Can you imagine the almighty hoo-ha that would break out across this country if the Alberta NDP ponied up the dough for its leader to sue Postmedia or the Western Standard for defamation?
Don’t worry. It’s not going to happen. And not because of the impeccable journalistic standards of those news organizations, either.
But just ponder for a moment the unholy hullabaloo about free expression that would ring out from coast to coast if it did happen.
Now, turn your mind to the latest story about Danielle Smith.
Yesterday, Alberta’s premier told the Canadian Press that her United Conservative Party is picking up her legal tab while she threatens the CBC with a defamation suit for a series of stories about her efforts on behalf of anti-vaxx, anti-Trudeau, pro-convoy insurrectionists facing criminal charges like Calgary street preacher Artur Pawlowski.
Ask yourself, is using libel law to suppress inconvenient media reports a suitable use for tax-deductible political donations in a democracy?
On Monday, Ms. Smith read a statement at a news conference at which reporters were waiting to ask her about her now notorious 11-minute chitchat last January with Pastor Pawlowski, who has been charged with criminal mischief for a speech at the Coutts blockade last year that prosecutors say was intended to stir up violence.
“As you know, there’s been a great deal of inaccurate, misleading and likely defamatory reporting about my discussions with Justice officials regarding amnesty for COVID prosecutions,” she read – somewhat misleadingly, since despite his views on the topic Mr. Pawlowski’s prosecution is not about COVID-19.
“I have been clear that neither I nor anyone within my staff have contacted any Crown prosecutors, as has been alleged,” Ms. Smith read on. “Indeed, Alberta’s Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed this to be true. To continue saying or suggesting otherwise, is malicious. As this matter is now likely to be subject of legal defamation proceedings, I will not be commenting about it further, as per the advice of counsel on the matter.” (Emphasis added.)
There ended the reading.
But every time a reporter asked a question about her conversation with Pastor Pawlowski, as they did several times, she would respond with a version of the following words: “I have sought advice from my Justice officials on several matters and the advice that they have given is that there are matters that need to be resolved before the courts, nothing more can be done until those court cases are decided, and I’ve taken that advice.”
So while she clearly stated the legal matters in question included her threats to sue the CBC, her argument for not commenting was ambiguous about whether she was referring to the defamation threat or the criminal charges against Mr. Pawlowski.
In light of her revelation that the party is paying her legal bills in the defamation case, this also raises and interesting ethical and policy question about whether she should also be consulting government lawyers about the same matter.
Plus, of course, if the statements in the CBC’s story are legitimately defamatory, as Premier Smith claims, why is her bill not being covered by the MLA Risk Management Insurance fund available to Members of the Legislative Assembly who face legal problems as a result of doing their jobs as elected representatives of the public?
NDP Opposition Leader and former premier Rachel Notley said that if Ms. Smith “believed that she was truly the victim of defamation as a result of doing her job as premier,” she should have been able to access that fund.
“I would argue, the premier is so offside with the law, she is instead going to a partisan source of funding so that she can use this legal action as a political tactic, not as a genuine legal claim,” Ms. Notley, a lawyer by profession, told CP.
This seems likely, since the principal utility of the threat to sue the CBC for the premier and the party is the excuse it will give everyone on the UCP side to refuse to talk about her efforts on behalf of Mr. Pawlowski, which as Andrew Nikiforuk wrote in The Tyee yesterday, “Thirty years ago, if a premier was shown to have held a conversation with a criminally charged extreme separatist, and she sympathetically told him she was discussing his case and others’ with officials in the judicial system, that politician would have been hounded from office.”
Well, no more. Not in Alberta, anyway.
The CBC, meanwhile, says it stands by its story and will defend it in court if necessary.
It was easier for Art Pawlowski, facing criminal charges, than for Amarjeet Sohi to meet the premier!
It tells you something about Premier Smith’s priorities that Pastor Pawlowski got a meeting with Alberta’s premier long before Amarjeet Sohi could.
But then, Mr. Pawlowski is an important guy – he’s the gentleman who told the insurrectionists at Coutts last year that their illegal border blockade ought to become Alberta’s Alamo, a reference to the bloody battle in San Antonio de Béxar in 1834 during the effort by Americans living in what is now Texas to secede from Mexico.
By contrast, Mr. Sohi is just the mayor of Edmonton.
Pastor Pawlowski got 11 minutes of the premier’s valuable time in January, during which she made sympathetic noises about his troubles with the law and promised to see what she could do for him despite not having the powers of a U.S. President. Then he posted a recording of the conversation on social media.
Mr. Sohi couldn’t get a meeting with the Premier until March 7.
But then, in addition to being the chief magistrate of Alberta’s solidly New Democrat capital city, Mr. Sohi is also a former federal Liberal cabinet minister. So what did anyone expect?
From Ms. Smith’s perspective, one supposes, who cares if he represents nearly a million Albertans? They’re not the right Albertans.
Well, I suppose that is at least one question answered without being imprecise or contradictory – the party will be paying the legal bill related to any potential lawsuit. I suppose at this point it is just the cost of one letter. However, it could very well be that the government already didn’t want to pay for this sort of thing. If it got out that government lawyers recommended against pursuing this, it could be very embarrassing for Smith and quickly deflate her self righteous hot air filled balloon. So perhaps doing it this way was also the politically less risky option.
However, if Smith really wants to sue those who have said she contacted prosecutors, perhaps she should sue herself first, as this is what she said in the video of the call with the pastor. Also for someone who says she want to be clear, her most recent statement also seems to again muddy the waters by referring to amnesty. Even though Smith was apparently initially confused about being able to offer amnesty, it appeared the prosecutors set her straight before she could bring it up “almost weekly”. Or did they? Smith is persistent and stubborn, but not necessarily smart, so perhaps she ignored that and brought it up afterwards anyways.
In any event, Smith still seems to have quite a soft spot and lots of time for the lake of fire types like this pastor, despite all her previous problems due to them. I suppose they represent some people that Smith still wants to appeal to. But I wonder if it is actually as many as say our urban Alberta mayors that she doesn’t seem to have much time for.
“… some people that Smith still wants to appeal to.”
Little doubt about it Dave.
It’s worth remembering who those people are and what kind of characters they are. We have a representative of them here from time to time, replete with the atrocious spelling mistakes and grammatical errors only a truly ignorant and uneducated buffoon with lots of money could make. Seems to be a common characteristic of modern day conservatives; something they are, inexplicably, even proud of.
Our infrequent but always consistent crier from the ranks of extremely lucky white trash conservatives in Albaturda always reminds me of Jed Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies; so absolutely incompetent that he can’t even shoot straight but still hits the one spot that starts the bubblin’ crude, black gold ya’ know. And now fabulously wealthy is absolutely convinced he is a hard-working, morally-upstanding financial and economic genius.
This is who Ms Smith wants to appeal to. Actually, needs to appeal to to keep her job.
Ranger: I have to take issue with this statement. Jed Clampett was innocent, always laughably so, but he was a decent human being, generous to a fault, and always inclined to see the best in the Beverly Hills types he met, which enabled us viewers to understand just what turds they were. The Beverly Hillbillies was pretty much the funniest sitcom ever made, and was quite liberal, in the best sense, in its outlook. DJC
No quarrel there David.
Better days, easier times.
Danielle Smith has an overinflated ego, and she lies so much. She said she never talked to Crown prosecutors. Has she seen the video recording showing her saying she did exactly that? She doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in H-E-double-hockey-sticks of winning this lawsuit, if it were to proceed. Her mouth goes off before her brain does.
There will be no law suit. This is just a tactic for the premier to be able to ignore fair questions about her lack of honesty and integrity before her coronation… er, election.
Smith is looking very tired and worn out in the photograph above. The sleep of the just seems to be eluding the Premier. Apropos of nothing, it looks like Smith is now using Rick Bell as a fashion consultant, which is fitting. Too bad her jacket isn’t.
Relieved to discover this was not in praise and defence of Danielle Smith. Edmonton is, as you say, a largely NDP city – thank you for sharing a non-right, non-extreme take on Alberta politics. Danielle Smith makes Alberta look crazy to everyone else.
J Bain: The mission of this blog is not really to defend Danielle Smith, although I suppose it could happen if unforeseen circumstances arose. DJC
A SLAPP by any other name I guess….if it is ever actually filed in court, with Madu for the plaintiff. I am still surprised at the lack of advertising by UCP-TBA interest groups given that the writ could be dropped relatively soon.
Mr. Nikiforuk should stick to his own backyard where there is plenty of grist for his mill. Not the least of which is the announcement that former BC premier John Horgan and former clean energy advocate is joining the board of Elk Valley resources, a coal company no less. Sounds like a sweet gig. Elk Valley is an offshoot of the mining giant Teck resources which has been in hot water recently for its mining activities and river pollution that run into the US.
https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-teck-lobbied-against-coal-mine-pollution-inquiry/
Ronmac: As long as I have known Andrew Nikiforuk, and it has been more than 30 years, he has resided in Alberta. I believe he now lives somewhere in the Livingstone-Macleod riding. Andrew and I worked together at the Calgary Herald years ago and I have the utmost respect for his work, although I don’t necessarily agree with every word he utters. Like me, he is frequently published by The Tyee, which is is making a serious effort to cover Alberta news. While The Tyee is based in British Columbia, it sees an opportunity in Alberta because, other than the CBC, we are so badly served by our local news media. I recommend you subscribe to The Tyee’s Alberta Edge newsletter – https://thetyee.ca/Tyeenews/2023/03/27/Sign-Up-For-Alberta-Edge/ – if you want to keep up on Alberta news that includes stories Postmedia refuses to cover or covers in a biased fashion. DJC
Thanks for that, David – I gave up on local media a long time ago, so another source for Alberta news aside from the CBC (and this blog, of course) is welcome.
Incidentally you substituted “nit” for “not” in your response to J Bain’s comment.
Thanks, Lars. A frequent typo of mine, I’m afraid. It’s been fixed. I hope J Bains wasn’t offended. DJC
I like what MSNBC did with Trump’s speech from Florida:
“From what we can tell, this is basically a campaign speech in which he is repeating his same lies and allegations against his perceived enemies. It is just getting started. So far he is just giving his normal list of grievances. We don’t consider that necessarily newsworthy and there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. So our deal with you is that we will monitor these remarks. If he does say anything newsworthy, we will turn that around and report on them right away. So for now, just know that it’s happening and we’re not taking it.”
The live video played in the background, on mute.
This needs to be done in Canada with folks like the UCP and CPC. News organizations have a duty to the truth, not to lies, falsehoods and character smears.
We have a premier who has threatened a news outlet with a lawsuit, presumably for quoting her and airing a recording of her conversation with a man facing criminal charges, discussing what she did to intervene on his behalf. In other words, she has threatened to sue the CBC for airing the truth. The tables can be turned by not airing the lies, falsehoods and allegations coming out of her mouth. Put her on mute. After all, it’s her idea. She wants silence. Give it to her.
Well Daniel Dale has had a full time job fact checking Trump since 2016, and he reported on Rob Ford before that, but I doubt we could afford him.
I guess we will have to rely on MSM, twitter and blogs/substacks for now until the election.
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1643622559336783873?cxt=HHwWgoCzoc2Aqc8tAAAA
Does Danielle Smith’s promise of legal action infer that this will be her course of action whenever there are issues that she finds difficult to respond to????
My guess would be that the UCP exec insisted on this course of action as the only possible way to stop Danielle Smith from putting her foot in her mouth.
It will be interesting to see how long she can keep this up.
Impeccable?? hahahahaha !!! good one…..
Given Munaf’s bio, that I would think would be one hefty bill,especially with his experience with defamatory cases. But then maybe the newest board member got her a family (UCP) discount, though given her relationship with JK , the muddied waters could hold all manner of unexpected…..
As far as her supporters go, they probably think they are getting their money’s worth, what with all the “defund the CBC ” chant on both her and PP’S Twitter accounts. And you KNOW, PP will be 100% backing her.
And speaking of:
PP will be in Edmonton, April 13th @the Royal Glenora Club …
“Admittance will require a $1000.00 donation to the CPC,but we are encouraging people to donate the maximum of $1700.00″
The audacity, coming on the heels of yesterday’s raging about people having to use food banks and the $5000 + raise he got April 1st …..makes me twitch.
Boy, if I had $1000 to burn…I would put my” 5″ questions to good use.
In the meantime, taking a break from all the nonsense…sincerely hope everyone has a good Easter Long wknd. Take care All
(fingers crossed)
Thanks, and same to you.
Mr. Peepers wants you Albertans to pay $1,700 to hear the same drivel you can read for free on the CPC website. Do you even get a feed?
For all that she appears to be an agent of chaos, I have some bewildered respect for Smith’s ability to pay her dues. I think a lot of politicians seem to forget the people who put them in power soon after taking office; I have to wonder that the short time frame between becoming UCP leader and having to win a general election has played a role. Pawlowski represents a couple of flavors of social cons (I’m sure the Venn diagrams overlap a bit) that she must feel she needs to keep impressed to win in May, or else why get into this mess…?
At this point I would say If she IS an agent of chaos she is an unwitting one. I’ve said for a long time that I think she is of low intelligence, i would add gullible
To that at this point, she’s being led around by the nose.
The real primary issue is not an assumed, or perceived libel or defamation [which may not even be a secondary issue], but who gets to control the narrative, where:
“. . . political narrative is not only a theoretical concept, it is also a tool employed by political figures in order to construct the perspectives of people within their environment and alter relationships between social groups and individuals. As a result, fiction has the potential to become fact and myths become intertwined into public discourse. Political narrative is impactful in its ability to elicit pathos, allowing the narrative to be influential through the value it provides rather than the truth that is told.”
The threat of “likely” legal action is a public admission that the battle for narrative control has effectively been lost by the radio talk show host/lobbyist. Noting further that the common political reliance on themes of moral panic is a standard method that attempts to reestablish narrative control and “shift the focus” for a fixated audience. Apparently attempted ‘libel chill’ has the same hoped for effect in the mind of individuals threatening legal action.
The drama of a “likely” legal action should renew further interest in “Is Now the Time to Consider Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Alberta?”, where; it could be argued that:
“fear of being dragged into protracted, expensive litigation can create a ‘chill’ on expression that is detrimental to public debate. As newsrooms shrink, the media themselves may become more susceptible to this chilling effect of real or potential lawsuits, even if those lawsuits have little to no chance of success”.
https://ablawg.ca/2020/04/15/is-now-the-time-to-consider-anti-slapp-legislation-in-alberta-a-reflection-on-pointes-protection/
Even as,
“The Supreme Court modified Canada’s law of defamation to give more protection to
libel defendants, in recognition of the fact that the traditional defamation rules inappropriately chill free speech. Freedom of expression guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is essential to the functioning of our
democracy and to seeking out the truth. The core rationales for freedom of expression of democratic discourse and truth-finding squarely apply to communications on matters of public interest, even those which contain false imputations. Productive debate is dependant on the free flow of information and “freewheeling debate on matters of public interest is to be encouraged.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court held “[i]t is simply beyond debate that the limited defences available to press-related defendants may have the effect of inhibiting political discourse and debate on matters of public importance, and impeding the cut and thrust of discussion necessary to discovery of the truth.””
https://rdo-olr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/olr_41.2_Dearden_Wagner.pdf
Finally noting that, “While Canadian lawyers, like those in other countries, advise strongly and publicly against legal intimidation of political critics, the Law of Defamation in Canada notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as “artificial and archaic” and characterized by “absurdities”, “irrationality”, and “minute and barren distinctions”
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/29760
Why oh why is this beginning to smell like a SLAPP case in everything but name. The only one who profits in this case I think is the lawyer. If I were a UCP donor I would feel conned and swindled.
Danielle Smith is a very determined person and prides herself as such. Somebody should tell her that it actually means she doesn’t know where to stop—always surpassing the borders of reality, not merely jumping the track en route in the derailment sense, but rather shooting with a head full of steam right past the terminus, straight into the trackless, the untamed, and the freedumb of ferality. It’s Wexmaniacal.
Looks like passengers on the good UC&P Railway have already been pulling the E-brake: what else can they do after seeing the conductor and brakeman bouncing down the rail bed embankment before the runaway gains too much speed to survive it? And that was a few miles back by now. But of course the engineer controls the E-brake override.
Goodness! Wasn’t that Travis?!— abandoning the line that he drew with his sword as the battle grew nigh? And, golly!—there goes Rajan Sawhney, too! Well!—bless my soul!!— just as passing telegraph poles look like a picket fence, there she is again!—ripping and carving into foothill crests, the little Wahine boogering through barreling tubes, knife at the ready to take on a few in reply—as her leader hauls her surfboard back aboard the surging loco-moto. The Perils of Pauline just never get old—which is why psychodramas are invariably set in some inescapable place—an ark, a ship, a submarine—or a runaway train on the UC&P Line. Red Sovine, where are you!
This movie’s audience will for sure be heading for the popcorn at Intermission, not the exit. Just as Part-One’s celluloid sputters off the reel, the Take-Back-Alberta Gang was holding swashbuckling passengers off just behind the engine, coal and bar cars. The audience quickly hustle back to their seats. Part-Two stutters and slurs into sync, just as Engineer Smith is blowing the whistle and ringing the bell, yelling at firemen Wex, Mav and Buffy to get back there and shake down the passengers for more coal: “Hurry! Defamation Hill’s just around the bend!! We need more coal to make the high-grade,” she cries as chugging, thick, black smoke and cinders braid long over the endless prairie behind.
It must be pretty intoxicating riding just above the udder-shoveler on the front of a speeding locomotive (Boudicca, Britannia, and Marianne of other times would be envious) —much more exciting than girding for battle while huddled in a dreadful wagon laager. However, perspectives are much different at high speed. Now that TBA has commandeered the engineer and fully control the whole front of the train, coal-smoke , speed, and time dilation create the illusion that the party-member passengers are all aboard, hitched and happily trailing behind. Yet one would have to be blind to miss the stresses and strains which have threatened to bifurcate this party since the day Jason Kenney announced his candidacy for the ProgCon party leadership with which he intended to bury both it and its rival party on the right, Wildrose—that is, since before the resulting UCP was even born: first, the PC executive resigned en masse in protest; then, UCP leadership runner-up, former Wildrose leader Brian Jean, resigned in a justifiable snit because it looked Kenney’s campaign cheated him out of the win (the RCMP investigation into this alleged infraction of electoral rules was never completed); then, K-Boy riled the Wildrose faction when the Covid pandemic forced him to mandate epidemiological protocols they didn’t like; then Jean won his old seat back in a by-election by campaigning to get rid of the unpopular Kenney—which he and half the voting UCP membership did; but then Danielle Smith, Wildrose leader whom Jean replaced after she crossed the floor and hitched-up to the doomed PC government reappeared and was voted UCP leader instead of Jean by the same faction which dirked K-Boy; finally—or at least almost—Smith finagled herself a seat and introduced an agenda so radical that one-time UCP supporters (in addition to being ‘erstwhile’ because the party has only contested one election yet) began to declare against the party, bounced leader K-Boy resigned his seat, other UCP MLAs began to drop out of the approaching campaign, and were followed by a couple of the most heavyweight cabinet ministers. And there’s still one moon to go before the writ is dropped for the scheduled election (in 54 days from today). This scenario is like an engineering textbook problem called “time-in-motion” which applies especially to rail traffic.
Smith’s current gaffes —especially now her announcement that the UCP party will be paying for the lame defamation suit she’s threatening against the CBC (because it reported on an inappropriate conversation she had with a Coutts Blockade defendant awaiting trial which he subsequently posted on social media)—certainly tugs at the last remaining gossamer-thin thread holding the UCP choo-choo together. Imagine how UCP members already so disappointed with Smith feel about this latest stressor! (I liken them to the United Church Women’s Society or the Community Hall custodian ladies on my little Island: they do count the cutlery and teacups —even after their own meetings. Political-party treasurers are known to be as fastidious about every single penny.)
A good movie grips you right to the end, and this one definitely qualifies. Will the moderate passengers on the speeding train simply unhitch the distal section and let the engine, coal car and bar car hurtle to the terminus at interminable velocity? Or do Danielle Smith and the TBA think they effectively hold the mods hostage by accelerating the concatenation to breakneck speed, now too fast for dissenters to jump off?
It wouldn’t surprise me if the pin has already been pulled but the back half of the train hasn’t lost enough momentum yet for the engineer and firemen to notice. Well, then: just wait until Defamation Hill.
Anyway, even if they did notice the back half’s unhitched, it’d be too late to slow down, stop, go back and pick up the parted section. They’d probably find it sitting silent and empty on some lonesome prairie siding, anyhow, because, profiting from the same allusion, there are other, safer railways to ride—and even the potential for new track to be laid.
All Aboard! The Night Train (with a nod to the GFOS, The Hardest Working Man In Show Business, Mr Dynamite, James Brown)
$6000 dollar a night hotel rooms versus $20 orange juice.
And the NDP are keeping them in power.
$750Milllion payoff to the media a year makes sure you get good press.
Just saying.
Dear Brett,
You have it all wrong. The Conservatives are keeping the Liberals in power in Ottawa. They do this by fielding un-electable and despicable party leaders. Peepee (aka Pierre Poillievre) cannot win the next election let alone remain leader of party for another 2-3 years. So, if the Liberals remain in power, whose fault is it really?
Bret, I’m assuming you’ve never left your safe Albertan echo chamber? $6000 (£3500) for a night in Kensington & Chelsea hotel is not unheard of, especially for one that can provide security for a head of state. Where would you expect a PM/President to stay while abroad, a Super 8? Give your head a shake…
Dani’s dance of the seven (and counting) veils. Without any legal proceedings actually proceeding due to her, I guess, defaming herself in a public record, what is her, and her trained seals excuse for not responding? If she does proceed, does that allow the CBC to defend itself by requiring all meta data from electronic communications along with telephone records of communications within a certain date range between the Premier and anyone in the justice department, for the purposes of discovery? I think this is a stall. She needs a paddlin’! Pull out all the stops! Hit her for everything from this, to downstream poisoning of the Athabasca river! Now!