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:

"That means that the first duty of every citizen, who is, as I have said, the author of the government's actions, is the protection of fellow citizens."

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citizens - and at that point, I become morally obliged to engage in civil disobedience if the ban is not about to be repealed forthwith.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.