Is a Link Publication?
The expression "publication ban" as it is used in this decision, should be taken to have the meaning those words have been given in subsection 486(4.9) of the Criminal Code, which states that "no person shall publish in any way (?) any evidence taken, information given or submissions made at a hearing", in this case, a hearing of the Commission. In my interpretation of this disposition, "broadcast" includes a posting on the Internet.Which begs the question as to whether a link to a US website on which material is published is, itself, a violation of the ban.
There is no question that a direct quotation from what purports to be the testimony at the hearing would be a violation of the ban. However, to take a non-internet example, if the New York Times published the information a Canadian media outlet could, in my view, publish that fact. (If only to say "tut, tut".)
similarly, it appears that assorted Canadian media lawyers have determined that it is acceptable to publish the name of the main blog reporting this material. Captain's Quarters is, apparently, enjoying an upsurge in traffic.
I am rather skeptical that a ban on publication would extend to a link to such a publication...but you'll note I am not linking. Links are a legally problematic area and one where caution is the better part of valor. Plus, ten seconds with Google and any Canadian will be able to decide for himself if the evidence before Mr. Justice Gomery is sufficient to bring down a government.
In my view it is. If only because it re-enforces the essential corruption of the prior Liberal regime of which many of the current Cabinet were members.
If Martin did not know he was derelict in his duty as a Cabinet Minister.