The high cost of mud-slinging

A4

By Jeanne Watson

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

This is a column about mud-slinging and what happens when it starts to cloud our vision.

But first, some background.

No Canadian newspaper, however small, would dream of going into business these days without something called libel insurance.

It comes with a multi-thousand dollar price tag, but we publishers pay it religiously. That's because it's all that stands between any publication and bankruptcy should someone decide the newspaper has maligned them in a news story or advertisement.

In Canada, libel remains one of the few laws where the main burden of proof lies with the defence. The plaintiff is not responsible for proving any defamatory statements false. Instead, defamatory statements are assumed false until proven otherwise.

The law defines defamation as a statement (and it can be in a news story or an advertisement) that tends to lower a person in the estimation "of right-thinking members of society." In other words, it refers to a statement that tends to harm a body.

The public in general hears very little about the details of libel suits. That's because sometimes reporters are counselled away from repeating the libel in a story that talks about the case, but mainly because public silence, along with secrecy of specifics of any monetary awards, are most often enforced as part of the settlement agreements.

Any newspaper will tell you however, that without insurance, thousands of dollars could be spent defending one's organization against allegations of libel. Sometimes the whole business can end with a draw, with both sides still having to pay substantial court costs.

What I'm wondering about today, as I watch one of the dirtiest, most mud-slinging federal election campaigns roll out in recent memory, is whether we will soon be reaching a sad point in our democracy where politicians, just like newspapers, will need to carry libel insurance.

In past elections, there have been times when one political side or the other came dangerously close to libel. Just prior to the 2006 federal election, for example, then Prime Minister Paul Martin vowed to sue then Opposition Leader Stephen Harper for libel because the latter had stated that the Liberal Party's behaviour resembled "organized crime." No lawsuit was ever actually filed, and Harper won the election. But newspaper publishers across the country took serious note of this first modern attempt to curb the language of the Prime Minister's chief rival on the eve of an election.

It was, in hindsight, perhaps the beginning of a new era. On March 13 of this year, Prime Minister Harper launched a lawsuit against the Liberal Party over statements published on the party's Website concerning the Chuck Cadman affair. It is believed that was the first time in history that a sitting Prime Minister had sued the opposition for libel.

What many politicians forget in a dirty, name-calling, mud-slinging campaign, is that while Members of Parliament are protected from libel actions for statements made inside the House of Commons, they can be sued for anything said outside.

But now you see the waters being tested in bold new ways. The Liberals started this campaign with an opening smear session about Scary Stephen. A brutal, nasty condemnation of the Prime Minister followed that included personal adjectives about Harper that went far beyond standard criticisms of his policies.

The Liberals upped the stakes last week, suggesting besides being all-round evil that the Prime Minister was prejudiced or at least insensitive, since he was choosing to hold the vote on Oct. 14, a Jewish holy day and the first day of the week-long festival of Sukkot, when activities of the faithful are restricted.

The Tories, for their part, have fired just as many cheap shots, including personal attacks on Stephane Dion. They even had a pooping puffin on the Opposition Leader's shoulder in one advertisement.

Instead of a focused campaign dealing with the serious issues in this country, such as the economy, health care, the environment, our role in Afghanistan, taxes, crimes and land claims, we are instead as voters faced with a daily catalogue of party leader character assassination.

I'm tired of it. This mud-slinging is preventing Canadians from seeing the real issues. The detraction of our leaders and the personal attacks do not serve our country or the overall cause of democracy well.

It is time for both leaders to insist their campaign caucus take this federal election campaign out of the gutter.

Either that or go buy some libel insurance. Because it's just a matter of time until one of them goes one step past the allowable boundaries.

Editor's Note: Jeanne Watson is publisher of The Bugle-Observer. Her column appears each Tuesday. You can reach her via e-mail at watson.jeanne@thebugle.ca or by regular mail sent to The Bugle-Observer, 110 Carleton St., Woodstock, NB, E7M 1E4.