Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dave]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/wild-salmon-advocate-learns-75000-lesson-court-so-you-won%E2%80%99t-have

Thanks Chris, that explains why AlMos web site is down.

[Sandy]

If you go back and reread the article from West Coast Environmental Law that AF posted above, you'll see that it is all about the details of "how" you criticize the industry, not "if" you criticize the industry which would be muzzling or bullying as you and AF imply......it's a subtle point for some but WCEL lays out a very good guide for Staniford and Morton to criticize all they want and still keep their feet out of the fire.

that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .

I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay out of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money. 

[alwaysfishn]

that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .

I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money. 

And just like the school yard bully who is typically bigger and stronger than the kid he bullies, Mainstream has the financial resources to carry out their bullying tactics against folks like Saniford... 

It's interesting to note that while folks like Saniford must carefully reference their sources supporting the claims they make..... Feedlots are making claims about the health of their product and their "care" for the environment without be required to disclose the diseases their feedlots generate, the drugs they use to treat them and the cesspools they create around their pens... 

[Sandy]

And just like the school yard bully who is typically bigger and stronger than the kid he bullies, Mainstream has the financial resources to carry out their bullying tactics against folks like Saniford... 

It's interesting to note that while folks like Saniford must carefully reference their sources supporting the claims they make..... Feedlots are making claims about the health of their product and their "care" for the environment without be required to disclose the diseases their feedlots generate, the drugs they use to treat them and the cesspools they create around their pens...

100%

deny , deny, deny, problem is they get away with it , why ? there are people leading or is it "managing " us, whom only think in monetary value, there is no value put too the environment and human suffrage.

Fortunately folks are now becoming educated, and are checking out companies and there social and environmental policies, before dealing with them, either as investors or as traders.
 
As is the case , many companies are seeking third party independent audits of their policies and practices, however , we still have to do our reasonable homework, to ensure that it is not just "Green washing"          (advertising gimmick) and truly is a social policy developed by the companies.

Saying that I'm all for encouraging business to the country/BC as we need resource extraction dollars, just not at all costs. We need to encourage innovation and or the use of available products, albeit costing a few percentage points to profits. When it's one sided everybody excepting a few investors lose, when it's a balanced fair policy, we all should gain!
We cannot say no just "because"; is there another way that is fair ,reasonable and equitable to both parties?

[shuswapsteve]

that is just it, very often the decision is based on the use of a word, however ambiguous that it may have been in most cases like this a simple IMHO would suffice .

I had a teacher ,who is also is a SC of BC judge that told me, ad that the differance in defence of prosecution often is down to money. Thereby ,and his point, is that, do all you can to stay out of court as here in Canada , expecting, and getting justice is down to money.

Sandy, did you read the BC Court of Appeal ruling?  Because if you did you would find that it was not about just the use of a word or money.

[Sandy]

Yes I did , and in essence it says although he had included references to his data and conclusions ( ad lib), it was found that they were not close enough to each statement. In essence he was in the right, but by the strict letter of the law says ......or the judge found so.

You're unwillingness to hear ANYTHING negative just proves my point. deny ,deny ,deny. At least admit that the industry ( open net ) has SOME detrimental effects to the surrounding environment, just as does, ANY other industry!

[shuswapsteve]

Yes I did , and in essence it says although he had included references to his data and conclusions ( ad lib), it was found that they were not close enough to each statement. In essence he was in the right, but by the strict letter of the law says ......or the judge found so.

You're unwillingness to hear ANYTHING negative just proves my point. deny ,deny ,deny. At least admit that the industry ( open net ) has SOME detrimental effects to the surrounding environment, just as does, ANY other industry!

If he was in the right then he would have won the appeal, Sandy.

The BC Court of Appeal determined that readers of the publications were not in the position to make up their own minds about the merits of what Don said in the publications; thus, one of the conditions for the defence of fair comment was not satisfied.  Don used this as defence in his original trial.  Don couldn't satisfy what the law demanded.  I am sure that fish farm critics would rather chalk it up to just a technically instead of focusing on the real shortcomings of Don's inability to present factual information that is accessible and transparent to his readers.  The original trial judge was found to have erred in dismissing Mainstream's defamatory claim.  Who is really doing the denying, Sandy?

It is not an unwillingness to hear anything negative, rather it is my reluctance to buy into the antis that are trying to find a silver lining in this ruling when essentially what it really means is that facts important and that critics should be held accountable for defamatory comments.  I never admitted that salmon farming as well as other industries that operate in and around water do not have some impact on the surrounding environment.  That really wasn't point of the court case and conveniently deflects from Don's shortcomings.  This was about Mainstream pursuing legal action against Don Staniford for making defamatory statements.  It wasn't about whether Mainstream had some detrimental impact on the environment.  If you wish to take Mainstream to court about this given the regulatory regime in place in BC and our current knowledge fish farm impacts to species like Fraser Sockeye (i.e. Cohen Final Report) then be my guest.  You might be interested to know that I actually agree with recommendations made by Cohen and welcome the new research being proposed and conducted to look into declines in Fraser Sockeye productivity.  Some of this I have already posted on this forum recently. 

[alwaysfishn]

If he was in the right then he would have won the appeal, Sandy.

The BC Court of Appeal determined that readers of the publications were not in the position to make up their own minds about the merits of what Don said in the publications; thus, one of the conditions for the defence of fair comment was not satisfied.  Don used this as defence in his original trial.  Don couldn't satisfy what the law demanded.  I am sure that fish farm critics would rather chalk it up to just a technically instead of focusing on the real shortcomings of Don's inability to present factual information that is accessible and transparent to his readers.  The original trial judge was found to have erred in dismissing Mainstream's defamatory claim.  Who is really doing the denying, Sandy?

It is not an unwillingness to hear anything negative, rather it is my reluctance to buy into the antis that are trying to find a silver lining in this ruling when essentially what it really means is that facts important and that critics should be held accountable for defamatory comments.  I never admitted that salmon farming as well as other industries that operate in and around water do not have some impact on the surrounding environment.  That really wasn't point of the court case and conveniently deflects from Don's shortcomings.  This was about Mainstream pursuing legal action against Don Staniford for making defamatory statements.  It wasn't about whether Mainstream had some detrimental impact on the environment.  If you wish to take Mainstream to court about this given the regulatory regime in place in BC and our current knowledge fish farm impacts to species like Fraser Sockeye (i.e. Cohen Final Report) then be my guest.  You might be interested to know that I actually agree with recommendations made by Cohen and welcome the new research being proposed and conducted to look into declines in Fraser Sockeye productivity.  Some of this I have already posted on this forum recently. 

You are very accomplished Stevie....  first as a biologist, now as a legal expert. 

[shuswapsteve]

You are very accomplished Stevie....  first as a biologist, now as a legal expert. 

Thank you.

[alwaysfishn]

Thank you.

Maybe someday you'll even understand sarcasm....   

[shuswapsteve]

Maybe someday you'll even understand sarcasm....   

You mean that was sarcasm???  Oh man!  I thought you were being nice. 

[Novabonker]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+justice+system+starved+resources+report/8805356/story.html