:at best heresay... (Score:2)
Re:at best heresay... (Score:2)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/0
Canadian bloggers may face charges for posting links to captainsquartersblog.com's article. That to me seems to validate most of what he posted. Bear in mind what happens in that court is public record, people just aren't allowed to publish it.
Re:at best heresay... (Score:3, Insightful)
Never thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's way more to this liberal scandal than we're supposed to know. I understand the necessity for short-term publication bans when a trial is in progress, but anything pertinent to discovering the truth about something (hence a trial) should really be accessible when it comes to public office.
-Matt
the sky is falling (Score:2)
Invade! (Score:2, Funny)
Lets' invade!!!Someone tell bush that they are the REAL target.
and the Irony of it all (Score:2)
Jury bias (Score:2, Insightful)
Abohrrent Press Vacuum (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Abohrrent Press Vacuum (Score:2)
Re:Abohrrent Press Vacuum (Score:4, Insightful)
Change of Venue? (Score:5, Funny)
There is an easy solution to this. Have a change of venue to someplace where they haven't been paying much attention to the news. I recomend somewhere in the Northwest Territories.
US citizen acknowledges Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Why not a publication ban? (Score:4, Informative)
By the way, violating such a court imposed ban is a criminal offence and I believe you can be jailed for it in Canada.
It's an inquiry, not a trial (Score:4, Informative)
The gag order, in this case, is to prevent any bias at the trial stage.
You have to understand the process... (Score:5, Informative)
Now the Gomery Inquiry is a legal tribunal initiated by parliament to investigate possible corruption surrounding advertising contracts given to certain agencies that are believed to be loyal to the ruling Liberal Party. Extremely damaging testimony was recently given by witnesses during the inquiry and the judge invoked a publication ban to protect the rights of those witnesses who face certain criminal prosecution. Note that the ban does not remain in force forever and, while I don't agree with it, the testimony will eventually be made public.
The crux of the matter is while the rights of potentially accussed persons are protected we are likely to face another election in the very near future before the information is made public. Without the knowledge of the testimony the public may be heading into an election with more questions than answers. Does the right of the public to know the substance of the allegations made during the inquiry outweigh the rights of accused persons?
I think the publication ban does more harm then good as speculation swirls around the subject and the real truth remains hidden. In the meantime, the Liberal minority goverment is probably happy with things the way they are considering the potential damange to their reputation.
Overblown (Score:4, Informative)
The cries of censorship seem a bit overblown to me. This isn't a perminant ban, just a temporary gag order, much like those issued daily in U.S. courts. All it says is that the information needs to be held until a jury is selected and sequestered for the upcoming (about a month) trials.
They're allowing reporters and photographers. Presumably, those stories and photos may be published once a fair trial can be assured.
Nobody likes these gag orders, but you can't select an impartial jury once details of a case have been all over national news and everyone has formed an opinion based on the news. As important as freedom of the press is, a fair trial by an impartial jury is also important.
The thing to watch for with gag orders is not their existance, but if they are, in fact, lifted as soon as is possable. I guess we'll know in this case in a month or two.
Not Overblown (Score:3, Informative)
If the Liberal party can suppress this unfavorable information long enough to hold a new election for themselves (as this is a parlimentary system and terms are not specifically fixed), they could be already elected by the time any nasty details came out!
Its like sweeping your dirt underneath a rug until just after your relatives leave.
Stupid security model (Score:4, Insightful)
A secret simply cannot be contained this way. It sounds like they're relying on people to be honest - the data isn't even watermarked individually in each person's brain - so how can they really be surprised?
It sounds like they don't have a problem with the entire population of Canada being present (barring physical restrictions) but for some reason replicating the information later is bad.
Come on! If you don't want information to get out, restrict access to it. The story here is not that what happened; it's the broken security itself.
P.S. Let me get this straight: If I attend the proceedings, I'm not allowed to tell anybody? Even a spouse? Or am I only allowed to tell people I meet in person? Is it legal to send snail mail regarding the experience? email? send it to a mailing list? Is it OK as long as I don't do this for a living?
The whole thing seems to be based on the distinction between members of the press and non-publicators. This distinction is arbitrary and archaic.
Excerpt from Question Period today (Score:5, Informative)
Speaker: The Right Honourable Prime Minister.
Paul Martin: Mr Speaker
Some Member: Guilty!
Speaker: Order, order. The Right Honorable Prime Minister has the floor.
Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, the Liberal Party consists of thousands of men and women, in Quebec and right across this country, who are dedicated to the Liberal Party and to their country. They work day in and day out, Mr Speaker, for the benefit of Canadians, and Mr Speaker, those members of the Liberal party should not have to bear the rumours, Mr Speaker, or the burden of the activities of a very small few who may have colluded against the Party and against, Mr Speaker, the well being of Canadians, and we will defend, Mr Speaker, those Liberals. These are Canadians, Mr Speaker, who have given their all for this country.
Some Member: Hear, hear.
Speaker: [inaudible] the Opposition.
Stephen Harper: Mr Speaker, the judge, police, and Canadians will be the judge of how involved the Liberal party is.
On another subject, last week Canadians finally learned the details of the brutal torture and murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi. Now it turns out, for months the Prime Minister knew the true extent of the brutality inflicted upon Ms Kazemi. Instead of taking a firm stand against Iran, he sent our ambassador back to that oppressive regime. What kind of callous, spineless government reestablishes normal diplomatic relations with this kind of regime?
Speaker: Hon. Prime Minister.
Paul Martin: [inaudible] ... respond first to the preamble. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that Candians do de-- [aside] are Americans -- that Canadians should have the facts, Mr Speaker, and that is why I called for the Gomery commission, that is why this government, Mr Speaker, put that commission in place, Mr Speaker, it is precisely to have those facts, and that's why there should not be an election until Justice Gomery has reported, because Canadians deserve to know the facts.
Now, Mr Speaker, if I may respond to the Honourable Member's question, if the baying on the other side... the member has asked a question, ....
Speaker: I'm afraid the Right Honourable Prime Minister has used up the time responding to the preamble, but I suspect there might be a supplementary question, may be a supplementary question from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Stephen Harper: Mr Speaker, may I just say that that is a perfect example of what is wrong with this government. They should have used this opportunity to defend a Canadian citizen, not the Liberal party.
[continues re Iran]
Similar to the CDN Carla Homolka media blackout (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Role reversal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Role reversal (Score:3, Insightful)
What remains is very well trained, but too small to carry out its commitments I think.
And to think that after WWII, Canada had the 4th largest Navy in the world. Now our navy is laughably small.
Re:What's funny... (Score:2)
Re:How could they shut him down? (Score:4, Informative)
They can also charge his "buddy" who presumably sits at the hearing room, which, last time I checked, was still on Canadian soil.
The blogger is safe; his source might dry up pretty soon though.
Most of the testimony has been public and not subject to a ban; there isn't much that isn't known from any newspaper and I didn't see anything in the blogger's post that hasn't been reported elsewhere in the public press in Canada. Not really sure what the "secret" is; I didn't see any.
They Judge must have his reasons, he is widely believed to be hostile to the Liberals and it was that Judge that none the less ordered the ban. I just didn't see any evidence of anything new in the blog entry. Typically the ban is in place to avoid prejudicing a trial jury if charges are a likely outcome of the testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Thought This Blogger Looked Reputable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Thought This Blogger Looked Reputable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Thought This Blogger Looked Reputable... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I Thought This Blogger Looked Reputable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave your prejudice at the door (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that means you can take everything Michael Moore says at face value? If a socialist says the sky is pink at high noon on a clear day it must be so? Unless the source clearly has something to gain from publishing certain information you might want to put your prejudice aside and look at things deeper.
FYI, without mentioning the details themselves, "real journalists" have confirmed that this report is co
Re:police THIS... (Score:2)
Heh. I'm Canadian, and I remember reading this in 1994. I'm not sure if it was a copy hosted off of your FTP site or not, but I remember pulling it off of a URL from usenet.
Re:Fortunately, Canada != U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
The question to ask yourself is "is socialism good for the poor?" Then look at the nations where socialism has been enacted to its largest degrees -- Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, Vietnam, India, Maoist China, present-day North Korea -- and ask yourself if those are nations in which the poor would like living.
Indeed, the difference between capitalism and socialism was probably starkest and most-clearly explained by th