Robert Pickton and the Presumption of Innocence
January 25, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
Warren Kinsella has written an important (for lack of a better adjective) piece on the status of Robert Pickton’s right to a fair trial in the midst of a media firestorm:
Robert Pickton cannot receive a fair trial anywhere in Canada. It is possible, in fact, that he can’t receive a fair trial anywhere on the planet.
Three days into his murder trial in British Columbia - three days into an avalanche of sensationalist, over-the top media coverage — that much is indisputable. In a New Westminster, B.C. courtroom, the former pig farmer has lost the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of our democracy.
Hypocritical Bull Crap…….the very same Warren Kinsella would be going berserk if the press were banned from the trial and a gag order in place.
Any excuse to shoot his mouth off….as if Kinsella knows the first damned thing………..
Kinsella should read a little history and try and understand what presumption of innocence and fair trial are based upon.
I read this column this morning. I thought it was nonsense. Robert Pickton has an excellent defense team and, as far as I can tell, the Canadian media is being very nice (considering the evidence being presented) by trying to “temper” their coverage, asking viewers and readers for feedback on coverage, directing same to websites “for more information”, and of course always, always referring to Pickton as “accused”. Maybe things are different on U.S. channels that are starting to pick up the story, and it seems that some British papers are going to town on this story, but the Canadian media is (am I actually praising part of the MSM? gee, I am!) doing a pretty responsible job, given the job they have to do. Warren was way out to lunch on this one.
I await the next column from WK that demands a presumption of innocence for Meriam Bedard and Conrad Black. What if Bedard is essentially telling the truth? She apparently told lots of people that she was going to cross the border with her daughter (up to and including Kofi A), and she may actually be afraid of the people from the Liberal Party that are pi**ed off at her (ie the Corruptienites). What if Conrad Black is really innocent of accusations made by investors who may have tried similar schemes in the past? We do recall that Black also pi**ed off the Chretienites in the past…
I believe we should have bigger concerns about the potential innocence of Bedard and Black. If WK stands up for their right to be presumed innocent in the media, I will try not to be too surprised.