Sorry for both the (once again) late response to being tagged, and also for the dump of tons of responses.
How would Oger incorrectly mentioning meeting JY at a function be libelous or damage-worthy in itself? Oger just said that at the meeting that she may have advised JY about the BCHRT at JY's request--unless he is asserting that Morgane is responsible for the reactions from the Economist, Spectator, Times of London, diverse nests of terves and conservatives, and the Farms. Does this MLM legal scheme that he's getting the lawyer from stipulate that the lawyer has to draft x number of dumb letters? Because, and I'm bugging
@Cato again for his canada-specific take, this would not normally be seen as a potentially profitable venture by any lawyer I've ever met.
I know this will sound both obvious and tautological, but an element of the tort of defamation in Canada is that the impugned statement must be defamatory. More specifically, this means that it would lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the ordinary person.
If all that is being disputed is the statement that Oger met JY in person, not the content of anything that was said between them, then yeah, this would obviously not constitute defamation.
Actually, ppl can get in trouble in Canada even if it is true if it's insensitive to feels. Oger a couple months back got handed a $55K award against the bible-beater Whatcott over his handing out flyers identifying Oger's birth name, calling him a "he" and a transvestite to boot, because that was seen as prohibited activity toward the protected class of "gender identity."
Sure, but the person you were responding to wrote "it's not libel if it's true," and Oger v Whatcott was about a contravention of the BC Human Rights Code. It had nothing to do with libel.
He’s trying to buddy up to the cops so he can use them as a weapon against anyone who criticizes him. He used to act like he was buddy-buddy with them until he found out they have an eye on him. He flaunts twitter jail like he’s a powerful dictator, imagine what he’d do if he thought the police had his back.
Which is hilarious because the average police officer doesn't hold particularly progressive views about gender identity, nor do they tend to like pedophiles very much.
LMAO how stupid is this bitch to give up her career because someone issued a complaint against her? Can we say once and for all that TERFs are U S E L E S S????? They deserve to get run over by men in dresses if this is how it's going to be. Pack it up, women, you're absolutely done because you're too spooked to stand up for yourself for a single second. Imagine having this little of a spine. "I'm devastated, but no one can take away my phD!!!!!!!!!" Yeah, unless someone spends 20 minutes writing to your university's dissertation committee, I bet. This is as pathetic as anything I've ever seen on this website.
Yeah, for someone with a PhD she's quite an imbecile.
Alright, When can we go nuclear on Jonathan on Twitter? Maybe posting every screenshot, archive link, ect... Tagging him and as many trans activists as possible.
I know everyone loves to shit on people for trying to coordinate ops here, or for speaking of KF in terms of some collective "we," and it's totally justified of them to do so. But I'll add that I think it's equally pathetic to seek permission from people here to do whatever dumbass Internet fuckery you want to do off-site. Do whatever you want on your own, just don't expect asspats or help from anyone here.
Considering how fucked Canada is, would this consitute as Libel or something that could get JY in trouble if Alexis were to see it? No doubt she has receipts proving he's full of shit.
It might. The elements of defamation in Canada are that the impugned statements:
i) Were defamatory
ii) Made reference to the plaintiff
iii) Were published or disseminated
The second and third elements are obviously met, and the standard for the first element (as I mentioned above) is that it would lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of an ordinary person. Statements about the person acting like a creep are sort of subjective, so it's a grey area as to whether it would qualify, but there are Canadian cases where calling someone "stupid" or "ugly" were found to be defamatory.
It wouldn't be defamatory but WOULD be theoretically libel if indeed false
Libel is a form of defamation, so anything that would constitute libel would also necessarily be defamatory.
archive.fo
