Comment 75717

By response (anonymous) | Posted April 04, 2012 at 19:45:46 in reply to Comment 75706

Most judicial or quasi-judicial processes are public. Once the charges are laid the thing is open for anyone to inquire about. That's the way it should be. There is confidentiality around evidence and there are good reasons for parties not to talk to the press since it can feed back into the process - in a way harmful potentially to BOTH sides. But what is a gag order going to do? And what's the next step? Maybe the Spec shouldn't be allowed to report independently on a complaint because there's a threat people will read it the wrong way. Maybe we should just ban the media since they cause so much trouble.

Let's be clear: there is no evidence this bias exists and is actually harmful to councillors. Terry Whitehead was found guilty of defamation and got re-elected handily. There is no reason to think that council is any more likely to be the brunt of defamatory action than citizens are at the hands of council, as we have seen in the past. This is an INSANE amendment. It's only saving grace is that it is so laughably amateurish that it stands no chance of becoming law, or at least not for long. Its only effect will be to cement the ineptness of municipal councillors in public opinion and drive up apathy. These people are demonstrating that they have no capacity to run a democratic body.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools