Canada's Press Crackdown

[Postmanx]

WaPo scroll down

You often hear about dictatorships cracking down on Internet news to maintain censorship as tightly as possible. These are generally the kind of regimes that not only try to choke off free expression but are fighting a losing battle against technology in the process.

And the latest offender is . . . Canada?

Yes, our democratic neighbor to the north, which lacks a First Amendment and has a somewhat narrower view of press freedom, is cracking down on an American blogger for reporting on a corruption investigation that apparently has to do with advertising contracts being steered to politically connected firms. The blogger is Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarters, and this London Free Press story brings us up to date:

"A U.S. website has breached the publication ban protecting a Montreal ad executive's explosive and damning testimony at the federal sponsorship inquiry. The U.S. blogger riled the Gomery commission during the weekend by posting extracts of testimony given in secret Thursday by Jean Brault.

[Maple]

1. The ban was

to protect the rights of the 3 accused to a fair trial.

The testimony would be released after their trial.

However, word got out, and was posted in the US, so they may lift the ban now, since there's no point in it.

And if the 3 men can't get a fair trial because of all this, they'll be off scot-free.

[applegrove]

2. This has happened before when a judge banned some pictures

and evidence form a murder trial of two teens. It was to protect the families & victimize them less. Also I think to make sure of a conviction in the case of the freak put on trial. Anyway..American site put up the information. Just messes with our due process.

I mean if Canada started to publish secured reports having to do with ensuring due process for the trial of a terrorist.. how would you feel? It is just opportunistic and stupid.

We have our own laws here. We do not want to see anybody get off or have a ruling or decision overturned because of some internet site in some other country.

[HereSince1628]

3. So its ok to leak secret testimony, just not publish it?

I have the feeling that in the haste to blame the blogger some have overlooked the primary cause of the problem and caste too small a net.

Was the blogger present during secret testimony?

If not who leaked? I would think that in a rational system the leaker deserves at least as much attention.

[Kagemusha]

4. To give this some perspective...

This isn't new.

Canadian courts will declare publication bans in notorious cases in order to protect people. The supposed purpose of this ban is to protect the witnesses involved and not to protect the Liberal party from explosive testimony. However, the leaks - and the confirmation of the accuracy of the leaks by a reporter, so I have heard - means that whatever Mafia connections the witness was afraid of know full well what he said. This situation is not an infrequent result, as US media often run stories banned in Britain or Canada in cases of particular salaciousness (usually murder with aggravating factors).

This all said, the rumors put out of a snap election before the commission reports to the public dramatically stains the entire political process. If such a thing is true, it's sick.