quote:

---

...the plaintiff was defamed, but the defendants have satisfied the necessary requirements for a successful defence of fair comment. Having reached that conclusion, I do not need to consider the alternate defence of qualified privilege or to deal with the issue of damages. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

---

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

On the personal level, the war against these women was multiplied by Quebec antifeminist websites unleashing a barrage of extraordinary vile hate speech against them - especially Pierrette Bouchard - the main scholar. But hate speech against women is legal in Canada - see C-254 Fact Sheet and please convince your organization to join that struggle.

Indeed, there is another lawsuit being heard in Quebec, against a feminist activist, Barbara Legault, and the left-wing magazine (correction back-edited in) A bâbord, by a men's rights activist for merely mentioning his group's name in an objective summary of antifeminist anti-woman activity in Québec. Both have much less financial resources than SWC and Laval U. Monies have been raised in the activist community but again, this creates a chill effect on critiques of antifeminist activity.

Such bogus allegations of personal defamation are lodged by self-represented individuals that incur almost no costs and are allowed by the system to financially hobble activists and academics with lawsuits - SLAPP litigation by individuals, so to speak.

Still, I think that it is an important victory that the B.C. Superior Court has ruled that you can tell the truth and express a strong opinion about right-wing misogynist organizations and not be found guilty of undue defamation.
A message is sent to the media that used to relay these yahoos' claims of systemic physical and ideological female violence against men - and that now come to recognize this discourse as reactionary drivel and agressive litigants as nuisances and opponents of gender justice and society as a whole.

The justice system is also taking notice and self-alleged "men's rightists" are meeting with increasing skepticism and opposition. The antifeminist suing Legault and Rebelles in Montreal was recently deemed a "querulous litigant" by the Court and barred from lodging any more lawsuits without authorities' approval - this after he repeatedly took on the Quebec Bar and a number of other male-stream judicial institutions in his mindless stance of total warfare against a system he claims to be wholly in the hands of feminists.

In the end, antifeminists are isolated and undercut not only by feminist scholarship and activism challenging their bogus statistics, smears, and antisocial behaviour, but by their own rage at the elements of the system that fail to sufficiently relay their war against women.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Here is the declaration by Barbara Legault and the collective: http://www.ababord.org/Declaration.pdf

They are very much in need of support against these macho rightwing cretins.

Please send any contributions here:

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I am worried about any precedent it may have, however. My rudimentary understanding of the case is that it now allows defamation to take place and go unpunished so long as the accused can show that they (not the courts) interpreted something as hateful at the time of defamation.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skarredmunkey:
I am worried about any precedent it may have, however.

---

quote:

---

My rudimentary understanding of the case is that it now allows defamation to take place and go unpunished so long as the accused can show that they (not the courts) interpreted something as hateful at the time of defamation.

---

quote:

---

I wonder will Wiebe v Bouchard provide the impetus for just about anyone to -- rightly or wrongly -- deem something as hateful, and therefore be protected from accusations of defamation?

---

From the judgment

quote:

---

In order to succeed in an action for defamation, a plaintiff must show:
1. That the words complained of are defamatory;
2. That they referred to the plaintiff; and
3. That they were published to a third party.
…If the plaintiff proves those elements, the defendant can rely on a number of specific defences. The relevant defences in this case are justification (truth), fair comment and qualified privilege.
SNIP

A defamatory statement is one that “tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or to expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt.” … Just as it is defamatory to label a person a racist …there can be little doubt that an association with hatred and violence against women would “lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”

---

quote:

---

4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment.

Media articles that accurately report what was said at public meetings are also privileged, unless the meeting was not of public concern and the report was not for public benefit.

---