Update on the Vancouver Sun/Bains Story

Ross over at The Gazetteer has been as curious as I've been about the circumstances surrounding Kim Bolan's Vancouver Sun story about Navdeep Bain's father-in-law in relation to the Air India bombing case. Specifically: how did she know who was on a potential witness list and who leaked that information to her?

Apparently (and this is not confirmed, as Ross points out), Bolan has responded to those questions in this comment:

I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted.

I have covered this story since 1985 so there are few mysteries or secrets. I first interviewed Darshan SINgh [sic] Saini back in 1988. I have a copy of parts of his police statement that came out during the Air India trial. The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant.

So don't always look for a political conspiracy. In this case, there isn't one.
Kim Bolan | 02.23.07 - 2:17 am | #

She "thought it was relevant" to what, exactly? The Liberal party's decision to sunset the 2 anti-terrorism clauses they oppose.

Ross seems quick to forgive her, but I'm not. Her story appeared at the same time as this one declaring that Paul Martin sought help from a listed terrorist group in 1990.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. There's a concerted Conservative effort to smear the Liberals as being "soft on terror" so the tories can try to demonize them.

Bolan clearly showed her bias in her article when she tried to make this connection:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

But the ability to hold those hearings will be lost March 1 if parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act expire as expected, after the Liberals recently withdrew support for extending the provision being used to hold them.

This isn't about a "conspiracy", Bolan. It's about how and why you chose to write what you did. Further, if she did write the above comment why did she refer to Bains' father-in-law like this? "I first interviewed Darshan SINgh Saini back in 1988." "SINgh"? SIN? What's that about? Why would a journalist make such an obvious mistake?

No. Something about this just doesn't smell right, although it certainly does smell right-wingish.

Update: Apparently, some members of the Sikh community have been following Bolan's reporting for years and they're not exactly pleased with what they've seen.

Update: The Liberals have called for a leak investigation.