NO: 04 1156
IN THESUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PIERRETTE BOUCHARD,ISABELLE BOILY, MARIE-CLAUDE PROULX, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA, and THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATUSOF WOMEN CANADA
1. (a) The plaintiff is a 48 year old father,self employed business man and an independent contractor who has been, in thepast, a frequent independent contract consultant for government forapproximately 19 years, in computer matters and is the spokesman for B.C.Fathers, an unregistered support group for fathers and mothers in regard toaccess, custody and matrimonial disputes.
(b) Thedefendants Pierette Bouchard, Isabelle Boily, Marie-Claude Proulx, areuniversity lecturers, employees, or activists, militant feminists orresearchers, living and working in the province of Quebec at Université LavalG1K 7P4, funded and commissioned through the Minister Responsible for thestatus of Women Canada to prepare and publish the text known as School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse,Policy Research. The defendants andeach of them agreed to publish the aforesaid article and did publish it in bothhard copy and on the internet on a website operated and owned by the defendantHer Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada. The report as later described in this statement of claim is displayed inits entirety with the plaintiff’s name on the web site of the National Libraryof Canada. The defendants and each ofthem distributed the following defamatory publication to universities, schools,and government offices and to the public generally through the internet, publiclibraries, foreign schools, universities, and foreign government.
2. On or about March 2003 in a publicationentitled School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse,Policy Research the defendants and each of them by agreement between themfalsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed andpublished of and concerning the plaintiff the following defamatory matters:
(a) The section of the publicationknown as Abstract on the second, unnumbered page, in the second paragraphstates: “…There is also a need to ensurecloser monitoring of hate-mongering sites to determine whether legal actionshould be taken….”
(b) The section of the publicationknown as Preface on the fifth unnumbered page, in the third paragraphstates: “…Researchers were asked toexamine shifts in public policy discourse to anticipate effects on genderissues and develop strategies to ensure the discourses recognize and servewomen’s interests…”
(c) The section of the publicationknown as viii in the second and third paragraphs states: “…Some statements also incite hatred andviolence….” “…We also recommend thatconsideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under Section 319 of the Criminal Code…”
(d) The section of the publicationknown as page 3 in the third paragraph states: “…We have found a discourse of hate, often violent and unchecked,directed at women and feminists…. …This is one of the peculiar features of theInternet: it enables extremists,racists, supremacists, heterosexists, misogynists, and other individuals andgroups from the right and extreme right to openly espouse their opinionswithout any restrictions…”
(e) The section of the publicationknown as page 7 in the first paragraph states: “…One American researcher (McCarthy, 1998, cited in Lingard and Douglas,1990) suggests that this economic insecurity may produce “resentment politic”in the male population and promote a resurgence of the right wing, racism andvarious anti-feminist groups…”
(f) The section of the publicationknown as page 18 in the second and third paragraphs states: “…After presenting our research findings,we offer readers our thoughts on the form of violence that amounts to“hate-mongering”10 and on attacks against women and feminism…. …Our analysis revealed a number of men’sgroups behind the stands taken; either the authors were members of thesegroups, or journalists gave them visibility by covering some of theiractivities.…”
(g) The section of the publicationknown as page 68 in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs states: “…We prepared a list of masculinistassociations (excluding pro-feminists) on the Internet, along with theirorganizers and members (see Appendix I), when this information was available(it is not frequently provided). Usingthe resources provided on these sites, we found a disturbing, even threateningreality, involving the expression of an often hateful, violent and unrestraineddiscourse against feminists and women… …Hate-Mongering… …It is no accident that this medium is being used bythose on the extreme right, pedophiles and pornographers.…”
(h) The section of the publicationknown as page 69 in the first, fourth, and fifth paragraphs states: “…Somesites contain not just information but defamatory comments and propagandainciting fear and hatred… …The wholepicture is a very strong symbolic accusation of mothers… …It is a barely veiled threat by the authorsof the site...”
(i) The section of the publicationknown as page 73 in the second paragraphstates: “…If the Anti-Terrorism bill isenacted, the list of distinguishing characteristics will be expanded to includesexual orientation, sex, age and physical or mental deficiencies…”
(j) The section of the publicationknown as page 92 in the numbered paragraph 4 and the numbered paragraph 8states: “…Inlight of the growing use of the Internet by masculinist groups to developmisogynist sites inciting violence and the growing number of discussion groupsused to promote hatred of women, we suggest that a monitoring organization beestablished, similar to Hate Watch, but focussed solely on gender socialrelations… …It would also be useful tomaintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups… ….Mechanisms must also be developed to ensurethe safety of those who publicly denounce hate messages against women, specificallyaction against electronic mail harassment practices, defamation andinfringement of privacy through Internet sites.…”
(k) The section of the publicationknown as page 93 in the numbered paragraph 14 states: “…Manywomen and women’s groups may experience repercussions from the propaganda ofthe masculinist discourse, whether in terms of grants to maintain existingresources or create new ones, increased violence against women and theconsequent need to accommodate more women, access to public resources,employment equity, possible discrimination in the application of legislationand the creation of new bills, or in terms of the education of girls at risk –completely overlooked – and guilt trips laid on those who succeed, etc… …We suggest that support be given toestablishing a monitoring and awareness network (an observatory centre) amongpeople and groups targeted by those discourses, notably gays and lesbians, whoare victims of the same hate propaganda….”
3. The plaintiff says all the forgoingcomments in paragraph 2 (a) – (k) refer by necessary implication to theplaintiff and defame the plaintiff in their normal and ordinary meaning whenviewed in context with the whole of the defamatory publications.
4. The words set out in paragraph 2 (a) to(k) inclusive herein referred to or were understood to refer to the plaintiff,particulars of which are as follows:
(a) Thedefendants and each of them refer to numerous articles on page 70 of theaforesaid publication which appear on the website of the plaintiff.
(b) Thedefendants and each of them in the publication aforesaid on page 95(unnumbered) under Appendix II, List of Men’s Associations at the top of thelist mention B.C. Fathers and the plaintiff Ken Wiebe, creator of B.C. Fatherswebsite by name, thereby identifying all the statement in paragraph 2 (a) to(k) inferable to the plaintiff personally.
(c) Thedefendants and each of them by juxtaposing the various references set out inparagraph 2 (a) to (k) hereof identify the plaintiff as a hate monger, dangerousto women, associated with right wing racists, pedophiles, pornographers,extremists, and other violent people and terrorists.
(d) Theplaintiff says that the aforesaid paragraphs in facts and matters set outherein indicate to any reasonable reader the identity of the plaintiff andaccuse him of and associate him with, violence towards women, hatred of women,and being a danger to women.
5. In theirnatural and ordinary meaning the words meant and were intended and understoodto mean:
(a) That theplaintiff herein was guilty of criminal harassment contrary to Section 262 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
(b) That theplaintiff herein was guilty of promoting hatred under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
(c) That theplaintiff herein was not entitled to the benefit of freedom of expression;
(d) That theplaintiff herein was producing hate messages on the internet;
(e) That theplaintiff herein has developed a misogynous website inciting violence towardand promoting hatred of women and that monitoring his organization wasnecessary to maintain an updated list of misogynous groups;
(f) Thatdiscussions should be held with internet service providers to eliminate theplaintiffs access to the internet;
(g) Thatstudies should be carried out to put together files concerning the plaintiffand others for breach of Section 319 ofthe Criminal Code of Canada;
(h) Thatmechanisms must be developed to insure the safety of those who oppose theplaintiff and that the defendants or others are in danger from the plaintifffor communicating his ideas or for other unspecified dangers;
(i) That theplaintiff is dangerous to right thinking people;
(j) That thelaw should be amended to include women among the group or identifiable groupsprotected by Section 318 and 319 of theCriminal Code of Canada and that an amendment to Section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada is necessary to protectwomen from the plaintiff and other like minded individuals;
(k) That theplaintiff is an individual against which legal action, surveillance,monitoring, and censorship should be exercised in order to protect women;
(l) That whenAnti-Terrorism Legislation is passed the plaintiffs’ words will be caught bysuch legislation.
6. In thealternative, by way of innuendo, the words meant and were understood to mean:
(a) That theplaintiff was part of a men’s movement against which all the foregoing actionsin paragraph 4 (a) would have to be taken;
(i) Theplaintiff relies on the following facts in support of the innuendo other thanthe natural and ordinary meaning of the words that the plaintiff is named asthe first listed individual in charge of a father’s group and that all fathers’groups are included as “masculinists” groups and that the defendants, each ofthem make no distinctions between various groups or any messages unique to anyof them in attributing to all of them and to the plaintiff in particular thequalities aforesaid in this statement of claim.
7. By reasonof the publication of the words listed herein the plaintiff has been seriouslyinjured in his character, credit, and reputation and has suffered damages inhis profession and employment.
8. (a) The defendants have threatened to repeatand intended to repeat the publication of the words complained of on thewebsite to which these articles are published in the control of the defendantsand each of them;
(b) Theplaintiff alleges the personal defendants and each of them is actuated bymalice at law particulars of which are as follows:
(i) The obliquemotive of justifying increased grant funding and research into a hypotheticaland fictitious “masculinist” organization which the defendants know or ought toknow is fictitious;
(ii) The obliquemotive of developing a marxist-feminist dialectic of conflict between men andwomen to perpetuate the modern statist controls to resolve a fictitiousconflict in place of the old marxist class struggle dialectic;
(iii) Themalicious purpose of perpetuating the stereotype of male violence, domination,supremacy, racism, pornography and thereby rationalizing radical militant feminismand state-sanctioned discriminatory anti-male legislation, funding prioritiesand policies; and/or discriminatory anti-father legislation, funding prioritiesand policies;
(iv) Thedefendants have malice in their political motives as aforesaid to exaggeratethe fictitious danger of men and the plaintiff specifically to discredit andisolate, intimidate, and criminalize the defendant personally and other likeminded individuals.
(c) The defendants with malice defamed theplaintiff to achieve monetary and academic rewards in a politically chargeduniversity atmosphere:
(i) The defendants defamed the plaintifffor the malicious purpose and oblique motive of enhancing their reputation amongmilitant feminists;
(ii) The defendants defamed the plaintiff tosilence a critic of radical, militant, feminism and to seek to criminalize himand others like him for their political agenda.
(d) The minister and crown defendant actedwith malice as follows:
(i) To achieve political popularity among militantfeminists the defendants published, sponsored, funded the study and defamatorypublication;
(ii) In refusing to remove and ceasepublication of the defamatory article after requests to do so out of apolitical concern for popularity with militant feminists and for publiclybiased motives.
9. Theplaintiff claims punitive damages and relies upon the following facts andmatters to support his claim:
(a) Thedefendants and each of them receive public funds in support of their publication
(b) That thelogo and imprimatur of the Government of Canada is attached to and forms partof the publication;
(c) That thedefendants and each of them published this aforesaid defamation on the websitesponsored by or in connection with government approval, not withstanding thealleged disclaimer of the publication by the Government of Canada;
(d) That the defendantsin their publication implied and the ordinary meaning of their words convey theimpression to minds of right thinking people that the plaintiff is guilty ofsuch heinous words that his conduct will be caught by either the Criminal Codeor Anti-Terrorism Legislation and implies to reasonable persons that theplaintiff is either a criminal or a terrorist;
(e) Thedefendants and each of them have an oblique motive of economic and politicalgain by the defamation to exaggerate or fabricate a threat to women posed bythe plaintiffs word to gain the defendants political and economic reward infurther government funding for themselves and their militant feminist causes;
(f) Theplaintiff has suffered from the defamation, in health, happiness, family life,employment and financially.
10. Theplaintiff claims aggravated damages and relies upon the following facts andmatters to support his claim:
(a) Thedefendants and each of them made no efforts to discuss or interview theplaintiff and refused to remove the article on reasonable request and wilfully,deliberately, and with malice for profit maligned and defamed him.
The plaintiff claims the following relief:
(a) Aninjunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants andagents from further writing, publishing or causing to be written or publishedor otherwise publishing the aforesaid defamatory matter about the plaintiff, orany similar, libel;
(e) Costs andprejudgement interest according to law.
PLACE OF TRIAL: Victoria, British Columbia
DATED at , British Columbia, on the day of , 2004
Solicitorfor the Plaintiff
Douglas H. Christie
810 Courtney Street
Victoria, BC V8W 1C4