Winds of Change has a great post on "Canada's Scandal: The Government vs. The Blogosphere." It's a primer on the politics in Canada. I do think the issue is more straight forward than that. It's Canada's scandal that the truth is subservient to politics and the ridiculous ban on publication of the testimony is an attempt to stifle free speech and contain the damage.

If the Gomery Commission wanted the testimony to be privileged, it should have been given in secret. The fact that it wasn't suggests that the the Gomery Commission did not anticipate the accused would implicate the Liberal party so thoroughly and convincingly. Because if they did have foreknowledge of the testimony they could have justified the secrecy under the same grounds as they gave for the publication ban, ostensibly to provide the defendants a fair trial.

The real issue isn't whether public testimony of the three men is self-incriminating and disclosure would be "fair" to them, but whether the Liberal Party should be the one who ought to be on trial. The ban is a cover for the Liberal Party hack media in Canada to be excused from publishing the details.

Unlike France, Canada doesn't have an independent Judiciary that can conduct an investigation free from the taint of politics and in the interest of justice. Unlike Jacques Chirac who will, undoubtedly, be tried when he leaves office, PM Chretien will never be tried for corruption, and the Liberal Party will never suffer investigation of their criminality. Pure Third World, huh?

Give the Liberals in Canada another ten years in power and like Zimbabwe, non-Liberal voters won't even be allowed to wait in line for health services.