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.

The Pope In Halifax, 1984

I suppose my recollections are not as profound as others, me not being Catholic, but it was quite the thing when the Pope came to my town in September 1984 at the beginning of my fourth year of undergrad. I don’t have any photos but neither does Google Images so I don’t feel so bad. Here’s the CBC archive of the event – check out Knowlton Nash on the Popemobile.

I don’t really remember being all protestant and cynicalmyself but that is because some of my pals were quite protestant and cynical about the whole thing, the taking over of the Halifax Commons, the weeks of building the massive staging, being somewhat penned with about 200 others in small squares with plenty of Popemobile room in between and all. We kept thinking how much it was all like a concert. At the Friday night youth rally, before the rains of the next day, conveniently located half way between the university zone and the downtown taverns for afters, he kept opening his statements with (in a heavy Polish accent) “Yoou Yooung peeople of Haallyfax…” and we would fill in, loud enough to get scowls from the neighbours, “…reeely knoow how to paaarteee.” One pal, Will, was quite pleased that he could be outside but near St. Mary’s Bascilica watching the Pope perform the Saturday service there on a screen – as he had watched from the tav next door with an excellent view of the church walls, tv coverage above the bar, beer in his hand. Being a fellow traveller he was able to tell him mother truthfully he was in a crowd just outside the service and stayed there right the way through.

At the end of one of his days in town, he Popemobiled at a faster clip down Coburg past our university to the Bishops house where he was staying, thin crowds in the warm evening waving as he headed to bed. We all waved night-night to the Pope.

Update: The Pope passed away mid-afternoon Saturday our time.

Zapshack, 1991

With the events in Rome, I find my self rummaging – amazed when I think of it that I was in eastern Europe so soon after the fall of Communism. I have nothing on Bruce “Hubely”, of course, who was on his second stint in Bratislava, later under the Brandenburg Gates on unification, when I flew into Warsaw to spread democracy, the cult of Walkman as well as jokes about President Jarulzelski looking a lot like Roy Orbison to Baltic resort town teens.

zapshack2

We lived well on chelb, pivo and ser but I dreamed of zapjakanky. We bought them in these zapshacks, above. Lody is ice cream, by the way, which is a hell of a lot easier to say than what Brucey had to order in Bratislave, zrma zlina.

Update: Watching the CBC Life and Times episode on the Pope last night, I was surprised how the Vatican was pouring money into Poland as part of the pressure it brought to undermine the wall and it got me wondering if all we twenty somethings brought into eastern Europe by tiny institutions in an oddly organized fashion was backed by Rome to some degree as well. Karol’s little army of westerners pushed out into little cities and towns who had little experience of westerners other than as tank drivers. My students thought we all used one brand, “Wash n’ Go” shampoo, as it was the first to make the market there. That and “The Final Countdown” by Europe was the height of current pop music as someone had a cassette. To counteract that I passed around the Walkman with Blue Rodeo and “My Definition of a Boombastic (Jazz Style)” by Dream Warriors.

Goodbye Old Email

Today marks the last time you may email my email of many years, good old elal@isn.net, which replaced elal@sympatico.ca and another elal before that. Each became a spammers dream and all have now been entirely replaced by gmail accounts. I deleted three or four years worth of archives and felt so good afterwards.

So send it one last message if you like. Try to invent some new type of spam other than viagara, Rolexes, 3.25% mortgage and Canadian pharmaceuticals. A prize for the best one to use the words “maple”, “Siam”, “carboy” and “cufflink”. And see if you can top the name of one spammer today “hung monaghan”.

Scissor Sisters

Listening to this for the first time, I am struck how my Elton John, Queen and disco pre-teen pre-punk junior high self was as entirely immersed in what gay culture made it to Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia AM radio. It does make one want to revisit the discography from Captain Fantastic… and back.

Interesting to compare the similar trajectories yet quite distinct 70s nostalgia choices of these folk, The Darkness and Franz Ferdinand.

Arar’s Plane

The New York Times reports that it has found a plane that followed the path Maher Arar has alleged he was flown to Syria for interrogation:

The discovery of the aircraft, in a database compiled from Federal Aviation Agency records, appears to corroborate part of the story Mr. Arar has told many times since his release in 2003. The records show that a Gulfstream III jet, tail number N829MG, followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to an airport near Washington to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the day after Mr. Arar’s deportation order was signed.

And here it is. Old N829MG has been a lot of places. It is not registered with the FAA. In April 2003 and June 2002, it was spotted by nerds at an Airport near Amsterdam under the ownership of MJG Aviation even though in the report it is stated to be owned by Presidential Aviation as this record shows. Here are its specs. The interior was fairly new:

New Feb 2002, 14 pax interior Beige leather seats with Gold and Black accents, DVD, CD, VHS and Airshow. Fwd galley. Fwd and aft lavs. Fireblocked. Immaculate.

In October 2002, the month after Arar’s flight, it appears on this listing which I do not understand – likely more plane spotting nerds. Interesting to read this October 2001 USA Today article quoting the head of Presidential Aviation:

…convenience is the very reason the rich are opting for private planes, says Nigel England, director of operations at Presidential Aviation in Fort Lauderdale. “You have absolute control over who gets on that aircraft,” he says. “We don’t subject you or your bags to humiliating checks.” While chartering less lavish aircraft for short distances can rival commercial prices, the price of airborne exclusivity can be high: about $20,000 for a coast-to-coast flight aboard Presidential’s eight-seat Lear 55; double that for a 14-seat Gulfstream III. “You can’t justify the cost on a numbers basis,” he says. “It’s about convenience and security.”

It would be interesting to check the air radio logs for the plane from that time as they would have had to report to air traffic control along the way. I wonder of the flight records or the radio reports will indicate who want on board or how many or who booked it. Why did it backtrack to Washington?