Anti-gay activist loses bid to reopen libel suit
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / 2008 Supreme Court decision expanded free speech protection
Jeremy Hainsworth / National / Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Share |

An attempt by an anti-gay activist to reopen a high-profile libel suit against a former Vancouver radio host has been dismissed in BC Supreme Court.

The case stems from an Oct 25, 1999 broadcast in which commentator Rafe Mair criticized Kari Simpson for her work to ban three books that positively depict same-sex parents from Surrey schools.

Mair compared Simpson to Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan, saying her conduct at a Surrey parents' meeting reminded him of speeches from his childhood by "bigots who with increasing shrillness would harangue the crowds."

"There is no distinction between condemning the rights of blacks or Jews and condemning the civil rights of homosexuals," said Mair, according to court documents. "Whether she realizes it or not, Kari has by her actions placed herself alongside skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. I'm not talking the violent aspects of those groups but the philosophical parallels to other examples of intolerance."

Simpson sued both Mair and the WIC Radio network for defamation.

At trial, Mair argued that he did not intend to convey that Simpson condoned violence against gays, but that she was an intolerant bigot. A BC Supreme Court judge ruled that while Mair's comments were defamatory, he was within his right of fair comment.

That decision by Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg was overturned in 2006 by the BC Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled there was no factual basis for Mair's implication that Simpson would condone violence toward gay people, and thus the defence of fair comment was not valid.

The Supreme Court of Canada's Jun 27, 2008 ruling reaffirmed Mair's right to fair comment — a decision that broadened the defence used by journalists against libel actions.

Simpson recently applied to the BC Supreme Court to reopen the case on the grounds that her lawyer in the first case had not presented all the necessary facts to the court.

Koenigsberg disagreed.

She told Simpson Feb 3 if she thought her legal representation was inadequate, it was an issue to be taken up with the province's law society.

"What you're really saying is you had incompetent lawyers," Koenigsberg said. "Sue your lawyers," she advised Simpson.

"When it's over, it's over," Koenigsberg said. "You don't like it. You can't even appeal it in the Supreme Court of Canada."

The irony of the situation for the gay community is that Simpson's quest took the controversy all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and ultimately led to stronger freedom of speech protection for commentators such as Mair.

Simpson told Koenigsberg she believes the justice system has not allowed her to have a fair trial.

"The right to fundamental justice has been undermined by this process," said Simpson.

Koenigsberg told Simpson the real issue is the fact that "you find yourself still on the Internet being smeared."

"You're not the first or last to whom this would happen," said Koenigsberg. "That is not the issue."

Simpson has pledged to continue her fight.

"This case will not end anytime soon one way or another," said Simpson.

"Has my Constitutional right to justice been compromised in this case?" she asked Koenigsberg. "You betcha."



Share |


Reader Comments


 
What you say is what you meant
The Rafe Mair Supreme Court of Canada case was important because it established that you no longer have to believe what someone else says you meant. Mair had clearly qualified his remarks. The plaintiff tried arguing that such qualifying remarks did not matter. In the wise words of the majority ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada: "...It seems to me that defamation proceedings will have reached a troubling level of technicality if the protection afforded by the defence of fair comment to freedom of expression (“the very lifeblood of our freedom”) is made to depend on whether or not the speaker is prepared to swear to an honest belief in something he does not believe he ever said." The Plaintiff is now trying to stretch her (defeated) case beyond any reasonable limit. By arguing that her lawyers were not competent, she wants to force her defendant to do the process all over again, even though the matter has been settled by the highest court already. If, indeed, her lawyers were less than able, why did it take her this long to figure that out? What this country needs (and, due to jurisdictional issues, each province) is anti-SLAPP (a SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation to punish people who try to use our antiquated libel laws to intimidate those exercising their right to freedom of expression. Our courts are regularly used to intimidate people who have done no wrong. It is past time to recognize that such abuses of process (and thus taxpayer's money as well as defendants') should have penalties attached to deter such behaviour. And, no, court fees and 'paying costs' aren't enough. They never cover the true costs, both for defendants and taxpayers, and fail to compensate victims of abuse of process for their time and trepidation. Our courts should at least recognize an extension of the malicious prosecution tort to deal with such cases. I can only hope that Mair didn't have to personally deal with this latest a
Mark Francis, Toronto On
02/04/09 11:55 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.