|
|
Re: Colonial Resistence (fwd)
Michael John Evans (g8726246@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA)
Tue, 7 Dec 1993 01:05:05 -0500
I sit corrected and informed, thanks to Douglas; I still think
however, that my point about the (mis-)representation of Canadians buying
U.S papers across the border as a form of 'resistance' to censorship
stands. Douglas adds fuel to my point about the inadequacy of the current
reportage of what the *real* story is. As he points out, there is
more to this story than the S&M, and the most interesting aspects seem
doomed to be broadcast too late. Read on:
Heather
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 11:12:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "dsc......" <stchri@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Hi heather...
ya got a few things wrong here....
the enforcement of the ban is indeed a government action since the AG
[Attorney General] has been activist in her instructions and interference
in the ban, unlike other court orders in which the AG maintains a distance.
so the complaint that the ban is somehow a government gag order is
partially true.
the issue is not, as i see it, a question of the 'right to know' details
of the crime but rather, a 'right to see' that justice in the homolka
trial was fair and reasonable. the judges ban goes beyond prohibiting the
details of the evidence read into the record at the trial to include
reporting on the operation of justice itself [ and i think this will be
the point at which the ban will be overturned by the higher court.]
the right to a fair trial argument does not wash either. it assumes that
potential jurors are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing evidence
and evaluating it reasonably. if that is the case then all evidentiary
information in all trials should be banned until after the trial. however,
if you read the judges order carefully, what he is in fact protecting is
not the rights of Paul Teale to a fair trial, but the asses of the crown
attorney's and the niagara police, who fucked up royally. because of the
screw ups, they desperately need karla's testimony to get a conviction.
the ban is part of preserving deals made with karla and as such is not
meant to ensure the husband's trial is fair but meant too ensure there is
a conviction. that is hardly fair in itself since guilt is something
determined by the judicial process and not a priori by a trial judge
interfering in a trial over which he did not even have jurisdiction.
as you can see, i feel strongly about this. the courts conducting
themselves in secret behind a smoke screen of protecting the rights of the
accused is insidious and should be resisted. judge kovacs went way beyond
the intent of the authority to ban publication and orded the prohibition
not to preserve justice but to cover its errors.
paul teale has had his right to a fair trial taken from him rather than
protected.instead, he has become the subject of the most outrageous
rumors, rumors which will in the end by more damaging than the evidence
read into the record [which i have read...it is devastating but the
rumours circulating are even worse]. i think prospective jurors have a
right to know what went on in the homolka trial in order to disqualify
themselves if necessary. as it is, there is a simulacra of even
handedness, a false sense that everyone out their is unsullied and
unbiased, which will further jeapardize teales own rights.
dougl
|