Skip to main content

Vice Media journalist Ben Makuch arrives at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, on May 23, 2018.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

The Supreme Court is weighing the need to give greater protection to all journalistic sources — and not just confidential ones — after hearing a case that pits the federal government against a reporter who interviewed an alleged Islamic State militant in 2014.

Vice Media Canada Inc. appeared in front of Canada’s top court on Wednesday in a bid to strike down a production order obtained by the RCMP in 2015. The judicial authorization called on journalist Ben Makuch to provide the police force with all documents related to his contacts with a man believed to be Calgary’s Farah Mohamed Shirdon.

“The problem with this order is that it is a fishing expedition. It is so broad that it covers all aspects of a six-month investigation by a journalist,” said Vice Media lawyer Philip Tunley. “It should be quashed for overbreadth alone.”

Story continues below advertisement

Vice Media is not arguing that Mr. Shirdon was a confidential source, given that Mr. Makuch wrote three stories on his interviews with the man known as Abu Usamah. Still, the media group said there will be a “chilling effect” if people involved in potentially illegal activities fear their comments to a reporter will be used against them in court.

“This case involves conscripting the media as, in fact, the investigative arm of the state,” Mr. Tunley said.

The CBC intervened in the case to argue that all sources need to be protected in Canada, and not just those who speak to reporters on the condition of anonymity. Parliament adopted the Journalistic Sources Protection Act last year, which aimed to shield confidential sources from police investigations.

“The law may unintentionally result in an over-reliance on confidentiality by creating a two-tier system that grants more protection to confidential sources than to non-confidential sources,” said CBC lawyer Sean Moreman.

Federal lawyer Croft Michaelson countered that the RCMP was fully within its rights to obtain a production order to have access to Vice Media’s material as part of its criminal investigation against Mr. Shirdon. The man was charged in absentia with six terrorism-related offences in 2015.

Mr. Michaelson said the media is not entitled to “additional procedural requirements” when a judge approves a production order against a news organization. He added journalists do not have special privacy rights that would go beyond the rights that Canadians enjoy in their bedrooms, for example.

“The newsroom should not be entitled to more protection than the most sensitive part of human society. We all have rights to privacy and there is always a balancing of interests that has to be taken into account,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

The questions from the Supreme Court judges throughout the hearing were mostly related to the need to force lower-level judges to give more weight to the rights of journalists before they approve production orders against media organizations.

Mr. Michaelson acknowledged the Supreme Court could modernize the test used to determine whether a production order used against a media organization is actually in the public interest before it is executed.

Mr. Makuch said that journalists should not have to provide their source material to police, stating the RCMP case has hurt his ability to win the trust of potential sources.

“The stories that I put out were actually informing Canadians of fundamental things in their society, i.e. some of their citizens going over to Syria and Iraq and fighting for a terrible terrorist organization,” he told reporters after the hearing. “The reason this guy was communicating with me, and not the RCMP, is that I’m not a cop. When you ask for my materials, you are forcing me to become a cop.”

Reporters Without Borders, a non-government organization that generates the World Press Freedom Index, said Canada needs to provide greater protection to all journalistic sources. Canada is currently in 18th place on the index.

“It’s not just a fact that a source is confidential that merits an arm’s-length relation between police and the media,” said Margaux Ewen, the group’s executive director for North America.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter