Topaz Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Canada went from 13th to 19th in a poll of countries whose media had freedom of the press. Denmark, Finland and Ireland were the top three of the 175 countires. The PMO spin doctor Dimitri Soudas, didn't agree with the poll , of course. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091020/...a_press_freedom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Canada went from 13th to 19th in a poll of countries whose media had freedom of the press. Denmark, Finland and Ireland were the top three of the 175 countires. The PMO spin doctor Dimitri Soudas, didn't agree with the poll , of course. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091020/...a_press_freedom This report came from some group called "Reporters Without Borders". Who are they? Are they a reputable source or just a few university kids that work on their student paper/ Whatever, what I find very hard to understand is that they rated Denmark as #1. How can this be? This is the country that first published those cartoons that upset the Muslims. After the riots and even murders that followed they caved and don't publish anything that might offend that group anymore. How can a country that won't publish anything that might offend some militant group possibly be #1 in "freedom of the press"? This just doesn't make any sense. This report must just be some politically correct spin from some silly group or other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 This report came from some group called "Reporters Without Borders". Who are they? Are they a reputable source or just a few university kids that work on their student paper/ Fairly reputable. In 2005, Reporters Without Borders shared the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought with Nigerian human rights lawyer Hauwa Ibrahim and Cuba's Ladies in White movement.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders The difference between 1st and and 20th is minute. The difference between 1st and Iran is great. http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Fairly reputable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders The difference between 1st and and 20th is minute. The difference between 1st and Iran is great. http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html All the more reason why I'm puzzled to see Denmark at the top of the list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 This report came from some group called "Reporters Without Borders". Who are they? Are they a reputable source or just a few university kids that work on their student paper/Whatever, what I find very hard to understand is that they rated Denmark as #1. How can this be? This is the country that first published those cartoons that upset the Muslims. After the riots and even murders that followed they caved and don't publish anything that might offend that group anymore. How can a country that won't publish anything that might offend some militant group possibly be #1 in "freedom of the press"? This just doesn't make any sense. This report must just be some politically correct spin from some silly group or other. well they did publish those cartoons...where as I have never seen them here... and not being a regular reader of Danish newspapers how would you or I know what they publish and how that compares to our newspapers and others from various countries??... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 wyly well they did publish those cartoons...where as I have never seen them here... Great point. I think this answers WB's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Canada went from 13th to 19th in a poll of countries whose media had freedom of the press. Denmark, Finland and Ireland were the top three of the 175 countires. The PMO spin doctor Dimitri Soudas, didn't agree with the poll , of course. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091020/...a_press_freedom Since the Canadian media is governed by "hate laws" and your media cannot report on ongoing trials, I'm surprised that you ranked as high as you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 The law requires a response within 30 days, though departments can take extensions under certain conditions. But delays of 120 days or longer are common, and even then the government frequently misses its own deadlines. The Harper government recently nixed recommendations to expand and modernize Canada's access-to-information and privacy laws. A House of Commons committee had recommended, among other things, that the information commissioner be given more power to force the government to disclose information in a timely manner. Seems like the government refusal to operate in a transparent manner is one of the causes behind our drop in the rankings. Seems like our government consistantly breaks the law in regards to turning over information about the publics business, and ignored recommendations to hold them to a higher standard. Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, says reporters all over the country are having trouble prying even the most basic information from the federal government. She says it takes departments days to answer routine questions, and even then replies often come in the form of email talking points. "The amount of information flowing out of Ottawa has come to a trickle," Welch said. Great. The other issue seems to be the right of journalists to protect sources. The Paris-based group, also known by its French acronym RSF, says court challenges to journalists' rights to protect their sources precipitated Canada's drop six spots from last year's ranking. Lawsuits intended to silence critics under the weight of the hefty cost of a legal defence - known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits - also factored into the drop, said Dennis Trudeau, a spokesman for Reporters Without Borders' Canadian chapter. "There are issues like real protection of sources," he said. "Where a reporter could theoretically face jail or a fine for not revealing his sources is in our view, especially when we're dealing with public issues, a unreasonable restriction on freedom of the press." Seems like our drop in the rankings is pretty well deserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Since the Canadian media is governed by "hate laws" and your media cannot report on ongoing trials, I'm surprised that you ranked as high as you did. Incorrect. High Profile trials are reported on extensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Incorrect. High Profile trials are reported on extensively. Eventually...yes, but I recall the gag order for Gomery hearings.....and it was an American blog site that broke the story, as Canada's judiciary had no jursidiction. Edited October 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Incorrect. High Profile trials are reported on extensively. So the "Toronto 18" wasn't a "high profile" trial? Canada court upholds media blackout in terrorism trial The Ontario Court of Appeal Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that prohibits the media from reporting on the terrorism trial of a group known as the "Toronto 18" .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So the "Toronto 18" wasn't a "high profile" trial? Canada court upholds media blackout in terrorism trial The Ontario Court of Appeal Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that prohibits the media from reporting on the terrorism trial of a group known as the "Toronto 18" .... You wrote: your media cannot report on ongoing trials That is factually incorrect. Some trials may have a security issue, such as the terrorism trial. rape trials have victim shields, young offenders have their identity withheld but the blanket statement, "your media cannot report on ongoing trials" is false. Unless of course you have a link that says no trial are ever covered by the media... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So the "Toronto 18" wasn't a "high profile" trial? Canada court upholds media blackout in terrorism trial The Ontario Court of Appeal Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that prohibits the media from reporting on the terrorism trial of a group known as the "Toronto 18" .... Im fine with that as long as the information is released after the trial is over. I have absolutely no interest in the judicial system becoming a prime time sit-com like like it is in the US, with TV shit-bags like Nancy Grace loudly proclaiming whos guilty and who isnt on the "News" while the trial is still happening or before it even starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Someone forgot to tell the Globe and Mail that our media cannot report on ongoing trials http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/stor...Story/TPComment http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1331779/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1332530/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 You wrote:That is factually incorrect. Some trials may have a security issue, such as the terrorism trial. rape trials have victim shields, young offenders have their identity withheld but the blanket statement, "your media cannot report on ongoing trials" is false. Unless of course you have a link that says no trial are ever covered by the media... Thats right.... theres lots of coverage, and often full transcripts available. Id prefer if that wasnt the case personally... A lot of times even if a person is found not guilty, theyve been demonized in the press for so long that their lives are still basically fucked. If Im accused of a crime my name should only be made public if Im found guilty or if I want it to be. Theres also big problems with jury pool contamination when you turn the judicial system into a huge media circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Im fine with that as long as the information is released after the trial is over.I have absolutely no interest in the judicial system becoming a prime time sit-com like like it is in the US, with TV shit-bags like Nancy Grace loudly proclaiming whos guilty and who isnt on the "News" while the trial is still happening or before it even starts. I have to say I agree with you. It doesn't fall into the category of "freedom of the press" though, which is why I'm surprised that Canada ranked as high as it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 If Im accused of a crime my name should only be made public if Im found guilty or if I want it to be. I don't think secret trials are in the interest of either democracy or justice. Better to be tried publickly, convicted publickly, acquitted publickly, than tried in secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I don't think secret trials are in the interest of either democracy or justice. Better to be tried publickly, convicted publickly, acquitted publickly, than tried in secret. Yeah... youre point is valid. Maybe we could protect the persons name without making the entire trial secret though. Or at least stop the media from using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Let's not forget about the negative impact the so-called Human Rights Tribunals have had on our freedom of speech and press. Just ask McLean's Magazine. Edited October 21, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) wylyGreat point. I think this answers WB's question. No Michael, it does not! In my question I agreed that the controversy started by Denmark publishing the cartoons. What's important is what Denmark did after things hit the fan! Publishing in the first place was a normal part of freedom of speech. Standing up and defending the right of freedom of speech in the face of opposition is what shows character! Anybody can just "make with the talk". Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Post...ons_controversy It's a bit long but I encourage folks to read the whole thing. Otherwise one may not realize that it looks rather sanitized and politically correct. Wiki reports the debate after the violence and murders started about free speech and also talks about decisions "not to publish blasphemy against religions". This is where the "rubber meets the road". After reading the entire article it seemed to me that Denmark had caved in! Understandably perhaps, since the violence levels were terrible but they didn't need to allow the opposition the facade of not insulting a religion. The idea of not offending any religion looks like a whitewash, a rationalization to limit free speech without admitting that's what you're actually doing. Free speech in Denmark has become only lines in a Constitution, with no meaning. Free speech but only if you're mute! The fundamentalists won. What's more, Wiki reports that many western countries simply caved in advance, including Canada! That's what led to the HRC inquistion of Ezra Levant. The rationale often used is the one about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as if that's a real parallel. In that example a false alarm causes harm. With the publishing of cartoons in Denmark the harm came from the over-reaction of primitive fundamentalist Islamists. How else could you describe murdering nuns over a cartoon? Edited October 21, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 No Michael, it does not! In my question I agreed that the controversy started by Denmark publishing the cartoons. What's important is what Denmark did after things hit the fan! Publishing in the first place was a normal part of freedom of speech. Standing up and defending the right of freedom of speech in the face of opposition is what shows character! Anybody can just "make with the talk".Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Post...ons_controversy On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation as he found no basis for concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. His reason is based on his finding that the article concerns a subject of public interest and, further, on Danish case law which extends editorial freedom to journalists when it comes to a subject of public interest. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. He stated that the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, but no apparent violation of the law had occurred.[24] In a new hearing, the Director of Public Prosecutors in Denmark agreed.[28] Sounds like their freedom to publish was upheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 What's more, Wiki reports that many western countries simply caved in advance, including Canada! That's what led to the HRC inquistion of Ezra Levant. Exactly. As well as McLean's for printing a Mark Steyn piece, which had some critical things to say about radical Islam. The so-called Human Rights Tribunals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 WB This is where the "rubber meets the road". After reading the entire article it seemed to me that Denmark had caved in! I agree with Morris - I don't see how Denmark caved. Explain ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah... youre point is valid. Maybe we could protect the persons name without making the entire trial secret though. Or at least stop the media from using it. I recall some years back a policeman was accused of running a pedophile ring, his name was published he was convicted in the court of public opinion his life and health totally ruined, several people associated with him were convicted and sent to prison...in the end it was all fabricated, the kids made up the entire story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I recall some years back a policeman was accused of running a pedophile ring, his name was published he was convicted in the court of public opinion his life and health totally ruined, several people associated with him were convicted and sent to prison...in the end it was all fabricated, the kids made up the entire story... Yup. They can accuse you something, release your name, and you can watch so called "legal experts" talk about whether youre guilty or not on TV, and suffer damages that youre not allowed to sue for... all without anybody producing a single shred of evidence or testimony against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.