National Post ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents

[a_majoor]

Well, here is why slinging mud isn't ever a good idea:

http://tonysviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/03/national-post-ordered-to-surrender.html

Saturday, March 1, 2008
National Post ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents

Thanks to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the RCMP will finally be able to conduct a full investigation of the Shawinigate affair.

On Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an earlier decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice, Mary Lou Benotto, that quashed a RCMP search warrant against the National Post and reporter, Andrew McIntosh. In 2001, Mr. McIntosh was sent a 1997 loan document from the Business Development Bank of Canada.

In 2004, the Shawinigate investigation by the RCMP was stalled because Ontario Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto quashed the search warrant and assistance order on the grounds it would break McIntosh's pledge to protect his source. The reson she gave was that it would violate the media's "constitutionally entrenched right'' to gather and disseminate information.

"In this case, the eroding of the ability of the press to perform its role in society cannot be outweighed by the Crown's investigation,'' Benotto ruled.

The three-judge Appeals Court panel disagreed.

Enforcing the law must at times outweigh the need to protect an anonymous source, Ontario's highest court said Friday as it ordered the National Post to surrender documents at the heart of conflict-of-interest allegations against former prime minister Jean Chretien.
Paper ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents (CTV link)

Posted by Tony at 10:06 PM   

Now I can see lots of people lining up for payback....................... op:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You know, as much as I dislike Mr Chretien- we now have every living former PM of Canada, save Turner, Campbell and Clark facing some sort of judicial/ethical review.  This, IMHO is beginning to get well and truly out of hand.

Is it worth destroying the public trust in the institute of Parliament in order for each Political Party to get payback, each and every time a Gov't changes?

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

You know, as much as I dislike Mr Chretien- we now have every living former PM of Canada, save Turner, Campbell and Clark facing some sort of judicial/ethical review.  This, IMHO is beginning to get well and truly out of hand.

Is it worth destroying the public trust in the institute of Parliament in order for each Political Party to get payback, each and every time a Gov't changes?

Alot of the public trust is gone.  People are more concerned about getting there double doubles, watching the hockey game (while eating wings / drinking beer), or American idol , and gossip about all the celebrities.  The majority simply don't care what politicians do.  For the public its the old adage of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

 

[JBG]

You know, as much as I dislike Mr Chretien- we now have every living former PM of Canada, save Turner, Campbell and Clark facing some sort of judicial/ethical review.  This, IMHO is beginning to get well and truly out of hand.

Is it worth destroying the public trust in the institute of Parliament in order for each Political Party to get payback, each and every time a Gov't changes?

Remember, Harper didn't start it. Is tradition a suicide pact?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Is it worth destroying the public trust in the institute of Parliament in order for each Political Party to get payback, each and every time a Gov't changes?

If what we get when it's all rebuilt is better for you, me and Canada... Yer darn tootin' it is!

Another angle of this story is judicial activism (the hyper vigilant in me says it points to collusion between appointed judges and the government) but I've read the constitution and nowhere, I mean NOWHERE is it ever even implied that a reporter is entitled to protect any source or that a source is entitled to any protection.