It has been a rare day of political scaredy-cat-ism thoughout the realm that could be called the poli-blogs of Canada. Within 24 hours of a few posts like mine on Sunday morning there were some amazingly dimwitted calls for the defence of democracy [Ed.: "toot-ta-tooooo!!!" go the horns!!! To the pea and asparagus harvesters, everyone!!!] because a commission judge ordered a publication ban. Throughout every legal system - even in the USA - there are plenty of instances of secrecy: US grand jury, Canadian trial jury, judicial privilege, solicitor-client privilege, settlement privilege, etc., etc. Some see sense - some know fear - some are just a wee bit off near the end. A publication ban to protect the fairness of a future trial is part of the same continuum and has existed for as long as we have been free. Society works because we have courts and courts work because we have lots of secrets - short term, long term, in theory or enforced by jail time. It is the way the world works...except no one told half the bloggers.
I think it has to do more with the change of the clocks for spring. Some people need a nap.
Update: How could I have been so horribly wrong. Here they are taking Jim Elve, ringleader at Blogs Canada away. Oh well.
Make sure the guys know where to
send the cookies...
Comments
J - April 4, 2005 8:17 pm
<small><small><strike>Ah, but isn't it interesting how the publication ban has now been extended till September (by the convenient method of delaying the trial), and the Liberals, it now seems, plan to have an election out of the way before that? Protecting the rights of those three witnesses to a fair trial sounds like a noble and necessary thing, but the very same measure is being used to protect all the Liberal politicans who <i>should</i> be on trial �?” until after they are safely re-elected, presumably with a majority, and can pass legislation to sweep the whole scandal under the rug.
Robert Mugabe would be proud.</small></small></strike>
Alan - April 4, 2005 8:37 pm
In fact, he is directing all this as a way to deflect what has been going on in his homeland. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
Flea - April 4, 2005 8:43 pm
I imagine that with the trial in September the publication ban will in fact be lifted in short order.
Alan - April 4, 2005 8:45 pm
Not if the tyrants and fascists and commies and Chamberlains and Quizlings and Nazis and dictators and Le Pens and Mugabes have their way. They are there, you know...in Ottawa...outside the door...I just saw one the the shed.
Arthur - April 4, 2005 8:57 pm
Robert Mugabe would be proud.
I find that a rather strong remark.
Alan - April 4, 2005 8:59 pm
Now Arthur. It only appears strong to you because you are well informed.
J - April 4, 2005 10:27 pm
<small><small><strike>I stand by that 'strong remark'. Among his lesser crimes, Mugabe has a long history of suppressing opposition politicians, muzzling newspapers and other media, and holding rigged elections in which the opposition is not permitted to campaign openly. The publication ban in the present case is so obviously liable to be exploited by the Liberals for political purposes that it would require a thoroughly naive faith in human nature to expect them to resist the temptation.
The Liberals in Canada have steadfastly refused to express any official disapproval of the Mugabe regime, and now it seems they're getting ready to take a leaf out of his campaigning handbook. Mugabe ought to be tickled to death that there's still one elected government on earth that isn't ashamed to be caught in his company.</small></small></strike><p>[Ed.: <i>Oh, hell, its been so long since SayNay came by I just had to do the good old <small><small><strike></i>]
Alan - April 4, 2005 10:29 pm
Let's just leave it at that is incredibly stunned. Don't bother to respond as I will delete unless you would prefer that I delete.
Arthur - April 4, 2005 10:57 pm
The publication ban in the present case is so obviously liable to be exploited by the Liberals for political purposes that it would require a thoroughly naive faith in human nature to expect them to resist the temptation.
The papers I've read tell that the ban was put on the testimony to ensure a fair trial. That's it. My favourite part in the publication ban is this:
"This matter is a classic case where a balance must be found between two constitutionally protected rights, the right of the public to be informed of matters affecting them, guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms4, and the right of every person accused of a crime to have a fair trial, guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter."
Now, turning it back to Mugabe's political motives to kill opponents without a fair trial...
Arthur - April 4, 2005 10:58 pm
<small>disclaimer: And hey: I'm not even Canadian!</small>
Alan - April 4, 2005 11:01 pm
Again, you are thinking. But I do not want to speak too ill as there appears to have been some respect - in that "J" went away. So lets leave it there. We disagree.