Media bans and gag orders...

[theloniusfleabag]

While media bans and gag orders may have certain times and places where they are needed, (especially in cases where the perpetrator has yet to be caught) shouldn't truth and freedom of information be of the highest order?

For example, I read a few articles about a recent case where a 'gag order' was issued...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/29/...ice-050429.html

Beaton made headlines this week after he ordered a disciplinary hearing for Const. Taufiq Shah closed to the public and media. Shah was released from duty with pay last year for contributing to a website that called Beaton a “bad apple” and his management “tyrannical.”

The Herald and lawyers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. are fighting the order.

Now we must ask, do gag orders serve the public interest, or simply the interest of those involved? Should anyone really hold the sweeping powers of censorship over all media? Is that power 'abusing the privilege' when they themselves are involved in any manner?

(to the moderator)

Please review and let me know if this post is in any way in violation of this order.

[Greg]

(to the moderator)

Please review and let me know if this post is in any way in violation of this order.

No worries, everything is fine. This was taken from the article:

At the same time, a sweeping gag order was issued that prevented anyone from talking about the case or reading documents related to it. That was lifted Friday.

[geoffrey]

Now we must ask, do gag orders serve the public interest, or simply the interest of those involved? Should anyone really hold the sweeping powers of censorship over all media? Is that power 'abusing the privilege' when they themselves are involved in any manner?

I agree, gag orders are a ridiculous infringement upon freedom. That being said, this isn't our ass on the line with this forum, and others could be in trouble for any of us violating a gag order.

[FTA Lawyer]

While media bans and gag orders may have certain times and places where they are needed, (especially in cases where the perpetrator has yet to be caught) shouldn't truth and freedom of information be of the highest order?

For example, I read a few articles about a recent case where a 'gag order' was issued...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/29/...ice-050429.html

Beaton made headlines this week after he ordered a disciplinary hearing for Const. Taufiq Shah closed to the public and media. Shah was released from duty with pay last year for contributing to a website that called Beaton a “bad apple” and his management “tyrannical.”

The Herald and lawyers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. are fighting the order.

Now we must ask, do gag orders serve the public interest, or simply the interest of those involved? Should anyone really hold the sweeping powers of censorship over all media? Is that power 'abusing the privilege' when they themselves are involved in any manner?

(to the moderator)

Please review and let me know if this post is in any way in violation of this order.

As I am personally involved in the case of Cst. Shah (and I have always been of the view that my job is to make my argument in the courtroom, not in the media or on a discussion forum) I will assume a very limited role in this discussion.

I will point out that there are two different parts of this matter. One, as noted in the link provided, is a civil defamation lawsuit, where the "gag" order was made by the Court and then substantially lifted. There remains one or two affidavits sworn in support of the Anton Pillar Order (sometimes called a civil search warrant) that remain sealed in this civil action...which is now being challenged by my client and some media lawyers.

The other part is a disciplinary proceeding against my client pursuant to the Police Act. This hearing was started as a public hearing by order of the Chief of Police, but was suddenly ordered by the Chief to be closed to the public prior to the last appearance. We were set to argue an application to have the charges dismissed on an allegation that jurisdiction over my client was lost due to improper conduct by the Calgary Police Service and the Calgary Police Commission when the Chief changed his mind on the status of the hearing.

We are now also in the process of challenging this decision by the Chief of Police to shut the public out of this disciplinary hearing.

All of the above information is public domain and not the subject of any restriction on publication or discussion at this time. I invite the members of the board to discuss the issues, and to the extent that any details of the case are public record (having occurred before the Chief directed the hearing to be closed) I may be in a position to provide some additional information.

However, I will not participate in the discussion about the arguments I plan to make in Court or my client's opinion or my personal opinions on these issues as I do not want to jeopardize our position in any way when the arguments are formally made in Court.

FTA

[August1991]

Shah was released from duty with pay last year...

Why are the taxpayers picking up this entire tab on this, including a guy's time to prepare his case?

Imagine, as part of a divorce settlement, you are forced to pay for a maid for your ex-wife's house. The maid then starts to tell neighbours about the contents of your ex-wife's closets. Your ex fires the maid (that she hired). The maid complains and the controversy goes to court. Meanwhile, you have to pay the maid's salary (even though she's no longer cleaning) and you also have to pay the court costs of your ex and the maid.

The maid and your ex are using your money to fight over a share of your money!

FreeTradeLawyer, I can certainly understand why you'd love to have the maid as a client. She's not paying your fee.

The invitation for abuse is phenomenal and such cases will only get worse and more common in the future. The federal government's policy to native Indians is rife with such situations and it explains why Indian Affairs can have a budget of several billion but many natives don't have decent housing or clean water.

Sorry for this rant but this case is typical of government. All kinds of injustice occurs in the world and in Canada. The slight injustice of this particular public servant strikes me as minor to meaningless.

It seems to me that if you join the public service, you give up many of the privileges of being a private citizen. If you don't like that, then don't join the public service.

[Charles Anthony]

Sorry for this rant but this case is typical of government.

I like this rant.

It reminds me of a party-conversation when I stepped into the middle of two public servants talking about work. After a brief pause, one of them turned to me and asked "What do you do? Are you with government too?" and I found the wording of his question slightly odd. While I stammered to quickly think of a smart-aleck comment, he said it should not be a difficult question to answer. I replied: "If half of my clientele are public servants, how can I NOT be with government? You did not ask me if I was a public servant." It is impossible to avoid the long tentacles of government.

Everybody was cordial so I chose not to ask them if they are ashamed of labelling themselves as public servants.

[Mad_Michael]

Media gag orders, like liable laws, exist to protect the powerful. That is their purpose and function. If our elites thought that publicity would help their cause, the gag order would be dropped in a flash.