User:Bianchg/sandbox

The Novascotian was a newspaper published in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. It became one of the most influential voices in the British North American colonies in its nearly one century of existence.

The paper was founded as the Novascotian or Colonial Herald, by George R. Young, in 1824. Young had a very respectable circulation due to the ability of he and his writers as well as the great newspaper industry emerging at the time. Towards the end of 1827, Young was showing waning interest in the running of his newspaper as he wanted to become a lawyer. On January 3rd, 1828, Young sold the Novascotian to Joseph Howe for 1050 pounds, this made Howe the sole editor and owner of the Nova Scotian.

The Early Years, 1828-1931
The initial reaction to Howe running the Novascotian was poor. Many of its readers withdrew their subscriptions, it was their belief that Howe could not possibly run a newspaper as he was too young, unskilled, and inexperienced for the job. Howe indeed was only 23 years old when he purchased the Novascotian and had no regular education as it was not possible for him to walk to school in the winter. However, Howe had been working in the office of the Royal Gazette since he was 13 years old and during the months he could not go to school he had books to study and his father, who for many years worked in the office's of the King's Printer and Postmaster-General of the Lower Provinces, to talk to.

Howe overcame the difficulties which he faced with the Novascotian, due to his willingness to travel, network and expand his own knowledge:
 * Howe read British, foreign, and colonial newspapers daily.
 * Howe reported on the debates in the House of Assembly and important trials in the courts with his own hand.
 * Howe was in a position to mingle with nearly all the public men of the day.
 * Howe travelled all over inland districts and to seaport towns, taking in the surroundings and making many acquaintances.
 * Howe read political literature of all countries which expressed their opinions in English.

It was with this gained knowledge that Howe moved to shape his newspaper, Howe had a vision for the Novascotian, it was Howe's mission to, "furnish the readers all that properly came under the heading of news, whether British, Colonial, American, or European." Howe wanted to get the news to the people, all the news. He did not want the Novascotian to have an affiliation with any one political party or government, it was for the people.

The critics would have appeared to be right through the first year of Howe's Novascotian as it did start off with almost no politics or real editorial commentary of any sort but it did contain interesting submissions which showed some promise. On July 24, 1828 Howe introduced "Western Rambles", a series which gave the Novascotian's readers an insight into the beauties and fertility of the Western part of their own country, this ran until October 9, 1828. On December 16, 1829 Howe introduced "Eastern Rambles", a series similar to that of "Western Rambles" except it presented a perspective from the Eastern part of British North America, this ran until August 4, 1831.

Political Influence, 1832-1835
The Novascotian started to become more politically involved in the following couple of years, gaining significant influence as it went. The title page of the Novascotian always read the same motto, "The Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution." This showed that Howe wanted his newspaper to be non-partisan in all matters, which was unique when compared to the other newspapers printed at the time. The Novascotian would support the Government in their actions if they were right for doing so, and would warn the People when the actions of the Government were not proper.

During the late 1820s and early 1830s, as newspapers grew so did their confidence in terms of the reporting of political events, embracing the concept of public argument and conversation over political issues. It was during this time period that the Novascotian evolved into the outspoken and combative newspaper that it was. On July 8, 1829, Howe introduced for the first time a section in the Novascotian entitled "Legislative Reviews". The Novascotian was the first newspaper in Nova Scotia and one of the first newspapers in the entire country to regularly report on what went on within the House of Assembly. This was monumental for not only the citizens of Nova Scotia, but for Canada as a whole. It was Howe's opinion that if it wasn't for the Novascotian's reports on the legislative assembly, the country would have had limited knowledge of what went on in the meetings where decisions were made that would directly affect all British North Americans.

The Novascotian was the cutting edge of the time when it came to the development of political conversation. This was due to the fact that Howe was the first to regularly report on the House of Assembly while also opening up his newspaper to the voices of the public through letters. One of the greatest strengths that the Novascotian had going for it was that despite all of the political discussion and criticism that would be published, it was not the most radical newspaper in Nova Scotia at the time. The Colonial Patriot was even more critical and daring in their discussion of political issues. This was beneficial to Howe and the Novascotian because it meant that he would likely not be targeted by the government for charges of libel. Unfortunately, the Colonial Patriot folded in 1834, leaving the Novascotian as the most radical newspaper in Nova Scotia - a title which wouldn't bode well for Howe. This increase in political involvement climaxed on New Years Day, 1935 - Howe published a letter signed 'The People' in the Novascotian which denounced the current local magistrates of Halifax.

Joseph Howe's Criminal Libel Trial of 1835
During the year 1834, Howe was starting to attract attention to himself due to his strong independent viewpoints in his editorials in the Novascotian, the Government was starting to take notice. Howe had eventually reached his breaking point and in late 1834 wrote in the Novascotian that he was going to start a campaign in the interest of bringing to light the wrongful actions of government. On January 1st, 1835, the final piece of this campaign was published in the Novascotian, a letter signed "The People".

This letter accused the magistrates of, "reprehensible irresponsibility, incompetence, and self-interestedness in the conduct of their responsibilities." Due to the letter being published, Howe was put on trial for seditious libel, being charged with "seditiously contriving, devising, and intending to stir up and incite discontent and sedition among His Majesty's subjects." The crime of seditious libel had only been defined 200 years prior to the time of Howe's trial and was seen by many as an unfair crime as it could be as broad or as specific as the court chose."

If Howe was convicted of seditious libel, the Novascotian would have been forced to shut down. Howe represented himself in the trial and presented nothing but a lengthy six and a quarter hour speech against the charge of which he faced. The jury took 10 minutes to decide to acquit Howe on the charge of criminal libel.

The victory of Howe in the court was considered monumental at the time. In the first issue of the Novascotian following the acquittal, Howe claimed that "the press of Nova-Scotia is Free." It is said that Howe's libel victory established the fundamental basis for the freedom of the press in Canada. But the opposing viewpoint that the acquittal had little real effect on securing true freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Canada must also be considered.

Outcome of Libel Trial
In this section I will examine what the outcome of the libel trial of Joseph Howe meant to the development of freedom of the press in Canada. I will utilize sources that argue both for and against the impact Howe had on Freedom of the Press in Canada.

Argument Against
As was stated above, in the first issue of the Novascotian after the trial Howe had proclaimed that, "the press of Nova-Scotia is Free." This is a view that has resonated around Canada for decades since Howe had claimed it to be true. And this is a view that J. M. Beck feels is a, "myth that has little basis in fact". Beck felt that legally Howe's trial had no affect whatsoever on the charge of civil or criminal libel. In terms of criminal libel, Howe was able to prove to the jury no more than the simple fact that the law was "an ass", but unfortunately the law could not be changed by the verdict of a jury. Lyndsay. M. Campbell agrees with Beck as far as the legal effect of the trial stating that strictly in legal terms Howe's defense which he presented to the jury was irrelevant for other cases.

In terms of civil libel, Beck shows that Howe's trial really had no effect on the freedom of the press in a legal manner because in 1843, Howe's successor at the Novascotian Richard Nugent was charged and found guilty of libel. This trial which took place only 8 years after Howe's own trial forced the Novascotian to be given up and for Nugent to be imprisoned due to his inability to pay damages. Further, Beck believed that there would not be freedom of the press until an accused could use truth of the libel as their defence. This did happen in British Parliament, but it happened 8 years after Howe's trial and on a different continent, something Beck states is enough proof to not link it back to Howe's trial 8 years prior.

Beck's argument is one that cannot be seen as invalid. He is speaking purely from a legal standpoint and he is correct in the most specific of terms. Howe cannot claim the freedom of the press, as the freedom of the press was a matter of the courts, a matter which did not change in any technical sense. The mindset of jurors may have changed but the law with which journalists could be tried did not.

Cecil Rosner chose to examine Howe's libel trial in the view of how it has effected modern day Canada. Rosner states, "The Howe trial is noteworthy more for its symbolic effect than any legal precedent it may have set...charges of sedition have largely disappeared [but] journalists across the country continue to face civil libel threats...". Rosner echoes the sentiments of Beck when he states that a legal precedent did not come out of Howe's trial. Canadian law is still restrictive on journalism despite major advances in regards to freedom of the press, advances that Rosner does not directly relate back to Howe's trial. Canadian law restricts the sources that journalists may use, and despite the introduction of Freedom of the Press in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms courts are still limiting press rights if they deem it necessary; Quebec does not accept truth as an appropriate defense for a libel case; and while journalists in the United States of America enjoy the ability to criticize their elected representatives without risk of prosecution, Canadian journalists do not have the same protection. Rosner concludes that "...more victories remain to be won".

Howe may have proclaimed that the press was free as a result of his trial, but Rosner is correct in stating that there is still a long way to go before such a statement can be made. Rosner wanted to make it clear that despite the advancements that have been made in law governing the freedom of the press, there is still no true freedom of the press in Canada. Journalists are still not able to do their job freely without worry of being sued or facing charges for what they present in their articles. Until they are able to do so, they are not free.

Argument in Favour
Those that do believe in the proclamation of Howe that the press was free after his trial don't view it in such a strict legal sense. They acknowledge that there was more to the trial and Howe's defense than its strict legal merit. Campbell does acknowledge the argument brought up by Beck and doesn't disagree with it legally, but she does note that the trial did change the law, not technically but figuratively. Howe's trial was the first time intent had been brought before a jury in Nova Scotia, and this was because of the defense which Howe presented. Campbell also notes that while Howe's defense did not persuade the presiding judge, it was a defense that could be used by lawyers in future cases which they had previously not considered as can be seen by the fact that every lawyer Howe went to turned him away. To Campbell it does not matter whether or not the law on the books had itself been changed, what mattered was that the way the law had been perceived by both the legal system and by the public had been.

The argument made by Campbell is rooted in the basis that one cannot look at the outcome of a trial purely on what happened in technical terms. While the law did not change, the perception of the law did. The press felt free, regardless of whether or not they actually were. Juries saw the law differently after being presented with Howe's defense. Lawyers approached their own cases differently after seeing the route that Howe took in his own. The timing of the trial was crucial to the lasting effect it had on Canada. It occurred at a time when the number of different newspapers was growing rapidly and they were all pushing their own boundaries when it came to political commentary. Howe's trial removed the fear of prosecution from these newspapers for having political commentary of their own, as Campbell puts it, "The sense of what was possible had changed."

John Ralston Saul chose to examine the outcome Howe's trial in respect to the effect it had on modern day Canada. Saul believes that by, "...winning his acquittal, Howe established the fundamental ideas, principles, and shapes of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Canada." Saul acknowledges that critics will look at the technical details and state that in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of the press they have regressed and progressed multiple times since Howe's trial. Saul feels that this is not a reason to discredit what Howe did as the, "...intellectual foundation of how we still struggle to solidify and to widen the nature of freedom of speech and of the press." The topic of freedom of speech and freedom of the press may have not even been acknowledged human rights were it not for Howe.

Saul feels that the link between Howe's defense and lines 9 and 10 of the Charter are, "as straight and clear as a historic link could possibly be." Their high placement Charter is of great importance to Saul as it shows that they were not, "something added or rated low in the Charter...". The point being that when Canada was federated as a country, and our Charter of Rights was established, those who wrote it acknowledged how important it was to have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in Canada. It was an importance that can be attributed back to Howe if not directly than indirectly. Saul supports this claim by referencing many public leaders in the 160 years since Howe's trial, such as Fred Dickson who was the leader of the 1919 Winnipeg Strike on trial for seditious libel, who read Howe's defence and used it as their own or simply used it to, "speak from an ethical center in their own public lives." Saul is trying to prove that Howe's trial has had a major influence on not only freedom of the press, but on this country as a whole. If it wasn't for one small letter printed in the Novascotian Howe would have never been put on trial for seditious libel, presented his elaborate and well though out defence, acquitted in under 10 minutes, and changed Canada's outlook on the freedom of the press forever.