Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The city is caught in a no-win scenario here. On the one hand, I tend to support your opinion. On the other hand, an election is city business, and lawsuits against elected officials have the very real possibility of chilling all political discourse if not vigourously fought. Especially if the city's lawyers are of the opinion that Nenshi will win.
|
And I would argue that when an election is happening and what you say during an election is not city business, your talking points are on a individual level in the hopes of being chosen to do city business.
You are acting as an individual and not Calgary incorporated.
Its not that I dislike Nenshi, I'm not a fan of his and that's pretty obvious. But if what Wenzel is suing him for came during his election campaign then no city resources or money should be used to fight the lawsuit.
If it was something said that was a in camera statement in council or in response to a official city policy debate then you could argue that the city is equally on the hook to provide a defense.
I am more following this story because it could create a really interesting legal situation in election law where a private citizen can actively sue a candidate over something said in the campaign, which means that it wouldn't be a big stretch for a losing candidate to sue a winning candidate over a perceived slight in a heated debate.