Gomery Schlomery

I was thinking as the torrent of anguish flying around the Canadian bit of the internet began to subside this afternoon about scandels as we have them here. They have tended not to be in the British style about sex or in the US style about power. They tend to be about cash:

  • There were all those allegations about that friend to both the Christian Democratic Union Party of Germany and Brian Mulroney:

    That would be the same Karlheinz Schreiber from whom Mr. Mulroney was later — wrongfully, as it turned out — accused of receiving kickbacks in connection with Air Canada’s $1.8-billion purchase of aircraft from Airbus Industrie. The false accusation prompted Mr. Mulroney’s famous lawsuit against the government of Canada, in settlement of which he was eventually paid $2-million. Much of this was documented in Mr. Kaplan’s 1998 book, Presumed Guilty, a passionate defence of Mr. Mulroney’s reputation…

  • Saskatchewan’s Tories of the early 1990s were not so fortunate as…

    14 Conservative members of the legislature and two caucus workers were convicted of fraud and breach of trust for illegally diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from government allowances in a phoney expense-claim scam. The party was destroyed by this scandal

    Having worked on a breach of public trust case, I was very grateful to these guys for creating such a solid body of legal precedent to work with.

  • A number of Buchanan’s Conservatives Nova Scotia’s in the 1980s always seemed to be in the courts and/or the locally known “bagman” it seemed before the Westray diaster put all that in perspective if not entirely in the past. [Google, by the way, is a rotten historian as there is little to be found on the topic.]
  • And, as we all know, it was not only Tories as Jeffery Simpson wrote in The Globe and Mail in February 2004 about Trudeau’s Liberals:

    And, of course, there was patronage. When running for the party leadership in 1968, Mr. Trudeau said, “I’m not against helping a friend of the Liberal Party when I get a chance.” Generally, however, he disliked the grubby
    business of patronage. He couldn’t understand why anyone would participate in politics for the hope of reward.

    He learned — and wound up filling the Senate, agencies, boards and commissions with Liberals, ending his prime ministerial career with the greatest single-day orgy of patronage in Canadian history. His Quebec ministers met Thursday mornings in a dining room adjacent to the parliamentary restaurant to exercise political discretion on behalf of supporters and party friends. Mr. Trudeau’s ministerial fixers in Quebec
    included Jean Marchand, Marc Lalonde, André Ouellet and Francis Fox, now responsible for Quebec in Mr. Martin’s office.

There must be others. Any other bouts of sticky fingers from Canada’s past?

Russia v. Green Bay

Beer teaches. At least in the sense that you learn a few things when hunting for beer stories. Consider this latest decree from Vlad Putin:

A ban on consumption of beer in public places came into effect in Russia this month, but no one knows how effectively it can be enforced. President Vladimir Putin ordered the ban following months of parliamentary debates. Supporters of the ban, coming shortly before World Health Day Apr. 7, argue it could help rising alcoholism and indiscipline, particularly among the young. The new law bans consumption of beer in places like recreational parks, sports buildings, educational establishments, medical institutions and public transport. The fine for violation would be the equivalent of 3.50 dollars. Legislation passed in August last year had banned advertisement of beer. But consumption of beer, considered by many to be a soft drink, continues to soar.

Compare that to a 110 year old prohibition that continues in part of Green Bay, Wisconsin:

In a city with an image of pubs full of Packer fans enjoying a pint while watching the game, one neighborhood has firmly stayed dry. Not an ounce of alcohol has been legally served in public anywhere in a three mile-by-two mile area on the city’s west side where a 110-year-old law still bans the stuff out of fear that saloons might degrade the neighborhood. But area business leaders say the ban has crimped development. They hope voters opt to scratch the booze ban in a referendum Tuesday, when more than 20,000 residents will be asked whether to let restaurants and hotels serve alcohol.

Obviously there is a lot of middle ground but it would be interesting to see 50 people from each land dropped into the other.

Vatican v. Gomery Handbags

In a remarkable move consciously mirroring this week’s plot of The West Wing, differences are appearing amongst the cardinals heading to Rome:

With Pope John Paul II lying in state, the battle over his legacy is being brought into the open by some cardinals preparing to choose his successor. The comments are preceded by praise for the pontiff who led the Roman Catholic Church for 26 years, but the need for change and renewal is being made clear. It started Sunday when Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, a contender to become the next pope, criticized what he suggested was a church out of touch with contemporary life. “The church must adapt to the modern world,” Hummes, the Archbishop of San Paolo, said before heading to Rome. “It can’t give ancient answers to new questions.” The next pope, he added, “must respond to progress and maintain a serious dialogue with science.”

I am just surprised that he made no comment on the testimony from the Gomery commission…sorry the explosive testimony. Favorite Gomery memes¹ so far:

  • Canadians are whimps for not breaking a court order – no need to link to that one. Its everywhere;
  • Canada is a dictatorship because of publication bans – yikes! Blog cops!! In my shed!!! They are watching us all!!!!;
  • Use of plummy pip-pip rights of an Englishman talk in a failed effort to talk law;
  • Poor Paul Martin – vote Tory (nice try Ben…vote NDP… or even independent Rhino); and
  • Best of all – AL YOR BLOGS AR US – the stone brained demands of 14 year olds everywhere that you must let them post any loony comment they can think up.

So far – its men in red gowns 1 v. panicy bloggers in Canada 0 as far as confidence in their democractic institutions goes. Sad.

[Ed.: What was that? Who are you? HEEEEeeeeeeeelp me – the blog cops got meeeee….]

¹ Note: Ben and I hate this word yet I use this word.

Hello to Gomery Seekers!

What are all you people doing here right now? There are tons of you. Was this just on TV or something? Are you aware the NCAA finals are on CBS right now? Politics will still be there tomorrow but it is a hell of a game so just make sure you won’t have that old “I think I watched the wrong blue glowing tube” feeling tomorrow morning.

Say hello before you go…

Political Theatre Of The Mind

[Special Notice from Editor: it ain’t me.]

It has been a rare day of political scaredy-cat-ism thoughout the realm that could be called the poli-blogs of Canada. Within 24 hours of a few posts like mine on Sunday morning there were some amazingly dimwitted calls for the defence of democracy [Ed.: “toot-ta-tooooo!!!” go the horns!!! To the pea and asparagus harvesters, everyone!!!] because a commission judge ordered a publication ban. Throughout every legal system – even in the USA – there are plenty of instances of secrecy: US grand jury, Canadian trial jury, judicial privilege, solicitor-client privilege, settlement privilege, etc., etc. Some see sense – some know fear – some are just a wee bit off near the end. A publication ban to protect the fairness of a future trial is part of the same continuum and has existed for as long as we have been free. Society works because we have courts and courts work because we have lots of secrets – short term, long term, in theory or enforced by jail time. It is the way the world works…except no one told half the bloggers.

I think it has to do more with the change of the clocks for spring. Some people need a nap.

Update: How could I have been so horribly wrong. Here they are taking Jim Elve, ringleader at Blogs Canada away. Oh well.


Make sure the guys know where to
send the cookies…

Secret Testimony

Much fur is flying this morning on the publication on a US blog of what is stated to be one single source’s take on the secret testimony heard last week before the Gomery Commission. I will not [Ed.: …could not, would not in a boat; could not would not with a goat…] link to it but the canny Googler might do well to consider words that rhyme with “Baptains Borters”. Nothing new in this as the Bernardo testimony was posted on the internet on a “Finnish site” around ten years ago.

So you will not find anything substantive around here as far as evidence goes, but, for the national edjification, how’s about a superficial review of what a publication ban is. The right to receive testamony but create a publication ban around that testimony is a procedure which must be done under power granted to the Commission. The specific powers of the Gomery Commission come from an Order in Council issued by Paul Martin, Prime Minister. It creates a commission pursuant to Part I of the Inquiries Act and, pursuant to section 56 of the Judges Act, the Honourable John Howard Gomery be authorized to act as a Commissioner on the inquiry. Further,

the Commissioner be authorized to adopt any procedures and methods that he may consider expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry, and to sit at any times and in any places in Canada that he may decide.

Each of these sources in law may include the power to order a publication ban. It is not specifically stated in Order creating the Commissions but the power to create its own rules is and, at Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission it states:

17. However, applications may be made by a party asking that the Commissioner issue an order that any portion of the proceedings be in camera, or issue an order prohibiting the disclosure, publication or communication of any testimony, document or evidence. Such applications shall be made in writing, supported by affidavit(s), at the earliest opportunity. The evidence and submissions on such applications may be presented in private or in public, or a combination of both, at the discretion of the Commissioner, according to these Rules, which are applicable to in camera matters with appropriate modifications.

18. The Commissioner may, at its discretion, issue an order that any portion of the proceedings be in camera, or issue an order prohibiting the disclosure, publication or communication of any testimony, document or evidence.

It is clear from that wording that ordinarily any “communications” of any “testimony” would be prohibited. That would tell me that speaking about the testimony would expected to be prohibited. Certainly this would cover off the “blogging is not publication” argument evoked by citizen journalists everywhere who wish to be treated as senior cub reporters on any other day. Once a publication ban is ordered, specific obligations are generally imposed on the media present under sections 50 and 51:

50. Whenever the Commission decides pursuant to Rules 17 and 18 to proceed in camera, or issue a publication, disclosure or communication ban, the designated media representative must, to the satisfaction of the Commission, take all necessary measures to ensure that all tape recording or sound recording machines have been turned off.

51. No other forms or means of recording, re-broadcasting or photographing beyond those permitted by these Rules will be allowed in the hearing rooms.

Note that the writing down of notes by pen and paper is not mentioned.

The specific Order requiring the publication ban is also available in the information superhighway. It provides further detail as to the expectations of Judge Gomery in this matter:

The expression “publication ban” as it is used in this decision, should be taken to have the meaning those words have been given in subsection 486(4.9) of the Criminal Code, which states that “no person shall publish in any way (…) any evidence taken, information given or submissions made at a hearing”, in this case, a hearing of the Commission. In my interpretation of this disposition, “broadcast” includes a posting on the Internet.

The word “broadcast” means “broadcast to the public”, so that a publication ban would not prohibit a television broadcaster such as CPAC from continuing to capture the television images and sound of the Commission’s proceedings, and from transmitting them to the media room and other in-house outlets, as it does at present. Rule 50 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and Practice should not be construed so as to prevent this practice.

So, even though he effectively removes the word “communication” from the ban he specifically included a posting on the internet of “any evidence taken, information given or submissions made at a hearing” under the prohibition. This certainly could be taken to not include speculative discussion, however, unwise or useless such a practice would appear to be…except that it is 98.742% of everything political blogs actually post. It does not include reading and even pasting into a privately retained file the received information for future purposes once the ban is lifted. That might be taken to be actually implied as the recording and in-house sharing for future broadcast is expressly allowed. The interesting question is what in law is “posting”. It would certainly include a posting such as this were it to include “any evidence taken, information given or submissions made at a hearing”. Is an email that gets passed amongst a circle of friends “publication to the public”? Does it also include second-hand speculation? Is it commenting on another post which includes either evidence or second-hand speculation? It is linking to a site which posts evidence? Is it giving a rhyme of the name of the site where a post may be found? Questions, questions, questions…

It is interesting to note one reason that a publication ban might be reasonable. Under Rule 26 of the Commissions’s Rules of Procedure:

The Commission is entitled to receive evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible in a court of law. Evidence will be admissible based on its probative value in relation to the Commission’s mandate.

Given all the skullduggery of politics, could you imagine that any of the witnesses would have after all this time any clear recollection or even understanding of the truth of what that did? We are into the realm of the political and an election and a political purpose can hang on a useful placement of misinformation.