Here comes the judge

Why has a justice of the peace been making major decisions -- including imposing a media ban -- in the case of the suspected terror plot?

I am no legal expert but it seems to me that the national and international media have been blithely writing about Brampton justice of the peace Keith D. Currie, if they mention him at all, without questioning why he is presiding? Nothing against his worship, but doesn't Brampton have Ontario Court and Superior Court judges who have been lawyers before being called to the bench and are steeped in criminal law? Or does the media ban effectively prevent discussion of that as well?

Thoughts? Opinions? Anybody?

Head Lines

One of my blogrollees (and a frequent commenter here) Mark Federman of What is the (Next) Message? had some interesting media observations on the media circus surrounding the terrorism round-up in a report today by the Star's Harold Levy.

"The authorities have instigated the type of fear and paranoia that has allowed the (U.S.) administration to do things that otherwise would not have been allowed constitutionally or legally."

Federman stressed that rather than accepting, repeating and amplifying the government's messages during the current "spectacle," the media "should be casting a critical light on what is being said or not being said, and on what we know and do not know."

Good idea: I hope that, by the weekend, we shall see very clear and comprehensive breakdowns of what is known.

For example: All this talk of beheading the prime minister? If I understand it correctly -- and I don't because it's getting too difficult to track everything -- it came out of the mouth of one of the suspect's lawyers who said the police threatened  to charge his client with the attempted crime. But no charges have been laid, and the lawyer was going off a ''summary'' the police provided.

(That is one very DUMB lawyer.)

While no charges have been laid, the "BEHEAD'' word has dominated the news.

Right now, it seems too many -- in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere -- are running around like chickens with their heads ... um, er ... and squawking without knowing all the facts.

Watch Dog

There has been one group, more than any other, that has been subjected to racial profiling by the media. Despite the fact that there are millions of these beings on city streets, whenever one goes wrong, journalists rush in to condemn the entire race. It's not only unfair, it's just plain wrong.

I am talking, of course of those dogs commonly known as pit bulls -- American Staffordshires, Staffordshire Bulls, crosses, etc. --  and the breed specific legislation enacted last year geared to make these dogs extinct.

There are many pitbull-type dogs in my life -- George and Freddy, Jack and Havoc, to name a few -- and all of them are sweet-tempered, well-behaved dogs loved to pieces by their responsible owners. I have such confidence in the breed that my little girl Syd, an American Eskimo, walks every afternoon with three of them -- and, in fact, she's out with them now.

Pits make great therapy dogs, tireless working dogs -- and can be heroes. But their vicious reputation -- media created, in my view -- makes them desirable ''accessories'' for the wrong people. The most common inner city dog, they are often the result of backyard breeders and kept in environments where they get inadequate care, nutrition and/or exercise. No matter what the dog, a bad situation would likely be the outcome.

This video expresses my feeling about the law. Get out your handkerchiefs and watch.

Today, a constitutional challenge to this cruel, unfair and stupid law has kicked off in the courts. Led by some friends of mine and argued by Clayton Ruby, it is being blogged by the ironically named Steve Barker.

I saw a news report on the trial at noon on Newsworld and it was dispassionate.

But I highly doubt that the case will get a fair shake in the MSM which always broadcast pitbull bites but rarely report on attacks by other breeds -- and believe me, there are plenty.

For example, last year, while waiting for Syd at the downtown Veterinarian Emergency Clinic, I saw a bloody pit, minus an ear, led in. It had been attacked by a Portuguese Water Spaniel. The pit never fought back.

I hope that the pit owners fight like crazy.

And, if the media don't play this right, I plan to bite the offenders.

Cop shopping

The Hamilton Spectator's Bill Dunphy, who has been battling a court order to give the police "all documents in hard copy or electronic form which constitute or form part of any record made or kept by him" of interviews with a local crime boss - going back four years, won.

By ''the skin of his teeth'' it seems.

The law offers us no special protections, or status, merely requires the police to try a few other things before they go reaching into our filing cabinets. They have to show a reasonable expectation that there's evidence in that filing cabinet, evidence of a real crime, but the definition of "evidence" is exceedingly broad. It need not be admissable evidence, it need merely be evidence that will assist in the investigation of the crime.

As Dunphy says

I guess what I find most annoying and alarming about this law is that it may cause some investigative journalists to regard interviews/conversations with criminal sources as "read once/destroy" events, and keep no files or records of those encounters.

That would make for some pretty poor investigative work.

Or some reporters with awesome memories.

Liable to get messy

Canada's blogosphere is at war over Warren Kinsella's $600,000 libel suit against Mark Bourrie. It's all over what the latter alleged about the former in connection with Adscam.

While I still believe that bloggers and journalists should be working together to change Canada's libel laws so that freedom of expression is not hampered, I can see merits to both sides of this blogfight.

Here's what Kinsella posted today:

A lot of bloggers were upset at the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner, the other day, when he wrote - disapprovingly - that a lot of bloggers think they can write whatever the heck they want, with impunity.

They can't. They have an obligation to tell the truth, just like they expect the people they write about to tell the truth. That's the great paradox about bloggers, I've found: they love exposing falsehoods and factual errors in the writings of others. But if someone criticizes them for doing likewise - well, get ready for plenty of bleating and braying about free speech.

What are reasonable limits? That depends. For me, when someone viciously attacks friends or family - or when someone falsely and maliciously calls another person a criminal, over and over and over, for instance - I don't let it lie. For others, it might be different. That's them, I guess. For the foreseeable future, I'm me, with my own beliefs.

Over here, Jay Currie tackles the subject:

I write a lot about freedom of speech. Part of that freedom is the right to fight bogus libel suits filed to stifle debate.

And there's a lively debate going on over at Angry's place:

Warren Kinsella is a lawyer, people. That means he can lose his means of feeding his four kids just on the rumour that he was responsible in some way for something illegal.

You mean Kinsella can't survive on his musical stylings alone?

This thing threatens to get out of hand - and neither one of these guys looks like he is going to back down. So I hereby volunteer to act as Judge Judy in this case. What do you boys say?