Inquiry official Francois Perreault voiced shock at the publication ban breach, and said the commission co-counsel Bernard Roy and Justice John Gomery will decide today whether to charge the Canadian website owner with contempt of court. "We never thought someone would violate the publication ban," Perreault said. "Maybe we were more confident than we should have been."
| "Waaaaa! Those icky American blogs are telling all our secrets!" |
| And to provide cover for the Liberal Party. |
Reporters and cameras have been allowed into the hearing as long as they don't publish Brault's testimony before the ban is lifted. Members of the public have swarmed to the inquiry since Gomery cut off the live transmission, filling a special auditorium. Rumours have swirled all weekend about a possible breach of the ban by American newspapers, Internet sites and television stations that are outside Gomery's reach.
| "Damm Americans, who do they think they are reporting on us?" |
| OK, I'll take that as a threat, if you're Canadian, don't read this: |
A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called "sponsorship scandal" — tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)
Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.
The owner of U.S. blog site slammed the ban.
"I think that the point of a free press is to keep the electorate informed about its government. Putting a ban on the press reporting such a level of corruption does nothing except keep people in the dark about the actions of corrupt officials. The CP should have been allowed to report this testimony, and I think it's a shame that Judge Gomery opted to keep Canadians in the dark."
Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog (cough) Captain's Quarters (cough) or the Canadian news site that promoted it (Nealenews.com) or providing the blog's Internet address (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com)could lead to a contempt charge. Shanoff said American news organizations began breaching Canadian publication bans in earnest with Karla Homolka's murder trial. "It became very clear from that case that publication bans are very hard to police," Shanoff said. Shanoff said the inquiry breach would become more significant if Montrealers began to flock to the U.S. blogger's site to read Brault's testimony. "The information, I gather, is very, very damaging and very prejudicial," he said. "If it's accessed by large numbers of people in Montreal where the trial will take place it could have a prejudicial effect
| I, for one, would never dream of defying a Canucklian ban on publishing the fact that http://www.captainsquartersblog.com is reporting testimony that makes the libs of the Great White North look not much different from our local party hacks. |