[Newsbot]

Title: Canada hits bottom on freedom-of-information ranking, new study finds
Category: Political
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2011-01-09 08:18:40
Canadian

[Curtman]

5 years of total B.S. Alberta can have him back now.

[DrCaleb]

What if we don't want him back?

This story is exactly why I believe there is a need for organizations like Wikileaks.

[BartSimpson]

Canada is not a free-speech state anymore.

Merely referencing passages from the Bible on this site could lead to legal costs for Trevor (that said, please do not do so!!!) and the potential for the CHRC to try to persecute someone for such a post.

Anyone who wants to see the decision can see it by searching:

$1:

OWENS V. SASKATCHEWAN (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)

QB02511
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2002
Number of Pages: 11

2002 SKQB 506
Q.B.G. A.D. 2001
No. 1497 J.C. S.

[Curtman]

I see they've updated the story since I submitted it here.

$1:

The Harper Conservatives first came to power in 2006 on an explicit promise to reform the Access to Information Act dramatically but have largely failed to deliver after five years in power.

At least three government departments are currently under investigation for alleged political interference in the release of documents, which has led to the resignation of a ministerial aid.

The office of Treasury Board President Stockwell Day, who is responsible for administering the Act, did not respond to a request for comment.

Only about 16 per cent of the 35,000 requests filed last year resulted in the full disclosure of information, compared with 40 per cent a decade ago, she noted.

And delays in the release of records continue to grow, with just 56 per cent of requests completed in the legislated 30-day period last year, compared with almost 70 per cent at the start of the decade.

[SprCForr]

I'd like to see a general breakdown of what the requests were after.

After all, a decade ago we weren't up to our eyeballs in SE Asia were we?

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Canada is not a free-speech state anymore.

Merely referencing passages from the Bible on this site could lead to legal costs for Trevor (that said, please do not do so!!!) and the potential for the CHRC to try to persecute someone for such a post.

Anyone who wants to see the decision can see it by searching:

$1:

OWENS V. SASKATCHEWAN (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)

QB02511
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2002
Number of Pages: 11

2002 SKQB 506
Q.B.G. A.D. 2001
No. 1497 J.C. S.

[Thanos]

The good news for Canadians though is that we rank last in the number of patriots who like to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrannical elected representatives.

How's your day going Bart? Did you get a chance to water your liberty tree today?

[sandorski]

Probably because the US cheated and handed over stuff to Wikileaks!!

[Public_Domain]

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

How's your day going Bart? Did you get a chance to water your liberty tree today?

The day's not over.

[Zipperfish]

Yes, Harper's Conservaties have certainly failed on this account. But I find the courts guilty as well. There never used to be this cavalier use of sweeping publications bans on a so many trials as there is today. And the media contributes as well--it would seem the art of investigative journalism is moribund. If they had done their job better, there would be no need of Wikileaks.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, Harper's Conservaties have certainly failed on this account. But I find the courts guilty as well. There never used to be this cavalier use of sweeping publications bans on a so many trials as there is today. And the media contributes as well--it would seem the art of investigative journalism is moribund. If they had done their job better, there would be no need of Wikileaks.

If there is an increase use of publication bans, it may be a counter-response to the increasing speed and reach of news on the internet.

The way I see it, the court's first duty is to the integrity of the judicial system and the fairness of the trial, not to the curiosity and lust for gossip of the general public. If you're referring to such cases as the publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, the just for the female defendant's case did lift that ban after the verdict was decided.

Yes, the people have a right to know, but the defendant has a right to a fair trial. The former can be put on hold and satisfied later, but a jury pool can be forever tainted if too much info gets out too fast and so the latter cannot.

[Zipperfish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If there is an increase use of publication bans, it may be a counter-response to the increasing speed and reach of news on the internet.

The way I see it, the court's first duty is to the integrity of the judicial system and the fairness of the trial, not to the curiosity and lust for gossip of the general public. If you're referring to such cases as the publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, the just for the female defendant's case did lift that ban after the verdict was decided.

Yes, the people have a right to know, but the defendant has a right to a fair trial. The former can be put on hold and satisfied later, but a jury pool can be forever tainted if too much info gets out too fast and so the latter cannot.

I was thinking more of the BC Rail corruption scandal, actually. This was a relatively big deal in BC, but a long publication ban pretty much ensured that the Liberals stayed in power in BC, even if they were in fact involved in corruption.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If there is an increase use of publication bans, it may be a counter-response to the increasing speed and reach of news on the internet.

The way I see it, the court's first duty is to the integrity of the judicial system and the fairness of the trial, not to the curiosity and lust for gossip of the general public. If you're referring to such cases as the publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, the just for the female defendant's case did lift that ban after the verdict was decided.

Yes, the people have a right to know, but the defendant has a right to a fair trial. The former can be put on hold and satisfied later, but a jury pool can be forever tainted if too much info gets out too fast and so the latter cannot.

I was thinking more of the BC Rail corruption scandal, actually. This was a relatively big deal in BC, but a long publication ban pretty much ensured that the Liberals stayed in power in BC, even if they were in fact involved in corruption.

Ah. Well that certainly does sound like a bit more of an abuse, as it deals with elected officials, information about whom the people definitely have a vested interest in.