Slashdot Mirror
In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police
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."
time to pack my bags and head north. ohh wait....
That's a loaded and subjective statement - care to back it up?
BlackNova Traders
Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...
Really? Because in canada there is a tonne of laws protecting free speech - so long as you're not engaging in hate speech. In fact, the laws are almost exactly the same as in the USA in regards to freedom of speech (with hate speech being a key difference).
... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".
I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
It meant that they could raid his house and get a copy of everything that he had, possibly then loosing some of it for him. If it was a civil action then they would not have been able to do this. What is dreadful is that the ''other side'' (ie the police in this case) get an immediate advantage. This is abuse of power.
If he is innocent and things work there like the US, the charges will be dropped and the police involved will get a suspension with pay while things are being "investigated". The cops will then go back to active duty after the investigations and the whistle blower will be continually harassed because protect each other even when the other is a criminal or eve murderer - I mean accidental shooting victim.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
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
Don't worry, no matter how fake or factual his claims will be found officially to be baseless.
All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
When he's not convicted, this will be seen by many as proof that the RCMP did in fact perjure themselves. Dumb move, cops.
Wow!
What grade are you in?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Which has fuck all to do with free speech.
You can let the hate groups fester where nobody can see or you can leave them out in the open to be ridiculed by all.
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
Actually, the funny thing is that it was neither libel nor slander, in this case.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
The problem is that whenever you stop protecting the unpopular speech, and let the government decide what is and is not of "value" or "useful" or whatever, you open the gates to restricting speech for all sorts of bad reasons. It is the unpopular speech that must be protected.
As an example, look at the sham that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You have a lead investigator that said, on the record "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Where you don't have the right to question your accuser, hearsay is admissible with few exceptions, and truth is not always a defense. Basically, if a plaintiff can demonstrate you hurt their feelings (with rather dubious standards of evidence to do so), even if your statements were true you can get in trouble.
Really you want free speech very protected, where there are clear lines as to what can't be done and those lines are only there as needed to protect people (like you can't order someone to kill someone else and claim free speech). As it stands in Canada, the laws are used to shut down unpopular speech.
So someone committing a blatant crime is an example of the failure of free speech? You silly, or dumb, or both. Either way you're fucked up.
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
The federal government is a separate entity from the state and local governments and, in certain ways, is superior to them. For example, the FBI can override the jurisdiction of local cops, particularly if a crime happens across state lines. For those reasons, yes, the President can criticize or even insult police.
But it wasn't all fine and dandy. Obama is a politician and took a lot of heat for, basically, opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have. That's been a recurring criticism of Obama: that he talks about stuff when there's no good reason for him to, and wastes his political capital.
Also I don't know the libel standard in Canada but in the US:
1) The statements must be untrue. Truth is the ultimate libel defense. So if his statements are true (probably not, but just saying) then that is the end of that.
2) The person making the statements had to know they were untrue. While this gets a little more "he said, she said," in the case of someone who's connection to reality is a bit tenuous, this could easily be a defense. He may honestly believe what he is writing is true. In that case, it isn't libel. It is crackpottery, but not libel.
3) The statements must have been made with the intent to cause harm. Well here again, might be a problem. After all, he may well be making the statements to inform people, not to attempt to harm anyone. In that case, again not libel.
Could be very different in Canada, of course, but that's how it works in the US. Libel/slander are when someone deliberately spreads false information about you to harm you. It isn't when someone makes fun of you or the like.
So no, in the US, conspiracy nut rantings aren't libel. If they honestly believe what they are saying is true, it isn't libel.
Also personally I think speech against the government should be the very most protected of all. The government needs to accept that people can just drag them through the mud, that is the right of citizens in a free country. Pretty much anything is fair game. I mean really, if your government can be harmed by the rantings of conspiracy nuts, then you have bigger problems.
Police and prosecutors say baseless crap all the time. Remember Richard Jewell? The FBI can "leak" information to the media to destroy people's lives with impunity - the best that guy got, despite complete innocence, was the AG saying "I regret the leak." Well, gee, thanks.
the cops and prosecutors involved need to be lined up against a wall and shot.
Yeah, somehow that never seems to happen. All Mike Nifong got was being disbarred, and spending one night in jail for contempt of court, on charges that he trumped up and that would have, if successful, put three men in jail for a long, long time. And those are the ones with lots of money to defend themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that level of dishonesty should lead to putting him in jail for the full length of the sentence he was trying to get.
For Canadian standards see http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/criminal_civil_law-en.asp?l=4
"More evidence is needed to find the accused at fault in criminal cases than to find the defendant at fault in civil ones. To convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must show there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and, in most cases, that they intended to commit it. Judges and juries cannot convict someone they believe probably committed the crime or likely is guilty - they must be almost certain. This gives the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt and makes it less likely an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Civil cases, in contrast, must be proven on a balance of probabilities - if it is more likely than not that the defendant caused harm or loss, a court can uphold a civil claim."
It will be fairly easy to show who did the publishing and that he intended to do the publishing.
Problem for the RCMP, who are not the defamed group, and the Calgary Police will be showing that a crime was actually committed. The key phrase in Canadian law is "on reasonable grounds, he believes is true". Is it reasonable for a person to argue these points given what is known to be true? Looking at the site, at least some of the statements do not seem "reasonable".
But also, he is not publishing in Canada. eg: Court publication bans do not extend to websites hosted in other countries.
If you look at the site, it clearly appeals to the fringe and is long on accusation and short on evidence. It also explicitly names particular people without a lot of supporting documentation. Personnally, I would say this guy is pushing the limits of free speech beyond what is ethical but I am not so sure that there is a law broken. My gut reaction was that he is a wack job and is doing more harm than good for his cause. Police should be held to higher standards and complaints should be investigated independantly but I would not want to be a public servant in a tough, demanding job and be subject to this kind of public complaint. Again, I'm not saying there is criminal defamation; just saying that this is clearly at the limit.
Finally, first thing I did upon reading the article was to go find the site: http://www.rottenapples.info/ ;->
I am sure that this fellows site popularity has soared.
This will be an interesting case to follow.
Public Enemy never would have gotten of the ground. '911 is timely and effective'....just doesn't work. God Bless America.
The Aryan Nations used to run a hate web site in Canada. After they were ordered to remove it, they just moved it to an American server. The prosecution asked for the judge to issue an order, and he said "Okay, but I don't see what good it will do. It's now out of the court's jurisdiction."