Lessons in democracy, Powell River style

The following are excerpts from the full story that can be found at :
Vancouver Sun May 3 Daphne Bramham, (When the small-town council launched a suit against three of its citizens, it provoked the defenders of free speech)

It's tempting to relegate to the oddities column the story of a small-town mayor and council suing three citizens for defamation. It's all the more tempting given Powell River Mayor Stewart Alsgard's passion for pomp and ceremony and a penchant for wearing the chain of office at every possible occasion that has earned him the nickname "Mr. Dressup."But this is no joke. It's a cautionary tale about a government intimidating, threatening, frightening and silencing its citizenry. In the words of John Dixon, secretary of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, it is nothing less than an attack on democracy itself.

Using the power and wealth entrusted to it by the citizens, Powell River's council is attempting to club critics into submission. It's called a SLAPP suit (as in a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) or libel chill. That two of the critics being sued -- Winslow Brown and Noel Hopkins -- are in their 80s only shows the meanness of this power-mad crew. It certainly send shivers down the spine of Brown, who subsequently went to council on March 11 and, in a shaky voice, apologized. "I had no idea how far the city was prepared to go," he said. "I'm a pensioner on a fixed income. I could never afford to fight this lawsuit in court. If I tried, it would financially destroy me, lose my home and family." At the end of his public humiliation, Brown handed his letter to the city clerk and asked, "So, is it ended?" The mayor declined to absolve the penitent citizen. Alsgard said only that council would receive the letter. When a reporter asked Brown for comment, he said he couldn't comment further "for fear of retaliation from the municipality." A few weeks later, Alsgard read a statement reiterating the position that the city had been defamed and had a right to seek legal redress not only from "the Powell River Three," but anyone else who criticized the city.

Sounding more like a Soviet apparatchik than a Canadian, Alsgard went on to say the defamation suit provided a tremendously important lesson for the community's young leaders about "courtesy" and "mutual respect." "I can't imagine a more regressive lesson in democracy," Dixon said this week. "Councils, legislatures and Parliament rule us, but the citizens don't give up their sovereign character. The Crown stays on the head of the citizenry [and not the politicians]." This all whole imbroglio began because council wanted to borrow $6.5 million to redevelop the city's north harbour. Even though there was a byelection held on Feb. 23 to fill a vacant council position, the city decided not to hold a vote on the borrowing bylaw. Instead, council set up an alternate system. Taxpayers opposed to the borrowing had to go to City Hall and fill out a form. To defeat the borrowing bylaw, 10 per cent of qualified voters -- nearly 1,000 people -- had to register their opposition. Infuriated by both the borrowing and the process, a group of pensioners mobilized to write letters to the editor. They photocopied the forms, handing out the forms at the mall and helping people complete them.

Patricia Aldworth is the third person being sued. An American-trained lawyer who has been critical of both the council and its anti-democratic ways since she retired to Powell River three years ago, she was running in the byelection and was critical of both the borrowing and the process. She won the election. But hours before her swearing-in on March 4, the mayor and council met in camera and instructed the city's solicitors to launch the defamation suits against Hopkins, Brown and Aldworth. No government should be allowed to sue its citizens for defamation regardless of what is said," Aldworth said in an interview this week. "It really goes to the underpinnings of democracy. If you don't allow citizens to criticize their government, then the government can get away with anything."

Because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't come into effect until 1982, there isn't much case law backing up the guarantee of free speech, and Aldworth believes Canadians aren't as well-educated about their rights or as willing to assert them as Americans are. Dixon agrees that the case law lags, which is why the civil liberties association filed suit against the City of Powell River last week, asking the city to apologize and pay damages and that the B.C. Supreme Court issue a declaration that no government should be allowed to sue its citizens. The association's involvement is serendipitous for citizens -- if not for the Powell River mayor and council.

Dixon drafted a five-page letter -- "an olive branch" -- suggesting that if the council backed off the defamation suit the civil libertarians would call it good and go home.

Powell River council was undeterred, which only strengthened the civil libertarians' resolve. But rather than supporting the three Powell River citizens, the BCCLA believes it can better serve citizens and Canadian democracy by asking the B.C. Supreme Court to do as Ontario courts have done -- declare that no government can sue its own people.*

The city has until next week to file a defence and Dixon says he half expects the city will offer to drop its case against the trio of citizen. But he says it's gone too far for that. The city is now stymied because, as Dixon says, "The only thing worse for the city than losing is winning because then we'll appeal to the higher courts." And that's the kind of lesson about democracy and free speech that young (and old) leaders in Powell River and the rest of the province should heed.
--------------------
Don Quixote Note: One hell of a story and I posted most of it and added links to the Mayor's statement and the Writ issued on behalf of the suit by the BCCLA. Some of Mayors written remarks on comments that were made in the passion of that campaign are eerily familiar:

"Section 116 of The Community Charter places upon me the responsibility to be the Chief Executive Officer of the City, and to provide leadership to the Council by recommending measures that assist in the peace, order and good government of the City. As such, I wish to make a statement about the tenor and terminology we have seen published recently in the community respecting the alternative approval process that was undertaken for consideration of the borrowing of funds for improvements to our marina and harbour.

Comments that were published included the following:
• “Insult is added now by the town clerk. If a signatory changes their mind and voted against the rip-off, they can ask for their ballot back. What happened to the security of the ballot boxes?”
• “Likely, City Hall will be using the days between now and next Tuesday trying to eliminate some of the forms”
• “I think the RCMP should be involved and a forensic accounting should be conducted to see where our tax dollars have gone”

Those comments are false, and more importantly, they are defamatory of the good name and reputation of our City. Those comments were unsubstantiated by any evidence or any factual support from the writers of those statements."
----------------------------

In Vernon we had a spirited counter petition process and an equally challenging referendum and the passions from both sides provoked some questionable comments from both sides on the issues. Unlike the combatants in Powell River, each side here either found solace in either being on the winning side or silently put salve on their battle scars and will eventually move on to other matters that confront this wonderful City.

Our Mayor and Council wisely never contemplated such a legal intimidating bombshell as the Mayor and Council of Powell River utilized to try to silenced its critics. Even now the City in a gesture of cooperation has allowed the Hospital Petition to be accessed at City Hall and the two main opponents (or rallying nuclei) are on the same side in their battle with the Province. Ain't democracy wonderful!

By the way, an article of April 25 in the Vancouver Sun indicates the citizens got more than 20% of the eligible voters to sign the alternate approval petition.
------------------------
*John Dixon, an executive member of the BC Civil Liberities Association, provided this decision by Justice Corbett: "Speech About Government Is Absolutely Privileged: The reason for the prohibition of defamation suits by government lies not with the use of taxes, or with some abstruse theory about the indivisibility of the state and the people who make up the state. Rather, it lies in the nature of democracy itself. Governments are accountable to the people through the ballot box, and not to judges or juries in courts of law. When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the courts. The government may not imprison, or fine, or sue, those who criticize it. The government may respond. This is fundamental. Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force." - Justice Corbett, Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac, Ontario Superior Court 2006