Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on July 22, 2013, 10:32:24 AM
-
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/13/03/2013BCCA0341.htm
-
http://www.mainstreamcanada.com/court-upholds-mainstream-canada%E2%80%99s-case-against-activist
-
http://donstaniford.typepad.com/my-blog/2013/07/slapp-in-the-face-of-freedom-of-speech.html
-
Wow.... just goes to show if you have money you can bully who ever you want.
-
Off to the Supreme Court now.
-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wildsalmoncircle/permalink/10151573150431794/
-
More galas! lol!
-
Gonna be awhile before I stop laughing at that illegal alien.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.theprovince.com/news/bc/Salmon+farming+must+defamation+case/8693086/story.html
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/activist-must-pay-fish-farm-75000-bc-court-rules/article13348016/
-
Justice Tysoe found that the activist was not eligible for protection under a fair comment defence because he failed to adequately present facts to back up his claims.
Goes to show you that you need facts to back up your claims, especially in court, Don. I see the orange prison suit making a comeback.
-
Wonder how many of our antis are gonna open their wallets for Don... ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/07/22/bc-mainstream-salmon-lawsuit.html
-
Wow.... just goes to show if you have money you can bully who ever you want.
Yup, Don is very good at it. Send him more money.
-
Justice Tysoe found that the activist was not eligible for protection under a fair comment defence because he failed to adequately present facts to back up his claims.
Goes to show you that you need facts to back up your claims, especially in court, Don.
The original judge was satisfied that there were enough facts presented in court to rule against Mainstream.
The reason the feedlot company won the appeal was that the appeal court judge ruled that the facts supporting Don's statements that salmon feedlots kill, were not adequately illustrated on his website.
Don lost the appeal because he failed to publish the facts on a website..... Let's see what the high court rules.
-
Yup, Don is very good at it. Send him more money.
Is that you Fishersolon?
-
Is that you Fishersolon?
Did you figure that out all by yourself AF? Outstanding. :)
-
The original judge was satisfied that there were enough facts presented in court to rule against Mainstream.
The reason the feedlot company won the appeal was that the appeal court judge ruled that the facts supporting Don's statements that salmon feedlots kill, were not adequately illustrated on his website.
Don lost the appeal because he failed to publish the facts on a website..... Let's see what the high court rules.
Yes, the original judge was satisfied, but the appeal judges were not and they gave reasons for their ruling. I guess you can keep embracing the past if you want to though.
LOL....I know the reasons given by the appeal court judges, but in Don's case the reasons why the facts are not on his website is because (drum roll.......) he does not have any facts to put on it. In order to publish facts you actually have to have them in the first place. That takes too much time for activists like Don because they are too busy making YouTube videos and parading around like a clown in a orange prison suit. Seeing as though you like to reminisce about the first trial here is something the judge did say:
[185] There are many problems with Mr. Staniford’s credibility. The passage from his cross-examination which I quoted above, concerning what happened at the May 2006 Meeting, is but one example of where Mr. Staniford will twist facts to conform to his own personal view. Unless firmly corroborated by other reliable sources, I would not accept Mr. Staniford’s version of disputed facts, since his closed-mindedness and deep prejudices make him an unreliable reporter of facts. I have concluded that he will say almost anything to further his own agenda. - Madam Justice Adair.
As I said before in the first trial, Don will keep doing what he is doing because they are the only tactics he knows. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court of Canada would rule on this, but I will go out on a limb here and say that facts probably important to those judges also. Those darn facts! Hold another fundraising gala and say it is for "protecting wild salmon"...lol.
I went back to the previous threads and I found this interesting:
Don't get your shorts in a knot over two strange rulings from the same judge. A lot could change over the next year or so...the appeal court, if they agree to review the case, will need to look at the legalese of why the judge said "defamation with malice" is "fair comment". If they disagree with the first justice, there could be a whole new trial.....and more court costs for someone. - StillAqua
-
Great to get home and read good news :) Who's going pay this time??
-
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/lack-footnotes-costs-fish-farm-activist-75000
-
Well, Don appears to making some money for lawyers. I understand he is in Ireland, so perhaps some legal system people reading this can answer what his responsibilities for paying this fine might be; can he enter Canada again while in default?
-
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/lack-footnotes-costs-fish-farm-activist-75000
A major lesson, and one that we’ve unfortunately seen before, is that deep pocketed companies have the power to drag their critics into court. Staniford does not have the resources to pay a $75,000 damages award, and presumably Mainstream knows that. It looks as if the real value of this litigation for them is to silence him and (perhaps) to discourage other critics.
In simple english it's called bullying.
-
Well, Don appears to making some money for lawyers. I understand he is in Ireland, so perhaps some legal system people reading this can answer what his responsibilities for paying this fine might be; can he enter Canada again while in default?
What we actually want this twit in Canada again, I think not. :o :o
-
Well, Don appears to making some money for lawyers. I understand he is in Ireland, so perhaps some legal system people reading this can answer what his responsibilities for paying this fine might be; can he enter Canada again while in default?
http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2013/06/key-document-slaughtered-diseased-fish.html
I guess you can pick and choose who the taxpayers are paying for. I'm using the big card item. Maybe Don is just trying to save us money in the long term. :)
-
A major lesson, and one that we’ve unfortunately seen before, is that deep pocketed companies have the power to drag their critics into court. Staniford does not have the resources to pay a $75,000 damages award, and presumably Mainstream knows that. It looks as if the real value of this litigation for them is to silence him and (perhaps) to discourage other critics.
In simple english it's called bullying.
And AF breaks out the crying card, boho. If Don had science and real facts to back him up this would not have happened. Looks like the Bully got his bottom spanked and the activists actually might learn something from this. Wink wink.
-
And AF breaks out the crying card, boho. If Don had science and real facts to back him up this would not have happened. Looks like the Bully got his bottom spanked and the activists actually might learn something from this. Wink wink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
-
Netpenning:
definition - to use the material found under salmon farm net pens as material in a responce or basis for argument.
"the frankenfishers started netpenning about Don Saniford
-
The crying towel gets wetter and the "we didn't see this coming" gets louder lol. :). Should of had some facts to staniford behind in the first place. This is why I stopped following this twit and Morton. :)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
If you go back and reread the article from West Coast Environmental Law that AF posted above, you'll see that it is all about the details of "how" you criticize the industry, not "if" you criticize the industry which would be muzzling or bullying as you and AF imply......it's a subtle point for some but WCEL lays out a very good guide for Staniford and Morton to criticize all they want and still keep their feet out of the fire.
-
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/wild-salmon-advocate-learns-75000-lesson-court-so-you-won%E2%80%99t-have
-
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/wild-salmon-advocate-learns-75000-lesson-court-so-you-won%E2%80%99t-have
Thanks Chris, that explains why AlMos web site is down.
-
If you go back and reread the article from West Coast Environmental Law that AF posted above, you'll see that it is all about the details of "how" you criticize the industry, not "if" you criticize the industry which would be muzzling or bullying as you and AF imply......it's a subtle point for some but WCEL lays out a very good guide for Staniford and Morton to criticize all they want and still keep their feet out of the fire.
that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .
I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay out of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money.
-
that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .
I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money.
And just like the school yard bully who is typically bigger and stronger than the kid he bullies, Mainstream has the financial resources to carry out their bullying tactics against folks like Saniford...
It's interesting to note that while folks like Saniford must carefully reference their sources supporting the claims they make..... Feedlots are making claims about the health of their product and their "care" for the environment without be required to disclose the diseases their feedlots generate, the drugs they use to treat them and the cesspools they create around their pens...
-
And just like the school yard bully who is typically bigger and stronger than the kid he bullies, Mainstream has the financial resources to carry out their bullying tactics against folks like Saniford...
It's interesting to note that while folks like Saniford must carefully reference their sources supporting the claims they make..... Feedlots are making claims about the health of their product and their "care" for the environment without be required to disclose the diseases their feedlots generate, the drugs they use to treat them and the cesspools they create around their pens...
100%
deny , deny, deny, problem is they get away with it , why ? there are people leading or is it "managing " us, whom only think in monetary value, there is no value put too the environment and human suffrage.
Fortunately folks are now becoming educated, and are checking out companies and there social and environmental policies, before dealing with them, either as investors or as traders.
As is the case , many companies are seeking third party independent audits of their policies and practices, however , we still have to do our reasonable homework, to ensure that it is not just "Green washing" (advertising gimmick) and truly is a social policy developed by the companies.
Saying that I'm all for encouraging business to the country/BC as we need resource extraction dollars, just not at all costs. We need to encourage innovation and or the use of available products, albeit costing a few percentage points to profits. When it's one sided everybody excepting a few investors lose, when it's a balanced fair policy, we all should gain!
We cannot say no just "because"; is there another way that is fair ,reasonable and equitable to both parties?
-
that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .
I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay out of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money.
Sandy, did you read the BC Court of Appeal ruling? Because if you did you would find that it was not about just the use of a word or money.
-
Yes I did , and in essence it says although he had included references to his data and conclusions ( ad lib), it was found that they were not close enough to each statement. In essence he was in the right, but by the strict letter of the law says ......or the judge found so.
You're unwillingness to hear ANYTHING negative just proves my point. deny ,deny ,deny. At least admit that the industry ( open net ) has SOME detrimental effects to the surrounding environment, just as does, ANY other industry!
-
Yes I did , and in essence it says although he had included references to his data and conclusions ( ad lib), it was found that they were not close enough to each statement. In essence he was in the right, but by the strict letter of the law says ......or the judge found so.
You're unwillingness to hear ANYTHING negative just proves my point. deny ,deny ,deny. At least admit that the industry ( open net ) has SOME detrimental effects to the surrounding environment, just as does, ANY other industry!
If he was in the right then he would have won the appeal, Sandy.
The BC Court of Appeal determined that readers of the publications were not in the position to make up their own minds about the merits of what Don said in the publications; thus, one of the conditions for the defence of fair comment was not satisfied. Don used this as defence in his original trial. Don couldn't satisfy what the law demanded. I am sure that fish farm critics would rather chalk it up to just a technically instead of focusing on the real shortcomings of Don's inability to present factual information that is accessible and transparent to his readers. The original trial judge was found to have erred in dismissing Mainstream's defamatory claim. Who is really doing the denying, Sandy?
It is not an unwillingness to hear anything negative, rather it is my reluctance to buy into the antis that are trying to find a silver lining in this ruling when essentially what it really means is that facts important and that critics should be held accountable for defamatory comments. I never admitted that salmon farming as well as other industries that operate in and around water do not have some impact on the surrounding environment. That really wasn't point of the court case and conveniently deflects from Don's shortcomings. This was about Mainstream pursuing legal action against Don Staniford for making defamatory statements. It wasn't about whether Mainstream had some detrimental impact on the environment. If you wish to take Mainstream to court about this given the regulatory regime in place in BC and our current knowledge fish farm impacts to species like Fraser Sockeye (i.e. Cohen Final Report) then be my guest. You might be interested to know that I actually agree with recommendations made by Cohen and welcome the new research being proposed and conducted to look into declines in Fraser Sockeye productivity. Some of this I have already posted on this forum recently.
-
If he was in the right then he would have won the appeal, Sandy.
The BC Court of Appeal determined that readers of the publications were not in the position to make up their own minds about the merits of what Don said in the publications; thus, one of the conditions for the defence of fair comment was not satisfied. Don used this as defence in his original trial. Don couldn't satisfy what the law demanded. I am sure that fish farm critics would rather chalk it up to just a technically instead of focusing on the real shortcomings of Don's inability to present factual information that is accessible and transparent to his readers. The original trial judge was found to have erred in dismissing Mainstream's defamatory claim. Who is really doing the denying, Sandy?
It is not an unwillingness to hear anything negative, rather it is my reluctance to buy into the antis that are trying to find a silver lining in this ruling when essentially what it really means is that facts important and that critics should be held accountable for defamatory comments. I never admitted that salmon farming as well as other industries that operate in and around water do not have some impact on the surrounding environment. That really wasn't point of the court case and conveniently deflects from Don's shortcomings. This was about Mainstream pursuing legal action against Don Staniford for making defamatory statements. It wasn't about whether Mainstream had some detrimental impact on the environment. If you wish to take Mainstream to court about this given the regulatory regime in place in BC and our current knowledge fish farm impacts to species like Fraser Sockeye (i.e. Cohen Final Report) then be my guest. You might be interested to know that I actually agree with recommendations made by Cohen and welcome the new research being proposed and conducted to look into declines in Fraser Sockeye productivity. Some of this I have already posted on this forum recently.
You are very accomplished Stevie.... first as a biologist, now as a legal expert. ::)
-
You are very accomplished Stevie.... first as a biologist, now as a legal expert. ::)
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Maybe someday you'll even understand sarcasm.... ;)
-
Maybe someday you'll even understand sarcasm.... ;)
You mean that was sarcasm??? Oh man! I thought you were being nice. 8)
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+justice+system+starved+resources+report/8805356/story.html