🚀 go-pugleaf

JWELLS@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
>
>>What I found especially amusing, was the claim by the Canadian Crown
>>prosecutor that the press had no standing to challenge the ban, but they
>>were still bound to obey it.  I found this a rather novel legal concept.
>
>I find this somewhat offensive.  It's hardly a "novel legal concept" --
>in fact it is a legal concept that predates America, or even knowledge
>of North America.  Inherent in your statement is the attitude:  "The 
>American legal system is the first and only legal system of any value.  
>If you do anything different than we do in America it's just no good."
>
>There is no sensible way the Canadian and American legal systems can be 
>compared.  They have a completely different constitutional basis, and serve 
>completely different functions within society.
>
>With respect to the publication ban probably the most important difference 
>is that in the Canadian legal system we don't lock up the jury as if they 
>were prisoners.  They're free to go home to their families at the end of the 
>day and watch TV.  They can even continue working at their job as long as 
>they show up in court when they're supposed to.
>
>Given that we don't treat our juries as criminals we have to worry a lot 
>more that they don't get biased by news reports.  In sensitive trials in 
>America the jury is locked away and not allowed any contact with the outside 
>world -- so you can afford not to care what the newspapers do.  But in 
>Canada the jury deciding over the fate of the accused can and will see and 
>read anything that is published about the case.  If there is some 
>information that would seriously bias the case, then it makes sense to ban 
>it in order to protect the rights of the accused.
>
>
>Justin Wells
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
>
>Enhanced 911 Services
>a.k.a. stem@io.org
>a.k.a. stem@sizone.pci.on.ca


Frankly Justin, I find this entire post rather petty, and "offensive."  You're
trying to defend the Canadian legal system-- great.  But it simply assinine
to defend the Homolka/Teale media ban with some "you Imperialist Americans
just don't understand our ways-- but we've been doing things this way since
before there was an America."  Whoopee!  SO, do you mean the Canadian
legal system has been violating the rights of its citzens since before
1776?  You're right.  And the nascent American government was violating
them too.  That's not the point.  Not at all.

While the American press may in most cases function as a bunch of
lackeys for the large corporations that control the media, with very
few exceptions, (American) Constitutional guarantees of press freedom
have been upheld (though don't get me started-- those "very few"
exceptions are too many, and too awful-- take the SJG case for example.)
What's amazing to me is that the very countries to which many Americans
turn for reporting that is less biased toward corporate America, where the
press is supposedly free from much of the intervention that dominates
the American press, are nations whose laws *do not* respect the freedom
of the press, and whose people seem powerless, or too apathetic, to
change the government's anti-information policies.  I'm talking 
specifically about Canada and the United Kingdom.  We 'Mare-cans think
the CBC and BBC are cultured outposts of purest truth, while the 
governments supporting these news organizations actively prevent
them from reporting on specific issues-- generally issues which show
the government in a bad light.

In Britain, the Official Secrets Act, plus the ban on allowing
"terrorists" to express their viewpoints on radio and TV thwarts any 
attempt at informed public debate about the *issues* behind, say, the IRA/
Ulster conflict, or the issue of Palestine.  It also makes any espianage-
related case into a closed-door session the KGB would be proud of.
The Canadian govt. apparently wishes no better for its citizens.  The
ban is not a result of the benevolent government's concern for Homolka
jurors.  It's a result of the Canadian government's desire to work
behind closed doors, to prevent Canadian citizens (and Americans as well)
from finding out how the government-- the Homolka/Teale prosecution in
this case-- actually works.

If those who support the ban wish to criticize the American press for its
frequent complacency on a variety of issues, be my guest.  I will most likely
agree.  However, the arguments put forth by Justin Wells et al.-- that
we Americans just don't understand those strange-yet-noble Canadian ways
are ridculous.  You sound almost exactly like the apologists for human
rights violations and government corruption in Malaysia, who were squared
off against the BBC a few weeks ago.  Their complaint?  The BBC criticized
Malaysia, so Malaysia was not going to do trade with British businesses.
They, too, said the western news organizations did not understand
Malaysian customs and traditions, and had insulted the government, and there-
fore, the people, of Malaysia.

I am not criticizing Canadians as a people.  But I am criticizing their 
government's actions in this case, and the complacency of a great many
Canadians who think that sacrificing their freedom for a small degree
of imagined safety is a justifiable decision.

Jason Gull
jgull@world.std.com