Fair Trial
From today’s Globe:
Said Mr. MacKay: "There is no question that if it is in fact now being circulated and is out publicly in the States or elsewhere, that this sole purpose of having the ban in place has just evaporated. There is no point. So once somebody has violated the ban there is no purpose in having it there."
Uh…no. The point of the ban is so that the jury pool for the criminal trials won’t get contaminated. Just because a few self-righteous US bloggers who want to feel like big shots broke the ban, doesn’t mean the jury pool has been contaminated. Just because a few Conservative bloggers in Canada are breaking the law to compromise a fair trial, doesn’t mean the jury pool has been contaminated. They aren't helping matters but how many Quebeckers do you think actively read English blogs? Given how small that number is, the ban still serves its purpose.
And from a purely political standpoint, it’s beyond me why Peter MacKay would want the ban lifted. Right now, there's endless speculation (much of it exaggerated) floating around. Since the testimony will spread by word of mouth, anyone who’s ever played telephone knows it’s going to get wilder and further from the truth with each degree of separation from the source. Better for the Tories to let rumours spread and then have it all come out at once with a big bang.
And politics aside, it strikes me as odd that the same people who call this the worst scandal in the history of mankind (no, no, not the Prime Minister. The other people who are mad as hell over this) are actively trying to undermine the criminal process. Don't they want the people who committed these crimes to be tried and made accountable for what they did?
From today’s Globe:
Said Mr. MacKay: "There is no question that if it is in fact now being circulated and is out publicly in the States or elsewhere, that this sole purpose of having the ban in place has just evaporated. There is no point. So once somebody has violated the ban there is no purpose in having it there."
Uh…no. The point of the ban is so that the jury pool for the criminal trials won’t get contaminated. Just because a few self-righteous US bloggers who want to feel like big shots broke the ban, doesn’t mean the jury pool has been contaminated. Just because a few Conservative bloggers in Canada are breaking the law to compromise a fair trial, doesn’t mean the jury pool has been contaminated. They aren't helping matters but how many Quebeckers do you think actively read English blogs? Given how small that number is, the ban still serves its purpose.
And from a purely political standpoint, it’s beyond me why Peter MacKay would want the ban lifted. Right now, there's endless speculation (much of it exaggerated) floating around. Since the testimony will spread by word of mouth, anyone who’s ever played telephone knows it’s going to get wilder and further from the truth with each degree of separation from the source. Better for the Tories to let rumours spread and then have it all come out at once with a big bang.
And politics aside, it strikes me as odd that the same people who call this the worst scandal in the history of mankind (no, no, not the Prime Minister. The other people who are mad as hell over this) are actively trying to undermine the criminal process. Don't they want the people who committed these crimes to be tried and made accountable for what they did?
posted by calgarygrit at
3:31 p.m.
5 Comments:
I see that Justice Gomery has granted the Liberals full cross-examination privileges of the witness(es) -- apparently the Libs are going to challenge some of whatever has been said.
I also see on the CBC the Federal Liberal Party has called in the RCMP to investigate whether it was a victim of fraud in this mess.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 3:46 p.m.
If it is at a point where you need a publication bad to avoid contaminating a jury pool, would not the responsible thing to do is turn this over to the RCMP and stop the charade? As for the Tories, I think it is a mistake for them politically to have the bad repealled. The more rumors and inuendo that is out there, the better it is them for them to spread it and benefit from it.
By
Unknown, at 4:02 p.m.
Let's not forgot too that without the temporary ban on publication, Gomery could not have legally compelled testimony from the three. So we have the testimony because of the temporary ban. No temporary ban, no juicy morsels to whisper around.
By
Mark Richard Francis, at 3:55 a.m.
Josh,
The suspicious activity that Maher Arar was involved in that led to his subsequent arrest was being friends with a man who's brother happened to be a suspected terrorist.
Here's a list of publicly available articles discussing this:
From the New Yorker
Time Canada
The Canadian Intelligence Resource Centre
By
Unknown, at 5:24 p.m.
How exactly does Brault have a "vested interest in making up stories?" If he had promised to give damning testimony in exchange for immunity from criminal charges or a plea bargain, I could see it, but AFAIK that hasn't happened here.
I also take issue with the complaint about an American blogger with an American server refusing to follow Canadian law. Somehow, I doubt you'd take issue with a Canadian who doesn't follow the Patriot Act or the DMCA.
By
The Invisible Hand, at 2:59 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home