Tuesday, 1 October 2013

The First Law of Holes. . .

Fetus fetishists can't stop picking at the wound they were dealt in their MASSIVE failure when they tried to sue Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada for defaming two fake clinics in a report from FOUR years ago.

Here's another kick at the can, by a lawyer this time, desperately trying to spin a loss -- that they decided NOT to appeal, mind -- into a victory.

In Court, Arthur and the Pro-CAN argued that although the Report did reference the Vancouver CPCs and one of their executive directors, that the portion of the Report alleged to be defamatory was not talking about the Vancouver CPCs [crisis pregnancy centres] specifically. In fact, Arthur and Pro-CAN argued that this section of the Report talked about CPCs across North America. This is an important legal question because in order for the Report to be considered defamatory, there needs to be a target of the defamation. The Vancouver CPCs argued that they were the targets because they were specifically referred to in an appendix and because the Report as a whole was about CPCs in British Columbia, where they both operate. If, however, that section of the Report was found to be about CPCs in North America, of which there are approximately 4,200, then the sample is simply too large for any reasonable person to suspect that the Report is speaking about the Vancouver CPCs.

It’s a clever argument that has been used in many defamation cases in the past and unfortunately, it was successful in this case.
Not only clever but quick and effective, clearly.

But NOT, apparently, how the esteemed zygote zealot would have approached it.
As a lawyer, if I had a client seek my advice after being sued for making defamatory statements of fact, the first question I would ask is if the statements were true. If they were, that’s how we would defend the claim.
On no evidence whatsoever (buy hey, that's how they roll), he goes on to claim that Arthur's defense relied on that argument because it was the only one they had.

Well, duh. While we don't know what other arguments the team had up their sleeves, it's hard to imagine this simple defense of the truth wouldn't have been one of them.

But why roll out all that rigamarole and competing experts, especially the lying liars from the BAD (biased, agenda-driven) gang, when the whole butt-hurt exercise could be made to simply stop?

And as we pointed out, they continue to obsess over the general observations and conclusions in the report, while ignoring the damning demolition of the training manuals issued by the fetus fetishizing organization to which both fake clinics belong and presumably use to indoctrinate train their volunteers.

I am neither a lawyer nor a PR pro, but I would advise these people to STFU about this report. Their caterwauling and ridiculous attempts to spin a loss as a win are simply drawing more attention to it.

Which is a good thing. *evilsmiley*

Get the pdf of the whole report here and read Arthur's explanation of the case here.


choice joyce said...

Thanks fern, although I don't think they plan on taking your advice ;-)

To further demolish this guy's arguments - he's forgetting that we only had a one-day summary trial, which was designed to determine whether to dismiss the suit or go forward for a full trial. If the judge had decided the latter, truth and fair comment would have been our key defenses, of course. For the one-day trial, my lawyer simply chose the fastest and most efficient way to make the case go away.

Niles said...

As Foghorn Leghorn said, they have their bandages to keep them warm.

Post a Comment