Kari Simpson, founder and spokesperson for the B.C. based pro family organization Citizens Research Institute was the subject of commentary by well-known Vancouver broadcaster Rafe Mair. In October, 1999, Mr. Mair described Kari as “a mean-spirited power mad, rabble rousing and yes, dangerous bigot”. He stated that there is no distinction between condemning the rights of blacks or Jews and condemning the civil rights of homosexuals. He then went on to say that Kari’s actions placed her alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan “in regard to the philosophical parallels to…intolerance”. He also stated she was hostile to homosexuals in the manner of Adolf Hitler and racist U.S. governors such as George Wallace who condoned violence. Quite an indictment.
Kari brought an action of defamation against Rafe Mair and the Vancouver radio station WIC Ltd. on which Mr. Mair broadcasts. She claimed that his comments had caused her irreparable harm and damage to her reputation, bringing to her public scandal, odium and contempt. The lower court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that although Mr. Mair’s statements were capable of a defamatory meaning, since they were honestly held beliefs, they were therefore “fair comment” and not defamatory.
However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in its decision handed down on June 13, 2006, held that there was no foundation for a finding that Kari would condone violence as espoused by Hitler, KKK and skinheads etc. The Court then found that Mr. Mair had, in fact, defamed Kari and ordered that damages be awarded her (the amount to be subsequently determined) and that she be awarded her court costs.
Mr. Mair and the WIC radio station have until September 12, 2006 to appeal. Most lawyers involved in the case believe that such an appeal would not be successful.
How the Court of Appeal Reached Its Decision
One might well ask why the B.C. Court of Appeal reached a conclusion that is counter to the customary support for gay rights, which the courts in Canada, all at levels, have unequivocally given over the past few years.
The answer to this lies in the very first sentence of the judgement, in which Madam Justice Southin, who wrote the decision, approved by the two other judges, stated:
When there is a sea change in the accepted wisdom of a society, those who have adhered to the attitudes of the past, what I call the ‘old wisdom’, in a very short space of time may find themselves denigrated by adherents of the “new wisdom”.
She then went on to explain the two views of homosexuality. On the one side i.e. the “old wisdom”, homosexuality was wrong both on religious and legal grounds as provided in the provisions of the Criminal Code and case law up until 1980.
On the other hand, the Court described the “new wisdom” about homosexuality, which is based on the belief that there should be no distinction in any aspect of society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships and conduct. The Court then stated tellingly:
There are reasonable arguments, by which I mean arguments founded in reason, on both sides. Which side is right (if, in such a contention, there is a right side) is a judgement best left to history.
That is, the Court did not take sides in the current public debate raging in Canada on homosexuality. Instead, it remained above the debate and simply looked to the law of defamation as set out in English and Canadian legal precedents and reached its conclusions based on the law, not on politics. It was a refreshing, and proper approach to take.
This approach is significantly different from most court decisions, in which homosexual “rights” collide with other rights whether religious or otherwise. “Progressive” judges use their position in the Court as an opportunity to push the political debate in support of the pro-homosexual side – regardless of the law. |
