Persona Non Grata, Eh?

For the five of you who read this blog before reading Captain Ed, the story over there is pretty amazing.

One of the big jokes after the election was all the liberals, upset over John Kerry's defeat, who expressed interest in emigrating to Canada. Joke's on them; Canada actually imposes a lot of the restrictions that the "Ascroft Libertarians" used to bleat about worrying about seeing under a Bush Administration.

Their hate speech laws would gag an Ivy League undergraduate dean. Their national gun ban is marginally less noxious than, say, New York City's.

And their press freedoms would seem to be at the sufferance of government, as well.

And that's Ed's big story.

He's been following Adscam; here are the details.

He has a source with a lead on testimony potentially damning to the officials of the ruling Liberal party. The government has imposed a gag order on the press.

Ed, unbound by Canadian press muzzle laws, published the information.

Details of the Brault testimony began cropping up on various websites yesterday after it was first posted Saturday night on a conservative American site. The blog is run by a 42-year-old call centre manager from Minneapolis, Minn., with a libertarian bent who is concerned about publication bans and restrictions on freedom of information.

In an interview yesterday, he said he understands the implications of publishing the testimony. He refuses to reveal his source but says that he has a contact who has a contact inside the Montreal room where the testimony is being given.

The publication ban does not restrict Americans from publishing or broadcasting the details of the in camera hearings. Still, the blogger joked that he isn't planning any vacations soon to Canada.

"It's an interesting story. It's fascinating," he said. "First off, I think it's a terrible thing that you guys can't publish this. This is the type of thing that a free press exists for is to hold their government accountable. ..... It should be you guys reporting this."

The fact that the testimony is now circulating on the Internet and by word of mouth calls into question the effectiveness of the publication ban, Mr. MacKay said.

This is not only an aberration of a poorly-designed system; this is in fact an inevitable result of allowing government to regulate the coverage of a state's political process.

Posted by Mitch at April 4, 2005 06:46 AM | TrackBack