I feel a rant coming on…must…resist…
Further, even less productive editorializing...some might even say ranting:
[Judge] Webb made an order prohibiting the men from publishing anything about their trip.
A gag order? Even for unremunerated publication? That grates against my First Amendment sensibilities, but I guess that's a lawful order under Canadian law. I question whether it's wise social policy in this instance.
A second order requires them to publish an apology article, approved by Parks Canada, in Mountain Life Magazine in the next year.
I thought we were talking about protecting campsites for paddlers here.The BC Marine Trails had always known [and discussed] it could never have the ability to take political stands:
It always knew that government changes and that 'partnerships' it entered into with government [the whole initial idea was to try and persuade government to give some/any level of protection to the few precious campsites up the coastlines] or whatever would negate that ability.
With obviously no dog in this fight, but a more-than-passing-interest in freedom of expression, I'm curious if there are other groups who would take this fight to the appeals court?... a fundamental aspect of Canadian law, the charter's freedom of expression, was over-ruled by the judge in favour of government compelled expression - and compelled non-expression. That's an extremely interesting modification for a fairly limited trespass.
“All visitors to the West Coast Trail and/or Broken Group Islands must carry your valid National Park Entry Pass on your person whenever you are visiting these areas in the national park reserve.”
This implies that all sailboats anchoring in the park should have a pass. Is Parks going to charge those who don't?
Perhaps the law does not apply to the wealthy.