Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
I think defending yourself by saying what Wenzel said was illegal is a slippery slope since it hasnt been proved and if its proved to be false then you look like an ill-informed idiot. Thinking about robbing the bank across the street to pay for a new car isnt illegal (if it was there would be no one not behind bars).
Giving gas cards to people is only illegal if you tried to circumvent the normal donation limits. Since the video came out before the election I cant see how anyone would have been short sighted enough to go over the limits even if that was their intent before the video was made public. On the other hand I wonder if you took a picture of all the vehicles that came to assist in the Nenshi campaign - could any of them been company vehicles which then should have been added as a donation cost.
As per donations to the Manning Centre. From what I have heard its only illegal from a Manning Centre tax exempt perspective. If they accepted money and Wenzel and friends directed how it was spent for their own gain then its tax fraud. If the Manning Centre came to them and said we are looking to start up a municipal government training centre because we believe to many grass roots politicians are left of centre then its not tax fraud.
Why Wenzel is suing is the same reason there is so much dislike for him. He has direct business ties to the City and how it operates was trying to circumvent the Mayors public image and popularity (which he will undoubtedly use to get issues passed by playing to the press) that goes against Wenzel's buisness interests. Wenzel and this group of like minded business associates had a plan to simply outvote Nenshi. The problem is that isnt illegal and by all accounts thats what the Mayor was indicating. After the video first came out there was little mention of the possible above illegal activities and alot about the "out-voting" strategy. Being in such a twitter/email/facebook connected era I do wonder if some of the evidence Wenzel is using against Nenshi is from those sources.
If a group on environmental companies thought that certain MPs or MLAs wernt protecting the environment is it illegal for them to donate money and time to a competing politician. The "goody-goody" nature of the reasoning doesnt change the fact that both are completely legal.
I personally dont like defamation lawsuits but when public figures attack a private citizen (Wenzel wasnt running for Mayor or Alderman the last time I checked) for nothing more then a cell phone video of a private business meeting then how do you stop it other public figures from attacking other private citizens - what if he attacked a person with much less means to fight back. A lawsuit is the only way and to get a good sense of how Wenzel's reputation has been tarnished would be to scour the Interwebs for posts about him "how hes an idiot" or a "scumbag" from people so ill-informed about most issues that it makes you weep for democracy.
Personally I think the City should pay for the defence but only as a way to show others that such lawsuits would not be easy to win. The problem is Wenzel has the means to take this to court. If somehow a judgement came down against Nenshi then he should have to personally pay IMO.
|
For Nenshi to successfully defend the defamation case he only needs to prove part of what he said was fact. Then any opinions based on that fact are fair comment.
The video shows Wensel couciling people on how to get around donation limits. Therefore Nenshi's comments about Wenzel counciling illegal donations is factual. And any of the surrounding comments are included under fair comment.
Yes, the reputation of Wensel was dragged through the mud but it was based around factual statements by him trying to get around election laws and him trying to elect a slate of candidates. These things are facts. And anyone is allowed to make extreme comments based on fact.