Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-229: Banning (Without Defining) Symbols Of Hate

Private Member’s Bill C-229 was introduced in early 2021 by N.D.P. M.P Peter Julian. The stated purpose of this piece is to ban so-called symbols of hate.

This goes far beyond Human Rights Tribunals and fines. This Bill (if passed) would amend the Criminal Code and potentially put people in prison for up to 2 years.

Free speech advocates should be calling out such legislation. However, considering this isn’t a Government Bill, it’s likely that few know about it.

-Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of preventing all forms of hatred or violence against any group that is distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability;
-Whereas Parliament acknowledges past atrocities and violence committed against such groups by persons or organizations whose symbols, emblems, flags and uniforms continue to this day to be used to promote or incite hatred and violence against these groups;
-And whereas it is in the interest of all Canadians to prevent the display or sale of symbols or emblems such as the Nazi swastika and the Ku Klux Klan’s insignia, flags such as the standards of Germany between the years 1933 to 1945 and those of the Confederate States of America between the years 1861 to 1865 and uniforms, including the German and Confederate States of America military dress of those periods, as well as the hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan;

There’s also an obvious pivot here. While the Bill states that it’s in the interest of Canadians to ban Nazi or KKK symbols, the earlier text makes it obvious that the scope is far more broad. Specifically, it lists:

  • colour;
  • race;
  • religion;
  • national or ethnic origin;
  • age;
  • sex;
  • sexual orientation;
  • gender identity or expression;
  • mental or physical disability

Another major problem is there is no distinction between “hate”, and having a lively and controversial discussion. What about protests based on honest beliefs? Could signs, slogans and speech be lumped in with symbols?

Is it a violation of “gender identity or expression” to say that biological men don’t belong in women’s sports, changerooms or prisons? It it hateful to say that there are only 2 genders (assigned from before birth), and that there’s no switching between them?

As for discrimination against age, could pedophiles use this in order to justify actions and behaviours that would otherwise be considered criminal? Would it be illegal now to criticize and condemn them?

There is a further complication. The Bill would add a provision that states no prosecution will happen if in good faith: “including for educational purposes or accurate depiction in a film, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed the display to be proper and for the public benefit”. Now, who’s to say what’s good faith and what’s not?

It appears that such legislation could be selectively applied to target people depending on their ideology. This is so poorly written that it leaves plenty of room for abuse and misapplication.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-229
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-229/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/peter-julian(16399)

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(E) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(F) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(G) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(H) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(I) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(J) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Senate Bill S-257: Entrenching “Political Belief Or Activity” As Protected Human Rights

With everything that’s going on lately in politics, it’s rare to have something positive to report. However, there is a possible gem in the works. Senate Bill S-257 was introduced by in late 2021 (Conservative) Senator Salma Ataullahjan. Granted, it hasn’t passed, but is still noteworthy.

If this, or something similar get does pass, it would entrench “political belief or activity” as protected grounds within the Human Rights Code of Canada.

Canadian Human Rights Act
.
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Of course, this has the potential to stand other legislation on its head.

Would Bill C-16 (gender identity) have to be reworked or thrown out? Would it now be protected speech to say that men are men, and women are women? What about laws to put Holocaust deniers in prison? What about Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia) Motion from several years ago? What about “hate speech” restrictions criticizing immigration and multiculturalism? What about anti-lockdown protests over the last few years that violated “public health” orders from unelected bureaucrats?

It’s entirely possible Bill S-257 will never pass. However, it does have the potential to invalidate draconian legislation on the grounds of free speech. We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=2
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-257
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-257/first-reading

Posted on

SSHRC Funding Digital Citizen Research And Anti-Disinformation Grants In 2023

The SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, has been involved in handing out more taxpayer money for the stated purpose of combatting “disinformation”. For the 2023 year, grants have been issued in the amount of $10,000 each, to various people.

Of course, this isn’t the first time such grants have been issued. It’s just the latest iteration of these initiatives.

The stated goals with the SSHRC are:

  • promote Canadian research that will develop better understanding — based on empirical evidence — of the impacts of online disinformation in Canada in order to better inform programs and policies;
  • build Canada’s capacity to conduct research on and related to countering online disinformation and other related online harms; and
  • help foster a community of research in the digital citizenship and online disinformation space in Canada.
NAME YEAR AMOUNT
Brown, Carol A.M. Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Chen, Yu-Chen Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Dowling, Erin Jennifer Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Farokhi, Zeinab Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Kennedy, Angel M. Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Lin, Hause Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Malo, Benjamin Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Martel, Marc-Antoine Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Miller, Mark D. Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Munro, Daniel Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Park, Jeong Hyun Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Rodrigues, Daniel Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00
Stijelja, Stefan Jan 1, 2023 $10,000.00

If nothing else, at least the grants and recipients are easy to find online. It’s always beneficial to know who’s on the Government payroll.

There is also a sub-group of this program, designed to partner with various colleges and universities to achieve what are essentially the same goals. These are the: (a) Insight Grant Supplements; (b) Postdoctoral Fellowship Supplements; and (c) Doctoral Award Supplements. Eligible areas include:

  • Creators and propagators of online disinformation in a Canadian context.
  • Digital techniques used to spread online disinformation in a Canadian context.
  • Sectors of Canadian society more or less vulnerable to online disinformation, including how disinformation may specifically affect marginalized, minority and Indigenous communities.
  • Effects of exposure to information and online disinformation on Canadians’ individual beliefs and behavior as well as overall mental health.
  • Different impacts of online disinformation in Canada and on Canada, including on democratic institutions and elections.
  • Government responses to online disinformation.
  • Disinformation outside of the internet/not online in a Canadian context.

In short, grant money is available to those willing to research into ways of “combatting misinformation”. Plainly stated, this is anything the Government disagrees with.

While Ottawa may not be banning free speech (yet), they are working on ways to limit the scope and depth of what is being talked about.

As with everything, do your own fact checking.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_start_date+desc&search_text=disinformation&page=1
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/joint-initiative-digital-citizen-research.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/joint-initiative-digital-citizen-research/insight-grants.html

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program & The Paris Call

It’s no secret that very little (if anything) the Canadian Government does actually originates organically from within this country. Typically, some international body or N.G.O. is responsible for setting it in motion. And efforts to combat misinformation online are no exception.

Activities like the Digital Citizen Initiative and Digital Citizen Contribution Program understandably raise questions. In a free and open society, should the Government be attempting to influence and manipulate public opinion on important topics? Why are we paying for this? And does this sort of thing end up doing an end run around democracy? (Not that we really have one)

Is advancing international cyber norms something Ottawa should be involved with? (See original)

All of that said, a more basic question needs to be asked:

Who’s really behind it?

Turns out that this stems from a 2018 agreement that received little coverage in the mainstream press. Here is how it’s explained on the Paris Call website.

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron launched the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace with the goal of addressing new cyberspace threats that could endanger citizens and infrastructure. The Paris Call invites all cyberspace actors to work together and encourages states to cooperate internationally with private sector partners, the world of research, and civil society organizations.

Supporters of the Paris Call commit to working together to adopt responsible behaviour and secure cyberspace, based on a set of nine common principles. These principles act as a non-binding declaration and set a precedent as the largest-ever multi-stakeholder cybersecurity agreement in modern history.

Today, over 95 governments, nearly 350 international organizations, as well as more than 600 private sector entities have endorsed the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly pledged Canada’s support for the Paris Call in November 2018.

The media grants to “safeguard democracy” are somewhat known in media and political circles. But what isn’t discussed is the international agreement done to make this happen.

Now, were any referendums or election campaigns ever held on joining some initiative like this? No. And it raises the question of who exactly will be setting the standards, enforcing the standards, and what kind of private information that will be shared.

Of course, Microsoft is involved in this project, because, why not?

As with all (or at least, most) agreements, this is considered non-binding. However, Government treats it as if it were a legitimate obligation. Now, what are the ideas behind this?

9 Principles of the Paris Call:

  • Protect individuals and infrastructure
  • Protect the Internet
  • Defend electoral processes
  • Defend intellectual property
  • Non-proliferation
  • Lifecycle security & supply chain security
  • Cyber hygiene
  • No private hack back
  • International Norms

On their own, these principles seem harmless, and in fact beneficial. But with all things, the details of how it would be implemented are worth looking at.

The Paris Call is supported by some 400 N.G.O.s and 700 private corporations, at least, according to recent updates on the site. That of course raises the question of who’s just there in a symbolic capacity, and who was actually involved in drafting these documents. They emphasize multi-stakeholder participation at the U.N., without really specifying.

Here, the Government uses taxpayer money to “combat harmful disinformation“. Now, it doesn’t (yet) call for the banning of certain viewpoints, but it does mean subsidizing and financing favourable ones.

This has led to the Digital Democracy Project and the “Media Literacy Week“, among other initiatives. The Federal Government is using taxpayer money to domestically implement an international agreement for cyberspace security.

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program was an initiative to hand out fairly large sums of money to “media influencers” that could potentially sway public opinion on a number of different topics.

The amounts and recipients of earlier grants were previously covered here. That addressed the DCCP, but was not exhaustive of these programs.

This seems like rebranded efforts such as Internet Governance Forum and the Digital Cooperation. Both of which were heavily influenced by the United Nations.

Special Ukraine Crisis Call
In the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this special call is aimed to address the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. The special targeted call was launched to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.

Yes, the Feds actually had a program to contract out influential people that could manipulate public opinion on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Is war propaganda ethical at all?

It’s not a stretch to see politicians go to the next level, and start banning or restricting viewpoints that contradict official narratives. It’s been talked out before.

One final point: let’s not pretend that this is limited to Trudeau or the Liberals. Had Stephen Harper been re-elected in 2015, he surely would have signed onto it.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/03/government-of-canada-reinforces-support-to-organizations-to-help-counter-harmful-disinformation.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2020/05/paris-call-trust-and-security-in-cyberspace.html
(4) https://pariscall.international/en/
(5) https://pariscall.international/en/principles
(6) https://pariscall.international/assets/files/10-11-WG3-Multistakeholder-participation-at-the-UN-The-need-for-greater-inclusivity-in-the-UN-dialogues-on-cybersecurity.pdf
(7) https://pariscall.international/assets/files/WG4-Final-Report-101121.pdf
(8) Paris Call Advancing International Norms
(9) Paris Call Text

Posted on

Byram Bridle Lawsuit Unlikely To Ever Get Anywhere

Several people recently forwarded this lawsuit from Byram Bridle, filed just before Christmas. He’s a Professor at the University of Guelph, and has had an eventful last few years. The Claim is 73 pages long, demands $3 million, and is interesting…. to say the least.

It’s difficult to know what’s true and exaggerated, simply because it reads like a comedy skit. The Statement of Claim alleges grand conspiracies between the University of Guelph, various employees and administrators, and some “experts” online.

Also, one of the people Bridle sued is a lawyer in that Province. It appears doubtful this will go over well with the Law Society of Ontario, especially given Galati’s $500,000 suit against them and their former intake officer. That one was filed July 2022, and is facing a Rule 21 Motion to Strike.

Allegedly, they’re all working together to financially and professionally destroy Bridle, because…. reasons, or something. It’s never made clear.

On December 19th, 2022, Dr. Byram Bridle issued a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court. The expert vaccinologist, and viral immunologist, states that he has been viciously and falsely attacked by some of his colleagues, with the complicity of the University administration. Some of the Defendants include the President of University of Guelph, Dean Wichtel, Administrator Arnott, Professor Pyle, Professor Weese, and Dr. David Fisman at the University of Toronto.

Also, it’s a bit unclear how to describe Bridle himself. He’s portrayed as an expert in vaccines and immunology, and was developing vaccines against Covid-19. Granted, that doesn’t exist, but that’s another issue. In the same document, he’s a vocal advocate against people getting these shots.

In this scenario, Bridle is about the only rational one. Others are trying to harass, bully, intimidate and crush him. Again, it’s hard to know what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what’s flat out untrue.

One disturbing trend within the “freedom movement” is that many see nothing wrong with using the Courts to silence people they disagree with. Kulvinder Gill and the Canadian Frontline Nurses are recent examples.

Does Bridle have a valid case? Maybe, but as it’s written, it’s pretty hard to read without laughing. Guess we’ll have to see.

Why Bridle lawsuit will never go anywhere

Aside from the issues noted above, there’s a bigger problem. The Statement of Claim came from the Constitutional Rights Centre, which has a history of filing: (a) very poorly drafted suits; and (b) letting lawsuits sit for months or years without activity.

Here are some recent ones:

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
  • Adelberg et al. v. Attorney General et al. Federal Court #T-1089-22. Filed May 2022. Motion to Strike commenced November 2022.

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.

Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.

Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.

Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.

Federal Vaxx Pass challenge is facing a Motion to Strike. Among other defects, the Attorney General notes that it’s largely a cut and paste of the Action4Canada suit.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served. Note: see below.

Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was over 3 years ago.

Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, nearly 2 years ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant for almost 2 years.

This is not the work of people who are truly committed to seeing their cases through. These seem much more like placeholders. There’s no reason to assume Bridle’s case will be treated with any urgency.

Finally movement with Vaccine Choice Canada case?

When perusing the Ontario Superior Court SEARCH, this was recently updated for Vaccine Choice. Apparently, there is a case conference set for January 17, 2023, which just a few weeks away.

This was a bit of a surprise, considering that the case was 2 1/2 years old, with no activity. Most likely, this conference is to set down a hearing date for a Motion to Strike. After all, the case is still in its infancy, and is nowhere near ready for a trial. The Parties haven’t yet appeared even a single time.

The 191 page document doesn’t comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, so this outcome shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Also see here, and see here.

If the Ontario Attorney General is going to attempt to have this suit thrown out, the above reviews will outline what to expect.

As for the Bridle lawsuit, don’t expect it to go anywhere, anytime soon. It wouldn’t be a shock if it just remained idle for the next 3-5 years.

BRIDLE LAWSUIT
(1) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Canadian Frontline Nurses’ $1 Million Defamation Case Dismissed As A SLAPP

The group Canadian Frontline Nurses, CFLN, has had their million dollar defamation suit thrown out as a SLAPP. This is of course, short for strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is when the Courts are improperly used to silence speech or expression on public interest discussion.

Note: although the ruling has been handed down, it’s not yet posted publicly. It will be included here when that happens.

CFLN and 3 of its members: (a) Kristen Nagle; (b) Sarah Choujounian; and (c) Kristal Pitter, were all listed as Plaintiffs. They had sough general damages for defamation of $750,000.00, and another $250,000.00 for aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages.

This lawsuit centered around 2 articles. Are they worth $1 million?

Article posted by Canadian Nurses Association, September 9, 2021

Enough is enough: professional nurses stand for science-based health care
The reckless views of a handful of discredited people who identify as nurses have aligned in some cases with angry crowds who are putting public health and safety at risk. They have drawn in anti-science, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-public health followers whose beliefs align with theirs. For some reason they would have us believe that millions of the best educated health scientists, public health experts, physicians and nurses globally have all missed something they have not. Their outlandish assertions about science would be laughable were they not so dangerous.

Now the focus is on images of surly mobs happy to stand in front of health-care settings and harass, threaten, and even assault health-care workers coming and going in the business of saving lives. These protests have stunned and saddened exhausted health-care workers. They are demoralizing, infuriating and dangerous.

Anti-public health disinformation threatens to confuse a tired and bewildered public by deliberately misrepresenting personal ideology as facts, and science as conspiracy. The public should be assured that the vast majority of Canada’s 448,000 regulated nurses are united in their commitment to operate from a stringent code of ethics, and they are duty-bound to use science, evidence, and facts in assessing, planning, and evaluating the care they deliver to people across Canada. This scientific approach is a fundamental ideology of modern nursing.

This portion of an article published by the Canadian Nurses Association was quoted to support the defamation claims against the organization and leadership.

Here’s the problem: nowhere in the article are any of the Plaintiffs named. This is a fatal error in a defamation case, as defamatory speech or expression has to be of the person(s) suing. This article could refer to anyone.

However, the Claim states that they were “referred”, and that should be enough. That’s going to be a very tough sell.

Article posted by Together News/Comox Valley, September 11, 2021

There was another article, this one from Comox Valley. While this one did mention the Plaintiffs by name, it appeared to be referencing (for the most part) quotes that they had made. While the January 6 comments seem out of place, it’s difficult to see how these leads to $1 million in damages.

Statements of Defense laid groundwork for anti-SLAPP Motion

The Canadian Nurses Association and Together News both filed Statements of Defense. They raised multiple justifications:

  • CNA statement doesn’t refer to the Plaintiffs (CNA)
  • Words themselves are not defamatory (CNA)
  • Qualified privilege (Both)
  • Responsible communication on matters of public interest (Both)
  • Truth (Both)
  • No malice (Both)
  • No damages incurred (Both)
  • Fair comment (Together News)

CFLN Responding Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 1
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 2
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 3
CFLN Supplementary Motion Record Of Plaintiffs

Both documents reference Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the legislation on which anti-SLAPP is based upon. The Defendants signaled that they would be bringing Motions on this. And that’s what they did.

Lawsuits like this actually harm freedom movement

Yes, the “health restrictions” are based on deception and distortions of reality. But this doesn’t help. Considering that these groups claim to be pro-freedom, suing critics makes it difficult to take them seriously.

In December 2020, Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 people and media outlets. It was (predictably) thrown out as a SLAPP. Gill still has another $7 million suit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

These kinds of suits have exposed a certain sect of society: there are plenty of people who “claim” to support freedom, and free speech, but who don’t. Instead, we have people who selectively support speech depending on the ideology involved.

Appeal is already being promised

Canadian Frontline Nurses is promising to appeal the SLAPP ruling. This is pointless, as the Ontario Court of Appeal isn’t going to overturn any of this.

Now, are they simply getting very poor advice, or are the donations that come in making it all worthwhile?

COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) CFLN Statement Of Claim
(2) CFLN Statement Of Defense CDN Nurses Association
(3) CFLN Statement Of Defense Together News/Comox Valley
(4) CFLN Responding Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(5) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 1
(6) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 2
(7) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 3
(8) CFLN Supplementary Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(9) CFLN Freedom Rally Documentation
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.pdf

OTHER LINKS
(1) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca
(2) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/donate
(3) https://t.me/NursesAgainstLockdowns/2229
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-suit-ontario-1.6698686
(5) https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/blogs/cn-content/2021/09/09/enough-is-enough-professional-nurses-stand-for-sci
(6) https://comoxvalley.news/quack-quack-these-pro-virus-nurses-have-dangerous-ideas/