"His daughter had the courage to come forward, so a Toronto father says the courts shouldn't be keeping secrets either. CBC Toronto can't tell you his name or his daughter's name."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/father-teacher-publication-ban-1.4210730
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/father-teacher-publication-ban-1.4210730
Publication bans... I remember the first time I'd heard that term and felt slight bile rising. "Why on Earth," I thought, "in an age of free press and right-to-know would there be any reason to not say someone's name?" I suppose I'd accepted it easier when I've heard of similar things in the past, like when someone asks the medium presenting the story to not use the subject's name (in more-or-less the way I'd expressed it here). It was also fairly palatable when they'd explained that because of on-going litigation, or to protect the identities of minors (again, explaining it outright) they've elected to not use names, or that judicial authorities have asked/ordered them to not use them.
And yes, this is the crux of a publication ban, summing all that into two "neat" words.
The term sounds evil, though, like something that will never happen. In the time I've accustomed myself to Canadian-style news reporting, I have heard of "lifting" of publication bans in the course of developing events, so I had been able to get a fuller story.
I suppose I like names. I've always liked names.
Still, as I'd said, initially, it sounded like something that would never come off. They'll publication ban something for ages.
The question of "who does it protect," though, is valid, or at least a good question to ask. A publication ban could, as the article brings up, censor information upon that a "right-to-know" society could act civilly. As much as it means to protect the children, I can see (especially as outraged as I've seen some Canadians become when the north politeness gloves come off) someone going after this guy just because.
I mean, the last few major trials I've heard of in Canadian news, there's always been an anecdote of an aggrieved family member staring wordlessly viciously at the person under trial because "I want him/her to look at me and see the anger in my eyes." I say this, aware of the callousness it might exude, but what kind of good is that going to do, really? Are your angry eyes going to change that person? I don't think so. Civilly dealing with the situation, forgiveness, and letting God work His way, to me, is how one deals with it.
I prepare conversations and scenarios constantly in my head so I have a readiness for the things I think about. I imagine myself doing just that.
And yes, this is the crux of a publication ban, summing all that into two "neat" words.
The term sounds evil, though, like something that will never happen. In the time I've accustomed myself to Canadian-style news reporting, I have heard of "lifting" of publication bans in the course of developing events, so I had been able to get a fuller story.
I suppose I like names. I've always liked names.
Still, as I'd said, initially, it sounded like something that would never come off. They'll publication ban something for ages.
The question of "who does it protect," though, is valid, or at least a good question to ask. A publication ban could, as the article brings up, censor information upon that a "right-to-know" society could act civilly. As much as it means to protect the children, I can see (especially as outraged as I've seen some Canadians become when the north politeness gloves come off) someone going after this guy just because.
I mean, the last few major trials I've heard of in Canadian news, there's always been an anecdote of an aggrieved family member staring wordlessly viciously at the person under trial because "I want him/her to look at me and see the anger in my eyes." I say this, aware of the callousness it might exude, but what kind of good is that going to do, really? Are your angry eyes going to change that person? I don't think so. Civilly dealing with the situation, forgiveness, and letting God work His way, to me, is how one deals with it.
I prepare conversations and scenarios constantly in my head so I have a readiness for the things I think about. I imagine myself doing just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment