April 5, 2005 at 6 PM
A Blogger’s Defense
(See my previous post if you’re confused by this one.)
Captain Ed has returned with a spirited argument of why the publication ban by the Gomery Commission is a farce. Mainly the argument is that it isn’t exactly a real ban in the first place: the proceedings are taking place in an open courtroom, and are available to nearly all politicians and journalists in Ottawa. Ah. Quite. Furthermore:
Others have pointed out that Justice Gomery wanted to keep the information private to keep the testimony from souring a jury pool for Jean Brault, Chuck Guité, and Paul Coffin. This sells Canadian citizens short, ethically and intellectually, and unfortunately this attitude exists in courtrooms south of the border as well. Jury selection these days apparently means finding twelve people who never read newspapers, books, or watch the news on television, and then putting someone’s life into their hands. It’s rubbish.
Hard to disagree with that. Of course, jury selection in Canada is not necessarily the same as in the U.S., and it’s always dangerous to argue about laws when you’re comparing different countries, but it’s a fair argument to make nonetheless. If Justice Gomery truly felt that someone’s rights were at risk by the publication of testimony, then perhaps the ban was warranted. If it was merely shepherding the Canadian public in an attempt to “protect” them from “bias”, that’s a pretty lousy exception to free speech.
I’m pleased that an American blogger is using the occasion to make reasoned arguments rather than just resort to childish Canadian bashing. Even anti-American Canadians (and there are a few) could learn from the example.
Previously: We Ban on Guard for Thee
Subsequently: Free the Testimony
Comments
———