XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ab.politics   
   XPost: mtl.general   
   From: Raisa@nyet.ca   
      
   Contributed to The Globe and Mail - Wednesday, Nov. 26 2014   
      
   B.C. pipeline-protest case shows how lawsuits threaten democratic voices   
      
      
      
   At 4:00 on November 17, the RCMP read an injunction that had been granted the   
   previous Friday prohibiting members of the public from traversing areas of a   
   Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area.  The initial injunction had initially been   
   directed at members of the Burnaby Mountain Caretakers and Burnaby Residents   
   Against Kinder Morgan Expansion, and two Simon Fraser University professors who   
   are members of those groups.  They were also served with a $5.6-million civil   
   suit.  These are the roots of the current standoff between the RCMP and the   
   protestors.   
      
        Protesters rally against Trans Mountain pipeline, but drilling continues   
      
        More arrests at B.C. pipeline protest; 11-year-old girl taken into custody   
      
        Anti-pipeline protesters give dirty looks over remark that facial   
   expressions are ‘assault’   
      
   The lawsuit brought by Kinder Morgan against demonstrators peacefully   
   protesting survey work on Burnaby Mountain represents a classic strategy of   
   political and legal intimidation. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public   
   Participation -- or SLAPPs -- are lawsuits brought against group of citizens,   
   usually alleging that the group has committed defamation, trespass, or some   
   other civil wrong, which have the effect of curtailing political engagement   
   over a public issue.   
      
   These lawsuits generally involve damage claims and requests for injunctive   
   relief, and place a chill on public engagement.  The impact of a such lawsuit,   
   when brought by a major corporation and claiming millions of dollars in   
   damages, cannot be overestimated.  The prospect of losing one’s house would   
   test the political mettle of anyone.   
      
   SLAPPs are extremely effective political weapons.  They remove political issues   
   from their context, transforming them into narrow issues of civil liability.   
   In the Burnaby Mountain case, issues of environmental integrity, the impact of   
   pipelines on conservation lands and the autonomy of municipal governments are   
   at stake.  The National Energy Board ruling granting Kinder Morgan the right to   
   conduct survey work on Burnaby Mountain effectively overruled local municipal   
   decision-making.   
      
   The Mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, was re-elected in the recent elections on   
   an anti-Kinder Morgan platform.  He and Burnaby Council are currently appealing   
   the ruling, which arguably represents a significant departure from current   
   understandings of both the authority of administrative tribunals and current   
   jurisprudence on federalism.   
      
   Yet, it is the authority of this NEB decision that stands at the heart of   
   Kinder Morgan’s claim that demonstrators are “trespassing” on what is   
   otherwise   
   considered public land.   
      
   The legal issues in the case are far from settled, yet the narrow issue of   
   trespass has been employed to support a major damage claim and an injunction   
   that, now that it is being enforced, permits the company to complete its work   
   before the courts have even considered the validity of the original NEB ruling.   
     Moreover, not only is the board’s initial ruling under appeal, the NEB’s   
   very   
   impartiality has been called into question by the former head of BC Hydro, Marc   
   Eliesen, who resigned from it last week, describing the board as “industry   
   captured.”   
      
   The case reflects the urgent need for legislation regulating SLAPPs.  Courts   
   have proven ineffective at doing so.  In Canada, only Quebec has legislation in   
   place.   
   Ironically, British Columbia was the first province to enact anti-SLAPP   
   legislation in 2001, although it was reversed shortly after the election of the   
   Liberal government.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   Critics of anti-SLAPP regulations argue that such legislation erodes the rule   
   of law.  However, in Ontario, a blue-ribbon panel recommended the introduction   
   of anti-SLAPP legislation. Legislation based on the report was introduced, but   
   subsequently died on the order paper when the last Ontario election was called.   
     The Ontario government has committed itself to reintroducing the bill, which   
   is carefully designed to balance rights of citizens to public and political   
   expression, while ensuring that “real” grievances continue to be dealt   
   with by   
   the courts.   
      
   Such legislation would help here.  There’s no better evidence of the   
   frivolous   
   nature of Kinder Morgan’s suit than its claims that the protestors made   
   “threatening” faces.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   This launched a satirical “Kinder Morgan face” trend on social media.   
      
   The proposed Ontario legislation requires the court to hold an expedited   
   hearing to determine whether the litigation involves a matter of public   
   interest and negatively impacts political expression.  If the answer is   
   “yes,”   
   then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that they have suffered   
   actual harm and that the lawsuit would likely be successful.   
      
   It is important to keep in mind that over 80 per cent of SLAPP cases are   
   unsuccessful.  Winning the case is rarely the objective behind these lawsuits.   
     An expedited hearing process   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ensures that plaintiffs cannot use the courts to tie citizens up in expensive   
   court proceedings as a strategy for curtailing public expression.  The Ontario   
   legislation also would put on hold all related proceedings, thereby preventing   
   the very scenario unfolding on Burnaby Mountain.   
      
   As a result of the SLAPP suit filed by Kinder Morgan, we now have the RCMP   
   acting at the behest of a foreign oil company to arrest young people, SFU   
   faculty and Coast Salish elders,   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   who are profoundly concerned not just about what more than doubling of the   
   capacity of these pipelines might mean to the region but also about the effects   
   of tar sands bitumen on global climate change more generally.  When challenged   
   about what he thought about what this meant for the ability of Canadians and   
   First Nations peoples to democratically determine their own fate, one RCMP   
   officer simply said he doesn’t think about such issues; he was simply   
   “doing   
   his job.”  Where have we heard that before?  And with what consequences?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)