An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to “chill” freewheeling debate on matters of public interest. supreme court of canada
We no longer live in the world of “gentlemen’s clubs” or regimental messes where, to write an NSF cheque got you a room with a table and a gun in the drawer. Contra the LyingJackal, a slight is not a law suit and, at last, the SCC is bring a degree of the Sullivan rules into Canadian defamation law.
Basic takeaway: enter the arena and you ply by rules rather different from those of private life.
Investigative reports get “spiked”, it is contended, because, while true, they are based on facts that are difficult to establish according to rules of evidence. When controversies erupt, statements of claim often follow as night follows day, not only in serious claims (as here) but in actions launched simply for the purpose of intimidation. supreme court of canada
Not a good day for the libel warriors; rather a good day for free speechers.
Update: Reading further Rothstein, Jis quoted in the headnote:
To satisfy the fair comment defence, there is no requirement to prove objective honest belief. The defence of fair comment should only require the defendant to prove (a) that the statement constituted comment, (b) that it had a basis in true facts and (c) that it concerned a matter of public interest. scc
Let’s see: assorted defendants commented on the disgusting nature of the Anne Cools post, they relied on a factually pattern of behaviour which included posting under pseudonyms, and they commented, rather negatively, on the behaviour of a person who would publish such nasty stuff.
Hmmm…I am liking the Canuck 6’s chances a lot more than I did yesterday.
Written by jay on June 27th, 2008 with 7 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Uncategorized and canadian gossip and free speech and idiot lefties.
The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.
For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed. mark steyn
Now my commentors truewest and Dr. Dawg will, no doubt take this as evidence that the system works and that Taylor really can be used to dismiss complaints which are not, in fact, about hate speech.
My sense is that Taylor works if you have deep pockets, have said nothing which is even close to hate speech and, most importantly, have dimwits like the Socks and the CIC as the complainants. At a guess the CHRC watched the Mohammedan legal titan present his “not a case” in BC and realized just how stupid these kids are. The CHRC also watched as virtually every newspaper in the country denounced s.13 and it realized that there was growing political momentum in support of Dr. Keith Martin’s motion to repeal s. 13.
The one two punch of appointing a tame academic to make recommendations and then to dismiss the Socks crazy charge is pretty transparently designed to reduce the political heat the Commission is feeling. And, I suspect, it will do just that.
Summer is here, Ms. Lynch and her remaining supporter, the Lying Jackal, will retire from the field and hope this will all blow over.
Our job is to make sure it doesn’t.
Even with Taylor rules the mere threat of a CHRC complaint, not to mention the CHRC investigator’s rule-free techniques, put an ongoing chill on political conversation in Canada. The overbreadth of s. 13 means that for less well heeled respondents, the CHRC remains a real threat.
Fire. Them. All.
Written by jay on June 27th, 2008 with 8 comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
In Johannesburg, Robert Mugabe was given a rousing welcome by Africans from across the continent. As he addressed the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, we ululated and sang his praises, and after his brief speech we gave him a standing ovation. He spoke of the wonderful work he had achieved in Zimbabwe with his “agrarian reforms” in a country where 70% of prime land had been owned by just 4,000 white farmers
Here was an African leader who was prepared to redress the injustices of the past by giving land back to its rightful indigenous owners. Here was a government doing what our own was afraid to: dealing with the problems of inequitable distribution through one short, swift surgical action. Here was a black man giving the former colonial masters the finger. We went into frenzied applause when he thundered: “So, Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe!”
It did not matter to us that the process was not done in a way that respected the rule of law, or that the so-called agrarian reforms were an election ploy to win votes from a peasantry that had been marginalised since 1980. the guardian!!
Long past time for on the ground adult supervision I’d say: the murderous bastard and his cronies will be re-elected today. Nice to see that the Guardian has noticed that not all African politicians are saints.
Written by jay on June 27th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on International and idiot lefties.