SLAPPing the citizenry

A healthy democracy depends on the active participation of its citizens. But increasingly, citizens face damaging and silencing lawsuits for doing no more than speaking out. Public criticism of a corporation, whether for its labour, human rights or environmental record, can land a law-abiding citizen in court.

SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” a phrase coined by American researchers to describe a class of lawsuit which seems designed more to silence public criticism than to provide legitimate compensation.

Characteristically, the SLAPP suit claims a huge amount of money, often alleging conspiracy or joint malfeasance to silence and intimidate as large a group as possible. They are often not designed to be won, but simply to force critics to hire lawyers and spend time and money fighting the lawsuit rather than pursuing their cause. If this goal is accomplished, then the SLAPP will have been effective even if it is eventually dismissed or abandoned. The mere threat of a SLAPP suit may have the effect of discouraging public debate. (SLAPP suits take the form of a civil suit for damages or injunctive relief filed against an individual or organization, and arise because of communications by the defendant(s) to a government body, official or the electorate.)

SLAPP suits can silence individuals and organizations who would otherwise make invaluable contributions toward issues of public importance. The fear created by a SLAPP suit influences many constituencies. Environmentalists, politicians, union leaders, advocates of any kind may be quieted by the risk of the expense, uncertainty and hardship involved in defending their right to voice their legitimate concerns in public debate. SLAPP suits silences the citizens upon whom our democracy is built and turns the judicial process into a weapon against public dissent.

You may be surprised to learn that a number of New Brunswick citizens have faced SLAPP suits for exercising their democratic rights.

Just recently, Bennett Environmental Inc. launched a lawsuit against the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and its Science Adviser Inka Milewski over their public opposition to the construction of a contaminated soil incinerator in Belledune on the Bay of Chaleur. The controversial incinerator — which the provincial government exempted from a full public environmental impact assessment — will process contaminated soils and other solid materials imported from the United States.

Last year, the Insurance Bureau of Canada filed a defamation lawsuit against the New Brunswick Consumer Coalition Against NoFault Insurance. The Insurance Bureau of Canada maintained that it was defamed in a news release issued by the Coalition and spokesmen Steven Boyce and Howard Spalding that accused the industry of misleading the public. The lawsuit was never pursued.

In Ste. Marie de Kent, citizens and community organizations were the subject of a lawsuit by Metz Farm 2 Ltd. Residents of that small community raised concerns over the health and environmental consequences of the Metz factory farm which produces 35,000 pigs a year.

In 1997, I introduced a private members' bill — the Public Participation Act — to guard against SLAPP suits. That bill was introduced after the pulp and paper company Repap sued student protesters and activists in a debate about logging practices for old growth forests in the area of the Christmas Mountains near Mount Carleton in central New Brunswick. Unfortunately, my bill died on the order paper without being put to a vote before the Liberal government of the day.

But it's time to look at it again.

Other provinces have changed their rules of court to insure that people with big pockets and big cheques can't silence opponents. We need to make those legal changes in New Brunswick as well.

Comments