Too bad, this one slipped by me. That is regrettable, given that the feminist distortion of the truth presented at taxpayers expense to the Canadian public in 2003, published under the title “School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse,” that is at the heart of the story identified in the following has been the cause of some work for us in the construction of a web page called “Canada’s declaration of war against pro-family- and pro-male activists.”
Well, better late than never, and the following article makes for an important addition to that web page. Better late than never, this ruling deserves to become a big part of Canadian history.
‘Defamed’ father can’t understand judge’s ruling
Richard Warnica, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, March 14, 2008
A B.C. fathers’ rights advocate has lost a defamation suit over a report he said portrayed him as “hate-monger.”
Ken Wiebe sued a Quebec academic, her two research assistants and the federal minister for the Status of Women after a graphic taken from his website was included as an example of hate propaganda in the government-funded publication.
While the judge in the case agreed that Wiebe had been defamed, he dismissed the suit in a ruling released Wednesday, saying the authors’ views were fair comment….(Full Story)
Nathan Smith, the BC Supreme Court Justice who decided that the feminist witch-hunt report against sane dissenters constitutes defamation of Ken Wiebe but also “fair comment” and “honestly held opinions”, must have read both the report and Ken Wiebe’s website from which the report had quoted out of context.
So, why a self-contradictory ruling in which it is stated that Ken Wiebe had been defamed by these illogical feminists from Quebec and by the federal minister for the status of women in their federally funded report, but in which those feminist liars are being excused for their hate crime by stating that it was based on honestly held opinions?
The decision can not possibly be based on the law or be an expression of fair justice. Only one conclusion remains.
The decision is nothing other than a result of feminist jurisprudence in action. (See Feminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or Neo-Paternalism? by Michael Weiss and Cathy Young, Cato Institute; June 19, 1996)
The Vancouver Sun deserves credit for continuing to make access to their article possible. The ruling by Nathan Smith will without a doubt go down in infamy as an example of “gender rights” having gone awry.
Read the rest of this update at the website of Fathers for Life. It shows some of the “evidence” on which Pierrette Bouchard bases her false assertions and provides her and her judicial champion with the Female-Supremacism Award.