Holding power accountable is not slander or libel

Hoping this article will help educate the self-deputized Linkedin /Liberal police out there.

My recent Linkedin article entitled "They need you to hate, best ask why?" drew this comment from what I assume to be a Linkedin and or Liberal deputy marshal, perhaps a judge as well as he did accuse me of an actionable offence in his world.

The comment from Vince

"The Liberals and NDP will always find you someone to hate" - "Where do you get off making a slanderous comment like that? Do you suppose the Conservatives are any better? That was a stupid remark and you should know better. I saw that exchange and I also felt there was something amiss; Wayne seemed caught between the proverbial hard and a hard place. I wouldn't have characterized a few raised eyebrows as "hate" and I certainly haven't read any Liberal or NDP posting professing hate for Wayne Gretzkey. Speaking of hateful speech, have you considered listening to P.P.'s hateful rants? You're out of line mister!" Vince Walzak

An Education in Law & Free Speech for Vince

First off: It’s Libel, Not Slander

First off, Vince—if you’re going to throw around legal accusations, at least get the terminology right.

• Slander = Spoken defamation
• Libel = Written defamation

Since my post was written, if you actually believed it was defamatory, you should have accused me of libel. You do want to be accurate at the very least when picking from your ticket book. But let’s be clear: it’s neither.

As for the slander and or libel: If criticizing political parties was illegal, every journalist, columnist, and political commentator in Canada would be in jail.

• Political speech and opinion are protected in Canada under freedom of expression (Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
• Criticizing a government or political party is not libel—public officials are expected to be held accountable, and criticism is part of democracy.
• Phrases like "the parties of hate, lies, and deception" and "they use hate like a cloak" are political rhetoric, not factual statements that can be proven false in court.

Your sentence "That was a stupid remark and you should know better" is dismissive & derogatory language and is a form of belittling or verbal put-down meant to undermine my credibility. Instead of engaging with my argument, you attack my intelligence and judgment that I am clearly in my right as a Canadian to make.

That’s not debate, that’s bullying.

As for your last two sentences.

Speaking of hateful speech, have you considered listening to P.P.'s hateful rants? You're out of line mister!

Ironically, while accusing Pierre Poilievre of hateful speech, Vince is engaging in the same type of inflammatory rhetoric that is somehow ok if directed to a Conservative Party of Canada MP.

Saying "You're out of line" is an attempt to control the conversation by framing me as irrational or extreme. Instead of discussing my post, Vince positions himself as a moral authority who can decide what is "in line" and what is not. ( I assume that is authority is vested in the badge ) I would suggest posting the badge on your profile so that we lesser people can know when it is ok for us to share our political opinions.

The reality is simple: Criticizing political parties is not hate. Demanding accountability is not defamation. Calling out hypocrisy is not extremism.

You don’t have to agree with me, Vince, but you don’t get to silence me, either.

Now—if you actually have an argument instead of name-calling and false legal accusations, I’d be happy to hear it. Otherwise, your outrage is noted and dismissed.

To the rest of you reading this—what do you think? Should political leaders and parties be immune from criticism? Or is accountability more important now than ever?

The next time you get attacked the virtuous ask to see their badge and what special rights they have to suppress your rights provided under the Charter of Rights.