Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Islamic Republic of Iran Controls Canadian Politicians
Thursday July 22nd, 2010
The Islamic Republic of Iran Controls Canadian Politicians
The Islamic Republic of Iran is controlling federal, provincial and local Canadian politicians by having lobby groups like Iran Canada Business Council which is making political campaign contribution to the Canadian politicians. In return the rouge state in Iran is able to make investments in Canada, as well as, acquisition of nuclear capability.
The Iran Canada Business Council plays a vital role in recruiting Canadian politicians under disguise of political campaign contribution and securing the Iranian regime's investments in Canada. According to the Iran Canada Business Council's acting chairperson Mr. Ahmad TABRIZI {Ahmad Reza TABRIZI} “the Iran Canada Business Council provides members with exceptional opportunities to develop business in Iran. Through a wide network of senior business and government contacts both in Canada and in Iran, the Council is able to provide members with entree into one of the most important and growing markets in the Middle East.”
On August 14th, 2003 the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada released a report {IRN41817, E}about role of the Revolutionary Guard Corps which was controlling Iran's construction industry, and had closed ties with the cleric circle in Iran. Mr. TABRIZI is involved in construction industry in Iran. In addition, Canada allowed cleric Rafsanjani who is an infamous international terrorist to build Highway 407, and Center Point Mall with his family in city of Toronto, Province of Ontario. Most importantly, it was against Criminal Code of Canada section 83.03 to allow a terrorist entity like Rafsanjani to use Canada as an economic base.
In March 1992 Canadian Security Intelligence Service released a report of the rouge state in Iran's ambition to pursue nuclear power by Dr. R. HENDERSON. Interestingly, this research paper mentioned “we [Iran] have learned that preserving our independence and survival in this unsuitable international climate is not possible without science, technology and the necessary tool. Iranian President Rafsanjani, New York Times, 18 November 1991.” Furthermore, in November 1995 the CSIS stated that the regime is isolated from international community because it is pursuing nuclear power. Despite the above ugly reality, the Canadian politicians gave their blessing to the rouge state in Iran, and provided the regime with nuclear power, and other secondary materials to the regime in Iran to build underground nuclear powers.
The rouge state of Iran's lobby group in Canada has been proven to be influential in Canada by forming fraudulent charity organizations like Parya Trillium Foundation, and registered its address at 30 Kern Road, T.O ON M3B 1T1. Interestingly, Mr. TABRIZI registered his company's {Taim Canada Inc.} address under the above address, who is making political campaign contributions to the Canadian politicians under different charities, companies and names.
All in all, the rouge state in Iran is recruiting Canadian politicians in order to use Canada as an economic base. In return, the Canadian politicians would provide safe haven for terrorist like Rafsanjani, and providing nuclear power to the regime in Iran to bully other nations.
Advocate
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Adam Josephs-Toronto Police Services-52 Div
Not only Toronto Police Services is acting like a bully, all law enforcers in Canada are acting like a bully. This police officer is making up story that this lady is assualting him with a bubble in front of the camera. Now, imagine when there is no camera, he would lie all the way. Thus, this police officer, and all police officers in Canada=Revolutionary Guard in Iran.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Shahram Shabpareh
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Our Man in Tehran: Ken Taylor, The CIA, and The Iran Hostage Crisis by Robert Wright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33o9U7DtEy8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwWCS88UfG8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl9_t3UjetM
On page 8 this author stated the shah had indeed married the girl, Gilda Soufi... Ottawa obliged. Not even the KGB knew that the shah had taken a fourth wife.” According to historical fact, King Mohammad Reza PAHLAVI married three times, and at each time of his marriage, there was monogamy relationship. Thus, this author's claim that the King was involved in a polygamy relationship was false. In addition, this author was reverberating the theocratic regime's propaganda in Iran that the King had a mistress. After careful consideration, this author left a taste that he has a connection with the regime in Iran.
On page 17, this author put a great leverage on 1953 coup which was orchestrated by the US. According to CIA documents, it did not take part in 1953 coup in Iran, the below weblink would shed lights on 1953 coup in Iran.
http://iranzamin2529.blogspot.com/2009/04/1953-coup-detat-in-iran.html
On page 21, this author mentioned that the King called himself, King of Kings or Shahanshah, Light of Aryan. As a matter of fact, it was part of Iran's political culture to refer to all Iranian/Persian monarchs as King of Kings. The Light of Aryan title was given to Him by academic arena. The King also had another title, Great Chief and Commander of of Imperial Army.
On several pages, this author mentioned that SAVAK agents had torture machines in their homes. The above allegation emerged on the surface after victory of 1979 Revolution in Iran. After careful consideration, the above allegation had no merit. First, victims would be in pain and would be making loud noises, so neighbors would know that there were problems. Last, this author claimed that there were victims body parts. Obviously, these places would cause staunch. Currently, there are SAVAK agents all over the world, and none ever brought international courts.
This author mentioned several times about armories were present in the streets. Indeed, in 1970's, Quebec wanted to separate from rest of Canada, and there were individuals that they engaged in terrorist activities. There were marshal laws in place, and absent of civil liberty. Of course, in the above case, the end justify the meaning. However, in case of Pahlavi, it would be constituted as brutality.
On page 50, this author needed to read General Robert Huyser's book “ Mission to Tehran” that how he prevented the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces to stage a coup in Iran. In addition, he was puzzled why Carter's administration was forcing General Toufanian to buy more weapons from the US.
This author illustrated bias toward 1979 revolution by calling former Generals with derogatory names while this author was praising the revolutionary people.
This author had no firm grasp of Iran's 1979 Revolution because he was referring to King Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Reza Pahlavi.
There were plenty of grammar mistakes.
This author also invented his own version of history by claiming that Khomeini's sons, Ahmad and Mustafa were well trained in military skills. In fact, Ahmad, and Mustafa were pleasently plum, and Mustafa died as a result of over eating.
The bottom line, this book reminder of BBC propaganda.
Friday, April 02, 2010
In The Name of My Father
Shirin is a prime example that how these individuals are impeding Iran's liberation from tyranny of mullah in Iran.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Public Declaration from Me to Your E-mail Viruses
As a result, I do not open any e-mail from past acquaintances, or individuals, they pretend that they are working for cause of Iran while they are informants of the rouge state of Islamice Republic of Iran in the West.
You can send me, as many e-mail as, you want too. You are same low life persons, and that is what you are.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Sunday, January 03, 2010
The Servants of Devil
Sunday January 03rd, 2009
1.Creating a Marxist-Islamist Utopia.
2.Respecting safety and security of Imperial Iranian Armed Forces.
3.Freedom of speech.
In February 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran after fifteen (15) years of exile, and when one American reporter, in the airplane, asked Khomeini, how did he feel about returning to Iran? He said nothing. He had no feeling to Iran. As this child of Prophet Muhammad landed in Iran, he did not waste any time, he formed firing squads and commenced to executed members of Imperial Iranian Armed Forces in order to prevent any possible military coup. The widows did not have chance to say good bye to their loved one, as the Marxist-Islamist factions began to confiscate assets of Imperial Iranian Armed Forces and families left destitute. Some of these families fled Iran, and some went back to their parents' houses.
Khomeini did not want to share political sphere with anyone as he gave himself title of Ayatollah/Sign of God, and Ro-Ho-Llah which means Spirit of God. Interesting, in Islam, it was forbidden to associate anything to God, it was constituted as blasphemy sin, and punishment was death, but he did.
Khomeini asked the left-wing factions to speak freely in Iran, as the Marxist Factions would appear before cameras, and would discuss utopia. Once, these left-wing factions were identified, the freedom of speech of abolished, and Iran's prisons were filled with the left-wing factions. The regime had one solution for these individuals in the prisons. Let's purge them all. In case of young ladies that they were not married. They had to be touched in order to prevent them from entering garden of heaven. The Revolutionary Guards, Paramilitary (Besij) and any other form of Iron Fist of the regime commenced to illustrate their loyalty to the regime by taking part in touching the ladies in the prisons, and their execution in the glory of Prophet Muhammad and Allah.
According to the below video clip, it illustrated that in Iran's culture it was rude to kiss another man's hand, as MOUSAVI and others were kissing Khomeini's hand. Plus, Koran was above Khomeini, and Koran in Chapter 5 verse 51 and Chapter 9 verse 29 mentioned God did not like arrogant people.
http://iranzamin2529.blogspot.com/2009/10/mafia-iri.html
The real fact would remain solid that Khomeini and his associates began to plunder Iran's wealth, in some cases, they destroyed ancient sites of Iran because they hate Iran or they sold priceless items to other nations so they would have more money in their bank accounts. These type of individuals were serving purpose of evil, and were nothing but servants of devil. Mr. MOUSAVI, Mr. KHATAMI and any individual was associated with the regime was nothing but a godless person, and was servant of devil. Would you hand shake with devil?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The Green Movement in Iran
Justice for All
Thursday December 31st, 2009
The Green Movement in Iran
It is difficult to believe Mr. Mir Hussein MOUSAVI, who took part in purging, in 1988, political prisoners by feeding them rat poison, now he is acting as some form of dissident against the cleric regime. It is also hard to believe Mr. MOUSAVI, who is cousin of Sign of God/Ayatollah Khameine, would do anything to undermine the legitimacy of his cousin. Especially, in Iran family ties are deep, and it would not be that easy for someone to take certain action against his own family. Particularly it is troublesome to believe, Mr. MOUSAVI is against the establishment in Iran because this normative control model system would not allow any individual to be part of the system, unless he has proven his loyalty to the system. So, why all of sudden Mr. MOUSAVI decided to be outspoken about the regime in Iran? Mr. MOUSAVI took part in plundering Iran's wealth, and why all of sudden his conscience is disturb by the establishment in Iran? And the regime in Iran would eliminate any individual for undermining fundamental principles of the regime in Iran. So, why is the regime in Iran not eliminating Mr. MOUSAVI?
The key point is that any rational mind should view the regime in Iran as a cunning fox. This is the regime which is good at playing games with others, and a rational mind should think that how the regime was gaining from the Green Movement in Iran. The regime in Iran was facing harsh criticism over nuclear proliferation. It reached to a point that Israel openly was calling for air strike on nuclear facilities in Iran. The democrat US Administration wanted to have appeasement with the regime in Iran, and in return the regime in Iran would give-up on nuclear proliferation. However, the regime in Iran did not give-up on its core principle of nuclear proliferation, and remain steadfast to develop nuclear facilities, and AHMADI NEZHAD was calling for destruction of Israel, as well as, US. Thus, the system came-up with game of Green Movement in Iran in order to distract International Communities from nuclear proliferation to velvet revolution in Iran while the regime in Iran was increasing its nuclear proliferation, and asked from Kazakhstan for high enriched uranium. Plus, the current upheaval enable the regime to dodge sanction, and given hope to the Israel and the US that the regime in Iran was going through transformation, and there was no need to be concern about nuclear programs. Let's be hopeful that the regime in Iran will change.
Let's hope nothing because the regime in Iran is a family business and no one would go against family.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Limitation Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 266
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Defamation: Libel and Slander
Script 240 gives information only, not legal advice. If you have a legal problem or need legal advice, you should speak to a lawyer. For the name of a lawyer to consult, call Lawyer Referral at 604.687.3221 in the lower mainland or 1.800.663.1919 elsewhere in British Columbia.
What is defamation?
Defamation is communication about a person that tends to hurt the person's reputation. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it's about. It can be spoken, which is called slander, Or it can be written, which is called libel. It can also be a gesture, which is a type of slander.
The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue them to pay money (called “damages”) for harming your reputation. You have to sue in Supreme Court, not Provincial Court, and you have to sue within 2 years of the defamation. For more on the court system, check script 432, called “Our Court System and Solving Disputes.” You don’t have to prove that the people who heard or read the defamation actually believed it. Even if they knew it was false, it can still be defamation. Courts realize that lies can take on a life of their own.
The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride; it protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you probably don't have a good reason to sue. If he goes on to say you cheat in your business dealings, you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you. If he says it only to you, you can't sue because he has not hurt your reputation.
Defamation can be a crime under the Criminal Code, but only rarely. This script is about civil, not criminal, defamation. If someone has defamed you, you may also be able to sue for a violation of your privacy under the provincial Privacy Act. Further, section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code prohibits another type of defamation, namely, a discriminatory publication. For more information on that, contact the BC Human Rights Tribunal at 604.775.2000 in Vancouver and 1.888.440.8844 elsewhere in BC. Or see its website at www.bchrt.bc.ca. Also, check script 236, called “Human Rights and Discrimination Protection.”
What is libel?
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher.
What is slander?
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to pay you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very hard to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.
But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without your proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if it were libel, if someone:
- accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police)
- accuses you of having a contagious disease
- makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business
- accuses you of adultery
What about the right to free speech?
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other rights more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.
What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:
- truth (known in law as "justification")
- absolute privilege
- qualified privilege
- fair comment
1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.
2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made in Parliament and statements made as evidence at a trial or in court documents. But this privilege does not apply if a person repeats their evidence outside a courtroom. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of these statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.
3. Qualified privilege
Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defense of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.
4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest statements of opinion, 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.
What effect does an apology have?
A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away.
Summary
The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win.
[updated September 2009]
Dial-A-Law© is a library of legal information that is available:
- by phone, as recorded scripts, and
- by audio and text, on the CBA BC Branch website.
To access Dial-A-Law, call 604.687.4680 in the lower mainland or 1.800.565.5297 elsewhere in BC. Dial-A-Law is available online at www.cba.org/bc in Public & Media.
The Dial-A-Law library is prepared by lawyers and gives practical information on many areas of law in British Columbia. Dial-A-Law is funded by the Law Foundation of British Columbia and sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch.
© Copyright 1983-2009 The Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch
Defamation and SLAPPs
famation and SLAPPs
Note: The information provided in this document is of a general nature and does not constitute legal advice. Moreover, it addresses only some issues in defamation law, and only under the law in Ontario, Canada. While the law of defamation in other common law jurisdictions (e.g., other provinces in Canada excluding Quebec, England, Australia, the USA) is based on similar principles, it can vary in important respects. If you have questions about how defamation law applies in a particular situation, you should consult a local lawyer.
Introduction
As an inexpensive and accessible medium of worldwide communication, the Internet offers individuals unprecedented new opportunities to publish and share information and opinions. Messages posted on websites or in discussion forums have a potentially vast audience, and can be replicated almost endlessly. This means that defamatory statements published on the Internet can have wide repercussions for affected individuals or corporations.
In a June 2004 case, Barrick Gold Corporation v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal increased a trial judge's damage award for internet-based defamation from $15,000 to $75,000, with an additional $50,000 punitive damages, on the grounds that Internet defamation has a distinctive capacity "to cause instantaneous, and irreparable, damage to the business reputation of an individual or corporation by reason of its interactive and globally all-pervasive nature", as well as its potential for being taken at face value. The company in this case was able to prove actual harm by showing that its shareholders had seen the defamatory statements. It should also be noted that defendant did not defend himself in the appeal.
At the same time that the online context can exacerbate the harmful effects of defamation, it serves as an important vehicle for free speech. Efforts to protect reputation need to be balanced against the public interest in maintaining the potential of the Internet as a medium of public discourse. The law of defamation needs to protect people from cyber-libel without squelching legitimate free speech. Lawsuits that allege defamation in order to curtail fair criticism - known as "SLAPPs" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) - should not be permitted, either online or offline.
F.A.Q.
- What is defamation?
- Who can sue for defamation?
- What are "defamatory words"?
- To whom must the words refer?
- What is meant by "a publication"?
- What are the possible defences to defamation?
- What is "justification"?
- What is "consent"?
- What is "absolute privilege"?
- What is "qualified privilege"?
- What is "fair comment"?
- What is "innocent dissemination"?
- What is the responsible journalism defence?
- Does the responsible journalism defense apply to non-journalist?
- Are there time limitations that apply to defamation actions?
- What are the notice requirements and limitation periods specific to defamation actions?
- How do these deadlines apply to statements posted on the Internet?
- Can I be sued for defamation in another country because of comments I post on the Internet?
- What are "SLAPPs"?
- What are "CyberSLAPPs"?
- How are governments reacting to SLAPPs?
What is defamation?
Defamation is the unjust harming of another's reputation by libel or slander. Libel is defamation in a fixed medium (such as a written story, a cartoon, a videotape, etc.), while slander is of an oral nature (spoken words).
Someone alleging defamation must prove three things:
- That the words used by the defendant were "defamatory";
- That the words referred to the plaintiff; and
- That the words were published to a third party.
In three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan), libel and slander actions are treated differently from each other. In these provinces, the plaintiff in a libel case does not need to show that he has suffered any losses that can be exactly quantified at the time that the trial starts; whereas the plaintiff in a slander case, must prove such a loss to be able to sue, except in four cases (related to work or business, accusations of criminal offences, imputations of diseases, and unchastity of a woman). This difference in treatment between the two actions has been abolished in the other provinces.
Who can sue for defamation?
Both corporations and individuals can sue, or be sued, for defamation. However, it has recently been confirmed that municipal corporations (municipalities) cannot sue for defamation. (Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac, 2006 CanLII 12970 (ON S.C.)) This does not imply that individual city councilors cannot sue for defamation on their own behalf using their own funds.
What are "defamatory words"?
Defamatory words are statements that, in the eyes of a reasonable person, discredit the plaintiff.
Speaking of the "reasonable man," Canadian courts have said:
"...He is a person of normal intelligence who makes prudence a guide to his conduct. He does nothing that a prudent man would not do and does not omit to do anything a prudent man would do. He acts in accord with general and approved practice. His conduct is guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. His conduct is the standard 'adopted in the community by persons of ordinary intelligence and prudence' " (Arland v. Taylor, [1955] 3 D.L.R. 358 (Ont C.A.))"
"A reasonable person will generally refrain from giving out unfavourable information about other people if he or she has reason to doubt the truth of the information." (Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663 at para. 36)
When the law says that the words must be discrediting, it means that they must somehow harm, injure, disparage or adversely affect a person's reputation. The Court will apply an objective test here, that is, the statement is judged by the standard of a reasonable reader or listener.
Once the defamatory character of the statement is established, the Court will presume that the words are false. It is up to the defendant to establish that they are true. Minor inaccuracies will not count if the words are essentially true. In other words, a plaintiff will not win by nitpicking. (See "What is justification?", below.)
It is therefore a good idea for anyone publishing material that discredits another person to keep copies of any evidence that could help to establish the truth of the statements. Such evidence will also show that you took steps to verify the truth of the statements should you ever be sued.
To whom must the words refer?
Plaintiffs in a defamation case must prove that the words refer to them, either directly or by reasonable implication. The document need not identify them by name in order to be considered defamatory, but it must refer to them. The court will look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication in order to determine whether this element is proven.
What is meant by "a publication"?
To establish the tort of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defamatory words were "published". This does not mean printed in a public document; rather, the law simply requires the words were communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Posting defamatory material on a website or newsgroup constitutes publication, as does sending a letter or email to another person. Posting a hyperlink on a website to another website that has posted defamatory material does not constitute publication unless this hyperlink clearly indicates that it is referring to a defamatory statement on another website. (Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 2008 CanLII 1424 (BCSC))
What are the possible defences to defamation?
Various defences are available to people who are accused of defamation. A defendant to a defamation lawsuit can succeed by proving any of the following:
- Justification (i.e., truth),
- Consent,
- Absolute privilege,
- Qualified privilege (and lack of malice),
- Fair comment (and lack of malice), and
- Innocent dissemination, and
- Responsible journalism.
What is "justification"?
"Justification" refers to truth of the statement. In Canadian common law provinces, truth is a complete defence to defamation. This is not the case in some Australian states, South Africa, and some US states.
This is also not the case in Québec where the Supreme Court confirmed in 2004 that it was possible to tell the truth and still be liable for defamation (Gilles E. Néron Communication Marketing Inc. v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95.) In Quebec, the truth or falsity of a statement is not conclusive because what is essential is the existence or absence of a fault. A fault in Québec civil law is loosely defined as behavior that strays from how a person should normally behave towards others. Even if the statement is true, the way in which the statement is made can still constitute a fault. In Néron, the court found that the CBC had committed a fault because a report gave incomplete information and resembled more a “settling of accounts” than an unbiased account.
In Canadian common law provinces, were truth is a complete defense, the plaintiff gets a head start because the law presumes that the words are false, but a defendant who can prove that they are true will be exonerated.
Note that believing that a statement was true is not a defence. Those who publish statements will be held responsible for them.
Also note that minor errors will not falsify a statement. Rather, the court will look at the totality of what was said, to determine if it is substantially true.
What is "consent"?
If the defendant has proven that the plaintiff has earlier consented to the posting of the words, then the defendant will be exonerated.
There are no formal waivers that need to be signed, since consent can be implicit. This would of course become a matter of proof. If you get consent in writing, hang on to that piece of paper!
Of course the usual legal exceptions apply here: consent will not be valid if it is obtained by fraud, duress or coercion.
What is "absolute privilege"?
"Absolute privilege" is a very broad and powerful defence to defamation. It relates to various kinds of official communications, such as talks between high public officials, speeches in Parliament, and any communications exchanged during court cases by any participant. To qualify for absolute privilege, the communication must have been made in the context of the official's function.
What is "qualified privilege"?
"Qualified privilege" applies when greater harm would come from the restriction of free speech than from the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Note that this defence can apply even when the words are clearly false and defamatory.
There are no simple rules as to the scope of this defence. Qualified privilege arises when social policy calls for us to protect and encourage certain types of communications. The law in this matter is neither well settled nor clear. Readers wishing a more thorough discussion should refer to the books listed in the "Resources" section, below, or should consult a lawyer familiar with this area of law.
A defence of qualified privilege is less likely to succeed where:
- The accusations pertain to a very serious matter, and the harm to the plaintiff outweighs the public interest in receiving the communication;
- The information was not verified, and the plaintiff did not have a chance to respond to the allegations before they were published;
- The tone of the publication was more sensational than restrained and moderate;
A defence of qualified privilege is more likely to succeed where:
- The communications were made to protect the defendant's or another person's property or safety;
- The communications were made to protect community interest, or the public.
These factors are by no means exhaustive, and both defendants and plaintiffs will need to argue the specifics of their situation.
Also note that to be able to use this defence, the defendant cannot have acted with malice. Malice may be established by showing that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of whether the statement was true or false. If the plaintiff can prove that the words were published with malice, this defence will not apply.
Finally, plaintiffs may also argue that the privilege should not apply in their case because the information was communicated to a greater number of people than required, e.g., a website which is available to all members of the public, and not just to a particular group of people.
What is "fair comment"?
"Fair comment" applies to statements of opinion, as opposed to fact. This defence is based on the fundamental right of free speech, and in particular, the right of everyone to express their opinion.
The "fair comment" defence is limited to matters of public interest, and does not apply if the comment was made with malice. The statement must be recognizable as a comment or opinion and cannot be a factual statement. It must however be based on facts and the comment must be one that could have been honestly expressed from these facts. (WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40) The “fair comment” defence will have little chance of success if there are no facts to support the comment.
What is "innocent dissemination"?
As a general rule, all those who are responsible for publication of a defamatory statement can be held liable for it. This could include the owner of the website, the people who edit it, and those who author the content. However, those who only participate in a purely mechanical way in the distribution may be exempt from being sued. This could include an Internet Service Provider who does not know of the material that is being published through its service. Innocent disseminators will not be liable provided they were not negligent in not knowing the material contained a libel.
In Canada, the defence of innocent dissemination in relation to Internet postings has, to date, not been well developed. Other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have passed legislation in order to address the position of ISPs in Internet defamation cases. In the U.S., s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been interpreted very broadly by the courts so as to protect ISPs from incurring any liability in regard to material taken from other sources which is carried on their services. In the U.K, the Defamation Act, 1996, helped to clarify the defence of innocent dissemination for ISPs
For a defendant to succeed using the defence of innocent dissemination, he must prove that he had no knowledge that the publication contained defamatory matter.
If the defence succeeds, plaintiffs will not be awarded any damages from the ISP who posted the defamatory statements.
What is the responsible journalism defence?
The responsible journalism defence was only recently confirmed in Canada by the Ontario Court of Appeal (Cusson c. Quan, 2007 CanLII 771 (ONCA)). For this defence to succeed, a journalist or “media defendant” must show that reasonable steps were taken to ensure the fairness and veracity of the published content. Like the “fair comment” defence, the information must be of public interest. What are considered “reasonable steps” will vary with circumstances. For example, if the allegations are fairly serious, the defendant will need to show that more thorough research and fact checking was done than for a fairly benign allegation. The Court of Appeal adopted a list of 10 factors articulated in the United Kingdom by the House of Lords Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2001] 2 A.C. 127 that may be considered in ascertaining whether or not a defendant took “reasonable steps” to ensure the fairness and the veracity of the report:
- The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
- The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
- The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
- The steps taken to verify the information.
- The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
- The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
- Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
- Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
- The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
- The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
This list is not exhaustive and the court can consider other factors.
It should be noted that the decision to admit this defence by the Ontario Court of Appeal is presently on appeal at the Supreme Court and that availability of this defence could change in the upcoming months.
Does the responsible journalism defense apply to non-journalist?
Being fairly new, whether the responsible journalism defense applies to blogs, podcast or other modes of dissemination not traditionally considered as journalism remains uncertain. In Cusson v. Quan, the Court only referred to “media defendants” leading us to believe that anyone who posts a text or a podcast on the internet in the public interest should be able to invoke this defense.
Are there time limitations that apply to defamation actions?
Time limitations for bringing a defamation lawsuit vary depending on the jurisdiction, i.e., in what country or province the case goes to trial. They can be very short, and may involve more than one relevant deadline. In Ontario, the general civil suit limitation period is two years from the day that the damage was discovered by the plaintiff. There is a presumption that the plaintiff was made aware of the damage on the day it first occurred so it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove otherwise in Court. The time limitation can however be shorter if prescribed by specific statutes. For example, shorter time limitations are prescribed for defamation lawsuits by the Libel and Slander Act. (See “What are the notice requirements and limitation periods specific to defamation actions?”, bellow)
At this time, it is not clear how these deadlines will apply in the online world.
What are the notice requirements and limitation periods specific to defamation actions?
Plaintiffs seeking to sue for being defamed must follow strict notice requirements and limitation periods. In Ontario (and many other jurisdictions), there are two deadlines to keep in mind.
-
Under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act, a plaintiff must first send a notice in writing specifying the matter complained of. This notice must be sent to each person that is to be sued. No special legal documents need to be used, as a letter explaining specifically what the complaint is about will suffice. It is important that the notice be sent within the time allowed by law. If this is not done in time, the plaintiff will lose his right to sue.
In Ontario, the notice must be sent within six weeks after the alleged act of libel has come to the plaintiff's knowledge. If the defendant is an individual, the notice must be delivered personally to him or her. If the defendant is a corporation, the notice must be delivered to an adult at the corporation's chief office.
- The Act also sets a deadline for the plaintiff to be able to sue, even if he sends the notice on time. The plaintiff must begin the lawsuit within three months after the libel has come to his knowledge.
How do these deadlines apply to statements posted on the Internet?
It is still unclear how these deadlines will apply to Internet postings. The Act specifically applies to "broadcasts from a station in Ontario" (section 7). However, it is not yet clear whether an Internet posting is a "broadcast".
In one case (Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 12856 (ON S.C.)), the Ontario Superior court, on a motion for summary judgment, said that placing material on a website constitutes broadcasting within the meaning of the Act, and therefore the short time limits apply.
On appeal this decision was overturned (Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 2883 (ON C.A.)). However, the Court of Appeal did not specifically reject the lower court's reasons. Rather, it said that the question was too important and complex to be dealt with in a summary judgment, and so it sent the matter back to trial.
The Court of Appeal was interested in having a full debate on such issues as deciding whether internet publications are a "broadcast" within the meaning of the legislation, whether the word "dissemination" in the Act's definition of "broadcasting" can properly apply to information distributed by the Internet, and whether subsequent viewing of a web page by third parties amounts to a "republication" of the material (which would reset the clock on the time limits).
In a more recent decision (Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2005 CanLII 19660 (ON C.A.)) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered that it is possible to infer that internet dissemination is a broadcast in Ontario if it was also a radio broadcast that happened in Ontario.
Until these issues are clarified by a court decision or legislation, the law will remain unclear as to how the current limitation periods apply to internet postings.
Outstanding issues include:
- The Act's short time deadlines apply to "broadcasts from a station in Ontario", but it is not yet clear that they apply to an Internet website. While the definition of "broadcast" is broad, it may not include an Internet website because this does not mesh well with the language of the law as a whole.
- It is not clear what a "station" is in the context of the Internet.
- It is not clear that a website "disseminates" information, i.e., actively sends information, or whether it only passively waits for web surfers to come by.
- The Act contains provisions specific to newspapers and broadcasting stations that require the publication or provision upon request of the names and addresses of owners/operators in order for them to take advantage of these short limitation periods. It is possible that these will apply in the online context as well.
- It is not clear whether there is a new publication every time someone accesses (downloads) the website. If there is, the time limitations would begin anew whenever this happens. Others argue that there is only one cause of action and the limitation period will start running when the statement is first posted on the website.
Note that even if the plaintiff succeeds in these arguments, he still cannot wait indefinitely. He will have to begin his lawsuit within two years of discovering the defamation because of the general limitation period for civil law suits in Ontario.
Can I be sued for defamation in another country because of comments I post on the Internet?
The global reach of the Internet has thrown a complicated curveball at the legal world on the question of jurisdiction: when should a court hear a case involving allegedly wrongful activity involving parties in multiple jurisdictions? Someone in Ontario can post a comment about an Irishman (with a considerable reputation in Spain) on a website operated by an American, but hosted by an English ISP, and those comments can be read by an Australian while on business in Japan. If the comments are defamatory, can the subject of the comments sue, and if so, where?
Courts have been moving toward a "targeting" test to determine whether a court should assert jurisdiction over any given case. This test considers whether the publication in question is directed towards the territory being asked to assert jurisdiction. In one of the best known applications of that test, Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick, [ 2002] H.C.A. 56, the High Court of Australia ruled that defamatory statements originating in their paper publication, Barrons, but available online at Dow Jones' website, amounted to a wrong actionable in Australia. The Court noted [at para. 181] that "A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it."
More recently, in Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2004 CanLII 26633 (ON S.C.), an Ontario Court had moved beyond the "targeting" test, to consider the case in which the subject of a publication travels from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In that case, the Court observed that a newspaper "should have reasonably foreseen that the story would follow the plaintiff wherever he resided." Anyone seeking a remedy for defamation in such a context should consider which court has the power to enforce the court order. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal rejected that approach, returning to a more targeted approach to assessing jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal expressly disapproved of the "following" approach adopted at trial, stating that it "cannot agree . . . that the appellants 'should have reasonably foreseen that the story would follow the plaintiff wherever he resided.' It was not reasonably foreseeable in January 1997 that Mr. Bangoura would end up as a resident of Ontario three years later. To hold otherwise would mean that a defendant could be sued almost anywhere in the world based upon where a plaintiff may decide to establish his or her residence long after the publication of the defamation." See Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2005 CanLII 32906 (ON C.A.).
These cases emphasize the care that one must take in posting comments on the Internet.
What are "SLAPPs"?
"SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence B e.g., taking down websites or comments made online - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP.
What are "CyberSLAPPs"?
CyberSLAPPs are simply SLAPPs launched in the online world. Aside from the above issues, they also raise issues relating to anonymity. Internet users are not easily identifiable (as seen in the recent recording industry file sharing cases). Organizations wishing to discover the identities of their online critics may therefore attempt to launch defamation SLAPPs whose only goal is to obtain the other party's name. This is of great concern since the linking of an Internet identifier (such as an e-mail address) to a particular person will mean that every message that person has ever posted under that identifier becomes known to have originated from them. This can be a problem as many lawful forms of speech, if revealed, can cause harm to the poster. Examples include people seeking advice on marital problems, teenage problems, depression, medical or financial issues. In such cases, however, the court can order that identifying information provided to plaintiffs be kept confidential.
How are governments reacting to SLAPPs?
There are already extensive laws in the United States and other countries to try to prevent SLAPPs. In Canada, Quebec is presently the only province with an anti-SLAPP law. It is highly probable that laws will soon be adopted in the rest of Canada.
In British Columbia a law was adopted in 2001 but then later repealed in the same year when a different government was elected. During its short life span, this law permitted people to make an application for summary dismissal of cases on the basis that they were SLAPPs. If the case was deemed to be a SLAPP, the Court could award reasonable costs and expenses as well as punitive damages. It also permitted the court, if the alleged defamatory statement was deemed to be “public participation”, to order that a security be paid by the plaintiff for expenses and punitive or exemplary damages.
The Quebec law adopted in June 2009 modifies its Code of Civil Procedure to better address SLAPPs. The modifications to the Code permit a summary dismissal of cases deemed to be SLAPPs. Like the repealed British Columbia law, the Quebec law permits the court to ask the plaintiff for security and to award costs and expenses as well as punitive damages. Also, once the defendant makes a prima facie case that the lawsuit is abusive, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the case is legitimate. If a SLAPP is suspected, the Court can also set specific rules for the proceedings so as reduce the effects of the suspected SLAPP on the defendant. The object of this law is to impose costs and sanctions on plaintiffs who would seek to use the courts to silence critics.
In December 2008, a private member’s Bill was introduced in the Ontario Legislative Assembly and remains on its first reading. Bill 138, the Protection of Public Participation Act is essentially the same as the repealed B.C. law.
Resources
- eLawNetwork updated daily; contains links to Internet related caselaw, legislation and news articles. Click on the "defamation" link on the front page.
- Chilling Effects: A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and renowned universities across the USA, this website seeks to help users understand the protection that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives to online activities. They do not have a specific page on defamation, though a search on their site will turn up useful links. This site is mentioned because its focus is closely related to this FAQ, i.e., the abuse of the legal system to squelch free speech.
- The American Civil Liberties Union is an organisation devoted to defending the US Constitution's first ten amendments, collectively known as the "Bill of Rights". Though they do not have a specific page, a search for "defamation" on their website will turn up various legal briefs, cases and other pertinent materials.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit US group devoted to protecting digital rights. A search for "defamation" on their website will turn up various useful cases, policy papers and other pertinent materials.
- The California Anti-SLAPP Project is a group working to defeat the effectiveness of SLAPPs. While it is focused on Californian issues, it contains lots of useful material, such as the legislation of various other states, and the "Survival Guide for SLAPP victims".
- Libel and Slander Act, Ontario
- Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 12856 (ON S.C.)
- Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 2883 (ON C.A.)
- Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2004 CanLII 26633 (ON S.C.)
- Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2005 CanLII 32906 (ON C.A.)
- Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56
- PIAC report on SLAPPS: "Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada" (Sept. 2004)
- Barrick Gold Corporation v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON C.A.)
- (Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac, 2006 CanLII 12970 (ON S.C.))
- (Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663 at para. 36)
- (Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 2008 CanLII 1424 (BCSC))
- (WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40)
- (Cusson c. Quan, 2007 CanLII 771 (ONCA))
- (Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2005 CanLII 19660 (ON C.A.))
What are "SLAPPs"?
What are "SLAPPs"?
"SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence B e.g., taking down websites or comments made online - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP.
What are "CyberSLAPPs"?
CyberSLAPPs are simply SLAPPs launched in the online world. Aside from the above issues, they also raise issues relating to anonymity. Internet users are not easily identifiable (as seen in the recent recording industry file sharing cases). Organizations wishing to discover the identities of their online critics may therefore attempt to launch defamation SLAPPs whose only goal is to obtain the other party's name. This is of great concern since the linking of an Internet identifier (such as an e-mail address) to a particular person will mean that every message that person has ever posted under that identifier becomes known to have originated from them. This can be a problem as many lawful forms of speech, if revealed, can cause harm to the poster. Examples include people seeking advice on marital problems, teenage problems, depression, medical or financial issues. In such cases, however, the court can order that identifying information provided to plaintiffs be kept confidential.
How are governments reacting to SLAPPs?
There are already extensive laws in the United States and other countries to try to prevent SLAPPs. In Canada, Quebec is presently the only province with an anti-SLAPP law. It is highly probable that laws will soon be adopted in the rest of Canada.
In British Columbia a law was adopted in 2001 but then later repealed in the same year when a different government was elected. During its short life span, this law permitted people to make an application for summary dismissal of cases on the basis that they were SLAPPs. If the case was deemed to be a SLAPP, the Court could award reasonable costs and expenses as well as punitive damages. It also permitted the court, if the alleged defamatory statement was deemed to be “public participation”, to order that a security be paid by the plaintiff for expenses and punitive or exemplary damages.
The Quebec law adopted in June 2009 modifies its Code of Civil Procedure to better address SLAPPs. The modifications to the Code permit a summary dismissal of cases deemed to be SLAPPs. Like the repealed British Columbia law, the Quebec law permits the court to ask the plaintiff for security and to award costs and expenses as well as punitive damages. Also, once the defendant makes a prima facie case that the lawsuit is abusive, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the case is legitimate. If a SLAPP is suspected, the Court can also set specific rules for the proceedings so as reduce the effects of the suspected SLAPP on the defendant. The object of this law is to impose costs and sanctions on plaintiffs who would seek to use the courts to silence critics.
In December 2008, a private member’s Bill was introduced in the Ontario Legislative Assembly and remains on its first reading. Bill 138, the Protection of Public Participation Act is essentially the same as the repealed B.C. law.
Resources
- eLawNetwork updated daily; contains links to Internet related caselaw, legislation and news articles. Click on the "defamation" link on the front page.
- Chilling Effects: A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and renowned universities across the USA, this website seeks to help users understand the protection that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives to online activities. They do not have a specific page on defamation, though a search on their site will turn up useful links. This site is mentioned because its focus is closely related to this FAQ, i.e., the abuse of the legal system to squelch free speech.
- The American Civil Liberties Union is an organisation devoted to defending the US Constitution's first ten amendments, collectively known as the "Bill of Rights". Though they do not have a specific page, a search for "defamation" on their website will turn up various legal briefs, cases and other pertinent materials.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit US group devoted to protecting digital rights. A search for "defamation" on their website will turn up various useful cases, policy papers and other pertinent materials.
- The California Anti-SLAPP Project is a group working to defeat the effectiveness of SLAPPs. While it is focused on Californian issues, it contains lots of useful material, such as the legislation of various other states, and the "Survival Guide for SLAPP victims".
- Libel and Slander Act, Ontario
- Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 12856 (ON S.C.)
- Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 2883 (ON C.A.)
- Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2004 CanLII 26633 (ON S.C.)
- Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2005 CanLII 32906 (ON C.A.)
- Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56
- PIAC report on SLAPPS: "Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada" (Sept. 2004)
- Barrick Gold Corporation v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON C.A.)
- (Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac, 2006 CanLII 12970 (ON S.C.))
- (Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663 at para. 36)
- (Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 2008 CanLII 1424 (BCSC))
- (WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40)
- (Cusson c. Quan, 2007 CanLII 771 (ONCA))
- (Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2005 CanLII 19660 (ON C.A.))