There's something I can't get my head around here: it seems like a significant portion of the arguments center on whether or not Wenzel did anything illegal. But the court that's hearing this lawsuit wouldn't actually be in a position to rule on whether Wenzel did anything illegal, would it? Because it's not like Wenzel has been charged with anything or has had a complaint filed against him. Yet part of Nenshi's defense is likely the truth defense: that his comments were justified because Wenzel did break the law. So at that point, how can the court avoid ruling on whether Wenzel did break the law, and if it rules that he did, what happens then? Obviously it's far worse for Wenzel's PR: rather than just a mayoral candidate saying he broke the law, now he's had a court say the same thing. Would Wenzel open himself up to additional complaints under the election act? Even if not, essentially he's unnecessarily put himself on trial.
|