🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnE0y2.5vD@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Enhanced 911 Services) writes:
>
>
>Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not anti-Canada, nor even anti-Canadian law. I am anti-ban.
>
>
>Maybe you haven't clued in yet.  Maybe a *lot* of foreigners haven't
>clued in yet.  Let me clear up a few things:
>
>   o  The vast majority of us Canadians, as in *people*, agree 
>      with this idea of banning evidence to protect the accused.
>      You are "helping" to thwart the democratic desires of the
>      Canadian people.

Justin, on what basis do you believe this?  It may be true, but it sounds
like wild speculation.  But even if it *is* true, it doesn't make it
right.  "Banning evidence", as you put it, does not "protect the accused."
And you have shown repeatedly in post after post that you don't give a
rat's ass whether Teale is "protected" or not.  You "know" he's guilty,
and you want him thrown in prison forever regardless of the outcome of his
trial.  Your concern is that a "technicality" will free him.
So don't do the holier-than-thou routine.  The ban (on public dissemination
of information related to the trial) simply insulates the actions of the
prosecution and the judiciary from public scrutiny.

Now if, by "banning evidence," you mean instructing the jury in Teale's
trial to disregard the fact that Homolka worked out a plea agreement with the
government (as opposed to the "banning" the *public* from learning this
evidence), it only compounds the difficulty Teale will have in getting
a fair trial.  The fact that Homolka pleaded calls into question the
truthfulness of any testimony she gives, since she is being given a deal
in exchange for her testimony.
  
>   o  We're having a big debate over whether or not this principle
>      should have been applied the way it was in this case.  There
Is that just "you" Canadians, or are Americans (and Brits, Norwegians, et
al.) having the debate as well?
>      are lots of sticky issues, and we're dealing with them.  A
>      slight majority thinks it was proper, but a sizable minority
>      thinks it wasn't.
Again Justin, where did you come up with these numbers?  If you have a
source, please post it.  I would be interested in seeing polls of
Canadians' (and others') opinions of the ban and the underlying laws
that allowed it to be imposed.

>   o  We have lots of ways of dealing with this.  We have our own
>      courts, our own media, our own legislatures -- that are lots
>      of Canadian things that a concerned Canadian can do about it.
>      Thanks for the offer, foreigner, but we don't need your help.
>
I am certainly glad that many Canadians don't agree with you.  For one,
because of the ban itself, Canadians in Canada right now cannot really
discuss all the implications of the trial (and thus, of the ban) without
*breaking* the ban.  So, Canadians are somewhat limited in what they may
do legally.  Americans, of course, have no standing to vote on such issues,
but they certainly have a right (and I would say a responsibility as well)
to speak out against injustice in Canada, which after all, is America's
"closest" neighbor.  I would certainly hope that if our positions were
reversed (and an earlier post mentioned the quite-possible scenario
involving th ebanning of certain types of encryption, in which our
positions could very likely be reversed)  I hope you won't let American
sovereignty, pride, or stubborness get in the way of your criticism of
the U.S. government.
>
>Finally for all you foreigners who seem to know so little about Canadian
>democracy, and yet are so concerned for its future, here is a history 
>lesson for you -- 
[Canadian history lesson deleted]
>If I were you I'd be worried about the stranglehold a small group of
>people in two parties have on your political system.  I can tell you
>that right now Canadian governments are paying a lot of attention to
>the Canadian people and what they want...
[More stuff deleted]

>Democracy is alive and very, very well in Canada, thank you very much.
>
Unfortunately, it works the same in either America *or* Canada -- i.e
if the public can't get access to information about its government (even
a *part* of the government) then that part of government ceases to be a
democracy.  Even if everyone from Whitehorse to Halifax decided they'd
rather not know what's on, it's not democracy-- it's a popular vote
to do away with democracy.

>Justin
>   who isn't so anti-america, but really, some of you
>   have been asking for it lately.
>
A lot of kids used to pick fights with me in Kingston (ONT) when I
was about nine years old, for all the same reasons you keep spouting.
They eventually grew up, and so did I.
You weren't one of them, were you?
>-- 
>Justin Wells  (rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org)
>
>tired: alt.fan.karla-homolka
>wired: seizures (legal/medical) related to alt.fan.karla-homolka

Jason Gull					jgull@world.std.com
Boston, MA					jgull@well.sf.ca.us