{"id":293501,"date":"2016-04-04T14:46:32","date_gmt":"2016-04-04T18:46:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/"},"modified":"2025-08-28T15:26:46","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T19:26:46","slug":"vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week,\u00a0the Ontario Superior Court upheld a production order issued against Vice Media, which required Vice to turn over to law enforcement various communications between\u00a0its reporter Ben Makuch\u00a0and an individual under investigation for suspected involvement with a terrorist organization, ISIS (here’s the Vice story <\/a>on the decision).\u00a0 Among other matters covered by the application, Vice challenged the production order on the basis that it was unreasonable and overbroad, and argued that issuing the order failed demonstrate adequate regard for press freedom.<\/p>\n

In dismissing the application to quash the order (the judgment is here<\/span><\/a>), the Court observed that production orders constitute a “search and seizure” under section 8 of the Charter<\/em> and are therefore subject to that section’s\u00a0“reasonableness” requirement (at para 6).\u00a0 The Court then\u00a0recited the principles that the courts will consider in determining whether a production order (or other search and seizure) relating to the press is “reasonable”, including the following passages from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in\u00a0Lessard<\/a> :<\/em><\/p>\n

For example, a greater degree of privacy may be expected in a home than in commercial premises which may be subject to statutory regulation and inspection.\u00a0 At the same time, among commercial premises, the media are entitled to particularly careful consideration, both as to the issuance of a search warrant and as to the conditions that may be attached to a warrant to ensure that any disruption of the gathering and dissemination of news is limited as much as possible.\u00a0 The media are entitled to this special consideration because of the importance of their role in a democratic society.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

The justice of the peace should ensure that a balance is struck between the competing interests of the state in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and the right to privacy of the media in the course of their news gathering and news dissemination.\u00a0 It must be borne in mind that the media play a vital role in the functioning of a democratic society.\u00a0 Generally speaking, the news media will not be implicated in the crime under investigation.\u00a0 They are truly an innocent third party.\u00a0 This is a particularly important factor to be considered in attempting to strike an appropriate balance, including the consideration of imposing conditions on that warrant.<\/p>\n

Thus, the courts have not analysed these types of issues directly\u00a0under the express guarantee of press freedom in section 2(b), which provides that everyone has\u00a0the\u00a0“freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

Rather, media entities have been given “special consideration” in the context of the reasonableness of a search or seizure (see e.g.\u00a0 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al.<\/em><\/a>, 2009 MBCA 122 at paras 27, 39-40). The discretion possessed by the judge to issue the order must be exercised\u00a0reasonably, and with the importance of the media in mind.\u00a0 What this means in practice is not at all clear.<\/p>\n

In this case, it did not obviously amount to much by way of additional protection.\u00a0The\u00a0Court determined, in effect, that the text messages were useful evidence against the suspect, and that there was no other way to get this evidence than to require the media to provide it. As such,\u00a0the court upheld the order, on the basis that “the authorizing justice could <\/em>have determined that the balance between the interests of law enforcement and the media’s right to freedom of expression favoured making the order” (at para 47, emphasis in the original).<\/p>\n

While the\u00a0Court repeatedly notes the importance of press freedom to a democratic society, it is not entirely clear that the special status of media organizations played any\u00a0significant role in the analysis.\u00a0 Indeed, the judgment\u00a0highlights the following provisos:<\/p>\n

“Justice Cory [in Lessard<\/em>] was clear, however, that the special consideration afforded to the media does not import new or additional requirements for the issuance of search warrants or similar orders<\/span>” (at para 10, emphasis added)<\/p>\n

“Although it is not a constitutional requirement<\/span>, the affidavit material should ordinarily disclose whether there are alternative sources from which the information may reasonable be obtained…” (at para 27, quoting from Lessard, <\/em>emphasis added)<\/p>\n

“The decisions of the Supreme Court in the Lessard <\/em>and New Brunswick <\/em>[cases] establish that the special position of the media is a factor to be taken into account in considering whether to authorize a search, just as the special position of a home is a factor to be considered<\/span>, but that special position does not import a\u00a0new or additional requirements for the issuance of search warrants or similar orders: (at para 53, emphasis added)<\/p>\n

I will not purport to comment on the correctness of the ruling\u00a0as a matter of law or judgment. I will presume for our purposes that it accurately reflects the state of the law, and discuss why I find it\u00a0unsatisfactory.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

It should be emphasized that the evidence in question the communications between the suspect and the reporter was not physical evidence, of the type that would have existed in any event following the commission of a crime.\u00a0 Nor was\u00a0the media in this\u00a0instance\u00a0an\u00a0accidental\u00a0“eye witness” of sorts.\u00a0The evidence in question\u00a0only <\/em>existed because the reporter was doing his job, and essentially created that evidence,\u00a0with the objective of\u00a0informing the public.\u00a0\u00a0As such, the issuance of the\u00a0production order operates in this instance\u00a0to effectively conscript the media as an investigatory arm of the state.<\/p>\n

In considering the constitutional implications of this type of situation, it should be recognized media entities undertaking investigative reporting provide something that is\u00a0invaluable to a democratic society dependent on an\u00a0enlightened citizenry: information.\u00a0 When the media comes to be and, worse\u00a0comes to be seen as\u00a0a ready source of evidence to be used against those upon who the media reports, it is reasonable to believe that sources and information will dry up.\u00a0\u00a0Sources may be less willing to provide accurate information.\u00a0 They may be less forthcoming, if they come forward at all.\u00a0 They may tailor their information to the possibility or probability that their communications will be subsequently used against them in court.\u00a0 In short, the eager resort to such orders can have a significant “chilling effect” in the collection of information for the purposes of dissemination to the public.<\/p>\n

These\u00a0concerns may be obscured by looking at the issue through the lens of whether the seizure of information\u00a0was “reasonable” in\u00a0light of its\u00a0impact on the “privacy” of the media entities, or even whether it has some impact on freedom of expression, simply because those are not the interests most\u00a0directly impacted.<\/p>\n

Indeed, as Vice’s lawyer pointed out<\/a>, the “chilling effect”\u00a0that such orders can produce did not play a meaningful role in the judge’s reasons. To the contrary, the\u00a0Court found that the\u00a0production order “was calculated to not disrupt or interfere with the work of either Mr. Makuch or Vice Media” (at para 45).\u00a0 This seems to\u00a0miss the underlying argument, which is that the very issuance of the production order no matter how\u00a0easily it can be complied with necessarily obstructs the work of the press.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

As I see it, interference with media newsgathering activities is not a problem because the media have some\u00a0superordinate claim to “privacy”, which is the consideration\u00a0animating the jurisprudence surrounding section 8.\u00a0 The\u00a0types of considerations\u00a0which make\u00a0a person’s home\u00a0particularly inviolable under section 8\u00a0are different in kind from\u00a0those that should form the basis of special protection for the media in the context of a search warrant, subpoena to testify, or production order, and yet they are often both treated as nebulous\u00a0‘factors’ on equal footing in\u00a0a “reasonableness” analysis.<\/p>\n

Nor, in my view, does\u00a0the issue\u00a0have\u00a0much to do with the press being an “innocent third party”,\u00a0which was\u00a0highlighted in Lessard<\/em>.\u00a0While important in their own right, it is not the interests of the media or its employees as such <\/em>that are of particular constitutional significance in this type of circumstance.\u00a0Rather, it is the ability of the press to fulfill their vital role in a democratic society, which implicates interests quite different than the rights possessed by each individual to privacy.<\/p>\n

I also do not think that “freedom\u00a0of expression” is\u00a0the proper constitutional\u00a0lens through which to view this type of issue. Vice and Mr. Makush were, as far as I know, perfectly free to express themselves, to publish stories relating to the information they obtained, and the production order would have no clear impact on their ability to do so with respect to the information they had gathered.\u00a0 The core\u00a0focus of the freedom of expression analysis is typically on when the content<\/em> of expression is\u00a0sufficiently harmful to be legitimately curtailed, and when the state can suppress such expressive activities i.e. , when\u00a0can the\u00a0legislature pass a law that prohibits me or you from saying this or that thing, or\u00a0that otherwise impairs our ability to do so in\u00a0specific contexts.\u00a0 The ability of the press to operate relatively unencumbered\u00a0will undoubtedly\u00a0further expressive activities, but that is not necessarily the best way to understand the constitutional interest\u00a0engaged, at least not in every instance.<\/p>\n

The point is rather that\u00a0this type of order can\u00a0undermine the\u00a0freedom of the press, which\u00a0has\u00a0independent\u00a0constitutional value.\u00a0 I have developed these arguments at length in an article<\/a>, the thesis of which is roughly that “(p)ress freedom has a unique function and plays a distinct role in the constellation of fundamental\u00a0freedoms, and it deserves to be rescued from its neglected place in our constitutional framework.”<\/p>\n

Doing so would not result in the conclusion\u00a0that such orders should never be granted, given the countervailing societal interest in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. However, I think that analytical clarity and transparency would be promoted by attending\u00a0to the constitutional considerations most directly at stake, and the unique\u00a0purposes underlying press freedom.<\/p>\n

That is, while doctrines that have been built up around the reasonableness of orders which may have an impact on press freedom, and while these typically speak of ensuring that the importance of the media is a “factor” to consider,\u00a0those analyses\u00a0can lead to precious little by way of tangible protection for press freedom as a standalone constitutional freedom.\u00a0 The best way to give proper consideration to the value of press freedom\u00a0may be\u00a0to address that issue directly,\u00a0not to conceive of press freedom as some intangible\u00a0or\u00a0amorphous\u00a0add-on to an analysis grounded in other Charter <\/em>protected interests, such as freedom of expression or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures (which we all enjoy, whether or not we are engaged in press-like activities). Addressing press freedom as a discrete constitutional\u00a0guarantee would, I think, assist the Courts in\u00a0focusing on the real\u00a0constitutional interests\u00a0at issue press freedom and why it is uniquely valuable in our constitutional framework. Whether and to what extent doing so would result in more robust protection for press freedom in any given instance cannot be answered in the abstract, but it would at least\u00a0ensure we are asking the right questions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week,\u00a0the Ontario Superior Court upheld a production order issued against Vice Media, which required Vice to turn over to law enforcement various communications between\u00a0its reporter Ben Makuch\u00a0and an individual under investigation for suspected involvement with a terrorist organization, ISIS (here’s the Vice story on the decision).\u00a0 Among other matters covered by the application, Vice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":913,"featured_media":293499,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[],"class_list":["post-293501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nVice magazine, production orders and press freedom<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Last week,\u00a0the Ontario Superior Court upheld a production order issued against Vice Media, which required Vice to turn over to law enforcement various communications between\u00a0its reporter Ben Makuch\u00a0and an individual under investigation for suspected involvement with a terrorist organization, ISIS (here’s the Vice story on the decision).\u00a0 Among other matters covered by the application, Vice […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Policy Options\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T18:46:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-28T19:26:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"700\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"vkurzawa\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@irpp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@irpp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"vkurzawa\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/\",\"name\":\"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-04T18:46:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-28T19:26:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/caa28d6bbc41d147877478e79aa84e6e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":700},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Policy Options\",\"description\":\"Institute for Research on Public Policy\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/caa28d6bbc41d147877478e79aa84e6e\",\"name\":\"vkurzawa\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/000fc191cb4be23411c2528f5429f16b0d72633aac55540779eff4743edb6867?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fsimone-blog%2Fimages%2Fmysteryman.png&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/000fc191cb4be23411c2528f5429f16b0d72633aac55540779eff4743edb6867?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fsimone-blog%2Fimages%2Fmysteryman.png&r=g\",\"caption\":\"vkurzawa\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/author\/vkurzawa\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom","og_description":"Last week,\u00a0the Ontario Superior Court upheld a production order issued against Vice Media, which required Vice to turn over to law enforcement various communications between\u00a0its reporter Ben Makuch\u00a0and an individual under investigation for suspected involvement with a terrorist organization, ISIS (here’s the Vice story on the decision).\u00a0 Among other matters covered by the application, Vice […]","og_url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/","og_site_name":"Policy Options","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org","article_published_time":"2016-04-04T18:46:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-28T19:26:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":700,"url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"vkurzawa","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@irpp","twitter_site":"@irpp","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"vkurzawa","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/","name":"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png","datePublished":"2016-04-04T18:46:32+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-28T19:26:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/caa28d6bbc41d147877478e79aa84e6e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-vice-website.png","width":2000,"height":700},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2016\/04\/vice-magazine-production-orders-press-freedom\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vice magazine, production orders and press freedom"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/","name":"Policy Options","description":"Institute for Research on Public Policy","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/caa28d6bbc41d147877478e79aa84e6e","name":"vkurzawa","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/000fc191cb4be23411c2528f5429f16b0d72633aac55540779eff4743edb6867?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fsimone-blog%2Fimages%2Fmysteryman.png&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/000fc191cb4be23411c2528f5429f16b0d72633aac55540779eff4743edb6867?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fsimone-blog%2Fimages%2Fmysteryman.png&r=g","caption":"vkurzawa"},"url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/author\/vkurzawa\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/913"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=293501"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293501\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":295136,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293501\/revisions\/295136"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=293501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=293501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=293501"},{"taxonomy":"article-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-status?post=293501"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-category?post=293501"},{"taxonomy":"section","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/section?post=293501"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-tag?post=293501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}