Last thoughts

Babble on.

Now that the publication ban on Jean Brault's testimony before the Gomery Commission has been partially lifted (ht:OC), I'll make one last comment on the 'free speech' controversy.

Read this from one of those who led the charge to defy the ban, Kate at SDA:

That the testimony that directly implicates those who face fraud trials is remaining under ban is a provision that I think is acceptable, and I will do my utmost to respect it, and ask my commentors to do the same.

Then read this from Justice Gomery:

"It is in the public interest that this evidence, with few exceptions be made available to the public," Judge Gomery said.

In making his decision, the Judge said he could not grant the ban on the testimony because it was in the greater interest of other parties to allow the information to come out.
...
He said at the time he imposed the ban, he did not know what Mr. Brault would say.

"I imposed the ban as a precaution to prevent a possible prejudice." (bold by Babbler)

Follow along with me for a moment, if you will: if even the fiercest opponents of the publication ban believe certain prejudicial portions of Brault's testimony should remain secret even now, and if Justice Gomery didn't know prior to the testimony which parts would be prejudicial, doesn't it follow that the decision to impose a temporary - can I say temporary again? - blackout was a sound one? It's one hell of a lot better a solution than having the entire incendiary testimony heard in camera, where none of us would know squat.

Remember, we don't make decisions in hindsight, and with the information he had at the time - that is to say, none about what Brault would say - Gomery made the most reasonable call he could.

Having seen him unfairly villified by both the left and the right of the political spectrum, I wonder how easy it will be to find a competent jurist willing to take on a commission of inquiry the next time we need one.

Babble off.