Canadian Labour Congress Threatens Libel Action Against RCC:

President Ken Georgetti et al. 21st Century Oscar Wildes

 

© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor

 

Students of history will remember the 1895 case of Oscar Wilde v. Marquis of Queensberry.  The famous English writer and poet alleged criminal libel over the public accusation he engaged in unlawful conduct and moral improprieties, including sodomy.  Upon the conclusion of the bankrupting civil trial the defendant was acquitted and the Crown arrested Wilde.  When convicted he was sentenced to two years hard labour. 

 

Correspondence was received dated June 21, 2010 on behalf of the CLC president and its executives threatening legal action pursuant the Libel and Slander Act for the posting of Canadian Labour Congress: Perceived to be Facilitating and Protecting the Interests of Totalitarians and Triads and Their Canadian Accomplices.   

 

 

 

What the labour leader and his colleagues ought to consider is the fact that this litigation helps reformers and those seeking accountability in a most significant way.  Why? Because it exposes the lead plaintiff, his organization and colleagues, both past and present, to penetrating scrutiny.  The beneficiaries of this in-depth examination will be thirty million already livid Canadians who discovered well before the case goes to trial they were the victims of a multi-trillion dollar embezzlement by Canada’s political leaders, old money families and their totalitarian and triad geo-political bedmates.  The question will be asked why claiming to be a representative of the middle class did he not join the RCC and instead appeared to be protecting the status quo. 

 

 

In order to succeed the plaintiffs have to prove the following content was believed by the author to be false and he acted maliciously:

 

 

The first is the reverse onus burden of proof is now in effect against the likes of President Ken Georgetti and Executive Vice-Presidents Barbara Byers and Marie Clarke Walker.  They have to prove they are innocent of the charges they undermined Canadian sovereignty, advanced the interests of big business and unlawful Chinese interests to the detriment of the union’s membership and all Canadians and are propping up a corrupt system of governance and administration of justice.   

 

[…]

 

If the CLC executive in any way seeks to undermine, frustrate or sabotage the reform initiative by influencing or compelling other unions or other coalition invitees to reject the invitation, there will be a record of it.  And those who are involved in protecting the unconstitutional and domestically and internationally unlawful status quo will find their futures exactly the same as totalitarians, triads and their Canadian accomplices. 

 

 

Another defence is “fair comment”.  We all are free to publish opinions about issues of public interest.    The publication Law of Defamation in Canada by R. Brown states:

 

 

A comment is the subjective expression of opinion in the form of a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof.

 

In order to be fair, it must be shown that the facts upon which the comment is based are truly stated and that the comment is an honest expression of the publisher’s opinion relating to those facts. Where a comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives to a person, it must be shown that such imputations are warranted by, and could reasonably be drawn from those facts. 

 

[...] 

 

The protection may be lost if it is shown that the comment was made maliciously, in the sense that it originated from some improper or indirect motive, or if there was no reasonable relationship between the comment that was made and the public interest that it was designed to serve.

 

 

In the February 2009 B.C. Court of Appeal case of Creative Salmon Company Ltd. v. Staniford 2009 BCCA 61, Tysoe J.A. states:

 

[T]he test for the defence of fair comment may now be stated as follows: 

(a)   the comment must be on a matter of public interest;

(b)   the comment must be based on fact

 

(c)   the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognizable as comment;

 

(d)   the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express the opinion on the proved facts?; and

 

(e)   the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was subjectively actuated by express malice.

 

The December 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, which doesn’t refer to Staniford, articulates the criteria for establishing a defence as follows:

 

To be protected by the defence of responsible communication, the publication must be on a matter of public interest. 

 

[…] 

 

In determining whether a publication is on a matter of public interest, the judge must consider the subject matter of the publication as a whole. The defamatory statement should not be scrutinized in isolation. The judge’s role at this point is to determine whether the subject matter of the communication as a whole is one of public interest.

 

 

 

In order to determine whether the challenged quote is libelous it must be understood in the context of the entire posting.  For example, a jury would be asked to agree with the argument made at its beginning:  

 

 

If an organization, department, agency or association is big – regional or national in scope and has relevance to governance, the economy, administration of justice or the security apparatus – then it was undermined, co-opted or seduced into procuring, perpetuating and protecting the status quo a long, long time ago.

 

 

It would be argued that this determination derives, among others, from the analysis in the Introductory Correspondence.  Compiled from independent and credible sources, this is an irrefutable conclusion because two centuries of non-stop institutionalized nepotism and patronage and the Liberals having governed for three-quarters of the 20th century led to a complete consolidation of political and corporate power:  

 

 

Prior to 1837 both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were plagued with patronage, nepotism and corruption. Only those with the closest ties to government prospered. The rest were shut out of decision making and full participation in their own country's administration.  […] During the [1990s] Liberal decade of drift, the ugly face of nepotism has returned to Canadian government, this time stronger than ever. The Liberal Party of Canada has replaced the chateau clique and the family compact.  

 

Source:  Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance), January 29, 2000   

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

 

This corruption of the mind has been well described as the arrogance of power, and Liberal ministers are not immune from this near-universal human failing.  Louis St-Laurent’s minister of trade and commerce, C.D. Howe, once actually taunted the opposition about their powerlessness to prevent the Liberal government from doing whatever it wanted.  “Who’s to stop us?” he asked – not rhetorically – 1951.  

 

[…] 

 

The long Liberal hegemony in Ottawa has created a small, self-perpetuating oligarchy or aristocracy of governors, from which the vast majority of Canadians are permanently excluded and to which only bona fide members of the Liberal Party may expect to accede. Since power in the Liberal Party is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, the source of all its leaders, or even more narrowly in Toronto and Montreal, few outsiders need apply.  

 

Source: The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of Perpetual Liberal Rule, Peter G. White and Adam Daifallah (March 2004)  

 

 

Since the alleged offending quote is published on the Reform Coalition of Canada website the “fair comment” evaluation must include everything else in the ‘Recent News ’ section and every single posting in the section entitled Systemic Corruption, Criminality and China in Canada.   That includes The Sidewinder Report and six years of research and analysis to understand the political, geo-political and corporate antecedents that led to what it documents and what the evidence says occurs after its completion in 1997 in how these realities and influences impacted the functioning and integrity of Canada’s system of governance, administration of justice and economy. 

 

 

To be of public interest, the subject matter “must be shown to be one inviting public attention, or about which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached”.

 

 

Whether a foreign government, its wealthiest and underworld have influenced, unduly or not, policy and decision making in the Canadian political system on the federal, provincial and municipal level, undermined the integrity of the administration of justice (Bench, Bar, law enforcement) and have an undisclosed stake in the economy on the national, regional and local levels are undeniably matters of public interest.  

 

 

Publication of the kinds of allegations traditionally considered the most serious — for example, corruption or other criminality on the part of a public official — demand more thorough efforts at verification than will suggestions of lesser mischief. 

 

[...]

 

 

Communications on grave matters of national security, for example, invoke different concerns from those on the prosaic business of everyday politics. What constitutes reasonable diligence with respect to one may fall short with respect to the other. Where the public importance in a subject matter is especially high, the jury may conclude that this factor tends to show that publication was responsible in the circumstances.   

 

 

The alleged offending remarks weren’t made off-the-cuff simply to discredit the executives of one of Canada’s largest labour unions.  They weren’t maliciously created out of an evidentiary and information vacuum.  The author has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in political science and a law degree.  Thus, they emerged out of a six-year investigation that employed widely accepted methodologies of research and analysis by academics and legal scholars.  

 

 

The examination began in March 2004 and Stage One was complete in May 2007.   Stage Two began in August 2007 when the edification initiative commenced and accountability institutions were formally requested to conduct investigations to assess culpability, liability and administrative violations (1, 2).  Results were cross-referenced with what Stage One discovered about the true and full nature of Canadian governance, namely the trans-generational consolidation of political and corporate power, Chinese joint governance, triad political influence and corporate ownership, economy monopolization and wealth misappropriation.  They corroborated on every material level what Stage One determined. 

 

 

Because national security issues are involved, independent and credible sources – both academic and news reports – were used during the analysis.  See for example what is quoted in Is the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Going to Protect the Status Quo or Join the Reform Initiative? and Again Making the Case for ‘Totalitarians & Triads’ Enjoying a Front Row Seat Politically and Economically at the Expense of All Canadians.

 

 

 

The best investigative reporting often takes a trenchant or adversarial position on pressing issues of the day. An otherwise responsible article should not be denied the protection of the defence simply because of its critical tone.

 

 

The tone of the quote and the rest of the posting are critical because there is a reasonable perception the CLC executives should have been ready, willing and able to fully participate in exposing what the RCC research discovered.  The president is on the record as condemning the ever-widening prosperity gap and its affects on the middle class – those who comprise all of his union’s membership…

 

Income gaps grow, as Canada's have-nots get left behind

by Tom McFeat

CBC News

May 1, 2008

Read article 

[…]  

 

The [2006] census stats prove that some of the income gaps between the most and least advantaged in this country are wide — and growing ever wider. […] Between 1980 and 2005, [the poorest’s] full-time income fell by 20.6 per cent, after adjusting for inflation. […] Those in the middle 20 per cent income group saw their earnings stagnate. 

 

[...] 

 

"It's outrageous," said Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress. "We've enjoyed the largest sustained period of growth since the Depression and ordinary Canadians are falling behind," he said. "The only people that are getting ahead are the people who don't need the money."  

 

 

… and it is a reasonable belief he didn’t respond positively because he’s harboring loyalties that are adverse in interest to the union membership.  Recall the argument:

 

 

 

If an organization, department, agency or association is big – regional or national in scope and has relevance to governance, the economy, administration of justice or the security apparatus – then it was undermined, co-opted or seduced into procuring, perpetuating and protecting the status quo a long, long time ago.

 

 

Five days before receipt of the lawyer’s letter the final installment of the wealth misappropriation analysis Who Benefits What from Regime Change in Canada was posted.  Six trillion dollars were exported out of Canada in a 25-year period under the guise of outward foreign direct investment.  How could so much leave the country when the size of the economy doubled during that time period and the export increased by a factor of ten?  That with the other constituents of the examination reasonably leads to the conclusion $2 – 3 trillion, or more, was embezzled.   Instead of being outraged on behalf of the union’s membership, condemn political and corporate leaders and the Chinese government, its wealthiest and triads and immediately join the RCC initiative, CLC executives lash out at the researcher and messenger.  The allegation of being maliciously retaliatory is therefore made out against them.

 

 

If the defamatory statement is capable of conveying more than one meaning, the jury should take into account the defendant’s intended meaning, if reasonable, in determining whether the defence of responsible communication has been established.

 

 

Point One: the title of the posting intentionally includes the word “perceived”.  This is undeniably a statement of opinion; not a statement of fact.  It is the author’s view that the failure to have a full discussion and debate about the evidence, the rejection to join the RCC initiative and the rudeness in how the decision was conveyed leads to the reasonable inference the CLC executive has an undisclosed agenda that

 

(i) violates its membership’s interests and the union’s raison d'être, namely to

 

(a) protect workers’ rights and ensure they get remuneration and benefits commensurate with, among others, the size and strength of the economy and the sector and industry in which they are employed and

 

(b) challenge government policies that prevent their members from every advantage the economy offers; and

 

(ii) the decision has the very real consequence of ratifying, strengthening and perpetuating a thirty-year set of successfully concealed policies and practices which undermine Canada’s sovereignty and the integrity of our political system, administration of justice and economy.  

 

 

Point Two: the first part of the quote involves both a statement of opinion and of law.  There is nothing libelous about reproducing a Commonwealth-wide known principle in the law of evidence and applying it to a set of circumstances that were honestly and reasonably believed to be accurate after six years of intense research. 

 

 

And the second part is not defamatory at all.  It is merely forward-looking and cautionary – imploring CLC executives not to use their established credibility and pinnacle position within the union movement to jeopardize a lawful and necessary reform initiative because there is serious culpability exposure for doing so.  In other words, they ought not use their to-date unsoiled reputations and well-established professional networks of associates and informal grapevines to dissuade counterparts in other federal and provincial unions from participating.  There is nothing accusatory in this part of the quote whatsoever. 

 

 

A trial by jury would begin with an opening statement by the defence that goes something like this: 

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you remember the sponsorship scandal?  It led to the end of a thirteen year run in government for the Liberals.  Do you recall what Mr. Justice Gomery concluded about that hundred million dollar corruption?  He found one of its causes to be a “culture of entitlement”.  Well, that culture has many more facets to it.  In fact one of them is a form of institutionalized criminality and corruption that has been successfully concealed from view for over thirty years – which began with a prime-ministerial relationship involving not one, but two brutal communist dictators – Cuba’s Fidel Castro and China’s Chairman Mao.   

 

How is it that one of our most famous leaders would cavort with the totalitarians of the day – at a time in world history when western nations were fighting for survival against the Soviet menace?  The answer lies in a political culture that finds its roots in the earliest days of Canada’s Confederation.  Those origins, in which the rich and powerful elevated only their own to the top tier positions in all the important institutions of the state and shut out everybody else, led to a consolidation of power and accumulation of vast wealth which bred what Mr. Justice Gomery saw in the attitudes and actions of the country’s political elite.  We see this arrogance sixty years ago in the remarks of Member of Parliament C.D. Howe, who once taunted the opposition about their powerlessness to prevent the Liberal government from doing whatever it wanted.  “Who’s to stop us?” he asked not rhetorically in 1951. 

 

Well now we know what they did in the belief they couldn’t be stopped.  They sucked this country dry of its prosperity over the last quarter century and made tens of millions of Canadians – people like you – suffer.  Higher taxes, more fees, higher mortgage rates, failings in health care, a more expensive university education, unfunded infrastructure maintenance and development and a perpetual and massive federal debt.  All were the result of exporting $6 trillion out of the economy over two and a half decades thinking nobody would ever notice.  That's not just arrogance; that's also profound stupidity.   The super rich got exceptionally, absurdly, richer and the middle class – you – got nothing -- absolutely nothing -- from that remarkable prosperity. 

 

Who  else benefited?  CSIS and the RCMP authored a report in the mid-1990s.  Upon its completion, Chrétien buried The Sidewinder Report knowing full well that if Canadians discovered a significant portion of the economy was owned and operated by totalitarians and triads and they were using imported and made-in-Canada wealth to influence politicians there’d be a firestorm of protest.  And you know the theory: where there’s corruption and no spotlight of transparency and accountability, abuses of power fester like a bad cavity.  Well, with neither this country now needs a root canal.  And that’s what the defendant has been trying to do since the late summer of 2007 – trigger fundamental reform of government on the federal and provincial levels and hold those to account who engaged in what is likely the biggest theft of public wealth in human history. 

 

The first thing he did was conduct a comprehensive research project.  Having a degree in political science and law he had standard techniques of research and analysis at his disposal.  It began in March 2004 and the first phase concluded in the spring of 2007.  The second phase began when he undertook to spread the word throughout all of government; conducting a two-and-a-half year information campaign; contacting all parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, MPPs, MLAs and city councils. Out of some 1,500 he spoke to directly no more than a dozen or so had ever heard of The Sidewinder Report.  During that time he was subject to rudeness, hostility and non-cooperation from elected officials who should have been motivated by the evidence to engage in reform and deliver accountability to those who violated our constitution and our laws.  And instead of a full discussion on the merits he was the victim of whistleblower retaliation involving threats and character assassination.  All the reactions he got from those at the pinnacle of federal and provincial power and the results of triggering our institutions of accountability were 100% consistent with what the research discovered: institutional corruption and abdications of public interest responsibility of the highest order operating behind a cleverly manufactured façade of democracy. 

 

If you stand back and look at the evidence as a whole and how those charged with protecting the public interest were hostile, non-cooperative and ultimately failed to act as they should have, you come to realize not only how corrupt government is, but also just how incredibly dysfunctional it and the administration of justice are.  You develop an inescapably clear understanding how two centuries of nepotism and patronage and lengthy Liberal rule in the 20th century produced the "family compact" and the politics of exclusion; where public and big private sector institutions only advance and protect the interests of the rich, powerful and Chinese; and seeking to fix the system is virtually impossible. 

 

On the CLC website Mr. Georgetti is described as a “respected guest in corporate boardrooms and cabinet offices, who is in every situation strongly advocating for working people and their families”.  The problem is that “respect” only comes if you’re willing to compromise your principles; otherwise you’re excluded by the “oligarchy of governors” – those who by their party’s own bragging admission cannot be stopped.  And the bigger the organization you represent the more you have to give up to get access to the back halls of power and wealth.  On the public record he’s seen to advocate for Canada’s workers, but when presented with compelling evidence – evidence you will evaluate for yourself – he revealed himself to have loyalties to those who embezzled trillions of dollars and who are said by a respected agency of law enforcement and the intelligence community to be hangin’ around with and helping totalitarians and triads achieve the Canadian dream of dreams.  

 

So who’s guilty here?  The educated whistleblower lawyer who did everything reasonable over six years to change a profoundly corrupt government operating in secret for over three decades or the plaintiffs who rudely dismissed the evidence and thereby showed themselves to not be who they say they are. 

 

And finally, have you ever heard of the famous late 19th century English case of Oscar Wilde v. Marquis of Queensberry?

 

 

Make a Free Website with Yola.