Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police

Posted by timothy on from the buncha-hosers-you-say? dept.

BitterOak writes "A Calgary man is facing criminal charges of libel for criticizing police. According to the story, the RCMP have filed five charges against John Kelly for claiming on his website that Calgary police officers engaged in perjury, corruption, and obstruction of justice. What makes the story unusual is that the charges are criminal and not civil. Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States, it is extremely rare for people to be charged criminally with libel. It is almost always matter for civil courts."

6 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Is this the site? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.bownessca.com/

    The purpose of this site is to inform the residents of Bowness, the citizens of Calgary and others, as to how senior individuals within the City of Calgary placed the Bowness Community Association (the BCA) into receivership by illegal, corrupt and criminal means.
    .
    There has been over 5 years of corrupt and criminal acts that have been committed and they are continuing to be committed by Derek Podlubny and the present Board, ably assisted by lawyers from the law firm of Blake Cassels and Graydon.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Is this the site? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was going to say it was this site - http://www.rosscarrock.info/ - but I see that Mr Kelly is mounting a multi-pronged attack against, well, anyone he sets his sights on that wrongs him in even the slightest way.

  2. Re:Less protection for free speech? by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the GP is right actually. The problematic part of Quebec law is the requirement that French be predominant on all business signs. I can't see that surviving in the US.

    Note that the restriction is not on what you can say, it's on the language of business signage. Practically speaking I'm not sure if that means Canada has less free speech that the States.

    Given that this was one of only two uses ever of the notwithstanding clause, I don't consider it to be a weakness in the constitution. Think of it more as a shortcut constitutional amendment. Note that notwithstanding overrides expire after five years in order to give voters a chance to express their opinion via a general election it before they are renewed.

    The US constitution has...how many amendments? The Canadian Constitution has none, and two uses of the notwithstanding clause. I wouldn't say one is stronger or weaker than the other.

    Finally, as clear as the 1st amendment appears to be, we all know you can't say anything you want whenever you want wherever you want. There are limits. The Canadian constitution is explicit about that so when you read them side by side the Canadian text appears wishy-washy, but in effect they are equivalent.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  3. Re:This is a GOOD THING! by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, I am in Kanuckistan - Poutineville, to be specific, though I'm abandoning Quebec as soon as I can. I'm patient, but I've had it.

    Defamation (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel" - not the same thing) is different from the US. The truth is not an absolute defense. However, they screwed up, because the police, being public figures, are more subject to open criticism than the average citizen. This is intimidation, pure and simple.

    The web site is in New York, so it's outside the Canadian courts' jurisdiction, pure and simple. The US 5th Amendment takes precedence on US soil.

    So we have the problem of venue. If the defamatory statements were published in the US, and if Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute (we don't, except for child abuse and terrorism), the RCMP are SOL. Sorry boys, you don't get your man this time.

    Also, sections 309 - 310 of the criminal code:

    Public benefit

    309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 273.

    Fair comment on public person or work of art

    310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
    (a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
    (b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 274.

    When truth a defence

    311. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel where he proves that the publication of the defamatory matter in the manner in which it was published was for the public benefit at the time when it was published and that the matter itself was true.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 275.

    Do the RCMP sometimes lie? That's been proven in court. Instead of trying to suppress publication in another country with a SLAPP criminal proceeding, maybe they should address the issues, and realize that when you're a cop, what you do is public, same as a politician.

  4. Re:Making it criminal helps the police by zill · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Royal's are the Canuck equivalent to the American FBI, and are a national police force.

    This is incorrect. The FBI only has investigative jurisdiction over federal crimes, thus differentiating them from local police departments. The RCMP and the Calgary police department enforce the exact same set of laws - Criminal Code of Canada, and they have identical investigative jurisdictions. While the RCMP is a national police force, it is not the equivalent of the FBI.

    Simply put, RCMP hands out parking tickets but the FBI does not.

  5. Re:This is a GOOD THING! by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative
    Section 300 provides for a 5 year jail term. Section 317 specifically mentions a jury trial.

    Also, except in indictments specifically enumerated in section 553, it is up to the accused, not the judge, to decide whether they will have a trial by judge alone or by jury. See section 554. Also sections 558 and following. Don't take my word for it - here's the Canadian Criminal Code directly from the government website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/FramesView.html

    Hope this makes it a bit clearer.