From the NYT:

More journalists have been killed worldwide in 2007 than in any year since 1994, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent group that promotes press freedom and defends the rights of journalists.

In the committee’s annual report to be released Tuesday, 64 journalists died in circumstances linked to their work in 2007. Nearly half of those deaths, 31, took place in Iraq, which was ranked as the deadliest country for journalists for the fifth consecutive year. Most of the killings were targeted attacks, as opposed to deaths caused by cross-fire, according to the committee.

In Africa, the number of deaths rose to 10 this year from 2 in 2006, according to the committee’s report. Somalia, the second deadliest country in 2007, accounted for 7 of those deaths.

The committee’s annual report tallies the deaths of journalists that result directly from combat, violence or a direct reprisal for a journalist’s work, like the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink, who was killed in January on a street in Istanbul. The report covers the period from Jan. 1 through Monday.

In Iraq, the committee cites “unidentified gunmen, suicide bombers, and American military activity” as the main contributors to the deaths.

Here's the CPJ's page on Journalists Killed In 2007.

Conservative writer Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine have ticked off the Canadian Islamic Congress.  Maclean's published a screed taken from Steyn's book America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. The excerpt, published in October 2006, was entitled The Future Belongs To Islam.

The group has filed three separate human rights complaints for what they see as an Islamophobic rant -- an injury compounded by Maclean's' refusal to publish a multi-page, unedited rebuttal, according to a Canadian Press article.

B.C. writer Terry Glavin asks if such disputes are really what human rights tribunals should be adjudicating.

David Radler wound up getting his plea bargain deal rubber-stamped.

Here's the globeandmail.com and CTV.ca stories (the latter with video).

There was some speculation that because Radler was seen at the time as a spectacularly bad witness, the prosecution might break the deal.

Here is what juror Monica Prince told the Toronto Star in a story published July 15:

Radler, who pleaded guilty to fraud in exchange for his co-operation, was supposed to be the prosecution's star witness but, by the final rebuttal, the prosecutors had distanced themselves from him.

"Radler, he was a farce," Prince said. "Radler sounded stupid on that stand, he kept contradicting himself. I said, 'he's playing us.' For (Black and Radler) to run a business for so long, and you're talking to someone intelligent like Conrad Black, you're not going to come off silly like that."

His testimony played little if any role in their decision, she added.

Let us recall this snippet from prosecutor Eric Sussman, as recorded in a June 26 CTV.ca story:

... Sussman told jurors Tuesday at the trial in Chicago that they "do not need to believe a word David Radler told you to convict every single one of these defendants."

How's that for distancing? :)

However, Black was convicted on four minor charges (and acquitted on nine), so I guess that made Mr. Fitzgerald and company forgive and forget.

Still, it would be interesting to have a parallel universe for test purposes to see if Radler would have still gotten a 29-month sentence had Conrad Black and company walked.

See this Dec. 10 post for my analysis of how Black's and Radler's sentences compare.

Addendum

The Globe and Mail had this snippet in its Tuesday story:

Legal experts say that by negotiating a 29-month jail sentence, Mr. Radler effectively tied the judge's hands when it came to sentencing everyone in the criminal case.

"These other defendants, in a weird way, owe a lot to David Radler for setting the bar so low," said Hugh Totten, a Chicago lawyer who has followed the case and attended yesterday's hearing.