0
その他 次のブログ»
ブログを作成 ログイン
Baker on Vancouver
Posts
Comments
Friday, 7 November 2014
ITS NOT HOW IT LOOKS (It's worse)
Yesterday, November 6, 2014 was a great day for both VISION
VANCOUVER and the NPA. Followers
Join this site
with Google Friend Connect
Members (22)
Tweeting on Twitter Mayor Gregor chirped, “Honoured that former
@NPAVancouver president Michael Davis endorses
@VisionVancouver team #vanpoli”. That was just the beginning. David Cadman, formerly of COPE also
swore fealty to VISION. As if that wasn’t enough the whole ménage a
deux endorsed the entire VISION slate. That was like when you buy a
Fiat and Jesus comes into the agency and assures you that you have
made a terrific deal and that he is going to throw in a lot of extra’s like a
USB port and a portable WIFI.
As to the NPA, Robert Kasting, independent candidate for mayor
dropped out of the race and endorsed the NPA’s mayoral candidate,
Kirk Lapointe. Better yet, the latest polls are trending in the right
direction. Best of all VISION s Councillor Meggs and Mayor Robertson
sued Lapointe for defamation. What better plug for their ads could there
be.
L’Affaire Local 1004 The law suit serves both parties' purposes. For the NPA it calls
attention to L’Affaire Local 1004 which LaPointe in the Vancouver
Province and the Huffington Post described as “Corrupt.” Someone had
taped the proceedings of a union meeting in which money was
committed to VISION. The audio was given to the journalist Bob
Mackin and was placed on YouTube. The Cedar Party picked it up and
ran YouTube Links. LaPointe discussed it in the Province and ran ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaIMFMeJsSQ (VISION PRESENTATION)
Already a member? Sign in
About Me
Blog Archive
► 2015 (1)
▼ 2014 (18)
▼ November (4)
Jonathan
Baker
Municipal Lawyer,
Former Vancouver
Social Planner;
Vancouver
Alderman, School
Trustee; Trustee
Vancouver
Contemporary Art
Gallery; Trustee
Granville Island
Trust; trustee
Vancouver
Academy of Music;
Trustee Vancouver
Community
College;
View my complete
profile
ITS NOT HOW
IT LOOKS
(It's worse)
FRAUD ON
THE LAW ­
The
Heritage
Action Plan
AFFORDABL
E
HOUSING
VANCOUVER'
S
FINANCIAL
DETERIOR
ATION
► October (2)
► September
(3)
► August (1)
► July (2)
► June (1)
► April (1)
► March (1)
► February (2)
► January (1)
► 2013 (36)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCh8um­Nl0M (RESPONSE)
Mackin grills Cllr Louie on his appearance at CUPE 1004. Are you buying votes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYT6bDVI­tk A condensed version of the transcript is as follows:
MEGGS: “My name is Goeff Meggs. I am running for VISION.”
► 2012 (40)
***”Gregor Robertson our Mayor has recommitted to not expand
contracting out. “**** UNION: “How much money do we have to spend to curry favour with
VISION in the next round of negotiations? OUR SUPPORT IS NOT
UNCONDITIONAL”
Both sides of the story are reported on CTV news:
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver­mayor­suing­rival­candidate­kirk­
lapointe­for­defamation­1.2090454 Never to be outdone, COPE’s Tim Louis ran a hilarious ad “What has
Tim Louis Not done for you lately” that, among other things, referred to
VISION’s "Influence Peddling." Louis needs to be sued for the ad to
get the full publicity it deserves but it would not be in VISION'S interest
to give him the extra attention. This is not the time to start a war on the
Eastern Front. Here is Tim’s ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzBThgkABVg&app=desktop
That was yesterday.
Today, the Vancouver Courier published Goeff Olson’s cartoon. He
shows someone who looks like the Mayor in bed with two fat guys
representing Labor and Developers. The Mayor is depicted saying,
“This isn’t how it looks.”
There was a famous law suit by Bill Vanderzalm who sued a cartoonist
for a caricature showing him as minister of Human Resources pulling
the wings from flies. Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers, a Division of
F.P. Publications (Western) Ltd. [1980] B.C.J. No. 1391 (BCCA). The
decision produced three separate reasons for judgement. The
Cartoonist was not liable.
So Olson could also be sued, not because there is anything wrong with
three guys in bed but because of the company it suggests the Mayor
keeps. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS
VISION has disclosed its source of funding. Concorde Pacific and
Aquilini are major contributors. It is also alleged that they are both owners of some of the land next to
the Georgia Viaduct. http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:GEOG350/2013ST1/Dunsmuir_and_Georgia_Viaducts
If that is true,could the universe contain the possibility that the money
given to VISION by these corporations was "not unconditional?" Would
it be possible that Megg's pushing for the demolition of the viaduct
relates in some way to contributions or prospects thereof to the party? Once the viaduct has been demolished will these land owners be
offered development rights with tremendous density?
Listen to the tapes and tell me that such speculation is unreasonable. The problem with a system in which the people who are regulated by
local governments finance the party is that there is in fact something
wrong with it. It causes people to lose faith in the system precisely
when it deals with the matters central to their jurisdiction. When I am told that a developer has given $40,000 it is hard to believe
that there are no strings attached and that it is not the way it looks.
Casey Stengel once said, "Only half the lies they tell about the New
York Yankees are true." The same may be said of VISION.
SICK SONS OF BITCHES
A fine municipal defamation action was Ralston v. Fomich [1992]
B.C.J. No. 463, a decision of Spencer J. During a Surrey City council debate the defendant alderman called the
plaintiff alderman a "sick son of a bitch". The Plaintiff won. In my opinion the words "son of a bitch" by themselves are not capable
of any defamatory meaning. They are peculiar, in that they take their
meaning either from the tone of voice used or from whatever adjective
accompanies them. They are a translucent vessel waiting to be filled
with colour by their immediate qualifier. Thus, one has sympathy for a
poor son of a bitch, admiration for a brave son of a bitch, affection for a
good old son of a bitch, envy for a rich son of a bitch and, perhaps
incongruously, dislike for a proper son of a bitch. Why right thinking
people should dislike anything that is proper is rather a mystery unless
proper is used to mean "real", but I am confident that is the colour that
adjective gives to the expression. It is perhaps a throw­back to an
earlier use of the expression when the mere words themselves carried
an opprobrious meaning, see for example Kent's apostrophe to
Oswald: "(thou) art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar,
coward, pander and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch:"
(Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 2, Scene 2)
That brings me to the qualifier in this case, the adjective "sick".
Whatever innuendo the word may be capable of must be disregarded,
for none is pleaded. Instead, the statement of claim relies upon its
ordinary meanings, that the plaintiff was either mentally ill, unstable or
unbalanced, that he was perverted, unwholesome or morally corrupt, or
that he was unfit to hold public office or to practise his profession as a
barrister and solicitor.
So you can call a politician a son of a bitch but don’t ever say he is
sick.
MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION
Section 123 of the Criminal Code is set out below:
http://yourlaws.ca/criminal­code­canada/123­municipal­corruption
In summary it provides: 123. Municipal corruption
123. (1) everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who *** being a
municipal official, directly or indirectly *** accepts from any person for
themselves or another person — a loan, reward, advantage or benefit
of any kind as consideration for the official
(a) to abstain from voting at a meeting of the municipal council or a
committee of the council;
(b) to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution;
(c) to aid in procuring or preventing the adoption of a measure, motion
or resolution; or
(d) to perform or fail to perform an official act.
It may be that in back rooms, promises have been exchanged on
conditions or with strings attached but Meggs and Robertson v
Lapointe is the first one that I am aware of that have been videotaped.
One interpretation of what is shown on the Video is that the Mayor has
agreed to maintain the status quo as they enter negotiations and that
the support of the union is provided in exchange for the promise not to
change anything. I don’t see a commitment to maintain the status quo as legally
distinguishable from a commitment to change it. To a passenger in an
airplane that has not crashed, a promise to maintain the status quo
would provide a distinct advantage.
PRIVILEGE, FAIR COMMENT and STRINGS
ATTACHED.
Ironworkers Local 97 of The International Assn. of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers v. Liberal Party of British
Columbia [1997] B.C.J. No. 2357 was an action for defamation that had
some elements similar to what has happened here. The defendant Liberal Party issued a press release. They alleged that
the plaintiff, Ironworkers Local 97, was involved in a kickback scheme
benefiting the provincial New Democratic government. The release
formed the basis of a newspaper article written by the defendant, Brian
Kieran, and published by the defendant, Southam. Unlike the situation with VISION there was no evidence at all that there
were strings attached to the deal. Nevertheless the Union’s action was
dismissed. The release and article were in fact held to be defamatory.
The use of the word "kickback" and a reference to unrelated criminal
charges by other parties carried the inference that Ironworkers Local 97
was involved in unethical behaviour. The plaintiff's problem in these political cases is that he must establish
on a balance of probabilities that there was actual or express malice on
the part of the defendants. A defence of fair comment is available and
means that the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant acted with
malice. Kieran and Southam were covered by the defence of fair comment.
Kieran's column was an opinion column. He discussed a matter of clear
public interest. It contained an honest expression of his views. It was
technically possible for money paid by the government to the
Ironworkers Local 97 to have been legally diverted to the New
Democrats through the unions. It had not happened but there was no
malice behind the actions of any of the defendants. If this case goes to trial, one defence will likely be "truth" i.e. that the
words if not the money mean what they say and are true. The union
donated $206,000 to VISION. This support was allegedly not
unconditional, whatever that means. Posted by Jonathan Baker at 16:01 Recommend this on Google
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Publish
Google Account
Preview
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post
Home
Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Follow by Email
Email address...
Submit
Subscribe To Baker On Vancouver
Posts
Comments
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.