Parts Of Canada Secrecy Law Struck Down

Way to go RG
I saw that myself and hoped one of us might post it My guess is any one of us could keep these pages full of topics with all the material there is available
Gudonya!

---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

I'll wade into this one because I find this a really troubling case. Since this case gives the press the right to protect the identity of sources even when those sources are used to assassinate the character of someone in the news has nothing to do with "the media's role in protecting democracy." What is does mean is that it could potentially give the media the licence to create false "stories" under the guise of phoney informants.

It also protects the individual who leaked the false information. That gives government the freedom to leak false information to the media on those they see as their opponents without any means for those persons to defend themselves. I would argue that this decision could potentially undermine democracy.

First, I'll say that the MSM has absolutely no role what-so-ever in protecting anything but it's own selfish interests. Period.

The MSM habitually lies and misleads more so than it tells the truth, and to think otherwise is to display ones naivety.

What we need to look at, is the evidence at hand.

Without hard evidence at hand, whatever the MSM says should simply be treated as most likely a lie, but perhaps not. In the case cited, there were leaked documents serving as real evidence, which could be looked at for authenticity.

What you are concerned about, has been the way the press has been operating for decades prior to 9/11. It was only after 9/11 that these "anti-terror" statutes were added to existing criminal law. The only logical reason for these new laws, was to protect government secrecy, and give the government the ability to silence dissenting voices with impunity.

I don't hold out much optimism for this recent ruling, because as we've seen in the USA, the dissenting courts have been "fixed" by declaring them as irrelevant.

Let's see what Harper and his handlers do next -- all the while keeping in mind that it was under the Liberals that these anti-democratic laws were passed.

When the law was being debated in Parliament I sent an objection to it to my MP at the time: Peter MacKay. I received by a long prepared statement as to why he was supporting the legislation. Since it was a prepared message it seems likely that he had received a great deal of flack on the issue. This decision only struck down one of the less controversial sections of the bill which works both for and against democracy: the legality of leaked information. As I see it this decision protects the right to leak, publish, and protect the source of false information.

The fact that the judge used "freedom of the press" as part of the rationale is more troubling. This gives the press confidence that they can publish false and damaging information without ever having to be held account for it based on "freedom of the press."

You are perfectly correct in saying that the media are loose with the facts. I challenged one columnist with her use of false information that she referred to as "fact" and she refused to provide any evidence to back up her claims because she could not. Her response was that she was "too busy" to look up her sources. I contacted the ombudsman for the newspaper she writes for but all I got was "I'll look into the issue" and that was the end of it.

There is no responsibility or accountability in our system today when it comes to the judicial, governmental, and media establishment. This case merely underlines that fact. The media does not have to take responsibility for its actions and the person who leaked the information defaming Arar is protected.

Should the government appeal the verdict? I believe they should, even if I might disagree with the overall law, because of the implications mentioned above. Do I think they will? I doubt it. Instead they will simply try to amend that particular section of the law because they have just as much egg on their face over the Arar case as the Liberals.

<blockquote>This decision only struck down one of the less controversial sections of the bill which works both for and against democracy: the legality of leaked information. As I see it this decision protects the right to leak, publish, and protect the source of false information."</blockquote> What about perfectly true information? You can't have it only your way, where only "true" information is protected. We don't need legislated "truth", such a thing is a dangerous fantasy, since one man's truth is another's lie. Look at what they did to Giordano Bruno for promoting "lies"! <br><br> The views you appear to hold are the same kind of views that's gotten us into the mess we're currently in. <blockquote> The fact that the judge used "freedom of the press" as part of the rationale is more troubling. This gives the press confidence that they can publish false and damaging information without ever having to be held account for it based on "freedom of the press."</blockquote> Yes, but if we allow "lies" to be attacked by a biased law (or even an unbiased law which is an impossibility), then the "truth" will NEVER be told. <br><br> What is the "press"? I will agree that the press should have no special rights over anyone else. We should all share the exact same rights. Therefore, I do agree that we should NEVER entrust the right to tell stories without fear of reprisals ONLY to a specific privilaged group! <blockquote> There is no responsibility or accountability in our system today when it comes to the judicial, governmental, and media establishment. This case merely underlines that fact. The media does not have to take responsibility for its actions and the person who leaked the information defaming Arar is protected. </blockquote> What needs to be mentioned, is that in this case, it was a fight between the crooked press and the crooked government. The ruling had nothing at all to do with protecting the freedoms of you and me. <blockquote> Should the government appeal the verdict? I believe they should, even if I might disagree with the overall law, because of the implications mentioned above. Do I think they will? I doubt it. Instead they will simply try to amend that particular section of the law because they have just as much egg on their face over the Arar case as the Liberals. </blockquote> I cannot understand how you can give such a crooked government (and I don't mean just the current Harper incarnation, but the revolving door of the same old "new" government) any legitimacy by supporting parts of their corrupt and repressive laws. <br><br> You're views both amaze and disturb me, and are worth trying to understand. <br><br> You should join in on this discussion. <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=7&showtopic=17277&mode=&onlytopic=0&show=5">Censorship</a>

It's important to remember that the freedoms granted to the press were originally a good idea. They were granted to the press so that governments could be openly criticized in a public forum, thereby protecting democracy. I don't dispute any of the above statements relating to corruption in the press or government but I thought a reminder of the original purpose might be in order.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

"It's important to remember that the freedoms granted to the press were originally a good idea."

Yes, a good idea indeed, however one that discriminates aginst those who are not in the press. We should all enjoy the same rights as the press enjoys (or perhaps we thought it enjoyed but no longer does - notice that only "parts" of the repressive law was struck down).

There must be rules to protect the innocent as well as the guilty and to protect private information. If this decision is allowed to stand than those responsible for leaking false information will never have to pay for what they did.

The world is not black and white nor is the law. You may believe that is better to have a world in which people's lives can be ruined by malicious words than have a system that prevents that.

A "leak" is a cowardly attempt to manipulate or deceive. Governments intentionally use leaks to manipulate public opinion. Unfortunately, both the public and the media usually treat leaks as fact rather than as a political strategy.

Virtually every company and every organization has rules that prevent information from being made public. Is that censorship? If it is then you would have to defend the right of anyone with access to your private information to make it public including medical records, financial records, etc.

When I was young I went through a tramatic experience in which leaked false information was used against me and radically changed my life. I have no sympathy for the kind of a person who would do that.

"When I was young I went through a tramatic experience in which leaked false information was used against me and radically changed my life. I have no sympathy for the kind of a person who would do that."

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you, and it explains your reaction.

I don't like to see false information paraded around as fact either, however if you make it against the law to expose government secrets (which is what this law was about), then you'll be helping the liars far more than punishing them.

Memorable Quotes from
"Oliver Twist"

Bumble: It was all Mrs. Bumble's fault! She would do it, she would!
Brownlow: No excuse, man. In fact, you were the more guilty of the two in the eye of the law, for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.
Bumble: Well, if the law supposes that, than the law is a ass!

Out of my own experience and supported by my collection of lawyers I have little if any respect for law as we think we know it, law makers, the bar, and those who make law.
Does it seem strange to you I on the forums have encouraged people to study law?
It should not!
It is wise to study your adversary in an adversarial system especially when that system has as one of its maxims 'ignorance of the, law is no excuse'
I appreciated your insights Innes, Thank you


---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

Our legal system was not supposed to be an adversarial system. The role of the police (originally the role of magistrates) and the crown was to determine the facts of the case and nothing else. A large number of those involved still operate on that principle. The role of the lawyer was to make sure that the process was fair to the accused. However, more and more it has evolved into an adversarial system.

Unfortunately, the cost of advocacy has distorted the entire system and often left it dysfunctional. Several major problems have developed that need to be addressed.

First, the RCMP commissioner should be an officer of Parliament rather than an officer of government. In other words, he should answer to Parliament first and Parliament should have the right to dismiss him. Today he serves primarily as a Deputy Minister and both advises and answers to the Prime Minister through the Minister responsible. (I believe it was under Trudeau that the Commissioner was moved from being an officer of Parliament -- like the Auditor General -- to the Executive. From that time on the upper levels of the RCMP became more and more politicized.)

Second, many legal avenues are available only to those wealthy enough to use them. Under the current government, programs have been cut to give those without the required resources to access the courts. This means that the system will become more "top heavy."

Third, all attempts to open government result in even more secrecy. Secrecy gives power. Traditionally the establishment, such as lawyers and doctors and others by developing a "professional" language, have used their control over information to enhance their own power. Information that should be available to everyone is now available only to those able to pay for it (excuse -- cost recovery).

Fourth, the Liberals and Conservatives have just given approval in committee to extend the most draconian laws to 2011. These powers are unnecessary but they can be used as powerful tools for oppression and suppression.

These are just four problems that I can think of in a hurry. (Breaking news has it that part of the terrorism law has been struck down by a judge.)

"These are just four problems that I can think of in a hurry. (Breaking news has it that part of the terrorism law has been struck down by a judge.)"

Thank you Innes for your insight, and what you wrote above is what I do agree with.

If it's true that "part of the terrorism law has been struck down by a judge", that's very good news, however I'd be much happier to see the entire concept of "terrorist" struck down, or if not, at least upgraded to include acts of terror commited by the government against the people.

It seems to me that all of the terror is coming from the government itself and nowhere else.

"Our legal system was not supposed to be an adversarial system."<br />
<br />
With all due respect Innes, the legal system we are held hostage under has always been meant to be adversarial. That is its dodge!<br />
<br />
Please examine the following language and procedures of the courts.<br />
Firstly, the very name court is identical in structure to other games, tennis, handball, Volleyball, and the like.<br />
Law courts are divided in a similar fashion to separate the opponent with the bar being the division, as in &#8220;Please step across the bar into my territory&#8221; (Doing so is known as joinder*) Said the spider to the fly.<br />
<br />
Lawyers address one another with flowery phrases like &#8220;My worthy OPPENENT. <br />
They ARGUE their respective POINTS ( the all caps are for emphasis only.)<br />
<br />
<br />
There are two &#8220;sides&#8221; supposedly impartial and there to settle matters.<br />
However, the &#8216;game&#8217; is rigged right from the beginning and that is the con or dodge. The main players: the judge, the prosecution AND the defence are members of a very private club that sets and changes or ignores the rules of the game at will.<br />
<br />
Our legal system right form its conception with Inns of the Court back in the 1200&#8217;s was set in place by who?<br />
One must cognise before they can re-cognise.<br />
<br />
One of my signatures stated &#8220;the bar, the pulpit and the press nefariously combined to cry up an usurped pow&#8217;r and stamp it right devine.&#8221;-1695<br />
<br />
Make no mistake! The courts were set up by the ruling classes and had little if any to do with the rights and privileges of the common man.<br />
<br />
* <a href="http://www.answers.com/joinder&r=67">http://www.answers.com/joinder&r=67</a> <br />
When asked to enter into the, what we call the courts, side and complying one has entered into joinder with that side.<br />
In other words once an opponent of the courts has stepped across the bar they have been captured and rely solely on whatever mercy the courts decide to mete out.<br />
All drive by profit of course.<br />
The foundations of these institutions with their fellow conspirators (see above quote) were built on subterfuge and guile, how noble is that? <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>Diogenes said:<br />
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

I have not argued that the system does not tend to become adversarial. I have also said that there are problems in the system.

However I differ with you on the origin of the word court. The word "court" goes back to the residence of the sovereign. Originally part of this residence was used for the administration of "justice" and those around the sovereign were also referred to as the court. This meaning of the word predates the one to which you refer above. The sovereign was the final arbiter of law.

Unless you are an anarchist and prefer the "law of the jungle" a legal system is necessary. There is no perfect system. One of the major problems is the tendency of legislators to make poor law than has unintended consequences. This forces judges to go interpret vague laws in a manner not originally intended. Often law is intentionally left vague so that it can evolve with social evolution and again this often has unintended consequences.

Personally I would prefer to have a separate profession for judges requiring them a long apprenticeship in all aspects of the system.

If our laws and the administration of law has become elitist than much of that fault is ours. We have not come up with a means to make sure that there is "justice" and not just equality before the law but equality within the law.

That being said, I prefer the system we have to anarchy.