Barbara Kay

Very interesting anti-SLAPP case being litigated at the Supreme Court today. One of the big issues is the initial "public interest" threshold under s.137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act. For a motion under s.137.1 (typically called anti-SLAPP) to succeed, the defendant must first demonstrate the expression is on a matter of public interest. The onus then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the action should be allowed to proceed. Canadian courts have often taken an overly expansive approach to what comments could be considered a matter of public interest. In this case, the defendants made derogatory comments on social media against a contractor. The motion judge held that the comments were on a matter of public interest since "[o]nline reviews serve an important function by offering the public information about consumer experiences dealing with professionals or businesses." The Court of Appeal disagreed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Lauwers JA reaffirmed that "the resolution of purely private disputes between more or less equals – disputes that have no immediate bearing on the rights or obligations of others – can seldom be a matter of public interest." The real disagreement on the public interest standard stems from how the courts articulate the subject matter of the expression. Canadian courts have often presented the matter in terms that are highly generalized or too disassociated from the actual expression at issue. The problem with this approach is that *any* comment can be on a matter of public interest if it is understood at a high enough level of generality. Accusing someone of stealing your car could broadly be conceived as expression regarding "public safety", "crime," "the value of private property" or the "administration of justice". But no one in the real world would understand it this way. Ordinary people would understand that two people were engaged in a private dispute. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to adopt a more principled approach to the "public interest" standard. Doing so would help bring s.137.1 motions back to their original purpose. It would also bring greater predictability to anti-SLAPP motions, which are typically decided at the final "weighing" stage where judges have a good deal of discretion to decide whether or not the case can proceed forward. scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers…

Her”first” experience will be her entire life. She won’t experience the feel of the wind in her hair. Why must she wear it as a child? We know why, but maybe the teacher should wonder…

A travesty of justice and common sense.

Finlayson deserves the support of all Canadians who value freedom of speech and see the danger of double standards in discourse codes. Terrorists are fair game for strong negative language. And standing with Israel in defence against terrorism is a benign statement. Or should be.

@jonkay @Quillette But how many Canadians besides you & Mr. Porter have they targeted for attack? My count is now at least 8 ! At least they have given us an appropriate name for this new state-sponsored entrapment propaganda - FORGERY MEDIA! x.com/LionofJOct7202…

Excellent exposé of what stupid and unethical uses our tax dollars fund.

Yes, Anand's sister was the outside investigator whose report was heavily relied on for his firing, even though it was clear the fix was in. When a uni is set on firing someone (and there is evidence they had made up their minds on Day One) , they usually cherrypick outside investigators, choosing only those who can be counted on to support their biases.

This prof has a prolific history of posted and reposted anti-Israel memes, some of which are pretty hard-core, but there is no danger of him losing his job.

Genderwang Enters Its Apocalyptic Phase open.substack.com/pub/jonkay/p/g…

Great news!!! Go @cawsbar GO!!

Oh look, @GuelphHumberUni, you made Fox News and now millions of Americans will know what an unsafe space you are for those in your community who defend prefer Israel to Hamas: Non-Jewish professor says he was fired for calling out Hamas supporters in online post foxnews.com/world/non-jewi… #FoxNews

Where is @NickKristof when a real story of horror is happening?

Agree. So many Canadians have Kemi envy.

Good.

Deepest dive and most outstanding piece yet on the wretched dog-rape Kristoff column: The Last Public Editor open.substack.com/pub/henmazzig/…

Two different allegations: women are not men. Think about it.

Good guidelines: How to Define an Antisemite - @IsraelVideos israelunwired.com/how-to-define-…

Much has been written about @NickKristof's latest NYT opinion column over the past 24 hours, most of it focusing on the specific claims and their sourcing, but what I think deserves most attention is something broader: how this kind of journalism, whatever its intentions, ultimately makes accountability harder to achieve rather than easier, and harms the very people it claims to champion. The principle that Israeli abuses should be investigated and condemned is not in dispute, and nobody serious is arguing otherwise. Israel is not above scrutiny, and in fact it operates under more intense international scrutiny than almost any country on earth, routinely held to standards applied nowhere else. The problem here is something different entirely: the complete collapse of evidentiary standards the moment Israel is the subject. This piece reads less like rigorous reporting and more like a catalogue of hearsay, unverifiable allegations, and activist claims stitched together into a sweeping moral indictment. Its sourcing leans heavily on Euro Med Human Rights Monitor, an organisation repeatedly criticised over extremist ties, disinformation, and deeply questionable methodology, yet treated throughout as a credible authority while its leadership openly engages in pro Hamas propaganda on X. Worse, the same ecosystem of activists and self appointed “experts” that amplifies Euro Med’s claims online increasingly feeds narratives into more established organisations and media outlets, laundering deeply contested allegations into the appearance of institutional credibility. The most severe claims are anonymous, uncorroborated, and presented in the emotional register of established fact rather than allegation, despite lacking meaningful evidentiary backing. Yet Kristof largely adopts them without serious scrutiny, publishing the piece in the Opinion section because even the already diminished evidentiary standards often applied to reporting on the Israeli Palestinian conflict would likely not suffice for it to pass as straight news reporting. This approach doesn't strengthen accountability, it actively destroys it. When every allegation is immediately inflated into systematic rape and "standard operating procedure" before any serious verification, genuine investigation becomes harder rather than easier. Real abuses, if they occurred, get buried beneath maximalist narratives so extreme that large portions of the public simply stop trusting any of it, and the people who actually suffered pay that price. It also alienates the vast majority of Israelis and Jews worldwide, including the many who are perfectly capable of criticising Israeli policy and supporting investigations into misconduct, but who understandably recoil when accusations begin resembling modernised blood libels dressed up as human rights reporting. The framing matters enormously, and so does proportionality, and so does evidence. Nor does any of this serve Palestinians. Atrocity inflation entrenches both sides deeper into defensive tribalism, and every dubious claim amplified by a prestigious outlet makes legitimate criticism easier to dismiss when it actually matters. The timing compounds everything. On a day when documented reporting on Hamas sexual violence was again circulating, the NYT chose to run an opinion column built substantially on unverifiable anonymous testimony asserting that Israelis are conducting systemic rape campaigns, not as a rigorously evidenced investigative report but as an opinion piece with the imprimatur of the paper of record. Kristof is not a naive bystander in any of this. In 2014 he used the full credibility of the NYT to repeatedly platform Somaly Mam, a Cambodian anti-trafficking activist whose harrowing personal story he championed across multiple columns, until it emerged that her backstory was substantially fabricated and he was forced to issue a public correction. When challenged this time around on his sourcing, corroboration, and methodology, he defaulted to bad faith engagement on social media rather than addressing the underlying concerns seriously. It is the same pattern, playing out again in a different context. Real journalism requires skepticism, corroboration, and restraint applied consistently regardless of the subject, and when those standards disappear the moment Israel is involved, what remains is not human rights reporting but narrative activism wearing a journalist's costume that does far more harm than good to everyone it claims to serve.

@BarbaraRKay @nytimes @NickKristof

Terrific news!