Gomery Enquiry - April Fools Joke?

[Reverend Blair]

Seems to me that during the course of a trial - many trials - the jury will hear a good deal of evidence, pro and con the defendant.

It seems to me I've heard a lot about about people getting off on technicalities. Why would we create a technicality so somebody else can get off?

My point is this: a publication ban keeps a miscellany of fact and opinion from members of the public, with various points of view.

The publication ban ends with the trial in this case. It is a postponement, not a keeping from. It's up to us to remember. We kind of suck at that.

Surely, the various members of this forum have contacts who know the testimony offered by Monsieur Brault today.

Not me. I use Sgt. Schultz fron Hogan's Heroes as my role model.

Let's get the information, make it generally available, and see if it really does as much harm as Judge Gomery supposes it might.

Let's get the site shut down and Andem in trouble with the law. Maybe that isn't the best idea.

Not voting NDP. Damn sure I am not voting Conservative. Can't vote for BQ out here on the wet coast. Thinking that some other political entity can arise, without the dumb-dumb walls of our current political apparatus.

CAP, Green, Cosmopolitan. You have options.

 

[cub1c]

RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

http://www.westernblockparty.com

HAHA, seperatists from all over Canada!!!
That's great!

 

[cub1c]

The publication ban ends with the trial in this case. It is a postponement, not a keeping from. It's up to us to remember. We kind of suck at that.

Exactly, every journalists today knows that TIMING is almost as important as the news itself!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

http://www.westernblockparty.com

HAHA, seperatists from all over Canada!!!
That's great!

Nice suit Dougie...

 

[cub1c]

Aren't you proud? :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

Hey, don't laugh...they have an almost 1% approval rating in Alberta. ;-)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

1%...really...does that allow them to get free sandwiches at their conventions? :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Nope. To get free sandwiches you have to not be a bozo...it's in the UN declaration on not beng a bozo. If they were in the US, which refuses to adhere to the tenets of international law, they would have a shot. As long as they are in Canada we can ship them off to either the Hague or Brussels for demanding free sandwiches though...where they go depends on the type of sandwich they order.

;-)

 

[mrmom2]

Just another gang of thieves trying to get their hand in the Canadian taxpayers cookie jar.

Why do they call it a public inquiry when next to nothing is public? They don't want to tell us whats going on in fear of getting lynched.Dithers that ass...e was in town today photo op at the new university,That other prick Harper was here yesterday doing the same thing .Why I don't know they didn't do anything to help us get it. :evil:

 

[crit13]

I bet Chretien was involved.

I would LOVE to see that guy behind bars.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

I bet Chretien had his ass covered six ways from Sunday. I'm not saying he was or wasn't involved, but I doubt he'll be implicated either way. Besides, Chretien's involvement almost certainly precludes Martin's involvement because they don't like or trust one another.

 

[vinny d'luxe]

Does anyone really need the public enquiry conclude its work? Do we need a "final" report from Judge Gomery to know what is what and who is whom? Everything we need to know, we know. All the real "punishment" this country can dish-out to those who've been lapping in the trough have been "punished". Any meaningful political fallout has already occured.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

Yes, we need the enquiry to finish it's work You all wanted it, now ya got it. You don't drop something like this halfway through.

I question whether we needed a public inquiry at all. The whole thing has been a political circus since the beginning. They should have held the whole thing in-camera for release when it concluded, or just given it to the RCMP as a criminal investigation and released all the facts from that investigation when it was finished.

As it is, Gomery is hurting the operation of the House of Commons, taking up valuable time when real issues should be discussed. Cheap political grandstanding has been replacing real opposition throughout this.

It is also screwing up the election timing, with the Conservatives jockeying for an election when something damaging comes out, and the Liberals trying to force the Conservatives to force and election before the information comes out.

Meanwhile, it's a non-issue...at least it should be. We have a different PM than we had when the scandal actually occurred, the Liberals being corrupt is not exactly headline news, and we have no reason to think that the Conservatives would be any less corrupt...in fact it would be incredibly naive to think the Conservatives would be any less corrupt given their track record.

 

[vinny d'luxe]

You miss my point, Reverend. I started by asking if we should accept a publication ban. After hearing from others, I said that juries are well-suited to sort things out during a trial - even if the jurors have heard a lot about the "case" prior to the trial. Change of venue applications are the way in which to handle prejudice against an accused if a local jury pool is tainted to the point where prejudice can reasonably be anticipated.
Publication bans are an offence to an open, democratic and pluralistic society.

Sure, let Gomery finish the enquiry and make his report. The outcome, however, will be anti-climactic to say the least. But, let him finish it as a public enquiry taking place in the public domain, with full coverage from the media. And let him do it without any consideration of the possible political impact on the country, or any party, and without concerning himself with the impact on the accused. I reiterate, with regard to the latter point, we have long-established procedures to protect the rights of the accused.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery Enquiry - Apr

If a jury can be shown to be the slightest bit tainted...and if you look at the comments on this board you'll see that many have already convicted not just those charged, but people who have not been charged...then the people charged will walk away free. So what's more important? A political TV spectacle, or seeing justice done?

There is no advantage to the information being covered by the publication ban coming out immediately, and the ban will end with the trial so we will still get the information.

Gomery, for his part, is an old crony of Mulroney. Trying to say that his actions are politically motivated in favour of the Liberals doesn't wash. If he was playing political games instead of following legal practices he would refuse the ban.

 

[vinny d'luxe]

I don't care whether or not Gomery has a political agenda. He is presiding over a forum where he hasn't got the ability to control an agenda anyway. And as far as those people walking away "free", well, yes, sure, in the same way that OJ walked away free. Justice has been done for all intents and purposes, and all that remains now is a not very interesting winding-up.

When you have a public enquiry doing its work in front of the public - all of its work - the public gets to participate in the whole process, not just part of it. The give and take within the hearing room, the give and take in the media, the give and take in public discourse, such as in this forum, has an impact that transcends the ordinary, conventional and usual way of doing business. The jury pool expands to include all interested parties, and as with most juries, most of the time, common sense will prevail. Common sense in this case will play itself out in the body politic, over time.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't care whether or not Gomery has a political agenda.

Others here do though. Many don't seem to understand the reality of the situation. Shamus is writing poems saying that the Liberals are the ones in charge of the publication ban. He's got a big Conservative logo attached to it. I bet he didn't know that Gomery was connected to Mulroney.

He is presiding over a forum where he hasn't got the ability to control an agenda anyway.

Actually he is the one in charge of controlling the agenda.

And as far as those people walking away "free", well, yes, sure, in the same way that OJ walked away free.

Nope. OJ had a trial and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. In this case we'd never find out if there was enough evidence because the trial would never get that far. A change of venue isn't able to deal with something that has been on national TV. What venue do you change to, Europe?

Justice has been done for all intents and purposes, and all that remains now is a not very interesting winding-up.

All of the testimony hasn't been heard, so justice hasn't been done. The rumour is that the most damaging testimony will come out near the end of Gomery.

When you have a public enquiry doing its work in front of the public - all of its work - the public gets to participate in the whole process, not just part of it.

The public doesn't participate, the public is a passive spectator. We can watch on TV, we may even be able to get into the gallery if we pull a few strings. That is no more particpation than watching a hockey game is the same as being a hockey player.

We don't get to see the pages of evidence that Judge Gomery has read, we don't have time to fully immerse ourselves in the inquiry.

The give and take within the hearing room, the give and take in the media, the give and take in public discourse, such as in this forum, has an impact that transcends the ordinary, conventional and usual way of doing business.

No it doesn't. The people in the hearing room come from a small, insular world. The press are a bridge between that world and the world the rest of us live in.

The jury pool expands to include all interested parties, and as with most juries, most of the time, common sense will prevail. Common sense in this case will play itself out in the body politic, over time.

How will it play itself out? The opposition will quit asking questions within a couple weeks of Gomery wrapping up. We'll all forget about it. The political elite in the Liberal and Conservative parties will return to taking their instruction from corporate backers. There will be another scandal along in a bit and another Gomery; maybe valid, maybe driven by backroom politics the way this one is.

Any criminal evidence will become hazy and questionable and the guilty will walk. We'll move on to the next one.

All public inquiries should be held in-camera...no press at all, any leaks resulting in contempt charges...then released in total after the inquiry and any resulting criminal cases are done.

There should be no questions allowed about inquiries in the House until such a release happens.

We would still get all of the information. There would be no chance of tainting a criminal case. It would stop cheap political hacks from asking questions they know damned well can't be answered, then presenting the lack of an answer as tampering.

It would remove the inquiries from the political spectrum until all of the evidence was available.

 

[vinny d'luxe]

Your picking nits, Reverend. You have convinced yourself that things must, should and will be contained within the rigid confines of practice and procedure. The cat is out of the bag already, scratching up the furniture and curtains and refusing to eat its usual dollop of canned food. This enquiry is "over", notwithstanding a few more outrages might surface. I know it has to come to a formal conclusion, but, in the public mind, the findings will merely confirm what is already known. Indeed, political people are already making plans based on what is known, questions of timing, spin and counterpsin, being their major concerns.

 

[cub1c]

Guys, you should not forget the main goal of Gomery:
To give a report at the end with mesures so that things like that doesn't happen anymore in the future.

This is important. What if the solution is to give less freedom to the federal body? It may be not said like that, but it could mean that.

The question is, will there be any political support to change things?
I'm not sure.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Guys, you should not forget the main goal of Gomery:
To give a report at the end with mesures so that things like that doesn't happen anymore in the future.

Actually I'm not...that's why I want these things held in-camera in the future. If you read the commentary, especially in the commentary in the conservative press, there is little or no distinction being made between the Sponsorship Program and the resulting scandal. The program itself, whether you agreed with it or not, was a legitimate program with a specific goal. The program was not the scandal.

The question is, will there be any political support to change things?
I'm not sure.

Not from the Liberals and, given their voting against parliamentary reform at their convention, not from the Conservatives. Those two parties like things just the way they are because they derive a lot of power from them. We'll be given some band-aids that they both already know how to evade. We might go through a few years of the ruling party being more careful.

Your picking nits, Reverend.

No, I'm stating facts and drawing conclusions from them.

You have convinced yourself that things must, should and will be contained within the rigid confines of practice and procedure.

That, my friend, is the way the legal system works. It also how the procedural part of politics works. Without that framework we will never know what really went on.

This enquiry is "over", notwithstanding a few more outrages might surface. I know it has to come to a formal conclusion, but, in the public mind, the findings will merely confirm what is already known.

It sounds to me like you have a political motive for wanting this thing to end right now. I have a similar motive for a similar reason...I think the NDP can benefit greatly from this. That is not sufficient reason to let this just disappear though. Gomery should drive change, and that change will not happen if the resulting criminal cases are tossed out and the results of the enquiry are lost in political spin.

Indeed, political people are already making plans based on what is known, questions of timing, spin and counterpsin, being their major concerns.

Yes they are. That's their job. My argument from the very beginning has been that Gomery has both been tainted by politics and has tainted politics. That has diminished both what Gomery was supposed to accomplish and the political discourse in this country.

Instead of discussing policy and its ramifications we are reduced to the level of scandal-mongering tabloids waiting for a starlet's nipple to pop out her dress. That's not politics or governance. It's bullshit, and it's harmful as hell to the country. It needs to stop.