Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Blogger Breaches Canadian Publication Ban
nnet writes "The Toronto Sun is reporting that a U.S. blogger has been breaching a Canadian publication ban on AdScam. While The Sun hasn't given the URL for the blog itself, in fear of a contempt of court charge, this isn't the first time an American has breached a Canadian publication ban according to the article." The Sun story, though, does give a nice title for which to search, and this quickly yields the story in question.
April 02, 2005
Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open
A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called "sponsorship scandal" - tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)
Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.
And well they might, if Brault's testimony gives any indication of what they will face. Thanks to a friend of mine, CQ readers can get a taste of what Brault has already told the Gomery Commission. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal this person's name or position, but this person is in a position to have the information. Bear in mind that this comes from a single source, so while I have confidence in the information, you should consider the sourcing carefully.
Payoffs And Kickbacks
On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.
Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring "employees" -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.
Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles ("Chuck") Guité and told him that "there was room for everybody." Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government "sponsorship" advertising (e.g. federal
advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.
In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, a
How quaint.
sulli
RTFJ.
If bloggers wish to be afforded the privileges and protections held by mainstream journalists (the ones not named Jayson Blair or Mary Mapes), they should follow the same ethical standards.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Get the site linked on Slashdot!
Politely, of course.
sulli
RTFJ.
The idea was to try to provide the defendant with an unbiased jury.
Quaint indeeed...
Imagine that... The internet actually getting used for one of its single most useful potentials - Preserving true and absolute freedom of speech.
Guess what? Canadian gag-orders don't apply in the US (and vice-versa). US cryptography export restrictions don't apply from Norway. Just about any of the BS Sharia laws don't apply outside the Middle East. Pretty much nothing applies in Vanuatu.
Welcome to the dawn of a new era. Wake up, world leaders, and smell the coffee - Doesn't it smell so deliciously like your obsolescence? Your petty little regional fiefdoms no longer exist. If the entire planet doesn't agree with you, you lose.
Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program
i misread this as "charles guilté" and was immediately confused as to how he'd not already been convicted.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
How quaint.
Canada takes quite seriously the concept of making sure that suspects receive a fair trial. When the publication of evidence in advance of the trial would make it impossible for someone to receive a fair trial, a publication ban is entirely reasonable.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.
Yes, there is a publication ban. However, Canadian courts have no jurisdiction outside of Canada's borders. Just as US courts have no pull inside of Canada's borders.
If there was a publication ban on a case in the states - Canadians could feel free to ignore it.
However, if this is a Canadian posting on a US blog site... he should be prepared to spend some time in jail.
BlackNova Traders
We must liberate Canada from this evil immediately.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
...more likely, 'attention whore'.
The gist of the article is "i know a guy who told me what the secret testimony was". Most likely Gomery banned the publication of this information on the basis that it was unsubstantiated in court, and could be damaging to the Liberals even if untrue. For Slashdotters not familiar with the case, Gomery has been exceedingly level handed and fair and in fact if anything is more likely biased against the Liberals than not.
If all of this DOES turn out to be true I wouldn't be surprised, given that the advertisement scandal gets deeper and deeper every day, but I don't think this blogger amounts to much.
Before everyone starts yelling "too bad Canadians don't have the 4th amendment!" blah blah blah, just ask yourself how you'll feel when the next multiple-murderer gets off in the US due to jury tampering because of a Canadian publication.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Never thought I'd say this, but thank you Americans for making my country free, it's sincerely appreciated.
There's way more to this liberal scandal than we're supposed to know. I understand the necessity for short-term publication bans when a trial is in progress, but anything pertinent to discovering the truth about something (hence a trial) should really be accessible when it comes to public office.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
There's a difference between imposing a gag order on parties to the legal action and blocking members of the public from speaking about what they witness. In the US, the latter would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, not to mention completely impossible to enforce.
sulli
RTFJ.
ssshhh. They beat us once...besides..our army is in the middle east. A perfect time to come and kick our yankee asses.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
Yes, a publication ban on an event open to the public. Not quaint, but rather an indication of the vast differences between Canada and the US.
Here in Canada, a fair amount of the law relies on common sense and good will. The intent of these publication bans is to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. This is essentially the judge saying to the press, "Look, if the whole world hears this testimony before the trial gets fully underway and everything can be put into a proper context, it will be really hard to get a reasonably impartial jury so this person gets a fair trial." They know very well that it's impossible to guarantee it won't come out, but Canadian journalists typically respect it.
What's more important? Having one newspaper scoop another in an attempt to splash the headlines with more sensationalism? Or having an accused person get a fair trial?
Note that this isn't censorship or a closed trial or any of that nonsense. You can physically go down and sit in the courtroom if you really want to (and lots of the public do). Sometimes conflicting rights have to be balanced, and most Canadians that I know feel that, in this case, the right of the accused to receive a fair trial outweigh the rights of media to publish this stuff immediately.
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
"The information, I gather, is very, very damaging and very prejudicial," he said. "If it's accessed by large numbers of people in Montreal where the trial will take place it could have a prejudicial effect."
There is an easy solution to this. Have a change of venue to someplace where they haven't been paying much attention to the news. I recomend somewhere in the Northwest Territories.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
They can't. However, what they can do is simply bar journalists from the hearing, or one particular journalist if they find out who it is. That's what they normally do if someone outside of jurisdiction breaks a ban on publication.
They can also charge his "buddy" who presumably sits at the hearing room, which, last time I checked, was still on Canadian soil.
The blogger is safe; his source might dry up pretty soon though.
Most of the testimony has been public and not subject to a ban; there isn't much that isn't known from any newspaper and I didn't see anything in the blogger's post that hasn't been reported elsewhere in the public press in Canada. Not really sure what the "secret" is; I didn't see any.
They Judge must have his reasons, he is widely believed to be hostile to the Liberals and it was that Judge that none the less ordered the ban. I just didn't see any evidence of anything new in the blog entry. Typically the ban is in place to avoid prejudicing a trial jury if charges are a likely outcome of the testimony.
There is currently a royal inquiry going on into some mishandling of federal advertisement contracts. A royal inquiry is similar to congressional hearings in the US, except this one is not lead by congressmen, but by a retired judge. When finished he gets to report back to parliament on his findings.
Now, some of the people subpeonaed to give testimony at the inquiry are also being charged with crimes related to the events under discussion. They will go to court in the next several months on those charges.
The publication ban was put in place to ensure things that these people say at the inquiry will not affect their chances of a fair jury trial. (Compare this to the baseball hearings where they players wanted immunity for their testimony, for many of the same reasons.) The ban will be ended after the jury has been sequestered, at which all that was said during the ban can be made public.
Note that this is only a publication ban -- it doesn't prevent people from actually going to the hearings to hear for themselves; it just attempts to limit what the jury pool will hear outside of the court case.
Publication bans are common in Canada, and typically have a similar duration and purpose -- to prevent the jury on high profile cases from getting the "facts" of the case from anywhere but the courtroom. The media typically fight the ban, and often win certain relaxations on the ban (you can report the events, but not identify the person giving testimony, etc.). In this case, Judge Gomery has said the media can ask at the end of each day what of that day's testimony can be released.
I'm generally in favour of such time limited bans, since they are designed to help ensure a fair trial. However, it looks like maintaining such bans is getting more and more difficult in the era of the Internet. Other cases where Canadian publication bans have been breached by American organizations include the Air India case (IIRC), and the Paul Bernardo case.
E.
A publication ban is the VERY DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP. People have morphed the word and try to apply it to all kinds of other things (like a bookstore refusing to carry a book), but if the GOVERNMENT is BANNING PUBLICATION of something based on the CONTENT, then that is censorship.
You can make cases for why it's important and a good thing, and you can argue about that if you want, but I don't see how you can possibly claim that this isn't censorship.
hawk
Someone from the US is interested in Canadian politics? Weird.
So, you're saying that because his political beliefs differ from yours anything he says is suspect?
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
Both the prosecution and defense deserve a fair trial. This includes protecting potentially biasing information from leaking out into the general public, since that's where jurors, witnesses, etc come from. A publication ban does not mean that the result of the trial are kept secret. It is a legal measure in an attempt to guard fairness for the duration of a trial.
By the way, violating such a court imposed ban is a criminal offence and I believe you can be jailed for it in Canada.
Isn't it ironic. On the one had we hold a jury of our peers in high enough regard, that they are allowed to judge us, on the other we believe that allowing them to read a newspaper makes them unable to be objective in court.
It maight be good for the American audience here to know that the gag order applies to testimony at an inquiry, not to a trial.
The gag order, in this case, is to prevent any bias at the trial stage.
** Sig-a-licious **
Wouldn't want to actually read what he wrote and judge it on it's face would you? If you never read anything you disagree with you can always be right.
His claims have been verified by The Globe and Mail journalist Jane Tabor (I heard her verify it this morning on my local radio station, 580 CFRA, in Ottawa). She was present during the testimony, so I would be inclined to trust what has been posted.
First, we do not have grand juries in Canada and the trappings of secrecy therein, but we do have a process called preliminary inquiry which achieves the same function and is open to the public like all our courts are. Publication bans are routinely ordered to protect the rights of the accused until the conclusion of the trial.
Now the Gomery Inquiry is a legal tribunal initiated by parliament to investigate possible corruption surrounding advertising contracts given to certain agencies that are believed to be loyal to the ruling Liberal Party. Extremely damaging testimony was recently given by witnesses during the inquiry and the judge invoked a publication ban to protect the rights of those witnesses who face certain criminal prosecution. Note that the ban does not remain in force forever and, while I don't agree with it, the testimony will eventually be made public.
The crux of the matter is while the rights of potentially accussed persons are protected we are likely to face another election in the very near future before the information is made public. Without the knowledge of the testimony the public may be heading into an election with more questions than answers. Does the right of the public to know the substance of the allegations made during the inquiry outweigh the rights of accused persons?
I think the publication ban does more harm then good as speculation swirls around the subject and the real truth remains hidden. In the meantime, the Liberal minority goverment is probably happy with things the way they are considering the potential damange to their reputation.
Until you produce your above post in french as well, you can consider your warning null and void
This is what we skeptics call the ad hominem fallacy. When you critique a viewpoint, statement, or article by questioning the character of the author, or of the author's other works, rather than the content of the work in question itself, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy. It is an invalid criticism. As much as I like bashing neocons - and they do deserve it - one can do much better than attacking the character of the messenger (which in the case of neocons, is always questionable, and a rather moot point as the past two elections have shown).
Edith Keeler Must Die
Never? It will *NEVER* work? My, that's a bold statement.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
I hate to say it but anyone who is willing to have his tax money spent on a missile shield defence, of which it has been demonstrated that it will NEVER work, has to be considered low on intelligence...hence the term "idiot".
You should tell that to the US navy, which has been largely successful in its trials: five hits in (I think) six attempts. See here for example. I agree that the USAF's program, which has received more press, has been dismal.
I don't get why people keep saying it will "never" work. It's a hard problem, but I'm aware of no physical laws that are violated by BMD.
But more generally, the way things are now, the only thing defending you from nuclear attack is that the USA is prepared to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death, which incidentally conveys no protection from insanity, error, or equipment failure. As a first line of defence, I would much rather be protected by a system that could destroy the incoming warhead -- even if it had a certain percentage chance of failure.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The cries of censorship seem a bit overblown to me. This isn't a perminant ban, just a temporary gag order, much like those issued daily in U.S. courts. All it says is that the information needs to be held until a jury is selected and sequestered for the upcoming (about a month) trials.
They're allowing reporters and photographers. Presumably, those stories and photos may be published once a fair trial can be assured.
Nobody likes these gag orders, but you can't select an impartial jury once details of a case have been all over national news and everyone has formed an opinion based on the news. As important as freedom of the press is, a fair trial by an impartial jury is also important.
The thing to watch for with gag orders is not their existance, but if they are, in fact, lifted as soon as is possable. I guess we'll know in this case in a month or two.
Canadians have a serious problem: corruption in government, with money being funneled in illegal ways.
This scandal implicates the previous prime-minister, the current prime-minister, and a slew of relatively wealthy people.
A huge inquiry ensues, and costs an amount similar to the amount of money that was originally stolen (perhaps, misused is a better word). In particular, around 250 million is supposedly improperly accounted for, and the commission investigating the problem is costing another 130 million.
Since the inquiry isn't a criminal case against the individuals involved, the commissioner in charge of the inquiry has asked that journalists not publicise the events, so that an unbiased jury can be found for the real criminal proceeedings.
Members of the public are still welcome to go see the events, just not to publicly report them. (keep in mind that until the publication ban was put in place, the TV channel with the live hearings was getting amazing ratings in Quebec- hence constituting a serious problem for finding an unbiased jury)
I think it is pretty sad that someone finds it necessary to publicise their own version of events on their blog, in defiance of the ban, because it presents all kinds of problems in actually prosecuting the people who have allegedly committed serious crimes.
As per the slashdotting, a pity even the slashdot effect hasn't torn the site down.
The whole freedom of speech issue is not really a big problem for most people I know in Montreal, as there is no permanent secrecy being imposed. The events being investigated happened several years ago, and it doesn't make a huge difference if the details are known today or in a few months- except for the prosecution aspect.
The really scary freedom restrictions here are the 'security certificates' which allow the government to throw people in jail, and not tell people what evidence they are being convicted with.
Then again, the same thing seems to happen in the US, only justified with terms like 'enemy combatant', instead of 'security certificate'.
So the public can observe the proceedings, as long as nobody tells anybody else?
A secret simply cannot be contained this way. It sounds like they're relying on people to be honest - the data isn't even watermarked individually in each person's brain - so how can they really be surprised?
It sounds like they don't have a problem with the entire population of Canada being present (barring physical restrictions) but for some reason replicating the information later is bad.
Come on! If you don't want information to get out, restrict access to it. The story here is not that what happened; it's the broken security itself.
P.S. Let me get this straight: If I attend the proceedings, I'm not allowed to tell anybody? Even a spouse? Or am I only allowed to tell people I meet in person? Is it legal to send snail mail regarding the experience? email? send it to a mailing list? Is it OK as long as I don't do this for a living?
The whole thing seems to be based on the distinction between members of the press and non-publicators. This distinction is arbitrary and archaic.
Speaker: The Right Honourable Prime Minister.
Paul Martin: Mr Speaker
Some Member: Guilty!
Speaker: Order, order. The Right Honorable Prime Minister has the floor.
Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, the Liberal Party consists of thousands of men and women, in Quebec and right across this country, who are dedicated to the Liberal Party and to their country. They work day in and day out, Mr Speaker, for the benefit of Canadians, and Mr Speaker, those members of the Liberal party should not have to bear the rumours, Mr Speaker, or the burden of the activities of a very small few who may have colluded against the Party and against, Mr Speaker, the well being of Canadians, and we will defend, Mr Speaker, those Liberals. These are Canadians, Mr Speaker, who have given their all for this country.
Some Member: Hear, hear.
Speaker: [inaudible] the Opposition.
Stephen Harper: Mr Speaker, the judge, police, and Canadians will be the judge of how involved the Liberal party is.
On another subject, last week Canadians finally learned the details of the brutal torture and murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi. Now it turns out, for months the Prime Minister knew the true extent of the brutality inflicted upon Ms Kazemi. Instead of taking a firm stand against Iran, he sent our ambassador back to that oppressive regime. What kind of callous, spineless government reestablishes normal diplomatic relations with this kind of regime?
Speaker: Hon. Prime Minister.
Paul Martin: [inaudible] ... respond first to the preamble. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that Candians do de-- [aside] are Americans -- that Canadians should have the facts, Mr Speaker, and that is why I called for the Gomery commission, that is why this government, Mr Speaker, put that commission in place, Mr Speaker, it is precisely to have those facts, and that's why there should not be an election until Justice Gomery has reported, because Canadians deserve to know the facts.
Now, Mr Speaker, if I may respond to the Honourable Member's question, if the baying on the other side... the member has asked a question, ....
Speaker: I'm afraid the Right Honourable Prime Minister has used up the time responding to the preamble, but I suspect there might be a supplementary question, may be a supplementary question from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Stephen Harper: Mr Speaker, may I just say that that is a perfect example of what is wrong with this government. They should have used this opportunity to defend a Canadian citizen, not the Liberal party.
[continues re Iran]
Here in America, the right of the accused to receive a fair trial depends on the rights of media to publish this stuff immediately. It never occurred to me that someone would think that the government's ability to keep secret the court proceedings against its citizens is a Good Thing. Interesting.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You are correct for the most part, but I think there is relevance here due to the Canadian system.
If the Liberal party can suppress this unfavorable information long enough to hold a new election for themselves (as this is a parlimentary system and terms are not specifically fixed), they could be already elected by the time any nasty details came out!
Its like sweeping your dirt underneath a rug until just after your relatives leave.
A somewhat similar thing happened during the CDN media blackout of the trial of the infamous Carla Homolka. There was a complete media blackout in Canada, and suddenly a newsgroup which Paul Vixie had newgrouped for me back when I was feeling a bit blue (alt.fan.shedevil) was taken over by a bunch of Canadians desparate for news of what was going on, and a place to talk about it, and which was beyond the reach of the CDN authorities. Wow..it's still archived in Google groups!: http://aunty-spam.com/ref/carla-homka-alt.fan.shed evil (URL redirected because the Google url is so darned long.)
In the US, we "sequester" juries: isolate them from the community, media and other influences during a trial. That protection seems like a better way to keep juries "honest" than to deny press freedom to the entire country (and, by extension, the world). And it's another reason to keep trials short, which Canada already manages. There's a conflict between trial by peers, and unfettered publication (libel trials have too much lag to be effective in this case). Resolving it at the expense of an informed public guarantees injustice.
--
make install -not war