,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread:
Trudeau’s threat to sue Scheer for libel remains a cheap sound-bite stunt. The last thing the PM wants is a courtroom showdown with Scheer (or anyone else). Truth is, it would be a waste of judicial resources. He’s unlikely to take this any further. 1/ #cdnpoli
Trudeau’s threat to sue Scheer for libel remains a cheap sound-bite stunt. The last thing the PM wants is a courtroom showdown with Scheer (or anyone else). Truth is, it would be a waste of judicial resources. He’s unlikely to take this any further. 1/ #cdnpoli
2 That said, Trudeau’s words give cause for concern. His sniping at Scheer is about a libel lawsuit - a civil action between two individuals, governed by provincial libel and slander acts. But the criminal offence of defamatory libel is still on the books in Canada. 2/ #cdnpoli
3 CrCde 298(1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published. 3/
4 The PM in this CPAC statement Isn’t talking about one person claiming they were libelled by another. He’s talking about a social problem: “.... [Y]ou can't be inventing things, you can't be lying to Canadians ....” He muses about “highlighting that there are consequences.” 4/
5 Finally Trudeau says:
“[W]hen politicians choose to twist the truth & distort reality for Cdns — it's not something we're going to put up with.”
It’s hard to say whether the PM had defamatory libel on his mind. (Cases would have to be initiated by provincial prosecutors.) 5/
“[W]hen politicians choose to twist the truth & distort reality for Cdns — it's not something we're going to put up with.”
It’s hard to say whether the PM had defamatory libel on his mind. (Cases would have to be initiated by provincial prosecutors.) 5/
6 But in the context of already articulated worries about foreign interference and other shenanigans in the October federal election, any suggestion of policing speech is troubling. 6/
7 Criminal libel laws (Canada uses the odd, redundant term defamatory libel) are used in many countries to silence political dissidents. Sometimes they take the form of banning “disrespect” for heads of state or government. 7/ #cdnpoli
8 We have the civil law of defamation, whereby individuals can - and often have - recover damages for injuried reputations. Hate speech and incitement to violence are crimes in Canada. Why do we need another law that purports to make certain kinds of speech a criminal offence? 8/
9 The defamatory libel law makes exceptions for statements in the public interest. And prosecutions are rare. But that only reinforces the case for sending it into the sunset. Authorities in Canada would still have quite enough tools for marginalizing dissent. 9/ #cdnpoli
10 The law aside, it remains disturbing to hear the prime minister so casually expand his target from Scheer the individual to all those who, in his subjective assessment, “twist the truth and distort reality.” As if he and all the rest of us haven’t been guilty now and then. 10/
11 The only consequences for twisting or distorting should be the comments & corrections of others. Because freedom of expression includes the freedom to be wrong, to annoy, to vilify, to misunderstand, to be illogical, to be unintelligible ... & to remain silent. 11/11 #cdnpoli
Unroll pls @threadreaderapp
