Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada about defamation law has shifted the balance from plaintiffs to defendants — in other words, towards greater free speech. The court calls it a modernization, which it is — phenomena like talk radio shows, partisan TV panels and the Internet were not around when defamation law was developing (it actually goes back 400 years). It also brings us more in synch with the U.S. approach to free speech, and breaks away from the European model of soft censorship.
RTWT.
The ruling was an awful one. It means, for example, that left wingers backed by money or connections can continue to call, say, Kate McMillan, a Nazi and white supremacist, with obvious malice and most unfairly.
Ms. McMillan, to use a handy example, is a businesswoman with customers in China and Brazil who most certainly would be dissuaded from doing business with her if they were to read these false and willfully malicious comments, leading to actual material harm.
This is nothing more than a politically correct supreme court backing a politically correct radio host (who endorsed Sven Robinsion last election) and his malicious slander of yet another social conservative; had the defendant been left wing they would have let the appeals court decision stand. Even the people who are praising the decision over at Ezra’s site have noted that Binnie’s wording was curious to say the least.
Calling an opponent of a program to indoctrinate infants with radical gay militarism a “Nazi”, a “KKK” member, and a “skinhead” is the exact opposite of fair comment; it is unfair comment made with the specific intent of maliciously smearing a political opponent and harming their reputation to a degree that would plausibly materially harm them.
Within the context of prevailing libel jurisprudence the ruling is an anomaly, this is true. To call it a precedent is false, however, as social conservatives and will continue to be held to a different standard (that could fairly be called persecution )than their opponents and members of the media. Full-on two-tier citizenship is what this ruling smacks of.
test
Sorry, Dissenting, but it is precedent and will prove useful in defending future defamation suits going the other way as well. It is an SCC decision and must be followed by all lower courts dealing with similar fact situations.
Sorry DS, you missed the point of the ruling. The defamation finding of the lower court was upheld. The SCC ruled on and broadened the nature of the fair comment defence, making it easier for someone to have and express an opinion without having to bear the weight of a defamation suit. Freedom’s a bitch – its gives strength to both a-holes and angels. That fight will have to be fought in other arenas. A good place to start would be in the schools.
Sorry Dissenting Opinion. I have to dissent with your opinion.
The ruling was bang on. An amazingly “libertarian” ruling by our Supreme Court, and 9-0 at that!
Bottom line: Freedom of speech trumps being offended.
Isn’t that what all the fuss has been regarding the HRCs? We can’t be screaming for freedom of speech for Ezra or Mark Steyn, and say that it should be illegal for some lunatic leftie to call everyone they oppose a nazi. Let them.
We know we are not nazis. If some doofus calls me a nazi for no good reason, he proves his own ignorance and inability to make a case for his ideas. He only has insults to throw. No problem for me. Bring it on.
We know who the real Nazis are. And this ruling has weakened them because it has reduced their ability to shut down the voices who oppose them by abusing the legal system.
Life’s unfair, Dissenting, but, fortunately most adults can sift through name calling and see it for what it is, to imply otherwise is an insult to all of us grown-ups.
I am more curious about what effect it amy or may not have on certain lawsuits against a number of bloggers…?
We saw this coming. I’m have been very supportive of Steyn and Levant, knowing full well that when a Christian is attacked it would be fair game. Did Mair’s comments not incite hatred? Hasn’t that been the basis of the other cases?When it comes to the Supremes they would not side with a Christian.Would the likes of Warman stand up for the Christian mom who was concerned about the values being taght her kids?The answer is obvious.
Ezra says:
“We live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones.”
Yes and now Christians and Jews will be fair game.Maybe Islam, but the former don’t rally suicide bombers or threaten lives, or have a Book that encourages murdering “infidels”
I am for free speech. I am quite aware that the laws of the land will not protect my faith, and that is ok with me.
I am more curious about what effect it amy or may not have on certain lawsuits against a number of bloggers…?
I think it looked something like this (warning – foul language, sexual innuendo and not ever, ever, EVER safe for work:
http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/MyBlog/Thought-Police/You-Just-Know.html
Meanwhile, back in Stuck on Stupid Land at Turtle Bay . .
“The UN ‘Human Rights Council’ decided this week that it is forbidden to criticize Islam because “religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” From now on, only religious scholars would be permitted to broach ‘religious matters’ before the Council.”
Maybe we can get the UNHRC to ban saying anything bad about Capitalism.
[quote] Freedom’s a bitch – its gives strength to both a-holes and angels. [/quote]
Skip,
Well said! I am amused that some are spinning the US SC decision, second amendment, to mean that “Women’s Individual Rights to choose” some how was lost when the Court upholds individual Rights. Stupid sometimes follows stupid.
My feeling is wait and see. It seems to me that this higher court decision is still open, open to the interpretation of it’s decision by lower court judges. The practical application of the decision in the lower courts will determine what it really means. Given the pompous, arrogant, silly and all over the map decisions they churn out these days who knows.
Canada’s defamation law is far too general. Here’s a passage from Thomas v CBC (1981):
If this ruling serves to reduce the circumstances that can be considered defamation then that can only be a good thing.
All of a sudden Im not so disgusted with my own country.
Now the HRC’s can suck on that for a while.
FIRE. THEM. ALL.
Bill Clinton, no less, is clearly a believer in politically incorrect free speech, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Whew, my youth was not wasted defending this country. We just may get freedom of speech yet.
I do not care how many insults leftards hurl at me(and there have been many), I only care that I cannot be arrested for hurling them back.
I think any right winger who has thin skin should stick to being on the sidelines!
VOTE REFORM!
GO ARMY!
i see this as a victory for the media and publishers which the decision refers to. no mention of joe public being protected though. hope i’m wrong.
About a year or so ago Dr. Dawg wrote an interesting post, I may have some of the details wrong, but to my recollection:
Carleton University had bestowed an honour upon a conservative rabbi who was associated with a program to “de-gay” homosexuals. Dr. Dawg wrote a letter to the Carleton newspaper raising an objection which they were reluctant to run and a discussion ensued. Dr. Dawg insisted that they run his letter which described the rabbi as a “homophobe”, and the editor refused, insisting that to do so would be libel.
Which is of course a perfect example of the double standard that exists. Christians get called bigots and worse every day in the media and this ruling does nothing to change that, but rather encourages it.
I found the post:
“I received within the hour a hastily-written email from the editor. We can’t use the word “homophobe,” she said–it’s libellous. The reference was to Rabbi Reuven Bulka, about whom I blogged here, back in the summer. Briefly, the man sits on a so-called “Scientific Advisory Committee” of NARTH, a cranky US-based outfit that believes homosexuality is a disease, and that pushes something called “reparative therapy” to cure it. So I called the editor.
“We can’t call him a homophobe,” she insisted. A journalism professor told her this could lead to a lawsuit. “But…but,” I sputtered, “calling homosexuality a disease is homophobic.” “Sorry,” she said. “I know a lot of gay people see it that way…”
“OK, then,” I said, ” call him an “anti-gay activist.” “Can’t,” she said. “He’s an anti-poverty activist. He doesn’t do enough in Ottawa to merit the other term. But we have a compromise position.”
drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/11/cowardice-at-carleton-u.html
Makes it a lot harder for ol’ Kinsella to hang the threat of a nuisance suit over anyone who refers to his former crew as racketeers and fraudsters. That opens up a whole new realm for my weekly column.
Getting ‘in line’ with the U.S. may not be such a great idea if Speaker Nancy Pelosi (dem.ca) has her way. Google Pelosi and fairness doctrine. Scary stuff!
(if this has been brought up of late – sorry.)
Kingstonlad, I share your feelings completely BUT-
just how can I vote Reform?
For those of you who live in the West and think that all Ontarians are Liberals, I am mindful of
the grassroots vote that took place a few years ago for the leader of the Reform Party. By the way, Stockwell Day was chosen. My point is this.
Hamilton Ontario is not considered a bastion of Conservatism but, on that day the polling station I attended was so busy that the police had to be called in for traffic and crowd control.
To my mind, Preston Manning was the most knowledgable and articulate politician Canada has ever seen. It’s a pity that he didn’t perservere.
Kingstonlad, thanks for the Reform comment. It brings back memories of better times.
I reference the Reform Party because their are certain leftarded moonbat idiots out there who still like to insult Reformers, and for some reason still like to bring it up.
It is just a jab at the dippers and moonbats.
EPIC WIN. I, for one, am glad I can spend this symbolic long weekend somewhat more at ease with the state of Canada.
i bet DissentingOpinion works for the heathenritescommies.
9-0 and just in time for the CanadaDay weekend!
good call by SC
to bad it was even needed
and D O must be one of those who believes FREE SPEACH for “my opinions” only
if some doofus calls me a nazi for no good reason
I agree that that’s a legit reason to want to punch someone in the face, but calm down. Most of these people are agent provocateurs, it’s their job.
As a Christian, sorry I am, I hail this as a victory because she had the right to call him a leftard immoral arsehole etc. I don’t care if I’m called a Neo Nazi, Hitler’s Mistress or the spawn of the devil if I can rebut those assertions I am happy with the name calling.
I don’t want namby pamby Libel Laws in Canada, if you call me a name or hurl mean spirited Labels at me fine as long as I can rebut you knock yourself out. I don’t want to live in a country where I have to cower in fear lest I offend.
This is good news for the Conservative Bloggers, good luck Icky Dicky with your Libel Suits fair comments is what transpired. If one places themself out their in the court of Public Opinion dah don’t be surprised if the public makes fun of you.
However; I do agree that if this were a Jew or a Muslim the Supreme Court would of sided in their favour, Canada has been led mostly by a Leftards PMs since her inseption. It’s okay to throw stones at Christians but not minority groups’ religions, interestingly the majority Religion in Canada will be Islam it’s only .2 points behind Christians and Catholics.
Let the games begin, cause the Political Islamist aren’t even warmed up yet.
How about that?
‘Even a blind squirrel finds the occassional nut’ is still true.
How Canadians can now go abroad & claim to be Democratic is beyond me.
No one else thinks so, or is fooled anymore after all the true adverse publicity brought on by these social scavengers. Watch tourism plummet. Than other industries evaporate as investors flee before the Horde of plunderers known as socialists. Some pointed questions as well, from our cousins South of us will be asked.
How will a Northern police State secure energy supplies or protect companies from a State takeover? With all these groups with different laws or group rights, how can one even run a company?
I make a prediction right now & I never usually do. Obama will lose in a landslide for McCain. Historically Americans always vote in pro military Presidents when at war. No matter what party. This will bring Canada under real political scrutiny for oil as well as uranium & other raw materials.
By the way I don’t want free expression. It sounds like its given to me by the Motherland or some nebulous expression that can mean anything. At the least its condescending. I want free speech period. Call it what it should be not weasel words.
Glad to see most of the Gay community come out of the closet for free speech (sorry couldn’t help it). I bet there are a lot of freedom haters in that clan as well as most groups, conservative or liberal. Heard it from all sides. This is truly a pan-ideological or political right we all have to save, if only to stave off the real jackboots. Its time for all sane personages to retaliate like anti-bodies against this social disease for all our sakes.
Fire them all, than right the wrongs.
The decision is a breath of fresh air.
Rafe Mair is a devoted sports fisherman and he used to rant, {on his talk show], at Van Doggen about very bad BC govt. fisheries decisions referring to him as *One Fish* VanDoggen or *Two fish Vandoggen.
VanDoggen was wise enough to not *rise to the bait*, because he knew it would bring wide attention to really bad fisheries department policies.
Points to Rafe for taking a big risk for his correct convictions. = TG
Re: SCC ruling in regard to Rafe Mair libel case:
“There was no proof that Mair’s dominant motive was personal malice, said Binnie, and thus “his expression of opinion, however, exaggerated, was protected by the law.
“We live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones.”
A key component of the fair comment defence has long been that the person making the comment must sincerely believe in it. In the course of the ruling, however, the high court modified that test.
Commentary must still have a factual basis, be made without malice and be in the public interest, said Binnie.
But the test of honest belief is not whether the specific person holding the opinion believed it. The yardstick is whether any person might honestly hold the view based on the facts at issue.”
However, extracting from another news item concerning a case from the OHRC we have this arrogant, dictatorial, bureaucratic, self-serving statement of personal supremacy:
‘Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission . . . said the Ontario Human Rights Code supersedes all other legislation, unless there is a specific exemption to exclude it written into a law.’
Every citizen should find this statement/situation intolerable in the extreme.
No coven of unelected, unaccountable, invisible bureaucrats can be allowed to operate with such over-riding power. F.T.A.
Let’s start by firing Barbara Hall.
This is highly encouraging (if admittedly surprising). Essentially, the Court followed the US Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan rather than continuing to adhere to the English common law of defamation, because to have a written constitution that protects free speech requires that the burden shift and the standard be higher. Now if only the English courts would themselves follow, whether on their own or by Parliament requiring them to.
Note that the standard of “actual malice” is not impossible to prove, it justs properly weeds out suits that are themselves malicious and frivolous.
I commented about this yesterday, perhaps it was caught in a filter?
I’m with DO on this. I realise it ‘supports’ free speech.However I do see it as open season on Christians.
It seems others agree…Shaidle at FFoF has a link to Deborah Gyapong.
Sorry, folks, Dissenting Opinion got it exactly right. This just gives lefties a license to slander Christians as foully as they wish, without recourse. Occam’s Carbuncle is being naive; this defense will prove mysteriously unavailable whenever someone sues a righty.