An answer of sorts

Babble on.

Yesterday, I wondered aloud how those folks intent on breaching a temporary publication ban could justify their zeal.

From the farthest quarters of the blogosphere, one commentator captained the following school of thought - you'll forgive me for not providing a link, I'm sure:

One of my commenters last night asked why Americans should be so offended by a publication ban, considering that grand jury testimony is often kept secret here. However, grand jury testimony is truly held in camera, meaning closed off to the public. As [the Globe & Mail's Jane] Taber reports, that's hardly the case with the Gomery Inquiry:

His contact could be anyone as the commission hearings are open to the public. Indeed, the Brault testimony is an open secret in political Ottawa. Ask any political staffer or MP and they seem to know some, if not all, of the details of the testimony. The television feed from the commission can be picked up in some Ottawa newsrooms, and other information is being passed through e-mails, transcripts and phone calls.

...
In other words, every politician has access to the testimony, and even most reporters can get the transcript or at least hear it as the witnesses reveal their secrets. The only people whom the publication ban affects are the Canadian voters who elected these people and whose money got siphoned off. It has no analogy to grand juries whatsoever.

That's a decidedly weak argument. Those who are framing this as suppression of free speech are missing the point: it's about the timing required to nail the bad guys. Justice Gomery is no friend of the Liberal government, nor of the Chretienistas who ran the show before the Martini regicide. In invoking the ban, he is simply trying to dot every i and cross every t to make sure Brault, Guité, and Coffin don't escape justice in their criminal trials due to some legal technicality - like a poisoned jury pool.

Imagine for a moment that Justice Gomery denied the applicants' request for a publication ban and that these creatures were acquitted at trial as a result. Canadian taxpayers would be calling for his head, and rightly so.

And it's not like this incendiary testimony is going to disappear if we don't yell it from the rooftops right this minute. Remember, this is a temporary publication blackout. Justice Gomery has allowed reporters and the public to take in Brault's testimony precisely because they will publish the details freely once the ban is lifted.

I wish that those critical of his decision would take the time to actually read it.

Again I'll ask, since the Canadian voter this fine blogger is trying to protect has no immediate opportunity to turf the greased Liberal eels out of office, what's the rush?

His second point has more merit:

Others have pointed out that Justice Gomery wanted to keep the information private to keep the testimony from souring a jury pool for Jean Brault, Chuck Guité, and Paul Coffin. This sells Canadian citizens short, ethically and intellectually, and unfortunately this attitude exists in courtrooms south of the border as well. Jury selection these days apparently means finding twelve people who never read newspapers, books, or watch the news on television, and then putting someone's life into their hands. It's rubbish. Jurors take the job seriously enough that they can determine the validity of the evidence presented in court -- as opposed to the often-inaccurate information presented in the media -- and render a decision based on meeting a threshold based on reasonable doubt. When lawyers empanel the twelve most ignorant people they can find, we wind up with juries like the OJ Simpson jury: people who get manipulated by lawyers with sing-song slogans ... which is probably exactly what the lawyers on both sides wanted in the first place.

I think his core point here is a good one: juries made up entirely of the most willfully ignorant in our society are a hindrance to true justice. They're not my peers or your peers, and to pretend that they are is a travesty.

Having said that, I find it curious that he has chosen this particular set of circumstances to champion the idea of informed juries.

He freely admits his own country has exactly the same problem. Assuming he can affect Canadian legal procedure - a fantastic stretch, to be sure - it doesn't touch on his local legal environment at all. So why not take a principled stand in his own jurisdiction?

Because if he gets this all wrong, if the law of unintendend consequences rears its unsightly mug once again and the three miscreants with criminal charges hanging over their heads get away with their crimes because of his intransigence, our noble blogger gets to say "Oh, well" and continue on his merry way with a much larger audience than he had before. And the Canadian voter he's ostensibly trying to protect gets stuck with yet another multi-million dollar legal proceeding that ends up letting the prime suspects off the hook.

In other words, he's making a calculated gamble: one where he has much to gain if he succeeds, and nothing to lose if he fails. Much as I appreciate the sentiment, I'd prefer to simply nail the criminals here.

Babble off.