Saturday, October 13, 2012

Ban, Ban, Everywhere a Ban

Years ago there was a popular song that was part of the sixties era which said Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. Don’t do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign? Now we’re seeing ban, ban, everywhere a ban. Don't say this, don't say that, can’t you read the ban? I’m referring to excessive publication bans in court. They are illegal.

I remember reading a story about an American reporter who was in Vancouver researching the Robert Pickton trial. They were speaking with one witness who answered a few questions then went on to explain, all of this is under a publication ban. If you print any of this you would be breaking the ban and go to jail. The American journalist found it strange. That’s not the way they do things in the United States. They have a First Amendment.

So why is that? Let’s break tradition and use some logic. How could publishing some of the evidence heard in court during the Pickton trial in any conceivable way, inhibit his right to a fair trial? One could conceive that if the media has published some information that the judge ruled was inadmissible, and the jury heard it, that could conceivably bias the jury and taint Pickton’s right to a fair trial. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We are talking about reporting to the public, evidence submitted in court that the jury heard. If the jury read a newspaper that reported that evidence, it would in no way taint Pickton’s right to a fair trial because the jury had already heard it. Those kinds of publication bans do not protect the accused’s right to a fair trail. They are a violation of Free Speech and are therefore illegal.

The whole concept of putting a reporter or blogger in jail for telling the truth is rather absurd. The judge who made the illegal publication ban should be the one going to jail. That is what I mean when I say it appears we are walking down a road that resembles Big Brother not a Free Republic. All the Pickton publication ban did was protect the Hells Angels which is exactly what Wally Opal did in the not so public inquiry.

I’m still trying to find a copy of the publication ban in Giles' case. Oh you can’t publish a publication ban. Of course we can. The purpose of a publication ban is to inform the public that such a ban exists. Without publishing the publication ban, the public has no idea it exists or what it covers.


Update: OK this is how it has been explained to me: Obviously there are different kinds of publication bans. Young Offenders: You’re not allowed to publish the name of a young offender. Makes sense. Sexual assault: You’re not allowed to publish the name of the victim of sexual assault. Makes total sense.

I’m told Giles’ publication ban falls under 648 of the criminal code which normally sates you can’t publish any evidence or submissions when the jury is absent. Which is totally what I was saying in my original example. If a jury is present, publishing that evidence in a newspaper would in no way inhibit a person’s right to a fair trial. Simply because if the juror read the paper, it would have already heard that evidence in court.

A 648 ban is for when the jury is not present. That makes total sense. It also has a time limit. It expires when the jury has rendered a verdict or sooner if the judge says so. That brings us to the BC Rail publication ban. It’s expired so all evidence in that trial is now publishable so let’s get at it.

My next question is the Pickton publication ban. I’ll have to find out what kind of ban that was and if it has expired like it’s supposed to so we can circumvent Wally then limp fish Opal’s public cover up of that case. It says the Pickton ban was under 537(1) and 539 of the Criminal code.

Oldhan's Bail ban says: Criminal Code of Canada, s. 517 The evidence, representation made and the reasons given at a show cause (bail) hearing shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until a preliminary hearing is held and the accused is discharged, or if the accused is ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended.


  1. Below is a comment that was written about Canada in a Yahoo posting. Except for the name-calling and abuse, it is pretty much true. After you read the comment, click on links below it and find out just how bad it is.
    Exact copy and paste of what the poster wrote:

    Canadians are pathetic. They elect a leader, Harper, that steals tens of millions from them during the G8 Summit, he's held in contempt of their own parliament, he censors the press on what questions they can or cannot ask him, there's evidence he rigged his election with the Robocall scandal, and the dumb Canadians still let him stay in office with impunity. LOL. Canadians deserve a Prime Minister that spits in their faces. What a revolting country.
    Canada has degraded into a country of ignorant, uneducated, and biased degenerates. It is just now beginning to get out to the world. Lets see - Hockey game riots, baby seals slaughters, racist against Muslims, French, Chinese, Hindus, you name it, Mad Cow and e.coli in their beef, deforestation of their lands, sludge pollution from oil sands, and oil pipelines through pristine natural land, throwing babies in dumpsters like so much garbage, chopping people up into tiny pieces and mailing them around (psychos) and now in headlines as an increasingly corrupt country. There are good reasons why their azzes were booted off the UN Security Council.
    There is no separation of justice and state in Canada. The provincial/federal politicians appoint the judges, and then they have control of the courts. The government of B.C. controls the Law Society, so all the same politicians own the lawyers as well, as they are future judges. Political corruption in this country is out of control.


  2. Publication bans are a tool of the tools working within the legal system, preserving their empires outside of the prying eyes of an ignorant and gullible public.

  3. My comments were on topic. By removing my comments, you are guilty of the same censorship that you accuse others of.

  4. Sorry misty. I haven't removed any of your comments yet. All the comments are approved before they appear. That's because I was getting too many death threats for reporting on the gangs. Sometimes there is a long delay in approving posts because I have a full time job and I'm not online all the time. Having said that, today is my day off so I'm online more than days I'm at work. So don't worry if there's a long delay before seeing your post appear. It just means I'm at work or not online. If you see the post then see it disappear, that's a different matter.

    However, nothing you have said so far would imply there is any concern about having any of your posts deleted. I just delete or don't approve death threats, excessive vulgarity, and hate mongering toward a specific race, religion or gender preference. I have stopped approving posts of people who just wanted to use the blog as a sounding board to promote the Hells Angels. In those cases I just said create your own blog. I personally am very interested in the water crimes blog because I think the allegations of judges dying are serious and need to be examined. I just don't understand why anyone would kill a judge over it and exactly what kind of environmental damage selling water would do to Canada. If we timed it so Vancouver was selling water when it's reservoirs were full and overflowing, I can't see a problem. I can just see a problem if we did it during summer when we have our own water restrictions on.

  5. You folks do realize, that we have had for decades, hydro-electric sales agreements with the USA; to supply them with power, from our vast excess. This is a province with huge hydro-electric capacity that has a mere 3.5 million people here. Of course; we make huge cash selling electricity.

    Misty seems to live in a strange world; where selling a product in the marketplace is obviously evil, deadly ethically and morally evil. How she gets these weird ideas, most BC'ers wouldn't know. We approve of the hydro-electric sales to the US; Does Misty even know, that these hundreds of millions of dollars they pay us, pays for our schools, roads, and hospitals. Right, Misty?

  6. From Misty's "water wars" site; all the blogs she linked to, I clicked on, and weird; and from-another-Planet; doesn't begin to describe the incredibly twisted Conspiracy Theories that you should just love, Agent K, just look at this headline from one of Misty's links:

    "Harper, Kissinger, a murdered judge, a dead lawyer and Queen Elizabeth."

    The Queen is in the Conspiracy...? Misty has just got to add Elvis Presley, George Bush, Richard Nixon, and Martians in their UFO's!

  7. I think there is a lot of research that goes on with that blog and if judges are dying then that should be examined. I’m just trying to step back and figure out a motive. Why would we care about selling excess water and why would a judge have legal recourse to stop it?

  8. You are quite correct that one aspect of free speech is the right to express your opinion and say what you want. But there is another aspect of it and that is the freedom of the press. The right to report news to the public and not be censored. In another thread Trailrunner just pointed out that they don’t have the same problem with court publication bans in the United States that we do. Why is that?

    The Constitution and the Charter of Rights is the highest law of the land. If a government makes a law that violates those documents then it is illegal. If a government were to create a law saying that people in Canada or the United States could be arrested without charge, held without trial and be denied a lawyer, then that law would be illegal. That’s why they do it offshore.

  9. It's not the water we are selling, AK, it's the electricity that the water makes, flowing through the dams' turbines. The Americans pay us hundreds of millions a year for that electric power.

    But if they want some excess water (and this Province has billions of gallons, one would suppose), of the vast excess of H2O we have here, (with our tiny population); why not sell them a chunk of it? It's just gonna flow into the Pacific anyway, right?

    Some folks just hate Americans so much, that they feel ANY deal we make with them is just immoral. I don't happen to have a hate on for our Southern neighbours.

  10. Actually Forester51, if you attend the court hearing you will hear it anyway. Publication simply allows those citizens who do not attend to have the same level of knowledge as citizens who do.

    And yes, they DO have the right to know. The government works for the people, not for itself, something that has been eroded over time in the True North, not so strong or free as it used to be.

    For sensitive information, the judge has the gallery cleared.

    Jurors once selected are either sequestered for the duration of the trail (which has the effect of moving things along, imagine if the Pickton jurors were sequestered, LOL, there would have been a revolt) this tends to counter a government that wants to stretch things out until most of the public's attention span is exhausted, a tactic over used up there and for good reason, it works. If not sequestered, they are instructed by the judge not to watch news coverage/read newspapers, etc.. If such accidentally occurs they are required to report it to the judge.

    Forester, the excuses you offer (jeopardize an ongoing investigation) are frequently used by the police to avoid telling anyone anything. And frequently they are lying.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.