(CCPJ/IFEX) – According to CCPJ, a General Court Judge has made an important ruling in a long-lasting free speech battle between a Japanese multinational forestry corporation and a small group of citizen activists. On 14 April 1998, Mr. Justice J. MacPherson released his decision in the Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon case, tossing out […]
(CCPJ/IFEX) – According to CCPJ, a General Court Judge has made an important
ruling in a long-lasting free speech battle between a Japanese multinational
forestry corporation and a small group of citizen activists. On 14 April
1998, Mr. Justice J. MacPherson released his decision in the Daishowa v.
Friends of the Lubicon case, tossing out Daishowa’s attempt to silence the
Friends and affirming the freedom of expression of people who speak out
against corporations, reports CCPJ.
Daishowa sued the Friends for an array of economic torts after the
citizen-group organized a highly-successful boycott of Daishowa paper
products. The boycott was designed to pressure the corporation into agreeing
not to log on land in northern Alberta (in western Canada) that is claimed
by the Lubicon Cree –a First Nation (indigenous people)– until the
Lubicon’s land dispute with the government is resolved. At an earlier court
hearing, Daishowa received a temporary injunction that prohibited them from
boycotting Daishowa. At the recently-completed trial, Daishowa asked Judge
MacPherson to make that injunction permanent.
CCPJ believes this type of court sanction is a direct attack on free speech
and that Daishowa’s legal actions constitute a SLAPP suit. SLAPPs —
Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation — are brought by corporate
interests to silence citizens from speaking out on public issues. The
intention is not necessarily to win the case but to force citizen activists
into submission with the huge cost and time requirements of mounting a
defense, says the CCPJ.
In the landmark decision, Mr. Justice MacPherson rejected Daishowa’s request
for a
permanent injunction, stating: “If the great principle of freedom of
expression protects a corporation, say Daishowa, whose simple message is:
‘Here is why you should buy our products, then is there any reason why the
same principle should not protect a small group of consumers of Daishowa
products, say the Friends, from saying to fellow consumers: ‘Here is why you
should not buy Daishowa’s products’? In my view, the answer is clear: there
is no reason, in logic or in policy, for restraining a consumer boycott.”
Judge MacPherson did find that the Friends defamed Daishowa by stating that
its actions amounted to “genocide”, ordered them to pay one dollar and
permanently prohibited them from using that word in any future campaigns
against Daishowa.
“This is an important decision for us and for all Canadians who believe in
freedom of expression,” said Friend of the Lubicon Kevin Thomas in a press
conference following the release of the judgment.
Clayton Ruby, who defended the Friends at the initial stage of the
proceedings, said at the press conference: “there is an increasing trend by
large corporations to file complex cases with large damage claims where they
couldn’t hope to recover damages. Their objective is to silence. The court
struck an important blow today for free speech in Canada.”
If it had gone the other way, Mr. Ruby said, “it would mean free speech for
corporations and a muzzle for everybody else”. You have to allow ordinary
citizens who have no power, who haven’t got the money of corporations and
their power, some way of talking to other citizens on a one-to-one basis and
trying to convince them of the rightness of your cause. If you can’t do
that, this isn’t much of a democracy.”
Daishowa said it will appeal the decision.
