From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in England eventually evolved into various categories of political libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established.

Modern slander and libel law evolved since then to mostly eradicate the use of libel laws to intimidate active political participants during a public debate. Accordingly this is now a matter of historical interest only in all jurisdictions other than Canada, where use of the law by government, political and religious groups is common, and often used against defendants outside Canada.

Contents 1 No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions 2 Canada 2.1 Forum shopping 2.1.1 p2pnet.net 2.2 Religious plaintiffs 2.2.1 Hill v. Scientology 2.3 Political plaintiffs 2.3.1 Martin and Harper 2.3.2 Green Party of Canada 2.4 Government plaintiffs 2.4.1 Toronto Port Authority 3 Sources

In most developed countries, a combination of discouragment to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically-motivated libel suits. Many attorneys advise strongly against filing any suit against critics with political motivations. The McLibel case is usually cited as libel law backfiring.

Many jurisdictions established such difficult tests for application of libel law to political statements, even exempting specific types or processes of criticism, that any specifically or overtly political comment has been effectively exempted from tort law:

• Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political statements.
• In Australia the traditional common law was deemed to be “tilted too far against free communication.” (Theophanous p. 20) and courts recognized privileges for political discussion and eventually a new 2006 uniform Defamation Act in Australia.
• The British House of Lords recognized in 2001 a new test for a case-by-case privilege for publications which, though otherwise actionable, dealt with a matter of public concern in a manner which was reasonable and balanced in all the circumstances. They recognized an obligation to protect journalism.
• New Zealand's Defamation Act includes a qualified privilege for non-reckless statements about political figures.

However, the direction of Canadian libel law has markedly differed from that in other English speaking countries. 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” (p. 1-3). Dan Burnett argued that "other “free and democratic societies” have concluded that the traditional common law requires reform" to avoid infringing free expression and political freedom, but Canada has not. It also inhibits online journalism. Burnett says "Internet publication by media outlets opens the door wide to forum shopping, raising concerns that Canada will become a haven for libel plaintiffs who likely would not succeed in their more natural forum." Several online journalism forums in Canada have closed or restricted access drastically due to the exposure to nuisance or vexatious litigation.

The definition of libel deviates so significantly in Canada, particularly English Canada, that plaintiffs outside Canada bring libel suits against non-Canadian defendants such as the New York Post and the Washington Post - a practice known as forum shopping. Burnett says "they likely have good legal advisers who correctly tell them that Canadian libel laws favour plaintiffs... our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world."

A suit by the founder of Kazaa, based in Australia, was launched against p2pnet.net, to silence critics of the company and its founder. The case was not however launched in Australia proper but in British Columbia, seemingly an example of this forum shopping.

While religious figures and movements have recourse to other laws including hate crime legislation, they have made use of the libel law's provisions intended to stop political critics of powerful church figures.

Despite Canadian adoption of the US-style written Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1980s, its courts have rejected US-style limits on libel law. While it was not overtly a political case, more one of freedom of religion, in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] S.C.J. No. 64, Justice Peter Cory, for the Supreme Court of Canada, stated, “I simply cannot see that the law of defamation is unduly restrictive or inhibiting”. However, other English speaking countries have ruled differently. From about 1994 to 2006, according to Burnett, "the highest courts in England, Australia and New Zealand have all recognized that the traditional law of libel fails to adequately protect free speech, and they have all issued decisions which begin to right the balance. Every one, that is, except Canada."

An aspect of this favouring of plaintiffs is unconcern with their political position, and the viability of political libel suits from Canada that would fail from elsewhere. Only in Canada are statements about politics, even from political party leaders in or on the eve of an election, accorded no priveleges whatsoever, not even a defense of truth.

Just prior to the Canadian federal election, 2006, then Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin vowed to sue Leader of the Opposition (Canada) Stephen Harper for stating that the Liberal Party of Canada's behaviour resembled "organized crime". Harper continued to mock Martin during the election with political advertising and public appearances showing money being abused and hinting that Liberals were inclined to steal taxpayers' money by nature. No lawsuit was filed and Harper won the election. However, the attempt to silence the Prime Minister's chief rival on the eve of an election was widely noted.

The "open politics" service openpolitics.ca was sued by Wayne Crookes and West Coast Title Search in 2006 for permitting republication of comments and facts made on mailing lists and printed in mainstream news articles, and additional comment on these. As Crookes was deeply involved in the Green Party of Canada and the comments focused solely on this involvement, without mentioning his business activities at all, the case was seemingly another political libel instance. The party itself had filed at least one lawsuit during the same election as the Martin-Harper incident, against former staff member Matthew Pollesel. These suits claimed that the defendants defamed officers of the party in reports to the press and Elections Canada regarding the party's internal finances. Both suits were withdrawn shortly after the election, effectively demonstrating that their purpose had been to suppress political comment during the election, and not an attempt to recover any actual damages from any actual harms suffered.

Government agencies in Canada have also sometimes used the law against their critics.

In 2006 the Toronto Port Authority (a quasi-Federal Government agency) started against a neighbourhood residents group - Community Air. The group opposed the Port Authority's support for expanded service at the downtown Toronto City Centre Airport. The suit claims that the agency and its executive board has been defamed by comments posted on the advocacy groups website. This has also been called a SLAPP suit.

• Lawyers Weekly article by Dan Burnett, October 27, 2006.
• Law of Defamation in Canada, Brown
• American cases demonstrating restrictive US definition of libel: Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
• Australian cases: Theophanous v. The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 Aust. L.R. 1 (H.C.) and Lange v. Australian Broadcasting (1997) 145 A.L.R. 96 (H.C.A.).
• English cases: Jameel v. Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44
• Canadian cases:
  • We are all journalists now, column by Michael Geist, published in Toronto Star, June 5, 2006 and also republished by the British Broadcasting Corporation
  • GPC whistleblower crisis, 2006
  • GPC Council crisis
  • Crookes versus openpolitics, filed in BC Superior Court, May 2006

• NZ cases: Lange v. Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385