• Value Subtracted@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I’d like to know more about the ruling than what’s presented in the article. And I guess I’d need to know more about Canadian defamation law.

    Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)…but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.

    • MysteriousSophon21@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Canadian defamation law is actually much stricter than US law - truth isn’t always an absolute defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements werent defamatory.

    • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I haven’t read the book either but from the description and from my own knowledge of the systemic racism within Canada, the racist history of the RCMP and police forces in canada, and the known practice of “starlight tours”, I would 100% understand why someone would surmise that the book is racist garbage.

      I almost want to read it to find out how the author could possibly justify any of the police actions, but I’d really rather not, so I’m just going to make my own assumptions about why the judge ruled the way they did (and I have one very obvious guess).