Canada holds me in contempt?

I'll link to it, I don't plan on being in Canada in the near future (although Vancouver Island is a favorite destination) so the threat of being in contempt of court is one without teeth. It's one thing to have a gag order when national security is in question, but to ban publication of the details of a corruption investigation is shameful.

Link: Captain's Quarters.

In an age of instant communications and greater freedom of the press, one would think that this kind of publication ban would obviously prove futile, especially when dealing with the kind of corruption that the Gomery Commission is investigating. However, if Perreault is to be believed, no one even considered the notion that someone might talk. Either M. Perreault is hopelessly naive, or he gets the Captain Louis Renault award for being shocked, shocked that free speech goes on in a democracy.

UPDATE: Here's a link to more background information on this scandal

Comments

[Randy Charles Morin]

Thanks for the link. The liberals are finished. They didn't learn from Trudeau's mistake in 84. Eight years of conservative rule are in the future, which is how long they be able to ridicule the liberals before all is forgotten (remember 84-93).

[Scott]

the publication ban is in place not because the Liberal minority goverment does not want the Canadian public to know (well they obviously dont want us to know). Instead it was put in place by the lawyers of Jean Brault and Chuck Guite who have criminal charges pending because of actions during the era of the sponsorship program. Judge Gomery approved the ban because he agreed that the testimony if released to the public at this time, could have the high possibility and likelihood of poisoning the jury pool for both of these upcoming trials.

[Jeff]

one of the obligations of a free press is to hold government accountable, that the Canadian press is restricted from publishing these details is shameful.

Insofar as poisoning the jury pool, that's a red herring because even in the cases of widely reported cases it is evident that a jury of average people is able to perform their duties of objectively evaluating evidence and applying the law.

[Jeff]

"Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test (Canadian jurisprudence), any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a "rational connection" to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn't work in practice--say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot--it can't meet Oakes."

http://www.colbycosh.com/