|
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
You're fuckin kidding, right? |
I wish i were.... It is written in the criminal code and punishment for breaking the ban includes jail time and huge fines.
PS naming that site above shadowwolf could get you and this site into trouble. Id remove it. Im serious too.
More about this here:
| quote: | Monday, April 04, 2005
Gomery Considering Charging Bloggers It has been suggested to me by what is admittedly second-hand information, that Justice John Gomery will consider charging any Canadian blogger who not only provides a link to a site containing banned material, but any Canadian blogger who “names the site containing the banned material.”
If this is true, and I hope it’s not, then this would demonstrate firsthand what I have long believed, the true ineffectual nature of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which by it’s very nature, allows for massive legislative and judicial abuse, subjugating the rights that were intended to be, and most Canadians expect, are absolutes.
If the naming of a website alone can constitute violation of a publication ban, then this country is in grave danger of at some point in future history, falling victim to autarchy. If the fundamental right to unadulterated free speech cannot be protected against our governments and our courts, then we stand in clear danger of being molested through misinformation on the part of those who would use their power to manipulate and abuse these holes within the charter.
If Justice Gomery wanted to prevent the dissemination of the testimony by Mr. Brault, then he should have done it in quarters closed to the public in the first place. The fact that Gomery and members of the commission are “surprised” that someone who was present during the testimony recounted the details to the outside world is not only laughable but surprising in itself.
That being said, I do not agree with publication bans. If Mr. Brault wanted a fair trial, then it should be his responsibility to refuse to speak, citing his “right to not self-incriminate” under the Charter. If the commission feels that receiving his testimony is crucial to achieving its goals, then it should have considered seeking immunity for Mr. Brault from his criminal charges. Placing the burden on the media and the public at large to keep information to themselves, is not in my opinion, striking the balance between fundamental individual freedoms and justice. It is in fact, skewing the mark away from the very basis of fundamental freedom in favor of the expediency of justice.
While the execution of justice and the ability to apply it fairly is a paramount concern, it cannot be used to trump the very principles of our society that empower us, protect us, and have recognized the true potential of the human race.
If having justice done means suspending the rights of citizens in it’s undertaking, then it is not serving that public at all, it is serving itself. Even worse, justice itself takes the form of the very thing it seeks to redress: injustice. |
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Everything in this country is illegal. |
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill
|
The Real Deal on the Sponsorship Scandal??
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) 
