Author: Stephen Taylor

The publication ban on the testimony of Jean Brault may come to an end today and the full testimony will be posted here as soon as it is available (and as soon as I’m available to post it). Lawyers are currently arguing for and against the dissolution of the ban. When this information comes, Parliament could see the introduction of a non-confidence motion and we could see an election campaign very soon.

For now, let me bookend the testimony.

March 30th

GOMERY: Thank you very much. I think now that Mr. Brault is going to come into the room and in order to give the camera people an opportunity of taking a picture of him, which is going to be their last attempt to capture his image, I will withdraw for a minute or two and then we will proceed with his examination.

[CENSORED TESTIMONY]

April 4th

ROY : Alors, avant de reprendre le fil du témoignage de Monsieur Brault, vous avez devant vous ce matin une demande faite par le Parti libéral du Canada qui est représenté par Me Doug Mitchell aux fins de la présentation de la requête.

Cette requête a été transmise hier après-midi par le procureur du requérant qui m’avait informé plus tôt vendredi et samedi qu’il était de son intention de faire une demande devant vous ce matin…

Prior to the media blackout we see Judge Gomery anticipating the arrival of Jean Brault. After the Brault testimony we see the Liberal party scrambling to contain the fallout by requesting full standing at the inquiry.

Two days ago I wrote about “Snap elections, government turnover and the bankruptcy of the Liberal brand” where I mused:

“Now that we’ve all been given morsels of gossip from the Gomery inquiry, parliamentarians are speaking of confidence motions and snap election calls. However, is this merely the beginning of a radical shift on the Canadian political landscape? … Is the Liberal brand itself on the verge of electable bankruptcy? … Will the Liberal party become the new pariah of Canadian politics?”

The CBC reported this morning (Hat tip: Kate)that the Alberta Liberals are considering a name change to shake the association with the federal Liberal Party of Canada:

“[Alberta Liberal] Party leader Kevin Taft, who has been elected twice in the riding of Edmonton-Riverview, said it’s difficult enough to run under the Liberal banner in Alberta.

But if rumours emerging from the Gomery commission are true, it could “forever change the political landscape” in Canada, Taft told the Edmonton Journal.”

And it begins…

Just a thought…

Along the loopy lines of logic of this publication ban farce…

Since there is forbidden testimony that is available on the Internet could Internet Service Providers be liable for allowing Canadians to access this testimony? Are ISPs acting as accomplices to the violation of Judge Gomery’s order? (A similar argument is currently being debated before the courts concerning music downloads)

It would be quite simple for Rogers, Telus or Bell to add a few lines of code into their global settings to ban a certain IP address of a certain website (which cannot be named) to prevent Canadians from accessing this information. In fact, an order could come from on high from our government protectors to implement this decree across all servers providing internet access from dialups to University networks. Free speech at Universities? Only when it serves the government!

In fact, this practice is currently in use in China, Cuba and Iran. These countries filter certain internet websites to prevent their citizens from accessing certain information. For example, western media websites such as CNN.com and BBC News are unavailable to most Chinese internet users. I’m sure these countries would be happy to help our government figure out how to protect us from this awful thing called free speech.