When media is stifled, to whom can citizens turn?

Klingon Hamlet

Irish Times article:

Use of justice system’s most draconian sanctions against wholly innocent man raises serious questions, writes JOHN WATERS

THREE WEEKS ago, an Irishman who spent a year in an Irish prison was released on appeal by the Supreme Court.

At the core of the dispute which led to his imprisonment was the Judicial Separation Act, 1989, which he alleged is being wrongly applied by family law courts. He claims that custom and practice has developed contrary to both the spirit and letter of the legislation, as well as the intentions of the Oireachtas, with the effect of providing separation on demand.

His was not an academic argument. His wife had applied to court for a separation order and arising from this application he had received a summons.

Studying the legislation, he came to the conclusion that, if he entered an appearance, he would ipso facto be asking the court to make a decision concerning his marriage. Since he did not want to end his marriage, he decided that the best option was to decline to make an appearance. He believed that, as long as he remained open to reconciliation, the law did not permit the court to interfere in his marriage on his wife’s unilateral demand.

Several times he asked the court to provide proof of its jurisdiction, but the court did not respond. In July 2009 he was arrested, brought before a judge and jailed for contempt.

This case has many disquieting aspects. One, for example, centres on a habeas corpus application by this man in late July 2009, held after the court had been cleared. A habeas corpus hearing held in secret appears, on the face of it, to be a contradiction in terms.

By ordering this man’s release, the Supreme Court has seemed to confirm that he was unjustly imprisoned. Indeed, since his appeal has been upheld (although no written judgment has been published) it is reasonable to infer that the Supreme Court has agreed, at least broadly, with his interpretation of the law in the case before it. The implications of this are staggering. It means, of course, that a massive injustice has been perpetrated.

All this raises very serious questions about the manner in which one of the justice system’s most draconian sanctions came to be used against a wholly innocent man. But perhaps even more worrying questions relate to the role, or non-role, of the media.

In September 2009, I attempted to publish an account of this disturbing case, but that column was spiked on legal advice. Newspapers, of course, are obliged to obey the law and need to protect themselves from legal jeopardy. But the press is supposed to be the “fourth estate”, the ultimate bulwark in a complex system of protections intended to shield the fragile corpus of democratic freedoms.

When the media opts out of a particular context on the basis that the law does not permit it to do its job, where do citizens go for protection in the event of error or abuse? Are we journalists simply to shrug our shoulders in the face of injustice and get on with filling space?

What have we to say to the public – that the law is the law and that’s the end of it? What when Justice nods off, when the law becomes an ass?

If the media cannot or will not raise these questions, who will? How do we propose to protect our democracy if such questions are suppressed? And what does this leave as the point of journalism, other than as a branch of showbiz?

Last week I was again prevented, on legal advice obtained by the editors of this newspaper, from writing about another deeply disturbing case in which the child of an Irish mother was forcibly returned to England, likely to the fate of forced adoption, following hearings in the High Court and Supreme Court. This case has the gravest imaginable implications for some of the most basic human freedoms, but the public has been permitted to know almost nothing about it because of a law intended for the protection of families and children.

In the neighbouring jurisdiction of England and Wales, which imposes similar reporting restrictions on matters pertaining to family law proceedings, a former senior family court judge has repeatedly described these circumstances as “indefensible”.

Delivering the 2010 Hershman-Levy Memorial Lecture in Birmingham last month, Lord Justice Munby, now sitting on the court of appeal, identified a distinction between family law matters which are the business of nobody beyond the immediate protagonists, and the growing phenomenon of state agencies “seeking to intrude into family life and very frequently seeking to remove children from their families”.

Where the state is pursuing such drastic powers as are implied by care and placement orders, he said, “it might be thought that the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling.

“I have previously said in public that, viewed from this perspective, our present system is indefensible. I do not shrink from repeating that.”

Is Mr Waters focusing on the In Camera rule? I only have a vague understanding of it. Far as I've heard there are many journalists who want to discuss legal matters such as these but fear retribution/incarceration for contempt of court.

Why can't there be say an anonymous discussion of legal matters? That way people's identities are protected, but the public get a bit more of an insight into what happens in these crazy situations...

everyday taxi

We "think" we live in a free society. Truth is we dont.

Overheal

Your marital law is a massive clusterf@#k. That is all.

Manic Moran

In the US, in theory at least, if the government gets too out of control that's why we all have guns.

NTM

Drumpot

everyday taxi wrote: »

We "think" we live in a free society. Truth is we dont.

You are only as free as the depth of your pockets . .

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the US, in theory at least, if the government gets too out of control that's why we all have guns.

NTM

It's one thing to be armed to the teeth, it's quite another to have the courage and conviction to actually stand up and use them. The U.S. government has been out of control for a long time and the use of electronic ballots just proves that. Anyone who's ever heard of Senator Chuck Hagel and his run for office back in 1996 and 2002 knows what I mean. The idea that the U.S. is still a functioning democracy is a sick joke.

Sorry for the wiki link but it just goes to prove my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Business_career

Overheal

Hagel had a tradition of wearing costumes to work on Halloween, usually masquerading as colleagues or other notable political figures. He has arrived at work dressed as Joe Biden, John McCain, Colin Powell, and Pat Roberts in past years.[13]

Ah HA!

You don't think his pre-senate career had something to do with his success in getting votes?

After leaving government employment, Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular, a mobile phone manufacturer that made him a multi-millionaire. While working with Vanguard, he served as president and chief executive officer of the United Service Organizations and the Private Sector Council, as deputy director and chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit, and on the board of directors or advisory committee of the American Red Cross, the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, Bread for the World, and the Ripon Society. He also served as Chairman of the Agent Orange Settlement Fund and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

FYI: that kinda stuff looks good to Democratic voters.

You would also have to consider why another Republican is not in office.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Ah HA!

You don't think his pre-senate career had something to do with his success in getting votes?

FYI: that kinda stuff looks good to Democratic voters.

You would also have to consider why another Republican is not in office.

I don't understand. Are you saying the fact that he dressed for Halloween got him elected or that he was member of a number of committees?

Why don't you read about the guy he was up against in 1996? Ben Nelson was already governor when he ran for Senate and was favorite to win because of the massive amount of work he had already done for the state of Nebraska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson#Political_career

28064212

demonspawn wrote: »

It's one thing to be armed to the teeth, it's quite another to have the courage and conviction to actually stand up and use them. The U.S. government has been out of control for a long time and the use of electronic ballots just proves that. Anyone who's ever heard of Senator Chuck Hagel and his run for office back in 1996 and 2002 knows what I mean. The idea that the U.S. is still a functioning democracy is a sick joke.

Sorry for the wiki link but it just goes to prove my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Business_career

demonspawn wrote: »

Why don't you read about the guy he was up against in 1996? Ben Nelson was already governor when he ran for Senate and was favorite to win because of the massive amount of work he had already done for the state of Nebraska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson#Political_career

What's your point? A politician with a good track record got beaten by a populist with cross-party support, so it's not a functioning democracy? If anything, it shows a problem with democracy itself, not with America's version of it. And what does that have to do with electronic ballots?

The article in the OP seems to be a bit of a mess. Firstly, the media wasn't stifled, it restricted itself. Secondly it's irrelevant in the age of the internet and blogs. Thirdly, the media doesn't get to report whatever it wants, there are plenty of restrictions (for good reason)

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why can't there be say an anonymous discussion of legal matters? That way people's identities are protected, but the public get a bit more of an insight into what happens in these crazy situations...

Surely that's what the article you posted is? Also, discussion of legal matters open the newspaper to legal actions against them (similar to the way boards don't allow legal advice to be given, the publisher can be responsible for people acting on that advice)

Poly

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the US, in theory at least, if the government gets too out of control that's why we all have guns.

NTM

As Ab Lincoln and JFK found out to their cost.

Whats NTM mean btw?

demonspawn

Poly wrote: »

As Ab Lincoln and JFK found out to their cost.

Whats NTM mean btw?

Not to mention Martin Luther King Jr.

Edit: And Ronny Reagan
Edit 2: And Robert Kennedy =|