Councillor Webster’s Response to
Questions from Bill French posed at July Springwater Township Council Meeting
In fairness here are Springwater
Councillor Rick Webster’s answers to the questions I asked at the July Council
Meeting as presented at the August 26th combined Planning/Council
Meeting. (As a point of interest I had asked Webster prior to the Monday meeting to send me a copy of his response but I did not receive it from him. A good citizen in Midhurst requested a copy from the Township the morning after the meeting and sent it to me.)
Everything except my comments in
italics were written and read by Webster at the Meeting. I had to leave early
and did not hear the comments.
For
clarification, Deputy Mayor MacLean indicated his intention to me to second my
notice of motion and evidently he continues to intend to second it.
Mr.
French’s question, as he laid it out, has four parts which I will address
individually however additionally he pontificates regarding the need for this
motion since, as he stated, the matter of libel, slander and defamation is
covered under Provincial and federal Statute. Additionally he refers to “hurt
feelings” as the motive of my motion.
Let
me be perfectly clear here: insinuations of dishonesty are not about hurt feelings
but rather about a breach of decorum that transcends hurt feelings and reaches
the lofty height of maligning the reputation of honest hardworking people. Call
me stupid, tell me you do not agree with me, tell me you wish you had not voted
for me….say what you like in that regard, but do NOT call me dishonest unless
you have the proof to back it up and are prepared to do so. (BF
Comment-I have never accused Webster of being dishonest.)
I
will quote from the Anti SLAPP Advisory Panel Report to the Attorney General,
dated October 28, 2010.
Item
#4: Participation by members of the community in matters of public interest is
fundamental for democratic society. The very fabric of democracy is woven daily
from the acts of citizens who engage in public discussion and contribute in
countless ways to creating a civil society alive to the interests and rights of
its members.
The key word here is CIVIL. A Civil Society does not make claims that are
libel and slanderous. (BF Comment-I do not make claims that are libelous or
slanderous but offer opinions on matters relative to good governance)
Further,
Item #91: In Ontario, municipal governments do not have the right to sue in
defamation. However, there are several recent cases in which municipal
councillors have sued someone for criticisms aimed at the municipality or
municipal interests generally. Sometimes municipalities pay the expenses of
these suits. The question arises whether this is a way
of avoiding the general prohibition against municipal libel actions. These
cases almost by definition involve matters of public interest, and the
resources of an individual or ratepayers group against a municipal government
funding an individual politician’s lawsuit
are likely to be unequal. (BF Comment-Webster seems to miss the point that the government is acknowledging that the individual or small group is at a disadvantage)
Item
#92: The Panel is not prepared to
recommend a blanket probation on such suits as part of the law of defamation,
however. It is prepared to leave such suits to its
general remedy for public participation.
Therefore
and having admittedly not read the
recently passed legislation that Mr. French has referred to in his
question, I will assume that, if such legislation exists at all, it will have
not superseded the recommendation of this report. (BF Comment-I think there is some innuendo in here but my feelings
aren’t damaged and I will require no therapy)
Part 2 - Is
this motion not contrary to the transparency that this council professes?
I
believe that my motion when read and understood in its entirety answers this
question however for the record I will add, ABSOLUTLEY NOT and this Council’s
record stands replete. (BF Comment-He did not explain how it adds
to transparency. However he is entitled to his opinion)
Part 3 - Why
should we as taxpayers be paying to gag the comments of the taxpayers that you
think are uncomplimentary?
The
use of the term “Gag” has strong implications. I will assume that Mr. French
carefully selected this term as he prepared his question and submitted it in
writing. Let me be clear again, “uncomplimentary” is not insinuating dishonesty.
It is not the wording or intention of this motion for the taxpayers to pay for
legal counsel for anything that is said or written that is merely
uncomplimentary. (BF Comment-When you try to control discussion through threat of being
sued, it is gagging as we have witnessed with major developers in recent years
against resident groups and individuals using SLAPP suits)
Part 4 - Will Councillor Webster
withdraw his motion which is a draconian proposal that would find a better
place in Iraq or Libya or some third world despot ruled nation?
I
think by now, Mr. French will have gotten the notion that I will NOT be
withdrawing the motion. It is regretful that Mr. French’s opinion is that the
laws passed in this chamber by elected officials have the potential of being
“draconian” and that he would compare the result of said passing as making our
system similar to countries such as Iraq or Libya. In fact, as I understand it, in these
countries merely posing these statements in public would result in, at a
minimum, a long prison term. However, this is Mr. French’s opinion and he is
certainly entitled to it. (BF Comment-I stand by my “draconian”
description and I only refer to this motion by Webster and make no general
reference to other positive laws that have been passed by this council)
I still hope
that Webster comes to his senses before the September meeting where this motion
will be debated and most likely supported by Webster, Collins, McLean and
Clement based on their past history. I expect Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to
oppose it.
