A hollow(ish) victory
For those who follow Green blogs religiously chances are they’ve come across postings by John Shavluk whose relationship with the party leader might charitably be described as dysfunctional.
Not surprisingly given the nature of the beast, political parties and dysfunctional relationships all too often go together like fine whine (sic) and cheese.
It would be impossible in 700 words to detail the entire history of this two year feud so instead, for the uninitiated to the intricacies of the Shavluk affair, the Coles Notes edition.
In 2008, Shavluk was stripped of his party candidacy over a 2006 online posting which included a phrase that he claimed did not reflect his personal opinion but simply (ed. clumsily) cited another poster in a thread.
Fast forward to 2009 when Shavluk sued the party for defamation over comments contained in its news release announcing his removal, and hit fast forward one more time to last week when the party eked out a win in B.C. Supreme Court.
As is all too often the case with dysfunctional relationships, someone at the party then unwisely grabbed the kerosene to douse the fire with a news release that a few might consider needlessly combative given the unique nature of the relationship between Shavluk and the party.
Despite its bravado, the Green party didn’t receive the “complete vindication” that it claims from the Hon. Madame Justice Ross’ 31 page judgment.
àDid the party win? Yes. Was it completely vindicated? Define completely, define vindicated. In fact, try to find a single news report that cites the party’s exuberant phrase.
But if ever there was a chance for cooler heads to prevail in this bitter relationship, the B.C. Supreme Court decision offered it up on a silver platter.
In a detailed ruling in what was undoubtedly a challenging case to preside over, Madame Justice Ross wrote: “I have concluded that statements in both the press release and the September 16, 2008 conference call interview defamed Mr. Shavluk, were not justified by the evidence before me, and were not fair comment.
” The party prevailed, however, through the defences of qualified privilege and responsible communication, the latter only available to the party as a defence thanks to a Supreme Court of Canada decision that was brought down after Shavluk had filed his action and long after the offending words had been published.
It’s unlikely that last week’s ruling by Justice Ross could have possibly healed this relationship regardless of which way it had come down. But a stronger acknowledgment by the party that it had in 2008 hastily, and presumably without malice, defamed Mr. Shavluk might have helped lower the heat or at least earned it some begrudging respect from observers.
Instead in a needlessly gratuitous manner, the release took a tone that could lead some readers to infer that its 2008 release was in fact an accurate portrayal of Mr. Shavluk’s beliefs and opinions.
This was the party’s chance to acknowledge that Mr. Shavluk was, according to Justice Ross, defamed by the party’s 2008 news release, apologize for the defamation however begrudgingly and then explain the extenuating circumstances which permitted such defamation in this very specific context.
And if you’re looking for a poster child for 20-20 hindsight, the Shavluk saga is a contender because his candidacy clearly was badly handled from the day he showed an interest in running for the party. Its aftermath points to a number of failings at every level of the organization.
For instance, according to the ruling, one wonders why when the Shavluk story began to break that the B.C. organizer blackberried the leader and not the Director of Organizing or the campaign manager.
This may seem a distinction of hair splitting proportions, but as the party knows well, there’s rarely an upside for the leader when he or she gets directly involved in internal party machinations, even more so during an election campaign.
Equally, lessons from the Shavluk affair need to be seen by party apparatchiks in the context of the earlier Potvin affair when Kevin Potvin another Vancouver area candidate was forced to step aside after an editorial that he wrote regarding his reactions to 9-11 came to light.
As the saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Dermod Travis is former Director of Communications for the Green Party of Canada and organized the Green Party's 2006 National Convention
* Please refer to 'related content' (side-box Right) for Justice Ross' decision
Comments
Thank You Dermod
Yes thank you!
Here is the press release
9 June 2010 - 3:58pm
OTTAWA -- The Green Party of Canada today received complete vindication in a case alleging defamation brought against the party, the Green Party of Canada Fund and leader Elizabeth May personally by a one-time candidate. The potential candidate was removed by leader Elizabeth May due to comments the former candidate had made on a blog site years before involvement with the Green Party. The comments referred to the 9-11 attacks in New York City as involving “shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters.” In removing him as a candidate, the party explained that the comments were anti-Semitic and unacceptable to the party.
The Honourable Madam Justice Ross issued her decision today finding for the Green Party and Elizabeth May. The court ruled that, while there was defamation in the use of the term anti-Semitic, it was justified under the circumstances in our favour on qualified privilege and responsible communication. The judge ruled that there was no malice and agreed that the GPC had an obligation to tell the public that it did not condone anti-Semitism.
“It was worth this long and expensive court proceeding to be able to contribute to the on-going struggle against anti-Semitism in Canada,” said Elizabeth May. “You need to stand up for what you believe in and I am proud that the Green Party held firm.”
The case, brought by a former Green Party candidate John Shavluk, was heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia between January 4-12, 2010.
-30-
Contact Information:
Debra Eindiguer
Press Secretary
C: 613.240.8921
media@greenparty.ca
Thanks E May as it doesn't sound like you will stop libeling me even with a very very lucky court verdict.
""The struggle against anti semitism""" ? Really? Wow !
I as a 53 year old Military veteran and grandfather now sit here contemplating just leaving this country ...very broken ....soon bankrupted and also ruined again for a second time in twenty years ....I do want to thank you for your honesty here.
Honesty was something I thought the greens had as I left my positions in the ndp just for the lack of it.
I find now that although I used every dollar of credit I could find of my own and also my wifes just to try to clear my previously good name and did it all myself for the very same reasons that 150 year old laws can come tumbling down and wreck lives and save malicious hurtful people.
The fact remains to me that this really had zero to do with anti semitism as the party already cleared me of that quote 18 months before they re-used it sept 4 2008.
I have been fighting since 1991 for justice because of my own framing for 8 grams of cannabis only because I stood up for the down trodden in Saskatoon and again obviously needed to be silenced.
It has been a very long journey.
One that has destroyed my belief systems to the core and even those of ordinary people.
There is no such thing as justice...only a thing called "the privileged".
I did all I could to avert the battle and still kept busy trying to grow the party all through it.
I give up.
I quit.
I can not raise the twenty thousand dollars I would need to try to beat back this terrible decision of the courts as they fabricate reasons for it with bogus materials or ignore proof and believe lies on the stand.
E May provided zero proof but is someone and I obviously am not.
You win green party.
Thanks to you I am not even able to function.
I hope the truth does come out one day and I hope and pray for karma to reward all those who feel it is ok to just destroy anyone over internal bumbling by their own organizations.
I now await the bankrupting bill and the debts I already incurred fighting for my previously good family name.
Anything shavluk is my family as the name doesn't exist outside of it.
I am ashamed of Canada and the green party.
But I thank you Sir Mr Dermod Travis!!
Cheers
"Struggle against anti-semitism"? Really?
In the media release Elizabeth May is quoted as havnig said that “It was worth this long and expensive court proceeding to be able to contribute to the on-going struggle against anti-Semitism in Canada,” said Elizabeth May. “You need to stand up for what you believe in and I am proud that the Green Party held firm.”
The Green Party and May did not raise the defence of truth in the case and therefore did not prove that Shavluk is in fact anti-Semitic. Further, the court did not accept the party’s and May’s defence that it was fair comment to call Shavluk anti-Semitic or to imply that he is.
If Shavluk is not anti-Semitic, then, can someone explain how defending against Shavluk's law suit in any way contributed to the “struggle against anti-Semitism in Canada”?
Markus Buchart
Winnipeg, Manitoba
(Not a Green Party member)
A hollow(ish) victory
I have removed the other video temporarily and will repost it soon
just search "green libel"
This one is the Surrey Leader Newspaper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCz53nt-hgc
I am saddened that no one it seems outside of just us few even care about the green party
Post new comment