We've received a lot of traffic to my analysis of Canada's AdScam scandal, as American blogs cover what Canadian media cannot. The survival of Paul Martin's minority Liberal government is looking more and more doubtful, as opposition parties openly consider whether or not to dissolve Parliament and force a new election. Andrew Coyne explains just how ridiculous this situation could get.
So, where does Winds stand on Canada's publication ban? Here's what it boils down to:
- The ban is useless now, and I believe it should be replaced by another means for guaranteeing Brault et. al. a fair trial.
- Until that happens, I believe that I still have a moral duty to Brault et. al. because of our shared Canadian citizenship and the moral obligations it confers.
- My duty to Brault et. al. is not absolute, and the rising importance of their testimony to the public interest has made it a strained duty. I can envision specific situations that would not only override my duty to Brault et. al. - they would make civil disobedience against the ban an obligation.
- This blog is hosted in the USA, with multiple administrators and over 20 active correspondents on 5 continents. Our audience has always been explicitly international. My non-Canadian colleagues have as much right to post here as I do, and applying state censorship to foreign citizens residing outside one's borders is outrageous as well as impractical. I also believe that my non-Canadian colleagues (which is to say, all of my colleagues) can post about the details of AdScam with a clear moral conscience. Of course, per our policy of correspondent freedom here, each team member must judge that for themselves.
Come on, Joe, your colleagues are waiting to see if Canadians really are that different from Americans. As you say, the ban is useless and the trial has been postponed until June. Don't wait for anybody to give you permission to assert your free speech right. Just stand up and do it, and worry later. That's what your colleagues would do.
FC, as I note above, I still believe that my responsibilities to my fellow citizens for a fair trial. Doesn't matter if I think Breault is scum (although, I'm actually finding myself appreciating his singular willingnes to tell the truth more and more). As Rob Lyman noted here on Winds a while back:
I believe there are times when temporary, limited publication bans can be justified as part of that maxim.
Now, there also comes a point where the protection of Brault comes at the expense of sacrificing the protection of many more of my fellow citizens - and at that point, I become morally obliged to engage in civil disobedience if the ban is not about to be repealed forthwith.
I don't believe that point has been reached - yet. But if Parliament dissolves, or if the Liberals are clearly using the publication ban as a political shield, or it becomes clear the ban will be in place for an unreasonable length of time, or revelations come out that are both important and time-sensisitive... then my obligation changes, and I'll have no problem asserting my free speech rights.
And accepting any consequences. That, too, is part of civil disobedience.
My memory is hazt but the Canadian supreme court, when looking at publication bans, ruled previously that the validity of a publication ban could not be assumed on the basis that it might jeapordise someones free trial.
There were two (at least) tests for validity: (1) that it was probable (which is a much higher standard than could or might) that the fair trial would be jeapordised; and I can't remember the second one but it was something like balancing the public good with the rights of the individual.
Still, I think obeying the law is a pretty reasonable position for a conservative to take. No?
I agree with you, Joe - originally I was willing to observe the ban, though I still went to CQ to get the details. But the critical issues for me are (1) do the Liberals try to use the ban as a shield, and (2) do we go to an election before the ban is lifted? If either happens and Judge Gomery does not lift the ban, it would be appropriate to violate the ban.
Of course, the calculation changes if you take into account what Colby Cosh pointed out the other day - if the banned testimony is freely available on the internet (as it is), then the ban cannot do any good. As an infringement on our liberty, it can only be justified if there is some good to offset the infringement. This calculation should be the basis for an appeal to lift the ban.
Hmmm .... I tried to trackback to this post from RP .... guess trackback isn't working in my WordPress setup. Didn't work on Dan's post above either.