A local lawyer is concerned that a rise in hateful rhetoric online will lead to a tragic outcome following the conclusion of legal cases in Dryden and Thunder Bay.
Doug Judson, a partner in the Fort Frances law firm, JudsonHowie LLP, represented plaintiffs, Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. and Crichton et al., in their respective cases against Brian Webster, a Calgary construction worker ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to pay damages and aggravated damages because statements he made online were “hate speech.” Judson said this “reflects a complete repudiation” of the argument or notion that members of the queer community are a danger to children, and Webster and his baseless accusations used his Facebook page, Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition, to create what Madam H.M. Justice Pierce called “an echo chamber of hate speech,” with public warnings from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of “serious incidents of violence targeting the queer community.” Furthermore, Judson said echo chambers of hate speech like these persist because social media companies are “rolling over to appease the Trump administration.”
Despite his suggestion to the court that he was “raising awareness” and engaging in “citizen journalism,” Webster was ordered to pay aggravated damages in the sum of $380,000 because of online statements he made online deemed to be “hate speech” by Pierce.
“The court’s decision reflects a complete repudiation of the hateful myth and libel that members of the queer community are predatory or a danger to children,” said Judson in a statement to the Fort Frances Times.
“The decision also rejects the contemporary permutation of this myth, which is the false and harmful narrative that introducing children to 2SLGBTQIA+ people and age-appropriate literature about diversity and inclusion ‘recruits’ them into transgender ideology or to adopt a queer gender identity, or that making that bald accusation is a matter of public interest.”
“What we are seeing today is a significant rise in anti-2SLGBTQIA+ rhetoric, hate speech, and violence,” Judson continued.
“This is being propelled, in part, by irresponsible elected officials and anti-trans policies in the Trump administration, but also here in Canada, in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This case reminds members of vulnerable, Charter-protected groups that they have legal recourse available to protect themselves, their reputations, and their ability to live openly in our communities without having to deal with malicious public smears about their identity.”
Moreover, smears like this are used to “socially ostracize and disadvantage” members of the queer community, Judson added.
“When someone accuses a 2SLGBTQIA+ person of being a ‘groomer,’ they are calling them a pedophile. ‘Grooming’ – as the court stated – is manipulative behaviour used by sexual abusers to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught,” he said.
“To be called a ‘groomer’ is a vile and despicable accusation… Justice Pierce accepted evidence from our expert witness, Dr. Corinne Mason (they/them), on the history of groomer rhetoric and how it has been used, historically, to attack the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ people and to socially ostracize and disadvantage them.”
Judson said calling gender-diverse people and/ or drag kings, queens, and monarchs “groomers” has “emerged as a popular slur.”
“In the current political climate, this false allegation that members of the drag community or gender diverse people are ‘grooming’ children has emerged as a popular slur on the far-right of the political spectrum,” said Judson.
“This court decision sends the clear message that civil liability can attach to those who publish baseless allegations of sexual abuse or pedophilia against anyone. The short version of this is that drag story time events are not a danger to children, they do not sexually manipulate children, and baselessly accusing drag performers of doing those things is defamatory.”
Not only is it defamatory, Judson said this reiterates how baseless attempts to smear a person’s reputation “can result in civil liability.”
“This case re-confirms is that publishing or broadcasting hateful, and false smears about others can result in civil liability,” said Judson.
“The fact that a person is gender diverse or part of the drag community does not give anyone license to make false and malicious statements about them.”
Judson said Webster’s posts on social media were made in contempt and had “no merit whatsoever.”
“There was no merit, whatsoever, to the two publications. Both were attempts to direct contempt towards the plaintiffs by insinuating that they were pedophiles,” said Judson.
“The court concluded, in considering Mr. Webster’s fair comment defence, that there was no evidence that any of the plaintiffs had an agenda to groom children for sexual abuse, nor that they engaged in predatory conduct.”
Madam Justice Pierce also concluded Webster used his Facebook page, Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition, to facilitate “an echo chamber of hate speech,” potentially starting a tragic series of anti-LGBTQ events.
“As Justice Pierce stated in her decision,” said Judson, “Mr. Webster used his Facebook page to create ‘an echo chamber for hate speech.’ In our argument about the harm caused by this type of libel, we provided the court with evidence connecting online hatred to offline, real-life incidents of violence. With public warnings from CSIS about the potential for serious incidents of violence targeting the queer community, we are very concerned that this type of rhetoric will be the spark that ignites a tragedy.”
For Judson, one thing fueling that potential spark for tragedy is the removal of content moderation standards in social media companies like Meta.
“[This sentiment] persists and is getting worse because social media companies, like Meta, are rolling over to appease the Trump administration and are removing content moderation standards,” he said.
