McKennitt / Ash Privacy Case

Hello Message Board folk,

As some of you may be aware, on October 4, 2007 a settlement was reached in the McKennitt/Ash privacy case and the press release concerning this development can be found at the following link: McKennitt Privacy Case Ends - Press Release

Many of you have been very supportive of Loreena during this past couple of years and she is deeply appreciative of that support. We also realise that some people have had questions and concerns regarding this case and we are seeking the most appropriate method of addressing these.

Since it is vital that all discussions are focused on the analysis of the case and its broader implications rather than on Ms Ash personally, we would invite concerned readers to write us at postmaster@quinlanroad.com as we intend to collate and address these concerns in a more general way. Those wanting to leave letters of support are invited to either leave them on this message board or send them to Postmaster.

For your convenience we invite interested readers to familiarize themselves with the judgments of Justice Eady of November 2005 and the Court of Appeal of November 2006 which can be found in the UK privacy case section of this QR web site. In so far as a property dispute plays a central role to understanding the privacy case, we would encourage readers to consider this section in particular. It can be found in paragraphs 106-128 .

We are also aware that this case has caused much concern among some journalists and media who suggest this case has been a blow to freedom of expression. Loreena has most recently addressed this issue on a blog site of the UK Guardian writer Roy Greenslade at this link. Loreena’s comments are found in the comments section following his blog.

Other comments by Loreena regarding the media’s approach to this story can be found on our comments page which includes Loreena’s open letter to the Canadian Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders in January, 2007 entitled, “Who Watches the Watchdog?”

We thank everyone who has taken an interest in this case and has offered us their thoughts.
Original Post
I am glad to see Loreena win her case against Ms. Ash for she used Loreena just for her selfish purpose.
If I am to read a book about Loreena, I prefere it comes from her, not a second source. I love Loreena's words whether spoken, sang, or written.
I have read everything I can get my hands on about the case and I do agree with the judge's ruling and hope that it helps protect more public people.
Never will I read anything written by Ms. Ash.
I love you Loreena, thanks for all you do, by the way; how are you so beautiful?
May love, peace, and beauty by yours,
Gina
Having followed, off and on, the issues surrounding Ms. McKennitt’s efforts to maintain privacy about her person and activities, I was pleased to read over the weekend that Niema Ash’s book will not be distributed. That outcome resonates for me on three levels. First from a legal standpoint, it is encouraging that a court has upheld some basic standards of privacy and intimacy which all of us have a right to expect – whether we are celebrities or otherwise. Ms. McKennitt should be congratulated for her willingness to become more public in this area than I am sure she would have preferred. The result she has achieved will no doubt benefit many others who seek to preserve what I would call the “sanctity of person”. Though the result in the United Kingdom will not filter down to courts in the United States, I say, Thank you!

The second level concerns the media. Those who make it their business to report the details of others’ lives will, I hope, take notice. Not just those who write “tell all” books, but those journalists who apparently feel qualified to weigh in on issues that they have not carefully researched. If they are trying only to generate readership and need to rely on the most sensational information in order to do that, then shame on them. If their motives are to generate reasoned consideration of an issue, or perhaps to comment on the foibles of the human condition, then balanced writing is of utmost importance. Without careful consideration of the available facts, that balance can’t be achieved.

Finally, a comment about friendship. Whatever the connection between these two women was, at any time, it is sad to read that one apparently felt it necessary to disclose details of a relationship which have been characterized by the courts and others as intrusive, vengeful, and, in some instances, entirely false. I have not read the book, though I will admit to having tried to order it last spring to see what the commotion was all about. Ms. Ash’s website refers to friendship and her description of the book’s content purports to reveal intimate details of Ms. McKennitt’s rise to celebrity status and all that that growth entails. Friendship and intimacy are words which, to me, imply a sense of trust – and the legal commentary appears to agree. Ms. Ash’s attempt to rely on the absence of a confidentiality agreement is truly unfortunate. Such a document doesn’t belong in a trusting relationship.

None of us are without moments of behavior that we subsequently regret. None of us when ill, stressed, grieving or facing other exigencies of life always respond as our “best” selves. To use knowledge of another’s responses during those times when attempting to develop a well-rounded picture of that individual isn’t a particularly constructive or informative exercise, unless the individual’s behavior is consistently pernicious . I have never met her, but have been fortunate to attend three performances during her recent tour. She is a more than gracious entertainer. Based on those experiences, her music, her interviews, her benevolent undertakings and her genuine interest in exploring the confines of the soul, it would be difficult to convince me that Ms. McKennitt’s outlook on life is anything but positive and reflective and that, overall, her private behavior is the same. Anyone who purports to have or have had a true and intimate friendship with another ought to take English author Dinah Craik’s wonderful description to heart:

Oh, the comfort —
the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person —
having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words,
but pouring them all right out,
just as they are,
chaff and grain together;
certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them,
keep what is worth keeping,
and then with the breath of kindness blow the rest away.
I didn't post it here yet (well, I did it in a new topic in this section but I deleted all because it served nothing) but, congratulations and thank you for your strength and the good and probably tiring job.

Wink .




PS: well, excuse me Colonel Mc Kennitt but... what do you eat at breakfast? Can I have the same? Because what you posted today Eeker ...
Well done Wink.
Hi All,

Firstly, I send congratulations to Loreena for her dignified and tenacious handeling of this case. It is clear from reading the Judge's verdict that Ms Ash was out to get whatever she could from this book and was not thinking of the consequences.

It is important to point out that in the U.K, books like these are akin to "The N. Enquirer" or "The Star" here in the States: supermarket fodder for those who like to read anything on a person of public 'interest'. It was not and cannot be construded as JOURNALISM. Call it what it was: a gossip book. The fact that she printed it herself points to the fact that no other reputable printing house would touch it.

Loreen's story goes beyond the area of 'public interest' or 'story'. There are lines that anyone with decency would not cross and yet, Ms Ash crossed them which should put most of us off her book. But human nature beng what it is, we all like a bit of gossip. I like knowing of people, but I draw the line at know ABOUT them.

For any journalist to say that this case ties their hands or somehow constrains them from doing their job, then maybe it does: as long as their job is the job of English tabloid gossip 'writing' that usually has a reading age ability of 8 years of age (The Star and Mirror for example).

Ms Ash was burned as far as she was concerned; so she went off and 'told' and rightly, she was told to stop. That's justice, for once!

Nothing about this must have been happy but I am honoured that you made the details of the case available so that we all could read for ourselves and make up our own minds! I learned a lot and one thing is always true: never do business with a friend or relative.

Well done and I am looking forward to the Lyric on Friday 19th!

Lisa
The right to protect oneself from false allegations and intrusive invasions of privacy, whether privately or publicly made, is one of the most sacred human rights we have in maintaining ones own self respect and dignity. I can only guess at how much time and energy this legal action must of taken and can only add my applause to you for taking this on and prevailing. Loreena, your music lifts our souls, your integrity as a human being lifts our hearts. Thank you for being you and letting us your fellow travellers share this time on earth with you. It is a rare privilege.

Lots of love
Jeanne,

first I tried to read all you wrote, I swear. But as it's not my language + the fact that I always have difficulties to understand your way of write -I don't know why, it was the same with Artùr. Perhaps because I learned english and not american- + the fact that my posts on Greenslade's blog "costed" me a lot in energy and time and that I'm "double working" these 2 last months, I didn't understand all.


I think I 'll try to read it again tomorrow but now, one thing is catching my mind:
I understood that you red all the books of Niema (tell me if I misunderstood something).
Including the 2 books about Loreena: the first one and the second corrected version. (Am I still in?)
Well... it's always a good thing to make you own opinion by seeing, earing or reading the more you can but, I defenetly couldn't read what she wrote about Loreena knowing that Loreena doesn't want this to be red.

I don't know.

Even if I think I understood that you're "on the side of Loreena" concerning the process and you seem very compassionate with Nemia, which is humanely a good thing (and on this point, you are better than me because, if she almost catched me with her "groaning" and "plaintive" behaviour, I don't want to forget what she did), I am ... well, not "shocked" but "surprised" about the fact that you bought her books.



Even if there's nothing "crusty" in this book, giving informations, souvenirs, deep thoughts about your beliefs, your way to see the life, etc, is (or can be) an act of love.
And no one should had the right to take this to Loreena.

It's obvious for me but not easy to explain (specially that my brain is like mash potato tonight )...
When you love or care for someone, you're generally very careful about how you share or show what you are and what happened to you. It's something which takes time.
You know, you don't say all the 1rst day you meet. You choose good moment to say an important thing (important thing to your eyes, not specially for every one).

On in the same idea, you also cherish what someone you love, gives to you.



So for me it's unthinkable to read this book.
And if Loreena decides one day to give us something from her -as the book she planed to do- it will be much much more precious to all who love her because she would have shared part of her with us. (sorry if the verbs are not at the good time...)



Now, I just hope I won't discover howful mistakes or non-sens re-reading this tomorrow Smiler.


The almost dead elf



*
I thought Mr Greenslade had two options:

1- To answer all Loreena's questions.
2- To admit his errors.

But there was a different opcion: 'Comments are now closed on this entry' he has chosen the most cowardly way. I'm afraid we all wait for something like that.
I totally agree with D.J.Laws and IrNfromParis.

Laura
greetings,

since comments regarding this topic have been closed at the old-ways list and greenslade blog, i thought to offer a few simple thoughts via this public forum. in reference to niema's book, initially, i only focused on the lines but then learned to read between them. i believe that loreena was right in using the legal system as a means to protect her dignity, privacy, and livelihood. if she hadn't, then who would? finally, thoughts of forgiveness keep surfacing and i believe that the following excerpts are worthy of sharing (from a pbs commentary about "amish grace"):

"...forgiveness heals the person who offers it, freeing that person to move on in life with a greater sense of vitality and wholeness."

"In fact, forgiveness is less a matter of forgive and forget than of forgive and remember -- remembering in
ways that bring healing. When we remember we take the broken pieces of our lives -- lives that have been dismembered by tragedy and injustice -- and re-member them into something whole. Forgetting an atrocious offense, personally or corporately, may not be possible, but all of us can and do make decisions about how we remember what we cannot forget."

for more on forgiveness, please visit:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1103/
interview5.html

chispas
In the short time I've been following Loreena Mckennitt's journey of self discovery and musical travel writing, I have learned what an extraordinary person she is. Her voice lifts the spirit when she sings, it awakens the mind when she speaks. Her writing translates with intelligence, authority and reason. As an example, in Loreena's open letter to The Globe entitled "Who watches the watchdog" she has completely destroyed their credibility and argument against a right to privacy, celebrity or not. Once again I've been inspired to write because Loreena Mckennitt is someone we ALL should be lisitening to regarding one's right to privacy. I completely support her right to privacy and feel justice has been served. I look
forward to Loreena's OWN words when she releases her book later this year, as has been noted on this website. It shall be a privilege to gain insight into her life based what she wants to share with us.
Thank-you Mark, QR and LM for opening up this message board and sharing all the facts of this case and to all the members for their excellent responses.
Finally, Congratulations Loreena! When I stand and appluad you and your band's performace next Sat Night in Prov. RI it will be loud and long, for a great burden has been lifted from you and for that I am overjoyed!

Robert
I corrected my previous post and it must be now more easy to read or more coherent...(sorry, as I said, I'm "double working" since september and at the end of the week I don't know my name anymore).



I wanted to add that I'm very careful of the behaviour of Niema because it seems she has a common point with the woman who harassed me:
they show themselves has victim and person to complain.

So, I know how some people are able to do very terrible things and to obtain other people's compassion, managing by this same way to discredit their own "victim".



About forgivness... Perhaps it's a little early to write this word.
It's a long processus to arrive there and you're allowed to stop on the way.

It's true, it's a nice thing.
But, to my eyes, not very welcome one week after the end of a process and some days after big discussions about it, where the victim is still assaulted or attacked...



quote:
Originally posted by Airish:
'Comments are now closed on this entry' he has chosen the most cowardly way. I'm afraid we all wait for something like that.

Well, I'm not surprised... But what astonished me by reading last post of Loreena, it's that Greenslade is regarded as a media expert and educator and he has students !



quote:
Originally posted by dlaws99:
Don't die, Elf...

Thank you Dennis Smiler

quote:
Originally posted by Airish:
I totally agree with D.J.Laws and IrNfromParis.

Thank you too Laura.



Best regards.


-
quote:
Originally posted by Very Old Elf:

<snip>

When you love or care for someone, you're generally very careful about how you share or show what you are and what happened to you. It's something which takes time.
You know, you don't say all the 1rst day you meet. You choose good moment to say an important thing (important thing to your eyes, not specially for every one).

On in the same idea, you also cherish what someone you love, gives to you.

<snip>

So for me it's unthinkable to read this book.
And if Loreena decides one day to give us something from her -as the book she planed to do- it will be much much more precious to all who love her because she would have shared part of her with us. (sorry if the verbs are not at the good time...)

<snip>

The almost dead elf

*


Dear "Elf that is alive", ;-)

These are very wise words...
Thank you for sharing them.

Warm blessings,
Shan-Lyn
quote:
Originally posted by Airish:
I thought Mr Greenslade had two options:

1- To answer all Loreena's questions.
2- To admit his errors.

But there was a different opcion: 'Comments are now closed on this entry' he has chosen the most cowardly way. I'm afraid we all wait for something like that.
I totally agree with D.J.Laws and IrNfromParis.

Laura


Aye Laura, I fully agree. That is a coward's way out. He could have at least humbly admitted, "I don't know the answers".
Even if he didn't know the answers, I think Loreena instructed him quite well, wouldn't one say? Wink

Warm blessings,
Shan-Lyn
quote:
Originally posted by me:

(about forgivness)
But, to my eyes, not very welcome one week after the end of a process and some days after big discussions about it, where the victim is still assaulted or attacked...

Sorry it's just my point of view, of course, not a sentence "in the idea to answer instead of Loreena."
It's her case and I was just thinking that if I was her, I would have probably thought that was too early to talk to me about forgiveness.


-
A little out of the subject but ... as we were arguing last week on the blog of the courageous Greenslade, 2 greats french journalists died.
I only learnt it yesterday and I didn't have the time to come here to write it.
I do it tonight because I think they deserve a thought, them and all the one we don't know all over the wordl but who are to the service to the information.



The first on one was a great woman, photo reporter, who paradoxically died of a a brain aneurysm whereas she survived to many conflicts and wars:
*Alexandra Boulay died -New York Times*
*The Art of Photojournalism*



And the second was a journalist who wrote books about the decline of the press. He was a real professional aware of what was becoming journalism in France (and abroad) and fought with very hard and "pickling" (?) words against this decline.
*Bernard Morrot*



...



quote:
Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:

These are very wise words...
Thank you for sharing them.

Thank you.
In "some" years, you have time to learn few things...

The VERY OLD Elf...
Connecting more dots...

"cod-Celtic"- how fishy but what does it mean?

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cod_2?view=uk

cod2 (adjective Brit. informal): not authentic; fake.
ORIGIN perhaps from slang cod “a fool”.

"Eclectic Celtic" would have been an apt description.

With regard to Loreena's Greenslade blog comments/challenges, I now have a better understanding after reading the following:

http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=214

Privacy
The MediaWise Trust welcomes all visitors to its website. Unless otherwise indicated, visitors may make use of our information and services PROVIDING THEY ACKNOWLEDGE ITS SOURCE.

http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=656

Prejudice, distortion and the cult of celebrity: Is the press going to hell in a handcart? The inaugural lecture of Roy Greenslade at City University, London on 22 January 2004. Roy is Professor of Journalism at City University, media commentator
for The Guardian and a MediaWise trustee.

http://www.mediawise.org.uk/files/uploaded/Roy%20Greenslade%20speech.pdf
I don't understand some people sometimes... I myself would not like having people writing books about me without my knowledge/liking...
"Blow of freedom"...that's so silly.

I just read the texts on the Greenslade BLOG side. I just have to ask you: did Loreena herself write the comments? Well spoken.

hugs from Malin, Sweden
Hi
I don´t know in depth the case and the people involved in it. But what little I know (I have read the article by Mr. Roy Greenslade), I can only say 3 things:

1, the freedom of expression is being used in many places (including Spain) for insulting and even destroy people, walking(this freedom of expression) on the border of the law. And this is a big business for many "journalists".

2, After a discussion/confrontation, sure many people would do a catharsis exercise, but if this exercise is about a "memories book"of the other person, Does it have validity?(this memory book).

3, Mr Roy Greenslade said "...legal action to ban 38 separate sections be deleted, some of them as small as five lines" I think that, in only 5 lines can be done much harm/damage, Mr Greenslade.

Finally only express my sympathy to Loreena and your team
And as always feel my limitations in the use of the English language, on this occasion even more than others.
There's something which has been turning in my brain for more than 10 days...



Almost two weeks ago I re-red the answer of Greenslade and some sentences left me perplex ...
What surprises me, "shocks" me and makes me wonder about our world, it's the way some people are able to think or to see the life.



For example, Greenslade wrote :
quote:
The position that has now been reached in English law is that anything that pertains to your private life, and that includes what you do in the street, such as going shopping, is private

But what we (famous or not) buy or where we can go IS private !


I'm talking about him, but not only.
I met many people -most of them are men- who have a total incapacity to think "normally" or to see well things as they are .
I know it sounds subjective but its not: some values are universals and some are "universals" only for us as occidentals in our consumer society and could not be well seen in, I don't know, one of the last primitive tribe in the world.

And about values, I saw many reports and debates talking about the problem of the young generation "suffering" of a lack of these so precious values.
I remember well how specialists told that some teenagers have no notion of privacy at all due to an education by uncontrolled media, seeing everything about everyone's life and absolutely think that there's nothing wrong to film with their mobil phone friends of them slamming others schoolers -or teachers!- and put the film or the photos on the web (and I'm not talking about the fact that they don't even have the idea to help the attacked one, as if watching the scene in the small screen of their mobil made they were not real witnesses anymore!)

But reading Greenslade's answer, I realized that not only teenagers have this problem of values.
Apparently, as too many people, he takes as normal something which is not and I see much more the importance of the judgement of Loreena's process.


Really, thank you because it's more than time to give back to important and essential values the place they should have and I think this victory participated to it.



In the same idea he said:
quote:
Finally, and crucially, I believe that people should be as free as possible to express themselves, even if it impinges on another person's privacy on occasion".

!!! ?
And I don't know if this one is not the worst! I don't even understand how he manage to write this...?...



---

Greenslade also wrote, quoting (if I followed well) Clare Dyer who quoted Hugh Tomlinson QC (!...) :
quote:
This judgment is a turning point in the development of English privacy law. It means the courts will not allow publication of 'kiss and tell' stories after the breakdown of a friendship or relationship.
"At the same time, the court of appeal rejected the argument that a person who tells their own story to the press gives up their future privacy rights. The effect on the tabloids could be dramatic.

!!!
does he expect us to be sad?! Because he really seems to be affected by this.
And here, it's very twisted: not only lots of them (=him and people like him) are not able to to define what should be their values but also where they should be. They hang up to these tabloids and "kiss and tell" stories as if humanity would be lost without these things and we would be close to the end of the world (didn't I already say that I'm happy that it's more the end of THEIR world?...)


Always quoting Dyer, he wrote in the same way:
quote:
She added that unauthorised biographies could be particularly affected.

Well, if they are unauthorised it's a little bit normal that they are affected one day! No?
It's amazing that some people (and unfortunately not few) can think it's natural to let raptors do what they want: these "writers"/"journalists" who authorize themselves to write the life of someone else without his consent. How can they be so interested in others ' life (and I'm talking here of course about writing only answering to this insane greed about details of famous people's life and not a real historical portrait of a politician or a past writer, for example)?

I know that there was always this thing in our society: fairy tales (as Cinderella) was already a way for "basic" people to live through their leaders' life (king, prince, etc.) but we went too far .
Today, paparazzi would have probably tried to have a photo of Cinderella half necked or one of what she bought last week-end to the supermarket.
I understand that it helped "poor people" to hear fairy tales and showed them a good way to behave by following the story's moral but what I just like to add about this thirst of famous people's life, it's this little sentence from old asiatic wisdom:
(it's not exactly this but it's the meaning)


"The time spent to live the dream of someone else it's a time you won't spend on your own dream"



-
Elf quoted Roy Greenslade as saying:

The position that has now been reached in English law is that anything that pertains to your private life, and that includes what you do in the street, such as going shopping, is private...

When are people going to realize there is no such thing as privacy anymore. On Greenslade's argument as stated above, even walking down the street, especially in London, one of the most surveyed cities ever means that privacy is extinct. Just because we are Joe Civilian does not mean we are immune from being watched constantly, our credit cards tracked, surveillance of our houses on Google Earth and pictures taken without our consent. The list goes on. And these are things we just take for granted. I can't tell you how many cameras I've seen go up in my area alone to survey actions presumably for red-light offenders.

Besides the groups online that exist to destroy such surveillance cameras I've listed above, what can anyone do these days that protects them from such unwanted intrusive actions taken on by our governments that simultaneously are there to "protect" us and "reveal" us? Such a double edged sword.

I've noticed that the title of this particular forum has changed to encompass a few different aspects that LM was trying to touch on in her various post-trial communications. Perhaps it would be best to have different sub-group forums to talk about each section, because I could go on all day about what I just wrote above, but that doesn't fit exactly into the celebrity privacy debate that the forum is currently titled.
I find it an interesting phenomenon that celebrities create contractual agreements between their employees/friends/hangers-on whatever you wish to call them with the idea of controlling what is said about them at a later date. Of course, such a practice has been a standard practice in corporations for many years at a certain level of employment. The image of the celebrity is integral part of the celebrity package (in some case the only part). So to the extent that celebrities view these relationships as employees certainly a contract with them is binding. It must lead to a very difficult life however, where one's friends have to be viewed as employees to help maintain an image. It is must undoubtedly be at least part of the cause of many of the emotional and physical illnesses and disturbances that occur with so many celebrities.

The other issue is that such agreements are used to suppress the reporting of illegal activities (which was not the case in the McKennitt-Ash dispute--I've read the Ash book and personally thought the whole thing a tempest in a teapot, but it wasn't my privacy invaded and clearly LM felt strongly about it and under UK law she clearly had a right to sue and won.) In the U.S. I doubt that the case would have made it to court.

The coverup of illegal activities is the dark side of "maintaining privacy". It is easy to intimidate an individual with the threat of a lawsuit--hence the whistleblower laws in government to protect people who come forward about illegal activities. And those laws do not work well.

Consider this: One of the key witnesses in bringing the indictment of Michael Vick for illegal gambling involving dog fighting was doing business with him (he had sold him one of the dogs that was later murdered). He could have been held accountable under a contractual secrecy agreement as a contractor to the celebrity. Everyone should think about the power of the rich and the powerful (and I'm certainly not limiting this to celebrities) to suppress information through intimidation. One of the precepts of the Code of Hammurabi (one of the oldest law codes) was "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful."
quote:
Originally posted by drdiver:
I find it an interesting phenomenon that celebrities create contractual agreements between their employees/friends/hangers-on whatever you wish to call them with the idea of controlling what is said about them at a later date. Of course, such a practice has been a standard practice in corporations for many years at a certain level of employment. The image of the celebrity is integral part of the celebrity package (in some case the only part). So to the extent that celebrities view these relationships as employees certainly a contract with them is binding. It must lead to a very difficult life however, where one's friends have to be viewed as employees to help maintain an image. It is must undoubtedly be at least part of the cause of many of the emotional and physical illnesses and disturbances that occur with so many celebrities.

The other issue is that such agreements are used to suppress the reporting of illegal activities (which was not the case in the McKennitt-Ash dispute--I've read the Ash book and personally thought the whole thing a tempest in a teapot, but it wasn't my privacy invaded and clearly LM felt strongly about it and under UK law she clearly had a right to sue and won.) In the U.S. I doubt that the case would have made it to court.

The coverup of illegal activities is the dark side of "maintaining privacy". It is easy to intimidate an individual with the threat of a lawsuit--hence the whistleblower laws in government to protect people who come forward about illegal activities. And those laws do not work well.

Consider this: One of the key witnesses in bringing the indictment of Michael Vick for illegal gambling involving dog fighting was doing business with him (he had sold him one of the dogs that was later murdered). He could have been held accountable under a contractual secrecy agreement as a contractor to the celebrity. Everyone should think about the power of the rich and the powerful (and I'm certainly not limiting this to celebrities) to suppress information through intimidation. One of the precepts of the Code of Hammurabi (one of the oldest law codes) was "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful."


------------------------------------------------

When one is involved in illegal or criminal behavior, the right to privacy goes out the window and is superceded by the right of the public to know and protect themselves. If one isn't a danger to society they should have the right to their privacy, whether they be rich and powerful or poor and powerless.

Mona
Bill O'Reilly (Fox News--U.S. network)is doing an interesting series on celebrity privacy rights. I never knew that Jacqueline Kennedy had sued over her privacy and won. Very illuminating discussion.
Certainly the abuse that many stars suffer by the paparazzi should be curbed extremely.
I have read, with interest, the comments made by the subscribers to Mr. Greenslade's blog, the articles printed in the Globe and Mail, and Miss McKennitt's responses. I congratulate Miss McKennitt on "sticking to her guns" and pursuing the issue.
While, embarrassingly, I have only known of Miss McKennitt for about three years, I have read about how much good she has done for her community...how involved she is on so many different levels.
Such as it is, it is my feeling that one's personal life should be sacrosanct. No one has the right to intrude, through writing, publicly speaking, recording, or photographing, on or about anyone else's personal matters when they do not directly affect those who have no direct personal involvement. Public figures/ "celebrities" should be held accountable for their roles as public figures/"celebrities"...not their personal lives. Report/write about their performances in public...not intimate details of a personal nature.
I strongly support Miss McKennitt's stand on this issue. I applaud her willingness to take the media to task. They well and truly need to be put in their place. Where is respect... where is honour? Hopefully, some in the media will re-examine their roles.
Miss McKennitt has held her head high and stuck to her principles. I admire that.
quote:
Originally posted by bodhronii:
Well, I find the whole thing very unfortunate. Frowner

However I do have a sincere question. Why doesn't anybody post that only 8 sections of the book were banned and not the entire 38? I have read many of the objections were trivial.



Loreena here. I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself. This particular misrepresentation of facts has a resonance of a ‘numbers optics’ game in order to create a particular impression of the outcome. Another and more accurate way of presenting the outcome in this case was that the judge found nearly one half of the book breached my privacy.

Briefly, the situation is as follows and interested individuals can follow along in the trial judgment itself if they like.

In cases like these, the legal process obliges individuals such as myself who have a legal complaint, to specifically list those complaints, no matter how large or small.

In this case there were ‘38’ complaints and some of those complaints were as small as one or two sentences, while others represented many pages, such as the sections of the book discussing my bereavement or the details of a private property dispute. The complaints were then grouped into five main categories listed in paragraph 11 of the judgment.

Although Ms. Ash and some media framed it such that I ‘lost’ on more points than I ‘won’, in actual fact the volume of material found by the judge to be intrusive was tantamount to nearly one half of the book. The sections which covered the greatest volume of pages were those which had to do with my bereavement and a property dispute in which Ms Ash was found to have adjusted witness statements (para 106-128). Both subjects were found to be private and to have served no public interest (as opposed to be ‘interesting to the public”) and were therefore indefensible.

So in the end, the reporting became an optics/numbers game which many savvy individuals like to play in creating the impressions they want in order to serve their needs.

With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information. This was an interesting aspect of the judgment and has caused me to reflect on the various capacities and qualities of privacy. Indeed, the UK Court of Appeal (who also heard this case) stated in their judgment that there were some areas of Justice Eady’s original decision where they themselves might have gone further to protect my privacy.

Privacy has many dimensions and one of them, in my opinion, is to live one’s life simply without undo and relentless observation, even and especially, if what you are doing is quite mundane. Most people, who are buffered by their anonymity, will not have had to worry about this quite yet. It is only now with the convergence of technology like cameras in phones and the internet, that I think the average ‘anonymous’ person’s privacy is about to be invaded at a level and intensity that up to now has primarily been experienced only by ‘well-known’ people.’ And it may be that only when ‘anonymous folk’ have their privacy infringed upon through relentless observation that the law will ultimately catch up.

We must not forget that there is great commercial pressure put on an unsuspecting public by a range of media (Google, Facebook, Myspace, as well as regular ‘news’ outlets) to trade in this kind of ‘information’ as a commodity. I would urge people to take time to learn more about the implications of their on-line activities, not only for the well-being of our social structure, but quite importantly, for themselves.

This in turn raises other thorny issues such as security cameras and the like for which I believe a robust and transparent public debate must be undertaken in order to allow the public to agree or disagree with the need for constant surveillance in order to protect their society. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Just a little food for thought.

Sorry for the length of this response and I hope it helps.

Loreena
quote:
Originally posted by Loreena:
I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself.


Yes, what I have actually noted is that so many people have felt entitled to speak about the case, the judgements, friendship, freedom of expression, privacy, non privacy and many, many other subjects.
Everyone has told their opinions, not only people who have introduced themselves as Ms Ash’s close friends, but even a great number of journalists or “supposed” journalists who have feared limitations to press freedom. Everyone has their own perspectives and things change when observed from different angles, but what “privacy” means shouldn’t be subject to interpretation. Hence I don’t agree with their viewpoints, unlike I trust you and support your standpoint; if only should I be in your shoes, be sure that I would think about it exactly like you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loreena:
With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information.[QUOTE]

The main issue here is in fact just Ms Ash’s breach of confidence, that in any cases I consider unacceptable, even if she reveals so-called “anodyne” details; nothing is anodyne, but subject of confidence between two close friends. It’s unacceptable purely simple. She has written a book without your permission and permission of the person about whom she wanted to tell is what she should have sought, before beginning to write the first word. Aside from your so-much-awaited victory, privacy must still fight to protect itself, though. It’s sad and disappointing. Privacy is, however, misunderstood or it's not a priority in people's minds anymore. Unlike I believe firmly that what happens within your home, with your friends and family, what is said on the phone etc belongs to you only, even though it’s trivial. No one has the right to tell, but you. Is the book’s title trivial too? I think that it should have been the first ‘section’ which needed banning.
It’s so clear Ms Ash’s purpose by now, that is discrediting you and damaging your public image through bad publicity. Some months ago I found out an article she wrote herself. In my case it’s the one declaration of hers I have had the chance to read, but it’s enough. I think that every word she uses is carefully chosen by her, in order to depict a person (you) who is currently very different from who you were before fame and money. She, the victim who was “immensely fond of you” and you, “the aggressive boss who yelled at her and her partner”. Unfortunately some believe this is the truth. I have recently stopped by one of many messageboards you can find on internet and read some postings which went: “…yes, really good music, but not the person as well”; “some say she is not as sweet as she looks like. Globalization of information has this kind of effect that she is surely aware of. I am satisfied with your victory, and I sincerely think that it's right that everything concerning you has been banned, because you have never given her any permission to write, and so any discussion, such as “this is confidential, this is anodyne” is simply unjust and ridiculous.

Kisses to you

freesoul Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by bodhronii:
Well, I find the whole thing very unfortunate. Frowner

However I do have a sincere question. Why doesn't anybody post that only 8 sections of the book were banned and not the entire 38? I have read many of the objections were trivial.


I think the point has been obscured by a perception of degrees of "importance". In the end, it really doesn't matter whether anyone else deems something "trivial". What may seem trivial to one is entirely something else to others. Who determines the degree of triviality?
A trust was broken...and in this case...a personal and a legal trust.
Personal privacy is important to all of us. Even the most trivial (in others' eyes) events in one's personal life are theirs. For someone to take my personal information and parade it before the public is a violation....not unlike the violation one feels when their home is invaded by thieves. Even though nothing may have been physically taken, the violation remains.
It is unfortunate....unfortunate that we, "famous" or not famous, have to rigidly protect our privacy from those who would so easily disregard it. Unfortunately, it is the way of the world these days.
Hi
I am not sure this can be compared to what happened to ms. McKennitt...

I just got a little uppset.
I read in the newspaper, that some people start taking pictures of a person they see on the street. Then put it on the net and write a few comments on how the pictured person look.
Then other people sees it and reply on the coment. Some even know the person, and add other pictures and comments.
The person exposed isn't necessarily aware of this.
I think it is a very cruel thing to start bully people like this.
And I think it is very unfortunate because this person has no chance on Earth to defend him- or herself. He or she might not even be like discribed. And it will be very hard to brake down thise rumours. Especially if they are malicious!

Well. This is truly an insult to human privacy!

Anxious 2
Frowner
quote:
Originally posted by Loreena:

Loreena here. I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself. This particular misrepresentation of facts has a resonance of a ‘numbers optics’ game in order to create a particular impression of the outcome. Another and more accurate way of presenting the outcome in this case was that the judge found nearly one half of the book breached my privacy.

Briefly, the situation is as follows and interested individuals can follow along in the trial judgment itself if they like.

In cases like these, the legal process obliges individuals such as myself who have a legal complaint, to specifically list those complaints, no matter how large or small.

In this case there were ‘38’ complaints and some of those complaints were as small as one or two sentences, while others represented many pages, such as the sections of the book discussing my bereavement or the details of a private property dispute. The complaints were then grouped into five main categories listed in paragraph 11 of the judgment.

Although Ms. Ash and some media framed it such that I ‘lost’ on more points than I ‘won’, in actual fact the volume of material found by the judge to be intrusive was tantamount to nearly one half of the book. The sections which covered the greatest volume of pages were those which had to do with my bereavement and a property dispute in which Ms Ash was found to have adjusted witness statements (para 106-128). Both subjects were found to be private and to have served no public interest (as opposed to be ‘interesting to the public”) and were therefore indefensible.

So in the end, the reporting became an optics/numbers game which many savvy individuals like to play in creating the impressions they want in order to serve their needs.

With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information. This was an interesting aspect of the judgment and has caused me to reflect on the various capacities and qualities of privacy. Indeed, the UK Court of Appeal (who also heard this case) stated in their judgment that there were some areas of Justice Eady’s original decision where they themselves might have gone further to protect my privacy.

Privacy has many dimensions and one of them, in my opinion, is to live one’s life simply without undo and relentless observation, even and especially, if what you are doing is quite mundane. Most people, who are buffered by their anonymity, will not have had to worry about this quite yet. It is only now with the convergence of technology like cameras in phones and the internet, that I think the average ‘anonymous’ person’s privacy is about to be invaded at a level and intensity that up to now has primarily been experienced only by ‘well-known’ people.’ And it may be that only when ‘anonymous folk’ have their privacy infringed upon through relentless observation that the law will ultimately catch up.

We must not forget that there is great commercial pressure put on an unsuspecting public by a range of media (Google, Facebook, Myspace, as well as regular ‘news’ outlets) to trade in this kind of ‘information’ as a commodity. I would urge people to take time to learn more about the implications of their on-line activities, not only for the well-being of our social structure, but quite importantly, for themselves.

This in turn raises other thorny issues such as security cameras and the like for which I believe a robust and transparent public debate must be undertaken in order to allow the public to agree or disagree with the need for constant surveillance in order to protect their society. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Just a little food for thought.

Sorry for the length of this response and I hope it helps.

Loreena


I'm presently writing an article on "Privacy vs. Non-Privacy". This has been way over-due. I think the lessening of 'construction renovation' is finally allowing me more concentration.

Loreena, I hear you well inbetween the lines here. I think you pretty well much know how I stand on this issue as well. With your permission I'd like to include you as a brief example of your plight w/ privacy, contrasting with other examples in our societal structure, with the latter examples perhaps appearing far-fetched, but I've certainly done my research and it's uncanny how many examples can be summoned in the way of privacy invasion.

At present, I'm proofreading what I've written thus far, and have decided to let a few days go by to see if more details can be included.

I'll include the link when the article is refined and published.

Thank you for the time you've shared.

Shan-Lyn

Add Reply

×
×
×
×