December 9, 2004

The decision by an Ontario judge to find a newspaper reporter in contempt of court for refusing to divulge the name of his source, and the subsequent award of legal costs of more than $31,000 to the plaintiff in the case, cry out for appeal.

A fundamental freedom is at stake, and all Canadians -- not just journalists and publishers -- need to know where they stand.

A free press is synonymous with a free society; one cannot exist without the other. Without a free flow of information in both directions between the citizenry and the media, democracy cannot flourish.

Journalists routinely communicate with people who have suffered an injustice and wish to make their cases known. Often, they won't reveal such injustices unless they know the journalists will protect their identities.

Journalists don't take this responsibility lightly. In extreme situations, telling the stories of victims of injustice can cost journalists their lives, and a number die each year around the world as a result.

In Canada, we have reached a level of civil behaviour where such revelations rarely involve the risk of death, although it does happen, and has happened in The Vancouver Sun's newsroom.

But our legal system has the power to inflict substantial punishment on journalists who refuse to name the people who came to them in confidence.

Journalists are aware of that power, and yet, like The Hamilton Spectator and its reporter, Ken Peters, they have been willing to take that risk. The Spectator plans to appeal the Ontario Superior Court ruling, and its decision has already been hailed as a necessary defence of freedom.

By forcing a reporter to divulge the name of a source, upon pain of major penalty, the courts are pressuring journalists to become agents of the courts themselves, betraying the trust of those who came to them out of desperation. This is intolerable.

The public needs to have confidence in the ability of the media to act independently, not as an arm of the state. If the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately finds otherwise, then the positions will be clear and the argument over the fundamental justice of our laws can begin.

To leave this damaging situation unchallenged would only do harm to our entire society.