Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.
So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail. A shame really. I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.
The Gazette (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=12501486-0f3a-4787-9af4-70d0a7a5dde2&p=1)
:( There goes Canada's press freedom score.
Just do what the judge says and nobody needs to go to jail.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 05:25:47 PM
Just do what the judge says and nobody needs to go to jail.
Not good enough.
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2009, 05:07:15 PM
Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.
So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail. A shame really. I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.
The Gazette (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=12501486-0f3a-4787-9af4-70d0a7a5dde2&p=1)
The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 05:25:47 PM
Just do what the judge says and nobody needs to go to jail.
Indeed.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:49:46 PM
The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
Well, it is often how they get people to give them information...
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:49:46 PMThe confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
Police informants also get shielded from scrutiny, often for reasons of safety, though, and nobody cries foul about that. I suppose a judge could insist that the source be named to them and then placed in a sealed court record if it was sensitive information, but I wouldn't want to be the one asking for a violation of journalistic integrity.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 05:25:47 PM
Just do what the judge says and nobody needs to go to jail.
I hope you are kidding.
By comparison, a situation like this could not happen in Poland.
Here the secrecy of journalist's sources is protected with very limited exceptions, which concern knowledge of actual plans to commit certain very serious crimes (war crimes, treason, assault on the head of state, army sabotage, murder, terrorist attack and taking hostages).
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:49:46 PM
The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
I disagree. I believe it should be the same as for lawyers, you can't force a lawyer to reveal what his client said, unless there is imminent danger.
In this case, the informant will be persecuted by the government for releasing the info about that massive corruption scandal.
In the case of the FTQ (biggest union in Quebec) stories, some informant risk their lives for talking. The one who did it openly had to be under police protection for a while.
Without that protection, there would be no investigative journalism at all, wich would be a pity as there is already not enough of that.
EDIT: reading Marty's post, yeah, I think that would be wise here, do not protect the source if it's involved in a serious crime, but in this case, it's only so one of the companies can get away with its crime or overcharging the government, i.e. billing twice for the same work.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2009, 01:53:57 AM
By comparison, a situation like this could not happen in Poland.
Here the secrecy of journalist's sources is protected with very limited exceptions, which concern knowledge of actual plans to commit certain very serious crimes (war crimes, treason, assault on the head of state, army sabotage, murder, terrorist attack and taking hostages).
And Poland is a failed state, with perhaps the most backwards legal system in the world.
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2009, 05:07:15 PM
Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.
So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail. A shame really. I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.
The Gazette (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=12501486-0f3a-4787-9af4-70d0a7a5dde2&p=1)
How long can he be incarcerated for this?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2009, 05:07:15 PM
Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.
So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail. A shame really. I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.
The Gazette (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=12501486-0f3a-4787-9af4-70d0a7a5dde2&p=1)
How long can he be incarcerated for this?
Indefinitely. If the judge chooses, he can apply a penalty of life in prison, or even death.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 10:16:24 PM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:49:46 PM
The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
Well, it is often how they get people to give them information...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:49:46 PMThe confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected. Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.
Police informants also get shielded from scrutiny, often for reasons of safety, though, and nobody cries foul about that. I suppose a judge could insist that the source be named to them and then placed in a sealed court record if it was sensitive information, but I wouldn't want to be the one asking for a violation of journalistic integrity.
I absolutely disagree. I have never had a court refuse to order a police department or prosecutor's office to identify a confidential informant when information obtained by said informant was relied on or used to prosecute one of my clients.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2009, 05:07:15 PM
Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.
So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail. A shame really. I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.
The Gazette (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=12501486-0f3a-4787-9af4-70d0a7a5dde2&p=1)
How long can he be incarcerated for this?
Max is one year, IIRC. They expect the judge to give him a few months.
Quote from: Stonewall on April 10, 2009, 12:47:20 PM
I absolutely disagree. I have never had a court refuse to order a police department or prosecutor's office to identify a confidential informant when information obtained by said informant was relied on or used to prosecute one of my clients.
but it was for a criminal matter, not a civil one. And it was probably really necessary to know that witness name to properly defend your client. In this case, the name of the informant who first revealed the dubious cases of financing for the Liberal Party isn't relevant to the defense of the company getting squeezed by the gov to get back its money, well our money.
Quote from: viper37 on April 10, 2009, 02:01:19 PM
but it was for a criminal matter, not a civil one. And it was probably really necessary to know that witness name to properly defend your client. In this case, the name of the informant who first revealed the dubious cases of financing for the Liberal Party isn't relevant to the defense of the company getting squeezed by the gov to get back its money, well our money.
Yes, it is a case of apples and oranges, but to be fair to Stoney, he isn't the one who brought it up. His contention is perfectly reasonable and I accept it without hesitation.
The Leblanc case is, as you note, completely different, at least as I understand it The informant is not providing any information being used in the prosecution. The sole reason the informant's name or position is important is that the defense is claiming, rather dubiously, that the informant constitutes "the government" as far as the statute of limitations is concerned.
Personally, I wonder if a compromise is not possible here; the informant agrees to allow Leblanc to reveal his/her position to the court, and the court seals the record unless the judge rules that the defendant's claim is valid.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 03:18:25 PM
Personally, I wonder if a compromise is not possible here; the informant agrees to allow Leblanc to reveal his/her position to the court, and the court seals the record unless the judge rules that the defendant's claim is valid.
That's actually where I was trying to go with that, nearly word for word. Thought I had edited it in, guess I never got around to it.