Category Archives: politics

Wishing for peace in the Balkans

Forensics Experts Work On Exhuming And Identifying Srebrenica Victims

Remains at a mass grave in the former Yugoslavia.

For the last six months, I’ve been researching and learning much about the Balkans. I’ve had the pleasure to meet some amazing people who have kindly shared their pleasant memories and bravely shared their painful ones. They say those who don’t know the past are condemned to repeat it. One thing that I have learned is that people from the former Yugoslavia are keenly aware of their history and, to paraphrase the words of a tearful Serbian woman watching the news in the 1990s, nationalism keeps rearing its ugly head and history keeps repeating itself.

One thing I have learned is that the majority of people in the region want peace. They are still struggling to rebuild 20 years after the civil war ended. Corruption and a grey economy stifle the rebuilding effort, and in Bosnia, a clunky three-headed political system ensures partisan bickering and posturing takes up more energy and thought than progress.

There are a couple of movies coming out about the wars in the region. I haven’t seen them, but I hope that they don’t inflame a fragile peace. For a generation, the people of Yugoslavia lived together in a country where their ethnic differences were either ignored or celebrated — not the justification for cold-blooded killing.

It is impossible to forget what happened to your family. It is important, for your sake, to know the past, but, for the sake of your children, it’s equally important to forgive, and avoid the tragedies of the past.

There’s a lesson to be learned from B.C.’s water deal with Nestlé

Hand reaching for a Nestle Pure Life water bottle in refrigerator door.

Nestlé is the 27th largest company in the world and made $14 billion in profits last year – as well generating tons of plastic waste.

The British Columbia government looks like it’s run by a bunch of hayseeds because they’re letting Nestlé pump groundwater for a pittance.

When you consider that Saskatchewan charges 20 times more, Quebec 31 times more, and Nova really soaks the Swiss multinational by charging 62 times more than British Columbia, it makes the government in my home province look really shrewd compared to those bumpkins in British Columbia.

But, when you look at the price B.C. is charging, you realize that nobody is charging what water is worth. B.C.’s new Water Sustainability Act, which will come into effect in January, only calls for Nestlé to pay a mere $2.25 per million litres. (See link.)

B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak boasted how B.C. was charging Nestlé its “highest industrial rate” and wins the award for most fatuous remark by a politician. For pumping 265 million litres of water per year, Nestlé will pay the government $596.25. That’s not a typo. Let’s make a conservative estimate that Nestlé will charge 50 cents per litre (wholesale) for that water. That means this giant corporation is going to rake in $132.5 million for plundering B.C.’s groundwater resource.

By the way, British Columbia has a provincial debt of $64 billion. Nestlé, on the other hand, announced record profits of $14 billion in February.

Canadian politicians take note: we have the largest freshwater resource in the world and every province save Alberta has a significant debt problem. Make any company that wants to profit from this pay a much higher price, one that reflects the resale value of bottled water and takes into the account the environmental impact of putting water in millions of tiny plastic bottles.

In other words, make the slick bastards pay through the nose.

Honour Rehtaeh Parsons’ memory by publishing her name

Nova Scotia Attorney General Lena Metlege Diab

Nova Scotia Attorney General Lena Metlege Diab

Today would have been Rehtaeh Parsons’ 19th birthday, so I’m going to celebrate by breaking the publication ban again.

Despite overwhelming public support to publish her name without restriction, Nova Scotia’s Attorney General, Lena Metlege Diab has refused to apply a power available to her.

It’s in Section 6 of the Public Prosecutions Act, which allows the Attorney General to order that there will be no prosecution of people who publish Rehtaeh Parsons’ name in connection with the court case against two boys who took and distributed a degrading picture of her while she was vomiting out a window.

It’s a simple way around a statutory publication ban that a judge had no choice but to impose.

On two occasions, Metlege Diab has punted the decision to Martin Herschorn, the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has said in letters to Glen Canning and Nancy Rubin, a lawyer representing four media outlets that challenged to ban, that to use this power would be “unprecedented for this Service, and inappropriate in this context.”

When Herschorn uses the word “unprecedented” it implies that there has to have been a case like this in the past for them to be able to act, but that is not so. All that is required is the legal authority and it is there in black and white in Section 6 of the Public Prosecutions Act. Furthermore, it is not Herschorn’s power to exercise, it is Metlege Diab’s.

As for Herschorn’s repeated use of the word “inappropriate,” well, in the oft-quoted words of film character Inigo Montoya “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

It is perfectly appropriate. There is no better time to use this power than now. It is perfectly suited for this case and if another similar case came along, it should be used then, too.

Right now, there is a chill. The media are reluctant to use Rehtaeh Parsons’ name and important discussions are not happening because of this ban. Nova Scotia’s Liberal government is failing the public by refusing to act.

In announcing a decision that The Chronicle Herald and many others would not face prosecution, Metlege Diab would be applauded.

If she can’t see the wisdom in using this power, she should at least see the popularity and, like any good politician, she should follow the votes.

Note: There is a petition circulating. To sign it, click here. If you’d like to let Metlege Diab know your thoughts on this, please sign it. You can also send her a message on Twitter at @LenaDiabMLA or send her an e-mail at justmin@gov.ns.ca.

Sexting advocate claims injustice in Rehtaeh Parsons case – despite guilty pleas

A screen capture of a comment Parker Donham made on Facebook about the child pornography charges -- after the first of two guilty pleas.

A screen capture of a comment Parker Donham made on Facebook about the child pornography charges — after the first of two guilty pleas. On Monday, a second boy pleaded guilty to distributing the photo that was used to shame and bully Rehtaeh Parsons.

Sexting advocate Parker Donham says an injustice has been committed against the two boys who pleaded guilty in the Rehtaeh Parsons case and is using the publicity around the case to champion for changes to an “overly broad law.”

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? No, I’m not kidding you, it’s true. I might be guilty of putting a little spin on that lede, but it’s exactly what Parker does. If anyone tells you a journalist does not put spin on their copy, don’t believe them. Parker does and he takes spin to Spinal Tap levels.

Don’t take my word for it, go read Parker’s blog titled Moral Panic Makes Bad Law.

In promoting his blog on Facebook, Parker suggests that the court cases in which two boys pleaded guilty involved “a trumped up charge to appease media demands that the boys be punished.”

One might think Parker is just following the advice of the late great George Carlin to “question everything.” If you’re an adherent to that philosophy, you should also question Parker, especially because he is prone to making erroneous assumptions in addition to applying copious amounts of spin to his arguments.

Exhibit 1: He assumes there is no evidence to support sexual assault charges when the agreed statement of facts read in court suggest otherwise. He was not in court either day and seemingly is not aware of these agreed statements of fact. These facts might not convict, but there is other evidence available, and more could have been obtained by police if they simply did their job properly.

Exhibit 2: In his blog, Parker writes that child pornography law is a result of “moral panic” that is leading to “a flurry of child pornography charges against youngsters guilty only of entirely consensual sexting.”

When making that claim, Parker links to this post about a case in British Columbia.

On a more careful examination of the case Parker cites, we realize that while the sexting might have been consensual originally, the criminal charges arose from actions that took place after a relationship ended and could in no way be described as consensual.

For a more accurate description of that case read this. Parker didn’t link to that, or provide more details, because it doesn’t fit his narrative. He is constructing a paper dragon and the only valid argument he is making is that what happened in the Rehtaeh Parsons case does not fit the definition of child pornography that most of us have come to understand.

Of course it is not “child porn” according to that definition, but don’t get sidetracked by our contrarian crusader’s argument. Consider these key points instead:

  1. What the boys did fits the legal definition of child pornography as set down by Parliament. A judge has ruled thus on two occasions. For someone so concerned about the rule of law, Parker should give this more credence. If he doesn’t like these rulings, he should ask Parliament to change the name of the law. Remember, Parker has said what the boys did was “disgraceful and reprehensible.” Presumably, he also thinks it should be prohibited by law as he has said he would have even supported voyeurism charges under Section 162 of the Criminal Code. As best as I can tell, Parker’s only valid objection is the labelling of the crime. This is hardly something that supports an assertion that in “injustice” has been done.
  2. The facts known to police would support laying at least one charge of sexual assault, perhaps two, with a reasonable likelihood of conviction. If you don’t know what this evidence is, open your eyes and keep an open mind. “There are two sides to every story” is something we keep hearing in this case. The truth is somewhere in between the two sides — but not in the middle. That’s because some people simply don’t understand the laws concerning sexual consent in this country. This is the discussion we should be having. It is of monumental importance.
  3. Additionally, this information should have been used by police to elicit more evidence to support those charges, and perhaps others, but the police investigation was woefully inadequate and misdirected, according to Leah Parsons and Glen Canning. Their complaints have sufficient merit that it has prompted the province to hire Murray Segal, the former Deputy Attorney General and Chief Prosecutor of Ontario, to review the way the police and the Public Prosecution Service handled the case. Segal’s review is on hold, but will resume when these criminal proceedings conclude in January.
  4. Whatever legitimate concerns Parker might have about sexting being criminalized pale in comparison to the more pressing concerns this case is about: cyber-bullying, sexual consent, and suicide prevention. Furthermore, to bring them up in connection with this case and suggest that an injustice has been done against the boys is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen an intelligent person write.
  5. The police, prosecutors and judiciary in this province do not do anything to “appease an enraged public and media.” They do their job and when they fail, they can enrage the public and media which prompts them to actually do their job. That is why we have freedom of the press, to hold our public officials accountable. We don’t have freedom of the press to conscript them into lynch mobs and that is certainly not what happened here. If the police and Crown laid a charge to appease an “enraged press and public,” it makes no sense that they would lay a charge that would automatically invoke a publication ban when another law, voyeurism, was available to them. A more likely motive for the “child porn” charge is that there would be a statutory publication ban – not one that would leave a judge with some discretion. This creates a disconnect from the court proceedings to the handling of the case between November 2011 and April 2013 – the handling that will be under review. The media and public would most certainly have preferred a voyeurism charge so that Rehtaeh Parsons’ name could be published without restriction.

Sometimes, being a contrarian is a good thing. We need contrarians because they challenge us to think and question the zeitgeist. However, this is a cautionary tale about how being a knee-jerk contrarian can put you far out on a ledge — in an untenable position maintained only by stubbornness, not reason.

In a parting cheap shot at journalists who are doing their job and ensuring that public officials are held accountable, Parker writes in his Facebook teaser for the blog post: “This is not the Nova Scotia news media’s finest hour” and refers to some as “journocutors.”

Not our finest hour? Parker, none of us claims to be as perfect as you, but at least we are not creating a distraction from the more important discussions that actually pertain to this case.

If there is fault here, it is with you for creating this attention-seeking distraction. Most importantly, though, the fault lies with the public institutions that failed Rehtaeh Parsons, and not with the media and the public that is seeking justice.

Now, let’s get back to our more important discussions.

Second guilty plea in Rehtaeh Parsons case

A sexually degrading photograph of Rehtaeh Parsons was shared at her school as part of relentless cyber-bullying by classmates and even friends.

A sexually degrading photograph of Rehtaeh Parsons was shared at her school as part of relentless cyber-bullying perpetrated by classmates and even friends.

A second boy has pleaded guilty in the Rehtaeh Parsons case.

This time, the boy admitted to distributing the photo that was used to shame Rehtaeh Parsons. This boy, who is also in the picture, is giving the “thumbs-up” sign while standing behind Parsons as she leans out a window to puke.

In an agreed statement of facts read aloud in a Halifax courtroom, Crown Prosecutor Alex Smith says the boy was “having sex” with Parsons at the time, that she did not know the photograph was taken, and that she did not consent to it being taken.

Glen Canning, Parsons’ father, says this raises a vital question.

“They can go on about how Rehtaeh didn’t give consent to this photograph being taken yet for some reason she was able to give consent for sex? Rehtaeh was not in a position to give consent, not just to the photo, but to anything else going on that the photograph shows and that’s why our family is so angry and upset by this. This should have been a charge of sexual assault that’s exactly what it was. There’s no other way that anyone can describe that photo.”

Canning says he can’t imagine there being a case for sexual assault having more evidence than this – a photograph and a confession on social media – and yet there has never been a charge of sexual assault laid in connection to the events that occurred on Nov. 12, 2011 – before and after the photo was taken. The boy who took the photo pleaded guilty on Sept. 22 and was sentenced on Nov. 13. He was given a conditional discharge. That boy, and the boy who changed his plea to guilty today, can’t be named because their identities are protected by Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act. There is also a publication ban on the identity of Rehtaeh Parsons because she is the victim in a child pornography case. However, her parents and the Crown opposed that ban, and a judge has said that the ban does not actually protect her identity. This post respectfully disobeys the ban as it applies in this case because there is no public interest served in prosecuting people who violate the ban and a greater public good is served by mentioning her name in this and other important discussions.

No charges were laid while Rehtaeh was alive. After she died in April 2013, the police reopened the case and new information came to light. Four months later, charges of producing and distributing child pornography were laid against two of the four boys alleged to have sexually assaulted her.

“New information came forward after Rehtaeh died, but the RCMP told me there was nothing in that new evidence that told them something they didn’t already know,” Canning said.

Leah Parsons, Rehtaeh’s mom, said her daughter lost the very essence of who she was when that photo was taken and distributed around her school. One of the people who spread it around the school was a friend of Rehtaeh’s, Parsons said. Equally disturbing, the police did nothing to stop it.

“Originally, they said it was child pornography and that they were going to lay charges of sexual assault and child pornography,” Parsons said outside court today. “Within a month, that changed. The photo itself, I was told it was a community issue and not a police issue.”

And now, the person who took that photo and the person who started to spread it around the school to bully and shame Rehtaeh Parsons have both pleaded guilty to criminal charges arising from that.

Canning and Parsons hope their questions will be answered when Murray Segal reviews the way the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service handled this case. The Nova Scotia Justice department hired Segal, the former Deputy Attorney General and Chief Prosecutor of Ontario, but he has put his review on hold until the conclusion of the criminal matters before the court. Segal will resume his review after that.

The youth who pleaded guilty today will return to court Jan. 15, 2015 for sentencing. His lawyer, Brian Church, declined to speak to reporters after today’s hearing.

The simple solution to publication ban in Rehtaeh Parsons case

I appreciated the comments from the caller.
When I decided to break the publication ban, I did so despite the fact that some people would accuse me of doing it for publicity reasons. Anybody who thought — or still thinks — that I did this for publicity reasons didn’t think it through.
I am putting myself at risk of being charged with a criminal offence. There is no doubt in my mind that I am breaking the law. My only saving grace is that it is not in the public interest to prosecute me, just as it’s not in the public interest to prosecute the others who have violated the ban. In addition, the police would also have to charge Glen Canning and Leah Parsons, Rehtaeh’s parents, and that would be a public relations disaster.
If there was so much to be gained from this, why has no other media outlet or journalist in Canada broken the ban? For four months, the opportunity was there and no one took it.
More importantly, there is a simple solution to the publication ban. It doesn’t require Parliament to change this law, which is a good law. It will simply allow people to use Rehtaeh Parsons’ name without restrictions.
The solution, described in my post on Oct. 22, lies with our Attorney General and Justice Minister. Let your MLA know and, more importantly, let a member of Nova Scotia’s Liberal government know what you think about this case.

Time for Nova Scotia’s Attorney General to step up

Landry Herschorn copy

Director of Public Prosecutions Martin Herschorn (left) and former Justice Minister Ross Landry.

Last fall, Nova Scotia’s Liberal government coasted to an easy electoral victory and among their many promises was a commitment to spend $6 million during a three-year span to boost funding to sexual assault support centres and create a prevention strategy.

Seven months after taking power, Lena Metlege Diab, the Liberal government’s Justice Minister and Attorney General, had an opportunity to do something to prevent sexual assault and failed to do it.

Although there have been no charges of sexual assault in the Rehtaeh Parsons case, it has been alleged that sexual assault took place. The definition of sexual consent is integral to the case and there is a great opportunity to educate people about this.

In light of what happened to Rehtaeh Parsons, keeping her name in a public discussion about sexual consent and cyberbullying — and allowing the media to use her name without restriction — would serve a clear public benefit to women, men, girls, and boys.

As the Attorney General, Metlege Diab has the power to order the Public Prosecution Service to not prosecute any media that violate the publication ban in this case. It says so right in the Public Prosecutions Act.

Power and duties of Attorney General:

6 The Attorney General is the minister responsible for the prosecution service and is accountable to the Assembly for all prosecutions to which this Act applies and

(a) after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, may issue general instructions or guidelines in respect of all prosecutions, or a class of prosecutions, to the prosecution service … (and)

(b) after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, may issue instructions or guidelines in a particular prosecution …

So, given that Metlege Diab has the power, it is disappointing that she wouldn’t exercise it in the Rehtaeh Parsons case. Furthermore, it is odd that if she is the elected person who must answer to the Legislative Assembly, and ultimately the people of this province, that she would let a bureaucrat speak on her behalf. That’s what she did when she let Martin Herschorn, the Director of Public Prosecutions, respond to letters from Nancy Rubin, a lawyer representing the media, and Glen Canning, the father of Rehtaeh Parsons, in which they requested a pronouncement that violations of the publication ban would not be prosecuted.

In the letter, Herschorn said it was “unprecedented for this Service and inappropriate in this context” to issue the pronouncement.

Here’s the catch though, it’s not unprecedented. Michael Baker did it in 2003 to prevent a waste of resources prosecuting firearms registration offences because they would soon be made legal. As for it being inappropriate, with all due respect to Mr. Herschorn, he’s wrong. It is the right thing to do because protecting the identity of a girl who has died, and who became a household name when she committed suicide because the justice system failed her, is the prime example of doing too little, too late.

As if refusing to act wasn’t enough, Herschorn went one step further to seemingly create the perfect Catch-22. He said the Public Prosecution Service only gets involved in reviewing cases once a crime has been committed and once a charge is laid. Essentially, the only way for the Public Prosecution Service would offer an opinion on this matter would be for the media to take the risk of breaking the ban and hoping they wouldn’t be prosecuted. So far, no mainstream media have taken what is a minimal risk, but there have been exceptions.

Glen Canning has broken the ban, Leah Parsons has broken the ban, and I’ve broken the ban. So far, none of us have been charged. Come on in folks, the water’s fine.

Much is made of the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service being the first in Canada to be independent from political control. This is a good thing, but before you start the slow clap, let’s take a look back at why Nova Scotia did this back in 1990. It wasn’t some bold innovation. On the contrary, it was cod liver oil served up to the politicians by the Marshall Inquiry.

Two prominent members of John Buchanan’s Tory government – Billy Joe MacLean and Roland Thornhill — were deemed to have received preferential treatment by prosecutors during criminal investigations. The Marshall Inquiry said that, in both cases, the Attorney General of the day relied on misleading or poor reports from Deputy Attorney General Gordon Coles and recommended that the public prosecution service be largely independent of political control.

Nowadays, the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service touts itself as being an independent body and it seems proud, almost strident about that, but they act as if the Attorney General, who is answerable to the Legislature, the government and the people of this province, can’t tell them how to do their job.

She can, just has to do it in a public way and can’t give hush-hush orders to protect political cronies or friends. This limitation on the operational independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is spelled out on the department’s website.

The Attorney General can issue written instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions and these instructions are binding, but must be made public. The purpose of this is explained by the following excerpt:

This procedure preserves the ultimate prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General. This is a means of ensuring accountability to the electorate for the manner in which public prosecutions are conducted.

In this case, Metlege Diab would make a public pronouncement that would be well-received by the electorate, but so far, her inaction on this issue is as disappointing as the original reaction of her predecessor Ross Landry, the NDP Justice Minister who made this callous remark on April 9, 2013, two days after Rehtaeh Parsons was taken off life support:

“If the evidence isn’t in place, we can’t second-guess every investigation.”

Remember, this is a ban that Rehtaeh Parsons’ parents don’t want, an Ontario Crown Attorney prosecuting the case doesn’t want, and one which Judge Jamie Campbell said doesn’t serve any purpose in this case. So, while the learned judge was rightly applying the law, common sense and justice get short shrift.

As a result of this ban, organizers of two events in Ontario (one in Kingston, the other in Cornwall) have cancelled public speaking engagements for Glen Canning.

That’s the chill that has been created by this ban and it’s got to stop. This is a tremendous opportunity for Nova Scotia’s first female Attorney General to do the right thing.

One of the accused is due back in court for sentencing on Nov. 13 and the other is scheduled for a trial later in the month.

By then, let’s hope that Metlege Diab has given the media the green light to use Rehtaeh Parsons’ name again – without restrictions.

Don’t wait for legal reform — push for it

roderick-macdonald

Roderick Macdonald was a contrarian and innovator who shaped legal reform in Canada.

Most Canadians probably think legal reform is something best left to lawyers and politicians. Reflect on that for a few minutes and ask yourself if you want to leave it entirely up to them. Consider to whom they might be beholden and don’t leave it up to others to make the kind of country you want.

In the Internet age, there is greater opportunity to participate in democracy and participate in discussions. The Internet is  to us as the agora was to ancient Greece. It is an amazing medium, but some people are using it to great harm and our justice system doesn’t seem to be able to keep pace.

As Hilary Beaumont wrote in her excellent article in The Coast there are people using the Internet to commit crimes that police say are beyond the current scope of the law. In some cases that’s true, but in many cases police and prosecutors just need the mental dexterity to apply existing laws to new crimes that fit under their umbrella.

I’m a firm believer in democracy, despite its flaws, but there is a lack of accountability and transparency in our government and bureaucracy. There is also an overwhelming urge to dither instead acting clearly and decisively to do the right thing. You should never be afraid to do the right thing under the circumstances. If you’re afraid of future consequences, then you adjust your actions to mitigate or eliminate those.

After writing about the publication ban in the Rehtaeh Parsons case, someone contacted me and offered to help. It was great to hear a total stranger offer me words of encouragement and legal support if I needed it. He also shared with me some new inspiration: former McGill University law professor Roderick Macdonald.

In May, Macdonald gave what was perhaps his last interview at a symposium in Montreal, and a few of his comments are worthy of a valedictory address for a man who had a profound impact on legal reform in our country.

“Many, many people believe that the law is a one-way projection of authority from lawmakers or law-givers to citizens, who are merely passive respondents to what the commands of the people in authority are. The best way to achieve a harmonious and peaceful society is to recognize that people have within themselves the capacity to do what is appropriate under the circumstances, and that the law should be designed to facilitate their agency.”

Now that a growing number of people have broken the publication ban in the Rehtaeh Parsons case, Glen Canning has asked the Attorney General and the Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia to issue a pronouncement saying they will not prosecute. We wait, but hopefully they will make a decision before the next court appearance. Meanwhile, media outside Canada, including one of the world’s most respected newspapers — The Guardian — are covering it and using Rehtaeh’s name in their coverage.

Hopefully, they’re convinced the ban has been broken. If they’re not convinced, then keep doing your part to break it. It’s about nothing more than making sure public officials are held accountable for their actions — or inaction — and for this to be done with public scrutiny.

Radio interview about publication ban

Rick Howe had me on his show this afternoon. I agreed not to mention Rehtaeh Parsons’ name during the interview, but that is the case we are talking about.

If you’d like to listen, here’s a link.

Publication ban is pointless

Canning Parsons

Glen Canning (left) and Leah Parsons have fought to keep their daughter’s name alive.

One of the beauties of being a freelancer is that I don’t have to worry about consulting lawyers or publishers, I can just follow my gut and do what a journalist is supposed to do.

To paraphrase the Mr. Dooley character of American humorist Finley Peter Dunne: It’s the job of journalists to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”

Sometimes, you get the opportunity to do both and when those opportunities arise, you must seize them. Yesterday, more than any other day, it was important to use Rehtaeh Parsons’ name.

The guilty plea of one of the accused was validation for her and her family. Any journalist with a sense of public good would recognize that you’d need to link yesterday’s development back to April 2013, when the whole world knew her name and the eyes of the world were on Nova Scotia because of the failure of our justice system to lay any charges.

There was a clear purpose to my post and I’m not content to wait for politicians to change the law. I’m going to point out its flaws, why it needs to be amended, and why it should not apply in this case. I also consulted with Rehtaeh Parsons’ parents – Leah Parsons and Glen Canning — and got a blessing from both of them to break the ban.

Also, reading the judge’s decision from May gave me confidence that it was a pretty safe path if I chose my steps carefully. I was not flouting it just for the sake of flouting it. Former colleague Stephen Kimber, a professor of journalism at King’s College, suggested in a Facebook discussion that “there’s a danger when we start violating bans because we believe it’s wrong in one particular instance.”

“What if another reporter decides to name an alleged rape victim, or a child abuse victim because they think it’s justified. Do we get to decide when the law applies and when it doesn’t? And, given that everyone already knows who the victim is in this case, is it really necessary to break the ban to make the argument it is wrong here, or to write in a way that makes the connections for the reader without specifically naming the victim?”

In this case, I take to heart the comments made by Judge Jamie Campbell when he wrote in his decision: “It’s a ban that everyone wants, just not in this case.”

To see Judge Campbell’s decision, click here.

Clearly, it’s a good law, but it just doesn’t work in this instance. A judge, our director of public prosecutions, and our Attorney General had an opportunity to fix that, but none took the opportunities available to them for various reasons. You say that “everyone” knows her name, but I think that only those closely connected to the case would make the crucial connection if not for the efforts of the victim’s parents — Glen Canning and Leah Parsons — who have been breaking the ban.

I’m not claiming the right for me or any other journalist to decide when the law applies and when it doesn’t. But remember, both of Rehtaeh’s parents opposed the ban and the Crown fought it, too. Also, when the Crown reviews a complaint — if there is one — they will consider the intent of Parliament in drafting the law, the wishes of the parents, and whether the public interest is served in prosecuting.

Precisely the things that I considered before writing the post.