Canadian liberals are corrupt

[Drake Tungsten]

The Canadian press isn't allowed to report on any of the information (in this case, testimony) covered by a publication ban.

I think that's right...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by TCO
wtf is a publication ban?

It's what the judge imposed on the testimony of three people appearing before his enquiry. He would have done it in the hopes that the three would both feel more at ease to tell the truth and to protect the prospect that they get a fair trial on the criminal charges that they face.

The hearing was not closed apparently. Spectators and the press were welcome, but anyone who publishes any information about the testimony would be subject to being charged for disobeying the order.

I have mixed feelings. OTOH it is good that someone spilled the beans without earning immunity in doing so, and that person faces a trial that was scheduled to start in about a month. On the other, Canadians have a very definite interest in knowing what has been said since it implicates (most likely) people who were and maybe still are involved in our government.

Apparently, your source which points to Gaglianno and his mob connections may be somewhat accurate. If so, I am dumbfounded. It is something that needs to be addressed publically, and soon. So give 'em hell Yankee bloggers!

[Tingkai]

It should be noted that the publication ban is temporary and opposition politicians agree that witnesses' right to a fair trial must be protected.

In this case, the inquiry judge said that the ban is needed so that potential jurors would not be unfairly swayed before a trial even started.

The ban will effectively end when the witnesses go on trial in May at which time the public will get all the details.

The ban is reasonable and necessary.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Apparently, your source which points to Gaglianno and his mob connections may be somewhat accurate. If so, I am dumbfounded. It is something that needs to be addressed publically, and soon. So give 'em hell Yankee bloggers!

These rumours have swirled for a VERY long time.

[TCO]

Can you talk? If so, why? Surely, the rights of the witness or whatever are infringed by people chatting as well as by people publishing. (BTW, I always thought witnesses testimony was compelled.) If they are worried about this witness being in physical danger, then have him in protective custody and witness protection and all that. How is a temporary publication ban going to protect him?

[TCO]

It's all cool though. You guys can run your country how you like.

[KrazyHorse]

The witnesses are going to be defendants in upcoming criminal trials. Their testimony at the hearing will not be usable against them.

To release what they're saying now would contaminate the jury pool.

They need to have a reasonable expectation of getting 12 people who haven't heard them admit to doing illegal ****.

[KrazyHorse]

If they weren't being granted immunity from use of what they're saying in the hearings then we couldn't compel them to testify.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It should be noted that the publication ban is temporary and opposition politicians agree that witnesses' right to a fair trial must be protected.

Hard to argue with that.

In this case, the inquiry judge said that the ban is needed so that potential jurors would not be unfairly swayed before a trial even started.

As if anyone with any knowledge of the events in question would be selected to sit on the jury. Lawyers look for those with little or no knowledge of the allegations. Shouldn't be hard in this country as we are a nation of uninformed morons.

The ban will effectively end when the witnesses go on trial in May at which time the public will get all the details.

Call me cynical but I seriously doubt we will ever "get to the bottom of it".

The ban is reasonable and necessary.

The ban is unnecessary and ineffective. Those that want to know (see note on jurors above) will find out anyway. Publication bans in this day and age just don't work.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil

As if anyone with any knowledge of the events in question would be selected to sit on the jury. Lawyers look for those with little or no knowledge of the allegations. Shouldn't be hard in this country as we are a nation of uninformed morons.

All rhetoric aside, you might be interested to note how limited the scope of the questions lawyers in Canada are allowed to ask potential jurors is, and how difficult it is for them to strike jurors.

The US system involves much more freedom for the lawyers to quiz and reject jurors they don't like. In Canada you're much more stuck with the twelve people you're assigned.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


All rhetoric aside, you might be interested to note how limited the scope of the questions lawyers in Canada are allowed to ask potential jurors is, and how difficult it is for them to strike jurors.

The US system involves much more freedom for the lawyers to quiz and reject jurors they don't like. In Canada you're much more stuck with the twelve people you're assigned.

I agree, but some selection is still involved. Finding twelve Canadians w/o a clue is still an easy task.