Sorry about the politics but this one matters...
So as we wait for Judge Gomery's decision regarding the publication ban, I thought it would be nice to take a trip down memory lane, to remember our past governments' GOOD ideas...
- boy, was this fun...
- now THAT'S more like it...
- who could forget...?
- like it was yesterday...
- I thought I paid that off already?
That's enough for one day, don't you think?
As mentioned yesterday, I applaud The Globe and Mail for their reporting of the testimony but I merely hinted at thanking our friends to the South. Captain Ed has been diligent and unbiased in detailing this latest scandal, and in doing so has generated interest in our country and our politics from many of his nation's great newspapers including my favourite...none other than the New York Times. Which is good for rapport...it may seem as not much but it's a hell of a good start. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, however, provides a brief(and boy, do I mean brief) commentary which we would classify as "typically american" before prattling on about the Pope(after asking if people needed a break from the onslaught of Pope related news, he admitted the scoop was too "delicious" to pass up), Terri Schavo, WMD's, Oliver North?? and of course Michael. Maybe publication bans aren't a bad idea afer all?
Unfounded, uneducated, heavily opinionated (dictatorship? narrower view of press freedom?) and lacking a genuine interest in the story, he nevertheless ploughs ahead with about how we lack the FIRST AMENDMENT (I thought this was taking place in Canada?? Hey newsie, it's called the CHARTER and it's number one as well...do your homework silly) and even fires a jab at The Globe's coverage(catch up? it is a ban after all). I have to be honest, the Cap'n has made me stop and take another look at our neighbours and realize "Jesus Murphy!!" They're helping us!! Who'd a thunk??
In support of the ban, it does serve as a defence against affecting public opinion as well as preventing the social degradation which occurs by the american(sorry, but it's true)way of sensationalising news stories because of "the peoples right to know." A fair trial is a hard thing to come by nowadays, and if you were facing a similar situation, I'm sure you would appreciate the opportunity to preserve your dignity by having privacy until the verdict is delivered. An excellent example of this can be found in Leon Uris's novel "QBVII", where a war crimes trial judge simply asks the press to respect the victims that are testifying by not publishing their names and testimony. And the press, being polite and British comply, for it is the noble thing to do. No court order, just a polite request. Nobility...there's a word you don't hear enough of.
And that's what this is all about...respect. So as far as the judge paying homage to the noble ways of the past, God bless him. But as far as taking things to the extent of laying charges against those outside of Canadian law...hmmmm...this is a public inquiry, is it not. Throw the ban on the trial, not the inquiry.
I'm posting a permanent link to the Captain's site in defiance of the publication ban, so anyone can read up on this matter...and besides I never voted for the current government anyway, so by failing to heed the ban, I guess my political ideology becomes apparent and since when did a Canadian not fight for something they believed in? There's a reminder and a lesson in this for both Canada and our friends to the south...we as a nation have never been afraid of a good fight, we just prefer picking them ourselves, rather than letting the government pick for us...it just took an American to remind me.
Unfounded, uneducated, heavily opinionated (dictatorship? narrower view of press freedom?) and lacking a genuine interest in the story, he nevertheless ploughs ahead with about how we lack the FIRST AMENDMENT (I thought this was taking place in Canada?? Hey newsie, it's called the CHARTER and it's number one as well...do your homework silly) and even fires a jab at The Globe's coverage(catch up? it is a ban after all). I have to be honest, the Cap'n has made me stop and take another look at our neighbours and realize "Jesus Murphy!!" They're helping us!! Who'd a thunk??
In support of the ban, it does serve as a defence against affecting public opinion as well as preventing the social degradation which occurs by the american(sorry, but it's true)way of sensationalising news stories because of "the peoples right to know." A fair trial is a hard thing to come by nowadays, and if you were facing a similar situation, I'm sure you would appreciate the opportunity to preserve your dignity by having privacy until the verdict is delivered. An excellent example of this can be found in Leon Uris's novel "QBVII", where a war crimes trial judge simply asks the press to respect the victims that are testifying by not publishing their names and testimony. And the press, being polite and British comply, for it is the noble thing to do. No court order, just a polite request. Nobility...there's a word you don't hear enough of.
And that's what this is all about...respect. So as far as the judge paying homage to the noble ways of the past, God bless him. But as far as taking things to the extent of laying charges against those outside of Canadian law...hmmmm...this is a public inquiry, is it not. Throw the ban on the trial, not the inquiry.
I'm posting a permanent link to the Captain's site in defiance of the publication ban, so anyone can read up on this matter...and besides I never voted for the current government anyway, so by failing to heed the ban, I guess my political ideology becomes apparent and since when did a Canadian not fight for something they believed in? There's a reminder and a lesson in this for both Canada and our friends to the south...we as a nation have never been afraid of a good fight, we just prefer picking them ourselves, rather than letting the government pick for us...it just took an American to remind me.
