tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post6579741453606596508..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: Conservatives drop Cadman suit, Harper gets "personality" backUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-68854548643090997952009-02-08T20:36:00.000-05:002009-02-08T20:36:00.000-05:00Does this mean that the Liberals won't be talking ...Does this mean that the Liberals won't be talking about this mess in parliament, as well?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09594501537766624608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-59208051386849337322009-02-07T01:41:00.000-05:002009-02-07T01:41:00.000-05:00The Liberals most definitely not have to prove 'tr...The Liberals most definitely not have to prove 'truth.' If you read what the Liberlas posted, it was really just a repeat of Hansard. Lots of accusations, lots of questions, all justified based upon what Harper did say on that tape. <BR/><BR/>What it defamatory? Yes. But libel isn't defamation. Libel is unjustified defamation. You can defame a person with false fact in Canada, and still not be guilty of libel.<BR/><BR/>Was it reasonable for the Opposition to ask these questions, and make accusations? Was it reasonable for them to communicate the exchange to the public? <BR/><BR/>The answer is, legally, likely 'yes' to both. <BR/><BR/>Ofcourse, in practice, that would hvae depended upon the judge. They can be quite predictable. However, I doubt Harper wanted this matter scrutinized further.<BR/><BR/>This was a classic SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Agaisnt Public Participation) meant to intimidate the Liberals and to defame them.Mark Richard Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16331995640397477486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-27743219089159219052009-02-06T23:17:00.000-05:002009-02-06T23:17:00.000-05:00Remember, the onus wasn't on Harper to prove the c...<I>Remember, the onus wasn't on Harper to prove the comments libelous. The Liberals had to prove they weren't libelous</I><BR/><BR/>That's not exactly right. The Conservatives have to prove defamation. It's just not a hard test to pass.<BR/><BR/>From what I have seen of the statement of claim, it was probably a statement of fact, which means the only defense is truth, which the Liberals would have to demonstrate after the Conservative demonstrate defamation.<BR/><BR/>Now here's the thing. If the Liberals knew they were going to be able to demonstrate truth, they had nothing to fear from the lawsuit except costs. And they were likely to be awarded costs, anyway.<BR/><BR/>The risk of losing your own costs (because you're going to win, so you won't have to pay theirs) is an investment in a great marketing campaign. Just get a friendly lawyer, and a payment plan.<BR/><BR/>And if they had evidence capable of proving it, they would have shared it. That's what they did with the rest of their evidence.<BR/><BR/>What evidence did they have of this? Only the tape recording. No other evidence except hearsay.<BR/><BR/>So if the Liberals settled, it's probably because they were uncertain whether or not they could demonstrate the truth of the statements. Specifically, that Harper was aware that individuals had attempted to bribe chuck Cadman.<BR/><BR/>The Liberals, if their uncertain of winning, also have to consider the risk of paying the Conservatives' costs, over which they have absolutely no control.<BR/><BR/>If it was settled without further comment, it is because neither side was sure of victory.<BR/><BR/>And frankly, that is the right thing to do. It diminishes the democratic debate to defame people. And unless you can prove something is true, it's defamation. When one side lowers the bar, the other side replies in kind.<BR/><BR/>So hopefully, this settlement represents a willingness of both parties to class it up a notch.Gauntlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05061438876627317881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-37441605959664206182009-02-06T19:47:00.000-05:002009-02-06T19:47:00.000-05:00"Harper gets "personality" back "Wow, if that ain'..."Harper gets "personality" back "<BR/><BR/>Wow, if that ain't a booby prize. <BR/><BR/>Also Jeff, point of clarification, you should never dry clean cardboard. Just saying.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.com