At the moment, SDA is recieving about 2,000 hits an hour – about 15 times
normal traffic for this time of day. But look at Captain Ed’s stats:
My logs show that the vast majority of my hits are from Canadian sources, including media and government servers (there are few on normal days). I suspect Ed’s site is showing similar demographics. That means that a lot of Canadians are becoming aware of the information.
That raises difficult poltiical optics for a government considering prosecution of bloggers or news aggregators. How does one prosecute individual citizens for sending readers to the same information that politicians and media have been recieving via blackberry (elitist hypocrisy) – information that is deeply damaging to the governing party – without the appearance of abuse of power to protect your own political interests?
The traffic is causing some loading problems here and at Captain Quarters, who is anticipating more information – and another traffic surge – later today. Our host (this blog is also hosted in the US) is “clearing the decks” to smooth server problems. I’ll second his recommendation of Hosting Matters as a blog host par excellence.
update – Welcome, MIchelle Malkin and Wizbang (as well as Instapundit readers who have been surfing in for the past couple of days).
As I wrote on Kevin’s site – this is Canada’s “Watergate”, writ large – but in this case the blogosphere is playing the role of both “Deep Throat” and the Washington Post, and in the case of Canadian sites – doing so with the threat of legal action over our heads. Kudos too, to CTV News for naming Captain’s Quarters on their broadcast last night. It is no small assist to have the nation’s leading news broadcaster pushing the envelope along side us – especially NealeNews.com, who is going to need all the backup we can give him.
update 2 Colby weighs in and suggests now is the time for American bloggers to pour on the heat. I’ll exerpt the juicy bit, but it’s a good idea to read the whole thing for context.
Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test, any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a “rational connection” to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn’t work in practice–say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot–it can’t meet Oakes. With due respect to the ban, which I consider myself to have observed herein, it would actively help free the hands of Canadian webloggers and reporters if our foreign cousins were to be aggressive about “publishing” the substance of the Brault testimony outside the reach of Canadian law.
If this situation was going to continue I can offer mirror space if your Hosting firm wants to load balance, but if it’s a short term spike, it will probably end before it’s set up.
I maintain that they cannot and will not prosecute. It has become too large and there are too many people involved.
The Liberal Party is hiding behind these Three Stooges, and is pretending that neither their government nor their Party, had anything to do with the whole Adscam scenario. Nonsense. It can be clearly shown that it was the Liberal Party that benefited. The Liberals are desperate to break this link between the Guys who Carried out the Work, and their own Party That Required the Work.
But, these guys will fight back against the Liberals…unless..they are bought off..
The publication ban – Liberals are using this ban to hide their own involvement.
They are going to try any and all legal means to shut down this inquiry and if not, to hide the proceedings.
You should keep a Weekly Public Log Book – How the Liberals are attempting to shut down the Inquiry.
So far – there’ve been two attempts to take out Gomery.
There’s been the utter astonishment of all the key figures who know/saw/did nothing. Chretien’s contempt for the court and his refusal to provide details. There’s been Martin’s Boy Scout innocence.
Then, there was the governmental ‘criminal’ investigation of these three – to divert causality to these three, rather than the Liberal party.
Now- the publication ban.
Then, they have moved into the court, to cross-examine the witnesses.
And the latest – trying to get the RCMP to investigate whether the Liberal Party was a Victim (Hah!!) of ‘fraudulent activities’.
Incredible.
Does your site being hosted in the US keep you safe from the Canadian information police?
CBC spins into action.
The federal LIBERAL PARTY has asked the RCMP to investigate whether the party was a
VICTIM of fraud in relation to the federal sponsorship scandal.
“Does your site being hosted in the US keep you safe from the Canadian information police?”
No. By virtue of the fact that the content was posted to the U.S. site from my computer here in Canada, the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts (so says my lawyer friend).
CBC spins into action.
Well, the CBC is practically wholly owned by the Liberal Party now. It’s disgusting how openly they shill for the Libs these days, and it’s high f’ing time the CP, NDP and Bloc get together to come up with a strategy to ‘rescue’ the CBC and give it back to the PEOPLE of Canada.
And another thing, at the last minute I decided not to post under my normal name because frankly I don’t want to run the risk of being hauled off to prison by the Canadian thought police for talking about the Gomery commission. What a joke. We sit around and talk about the state of American press freedom when we can only dream of one day having a truly free press ourselves.
Adscam, Canada, Censorship and the Gomery Enquiry.
This isn’t a story that’s had much play on this side of the Atlantic but as it’s about (probably) to cause a Candian election and if so, highly likely to bring down the Liberal minority govt. of Paul Martin, perhaps
Traffic overload — what does that imply?
The traffic over the last two days has been tremendous, and has implications about the spread of information and the pointlessness of the publication ban.
Sean/Kate – well, at least they can’t shut the site down.
check out the domain figures for captain’s quarters….
7% coming from a gc.ca domain… he’s up to more than 164k visits TODAY…
http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=stats&site=s16captainsquarters&report=21
everyone in govt is reading captain’s quarters… this is huge!!!!
on a side note, josh marshall if looking for the real guckert, as well as the proof “real soon now” about a crime involving valerie plame!
By imposing the ban on publication of the goings on at the inquirey Justice Gomery has all but ensured that the truth will now come out.
I have to wonder whether he did this KNOWING it would cause the traditional press to dig deeper into this long drawn out affair so as to defend itself against accusations of being asleep at the switch while this all occured. Why didn’t they know and report about this long ago?
It’s so sad but not surprising to know that Canada has been governed through the selective application or denial of grants and subsidies from the taxpayers purse through schemes such as Adscam.
Thank God for bloggers! Great work folks.
Cabby Mike
Town of Paradise,
Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
What you see with the CBC is what you get when a media outlet “belongs to the people.” It’s called state-owned media, and it’s wrong. The CBC should be shut down.
Why is there no state-owned newspaper in Canada? Because it’s patently obvious that a state-owned newspaper is a violation of democratic principles. The same applies to radio and television, but when these were new technologies it was not so obvious that they were like newspapers in that respect, so it was politically possible to have state-owned radio (and later television). Now that we know better, it’s time to correct the mistake.
I had no idea that the Canadians had “thought police.” Hey for more information that you probably don’t know about go to
http://acepilots.com/unscam/ and see what your Power Corp. has been up to. You really have some very devious people in Canada, you should be careful it looks as though 1984 is coming for you and you’ll be behind concertina wire soon. Does the Government there make you take Soma for breakfast?
There’s nothing like putting a ban on something to heat up interest in it…
Linking to the Captain Banned in Canada
Captain’s Quarters, through its network of correspondants (some on the Gomery commission in Canada call them spies…), has pierced a publication ban on the testimony of three witnesses whose right to their own fair trials would be compromised by publi…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=1&u=/cpress/20050404/ca_pr_on_na/sponsorship_inquiry
It’s all over Yahoo now so the Cap’n is off the hook. Captains Quarters can just point to this Yahoo AP story and say it was available in an open source so what’s the difference?
For Americans posting this information, be careful.. Ottawa may send undercover agents to bore you to death…
Ron:
Back in the 80s when all the Yuppies fell in love with saving the whales and recycling, a whole lot of stoopidity was countenanced, including ‘language laws’ so yes, we got ‘thought police’ and ‘language police’ in Quebec, while we were bending over double to be accommodating. Now we have to dump all that stuff and get back to basics and if Quebec doesn’t like it–well they can SOD OFF!
Ah, the blogosphere, where the uninformed get their knickers in a twist on a daily basis.
Everybody who’s been jumping up and down today about the allegedly supine CBC should ask themselves one pretty easy question: in which country are you more likely to encounter no-holds-barred media criticism of the government, Canada or the US?
(To our American friends: yes, in this country the media can still criticize the government without being accused of treason. Amazing, eh? So keep your sanctimony about freedom of speech to yourselves.)
Hwerb is probably Warren Kinsella by the way he talks.
So Herb, who’s threatening jailtime over this? hmmmm…
CBC = socialist soma
Canada’s Liberals Deep in Corruption (sound familiar?)
This really stinks badly! Here’s brief time-line:
Gomery commission commissioned to probe Liberal corruption
Publication ban issued
Blogs: Silenced! Charged!
Captain’s Quarters (one of my favorite blogs) does an extensive write-up. CQ is down rig…
Herb,
As a Detroiter who knows the capital is in Ottawa and watches CBC on a regular basis I don’t see where Peter Mansbridge delivers so much more criticism of the Canadian government than Peter Jennings does of the US government.
You are now transmuting the straw man that Democrats are being called “unpatriotic” or “treasonous” to include the press. I assume you are talking about the MSM and not Michael Moore, who is unpatriotic.
BTW where are you getting your info on the scandal?
Capt. Joe, I don’t know whether to be flattered or insulted, but I can assure you that I am not the self-promoting Mr. K.
As for who’s threatening jail time: not the CBC, last time I looked. They report, you decide.
“To our American friends: yes, in this country the media can still criticize the government without being accused of treason. Amazing, eh? So keep your sanctimony about freedom of speech to yourselves.”
Who/what do you reference with this “accused of treason” comment, herbie?
Also, seems there’s a lot of nervous Canadian bloggers worried about going in slam for having the nerve to criticize the liberal party in your government.
Your point (aside from the one on your head) again was?
Will Blogs Bring Down Canada’s Government?
The Liberal Party of Canada has a problem. Apparently the party apparatus has been looting Canada’s treasury to support its electioneering for almost a decade, funneling money through dummy government contractors. Under the claim that they must protect…
Kenny and Idler: Oh, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage….the usual suspects. But if you’ll agree with me that they’re dolts who are better ignored, then we can move on.
Idler, I was hoping by your name that you were one of the clever folks who used to hang out at the Idler magazine/pub on Davenport Rd., but apparently not, if you actually think anyone has to be afraid of going to jail for criticizing the Liberals. I don’t see Stephen Harper or Gilles Duceppe quaking in their boots, do you?
I don’t see Stephen Harper or Gilles Duceppe quaking in their boots, do you?
Are you kidding Herb, There not allowed to say a word, along with MSM and the bloggers. You don’t call that dictatorship?
Oh… I get it…. it’s only you raving moonbats that are allowed to talk.
For your info, they have far greater freedoms south of the border then we do here. Probably because they have a democracy…what a concept.
Does anybody else notice how much like a banana republic Canada has become? Corrupt one-party misrule, censorship, thought police enforcing speech codes and — to divert attention from national shortcomings — a steady drumbeat of propaganda about how much more virtuous Canadians are than the crude, vulgar neighbor to the south. Sound a little like Cuba?
Re the CBC
The CBC doesn’t really support the Liberals – their hearts are truly with the NDP, but they figurethe Libs are the best that they’ll get for now.
To our American friends – imagine if PBS got to sell advertising AND received a huge federal subsidy, and used that money to acquire the rights to all the best NFL games and the Olympics etc. And then hired the entire staff of Air America. Welcome to the CBC.
Herb:
Being criticized for what you say, even being called a traitor by some overexcitable types, is not the same as having your right to free speech removed. Do you understand the difference? You, like so many today, seem to think the the right to free speech means the right to say whatever you want without being criticized, or, God forbid, called names.
Down here in benighted cowboyland, we are facing the question whether our campaign finance “reform” laws will allow our Federal Election Commission to target bloggers who link to campaign sites on their websites. This is precisely what is happening in your country right now.
And save the tired condescension to the blogosphere, reducing it to a forum for the “uninformed. If that’s all you think goes on there, you just show your own ignorance.
The Sticky Politicker AdScam Index
This will remain the top post for about a day or so. It links to all my posts on the AdScam scandal. Canadian Scams And Blog Bans Canadians Tune Out Scandal Welcoming CQ And Look Up Alliance Readers More On…
“As for who’s threatening jail time: not the CBC, last time I looked. They report, you decide.”
Isn’t the current point is that they aren’t reporting?
Gaahh!
Isn’t the current point that they aren’t reporting?
Cursed electronic editing!
Rob,
You don’t seem to have much of a capacity for making distinctions. They can say whatever they want about Martin. They can say he’s the worst prime minister since R.B. Bennett if they want. They can say he’s an ex-Stalinist thug. (Oh wait, that’s Duceppe.) They just can’t breach the publication ban.
We can argue about whether the ban was correctly imposed, or whether publication bans are a good thing in general. (I’m against them, except for the statutory ones in the Criminal Code and the YCJA — you do approve of those, I hope…?).
What I’m against, and what I’m doing my best to dispel here, is the silly and uninformed idea that the publication ban itself is some sort of nefarious plot by the Liberals. It was requested by Brault; it was imposed by Gomery. Neither of them are Martin toadies. Rule number one, as always, is: get your freakin’ facts straight.
Freetotem: if the only way you can make your point is by calling someone a “moonbat,” it says more about you than me. However, as a courtesy, I will pretend you didn’t argue like a five-year-old and address your point.
As I said above, the publication ban is a red herring here. It exists by operation of Canadian law. Courts impose dozens of publication bans every single day in criminal matters and nobody ever complains about it — not even the right-wingers — because they know that pub. bans serve a purpose in the criminal law: they preserve the accused’s right to a fair trial, and that’s a good thing, because it helps us to know that when we’ve locked someone up, we’ve given them a fair chance to exonerate themselves. Again, the courts have often gone too far in imposing publication bans, and when they do, there’s always a huge hue and cry (the Homolka plea bargain, the Airbus case; you’re familiar with those, I’m sure). We’ve got lots of freedom of speech here; we complain more than anybody in the world, and our politicians have the scars to prove it.
Here’s what I believe; Chretien ran a sleazy — and maybe, probably, worse — government and the sponsorship scandal was the sleaziest part of it. Martin has tried to walk a balancing act for a year because he wants to distance himself from the scandal (which he wasn’t part of) but he can’t shanghai his own party in the process. (Warren Kinsella keeps accusing him of doing exactly that.) The recent events have given him the opportunity he needs to finally pull off the gloves against Chretien, as I posted here last night. Today’s events have confirmed that view.
The real issue is the scandal itself, not the publication ban. You guys are all stuck in the forest, bumping into trees.
Sorry, I just realized it was Rob who threw around the moonbat term. My apologies, freetotem.
For the dimwits here who can’t tell the difference:
It was an independent judge who ordered a publication ban, not the government. I have no doubt the government argued in favor of the ban, but it was not their decision.
Like most things, that I can understand the simpleminded here can not comprehend, what we have in this case is a judge who had to balance off competing rights: The rights of the accused to a fair trial (if charges are layed) vs. the rights of the public to obtain information. The judge decided the rights of the potentially accused should come first. Of course, it is easy to disagree with the decision of the judge, but a complicated decision like that being made by an independent judge is hardly the stuff of a ‘banana republic’.
Regarding the CBC, anybody who thinks it is a mouthpiece for the federal government should give it a listen sometime. It is an excellent independent news service. Far superior to pretty much anything in the U.S, yet alone the laughable Fox News.
For any Americans with a superiority complex here, I would simply ask this: where is your independent inquiry into the Halliburton/Bechtel scandals regarding the Iraqi war overspending. Oh wait, there is none, and none of the braindead Bush supporters seem to mind at all.
It isnt the liberal government that issued the temporary publication ban, it was Justice Gomery, the judge responsible for finding out who was responsible for this scandal. He didn’t issue it to protect the liberals, but to ensure that any information released by a select few of those he was inquiring would not be released to the public (i stress – temporarily) as so not to taint a future jury pool that may be selected to try those responsible. It’s a little something known as a fair trial. The information will be made public, officially, when it is properly compiled and charges are laid. We don’t have “thought police” up here, our university profesors aren’t taken from their classes for expressing a view that may differ from our government’s, and the CBC is no more an official mouthpiece for our government than the FOX network is for yours (which, unfortunately, doesnt say much about either).
Herb, you missed the point.
This was played out to be a PUBLIC inquiry then pulled back. This is different from a criminal prosecution. Due to the publication ban it has now given the libranos an excuse to call in the RCMP and claim they were violated thus becoming the victom.
This is a classic librano tactic and if you believe martin is innocent fine, but the complete organization has been corrupted and is not salvagable and must be replaced.
Herb:
If you’ll check my post, I didn’t call you or anyone else any names. I asked you whether you could distinguish between the right to free speech and the right to speak free of criticism or name calling. The reason I asked that question was because your original post admonished us Yanks to keep our freedom of speech concerns to ourselves because some call our nedia here “treasonous. From a later post, I surmise you mean the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. So let me see if I get your rationale argument straight: no U.S. citizen should express an unfavorable opinion about the state of the free press in Canada because Ann Coulter and Michael Savage have extreme opinions about our own press? If so, then I still ask the question you never answered: can you tell the difference private citizens criticizing the press, however shrilly, and the government making it illegal?
You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between someone asking you a rationale question and namecalling, either.
Herb,
Who are you trying to kid regarding press freedom in the US? Yourself? Other Canadians? Europeans? Who? The New York Times regularly, and with gusto criticizes the govt of the US. The three big networks have something like 20 times the audience of Fox News and I think that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between their positions on say, to choose a random topic, the war in Iraq and that of the CBC, or even Le Monde. You are the one who seems ill-informed here.
As for your point about publication bans, do you really think that the ban is the issue that has everybody fired up? Don’t you think that it is far more reasonable to assume that it is the corruption, scandal on scandal, that is driving the numbers? Talk about missing the forest while bumping into the trees? And the left says us right wingers have no sense of irony.
OK, Herb, saw your later retraction, so I also retract my crack about your conflating namecalling and criticsm. I still ask the one about conflating criticism of free speech with government restriction of free speech.
Haliburton! Ha, so you guys are just like our liberals. They yell “Haliburton” every time they get put on the defensive. Used to be “Enron!” The reason we respond to these ‘taunts’ with “Moonbat”, is that there is no substance behind slogan charges like “Haliburton”, only paranoid suspicion on the part of the accuser. So Moonbat or Barking Moonbat, seems about right in this case.
Adam T:
The inquiries into Halliburton overcharging showed overcharging on fuel costs by a subcontractor, which netted no additional profits to Halliburton. But perhaps that is not the result you wanted, therefore the inquiry was no doubt illegitimate? Because you and Michael Moore know what’s really going on, right? Those of us who disagree with you are “braindead.” Those of us who aren’t evil, that is. But it isn’t brain dead to continue to promulgate childish conspiracy theories.
CBC may be “independent” of direct government control, but do you think it is objective and unbiased?
If a Canadian falls in the woods and there’s no American around to blame, does he exist ?
Hey, this American “cuz” is glad to hear the Canadian “hits” are soaring….just wait till more get FOX NEWS….then watch the numbers fly.
The Truth shall set you free.
It’s very easy to say there was no scandal regarding Haliburton/Bechtel because there was no inquiry.
There were very serious questions regarding the no bid contracts and a huge amount of allegations regarding overcharging (far more than just the one incident you referenced).
Here in Canada, Paul Martin could have done the same thing as George Bush and the Republicans in Congress; refused to hold an investigation and proclaimed he was ‘clean’ because nothing was found. Of course, if nobody looks, you are bound to look clean.
BTW, the latest evidence shows Michael Moore was correct when he said that Saudis were allowed out of the U.S before the no flying restrictions were lifted, so, at a minimum he is far more honest than your Liar in Chief. However, I am well aware that American Conservatives never let the facts get in the way of an argument, so I’m sure none of that will matter to you.
Of course, when it comes to scandals involving a person you support, you don’t care about the scandals. Shows how ethical you really are.
Freetotem,
CBC television certainly has journalists who dislike the Conservative Party (Neil MacDonald and a couple others), but it isn’t exactly friendly to the Liberals either. They recently did an investigation into the criminal charges filed against a former deputy minister of Indian Affairs and asked the Minister a number of very tough questions. Nor are they sycophants to Liberal supported institutions: Terrence McKenna did a very tough piece on the U.N oil for food scandal.
I would defy anybody who says CBC Radio isn’t evenhanded. The 6 PM major news is always critical of the government. Anthony Germaine’s program, The House, is similarily equally critical of the Liberals.
Oh good lord… CBC? The same CBC that has been virtually silent on the Canadian Oil-For-Food connections, on Desmarais and Power Corporation’s ties to top Canadian government officials, yet finds time to produce “news magazine” programing (Fifth Estate) featuring the conspiracy theories about 9-11 and how the Joooooooooos and Bushitlerhalliburton shot down the towers?
Our national broadcaster is stacked with a board of Liberal donating patronage appointments. They throw us a bone once in a while, in the pretense of balance. The rest of it is unadulterated propoganda.
I don’t normally watch the 5th Estate, but I saw that program. The only points they had in reference to the “Joooooooooooooos” shooting down the towers, was to show that a lot of the people making the conspiracy theories:
1.weren’t very credible
2.had obvious ulterior motives
To suggest that the 5th Estate in any way promoted theories that suggested the “Joooooos” shot down the towers would be dishonest.
It is well known that Power Corp is a major player politically to both major parties (probably more to the Liberals, but they also had connections to the Mulroney government). I’m sure they could do more, but the fact that they haven’t done a program on exactly what you want them to hardly proves the CBC is whatever you claim they are.
Freetotem,
The posts are flying pretty quickly here, so this in response to yours at 7:01.
I have no objection to Americans criticizing our media, or anything else about our country. For one thing, nobody can beat Canadians when it comes to criticizing our government; for another thing, I damn well don’t want to give up my right to criticize the US government, so turnabout is only fair.
What I do object to is criticism that is wilfully blind to the facts (whether it comes from Canadians or Americans). So let’s parse out what’s been going on here with a view to getting clear on what the facts really are. (Don’t worry, I’m not going to break the law and get the host in trouble.)
1) We have a government scandal, that appears to be getting worse with every day of Gomery testimony.
2) We have a publication ban on a few days of that inquiry (which, as you may or may not know, has been going on for months already), but they happen to be the few days with (apparently) the most “explosive” testimony.
Some people — especially in the US, unfortunately, where this whole story is brand-new — have been putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, namely that the Martin government is engaged in some sort of nefarious cover-up to keep the odious facts from coming to light.
As Adam T has posted very articulately, the publication has nothing to do with the Martin government. It was imposed by an independent judge, with the aim of protecting the pending criminal trial of the current witness — with the aim, in other words, of ensuring that if he really is a bad guy, he won’t go scot-free just because the trial is hopelessly tainted by a maelstrom of prejudicial pretrial publicity.
Canadian law allows for this, in a range of circumstances. You may argue that that’s a bad thing, and I mostly agree. But it’s a completely distinct issue from the scandal itself, or how the media reports on it.
And that gets me back to your original question. Our media have actually been reporting on the scandal pretty damn well. It’s never been off the front pages since the day it broke. It has completely hamstrung the Martin government, and it probably would have led to Martin’s defeat last summer if the Conservatives hadn’t been so inept and unsavory themselves.
And that’s why I made my original crack about the US media — because our media here is always on the government’s case, day in and day out, and you and I both know that’s simply not true in the US these days. Somebody up the thread mentioned the NY Times. First of all, it’s not even accurate; Judith Miller was one of the biggest cheerleaders on the Iraq war. But secondly, it’s the exception that proves the rule; the NYT is big, rich and powerful, and it can get away with doing what it wants. The other independent, critical voices are fewer and farther between all the time, and subject to constant assaults on their patriotism, just because they won’t step into line behind the monolithic herd.
I love America and lived there for a long time, but I don’t recognize the America I loved in a country where you can shut up anyone who criticizes the government just by questioning their patriotism. Luckily, you can’t do that here, yet.
Adam T. is exactly right that anyone who isn’t up to speed on the supposed power and influence of the Demarais family in this country is someone who has been wilfully obtuse. For crying out loud, I’ve been hearing about it since about 1970, and it was mentioned in numerous news stories about the Chretien/Martin changeover. Mark Steyn is not exactly an investigative journalist in this regard (or any other, ha ha).
By the way, their connections are pretty good in the Conservative Party too (through the mulroney wing, which — don’t kid yourselves — is still pretty powerful). So don’t, y’know, get your hopes up or anything.