Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net 200
newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."
Re:Proof once again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Note the "without lawful justification or excuse." Section 300 states if it's false the punishment is 5 years, and section 301 blankets it with a 2 year sentence regardless. (that is, upto). So you can get more time for a false statement, but true or not, you can still be found guilty of libel.
It's in the publics interest if he messed with party money [or whatever]. If the allegations are false, then whoever published them can be found guilty of defamatory libel.
However, suppose he had an embarrassing hobby (that was otherwise legal), and it was paraded in public to mock and ridicule him. If the publication causes him harm [loss of job, contempt of peers, etc] it can be found to be libel, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Tom
The disputed Wikipedia material: (Score:3, Informative)
Lender to Green Parties
He is best known for his involvement in the Green Party of British Columbia, to which he donated substantial funds in 2001, and the Green Party of Canada, to which he lent nearly $440,000 in 2003-4. It was his activities as that party's major creditor that brought him to the public eye.
Theories began in 2001 about Crookes' motives, with some persons claiming his intent was to "split votes" and elected the BC Liberal Party. Crookes quickly suppressed such suggestions, notably at rabble.ca, a left-wing political chat site, whose publisher Judy Rebick published a boilerplate apology to Crookes, who was otherwise generally successful at avoiding media scrutiny until 2005-6.
Wayne Crookes
Control of the Green Party of Canada
In return for this, "Mr. Crookes was also appointed to a newly- created Green party election readiness committee -- an appointment that rubbed many Greens the wrong way", according to a May 2006 article in the Ottawa Citizen.
After raising concerns about "having a rich guy buy his way into a position of power", Gretchen Schwarz, the Party's Chair, a sentiment she claimed was shared by "a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Greens", "she and five other members of the executive council resigned in 2003." She later complained that financial statements prepared by Chief Agent John Anderson had not ever been made available to the party's elected Council. During the Canadian federal election, 2006, this and other criticisms of Jim Harris' financial relationships and reporting during the period in which the party was repaying Crookes prompted the party to file a number of lawsuits and accuse several critics of lying to alter the outcome of an election, a crime in Canada. After the election, the suits were apparently dropped, [http://openpolitics.ca/GPC+whistleblower+crisis,+ 2006 which were taken by some as proof of their original political motivation].
Though he had resigned as head of the GPC's Management Committee, just before that election, it was widely believed that Crookes' personal penchant for libel actions had influenced the party to take these actions.
During 2005, the party had undergone another crisis very similar to 2003, and this was also widely attributed to Crookes' influence. During the Canadian federal election, 2004, Crookes had served as national campaign manager. Afterwards, he continued to lend the party bridge funds until public funding was received.
He was very involved in operational matters, approved spending proposals personally, and was called "Uncle Wayne" in Council meetings by John Anderson, the party's chief agent, according to Elio Di Iorio.
His influence grew as staff were hired, some of which had originally reported to Crookes during the 2004 election. There were tensions with volunteers and especially with those who working on policy research, who saw the staff as sometimes usurping political work. In January 2005, elected Fundraising Chair Kathryn Holloway came into conflict with Debbie Hartley, who had Crookes' trust and had replaced him as head of the election readiness and campaign team, a conflicted body which included both staff and the Council that they in theory reported to. Holloway was "suspended" from the Council, an unprecedented action with no precedent in the party's constitution. This triggered another set of events usually called the GPC Council Crisis.
Protests about Holloway's treatment grew, and analysis of it was published in party forums. In early February 2005, a memo from Crookes, who had formally withdrawn from the election readiness committee now controlled by Debbie Hartley, was forwarded by Hartley to other insiders. It claimed that "dysfunctional" officers were "driving out the talented", an ominous claim from the party's major creditor.
The very next day, the Green Party of Canada Living Platf
Re:Get used to it (Score:2, Informative)
Just because you can set up an anonymous message board and have no regard for anyones safety, doesn't mean you should.
Also, newsflash, you don't have to be a bad person to attract the evil doers. As homework, try to find what on usenet I did that would merit having kiddie porn attached to my name.
I'll admit I'm not the most agreeable person at all times, but I never went as far as to libel and slander people, nor did I get violent or whatever with people. I talked down about some snake oil vendor [CryptoSMS for the curious] in 2005 and shortly afterwards the attacks started. I don't see how my actions warranted being attacked like that other than they could so they did.
And it's not even about pleasing people, because you can't please everyone.
So really, by your logic the solution is to not play the game. If they don't know your name they can't attack you. Wonderful!
OR
We could hold people liable for the libel they publish...
hmm... I wonder which is the better solution...
Tom
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:3, Informative)
Someone could have some strange habits that he keeps secret and if you out them and they lose their job, reputation etc because you maliciously publicized that they eg masturbate to barbie dolls, something that is no one else's business though true it is still slander.
Personally I think that the right to privacy is an important right and am glad that our supreme court agrees.
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:2, Informative)
According to the Canadian Press Stylebook, truth is a complete defence to libel, although it's the defendant's responsibility to prove the truth of the statement, which may be impossible. One can also gain privilege (protection from legal action) if the statements are fair, accurate and without malice, and there is a defence of fair comment if it's opinion that's honest, based upon provable fact and in the public interest.
And then there's one more can of worms: every province has its own definition for libel (the civil law part), so something that's not libel in one province may be libel in another (for instance, it may be in the public interest in one province, but not another). And if a statement is published across the country, the person libeled can choose the venue to sue the libeler (for a US example, see Keeton v. Hustler). Further Quebec's law is based on the French Civil Code, so even if a statement is true it must be proved that it was made in the public interest and without malice.
So yes, a veritable minefield that's nowhere near as simple as one thinks.