The Six Million Dollar SLAPP

You mean the rich aren't able to do what ever they please up to and including murder, buying foreign governments, and crushing like a bug all who dare oppose them?

What is the world coming to?

Thank you very much Tim for writing this follow up on this VERY important case.
Unfortunately with influential and powerful people (read men) such as Brian Mulroney on Peter Munk's 'Barrick Gold' board of directors, it is questionable whether Ecosociete will have any chance of standing a chance against one of Canada's richest men and his Bay Street lawyers.
People should be giving as much support to Ecosociete as they can, and discussing the links of power that operate through this company.

Thanks for commenting on the blog post on the Dominion. This is a good update.
cheers,
Dawn

Those who found this article intriguing would be interested to learn that the author of this book, Alain Denault, will be speaking at Concordia University on June 10th. 1455 de Maisonneuve, Rm. 760, 7 PM sharp.

I certainly plan to be there.

On behalf of Barrick Gold I would like to comment briefly on your article “The Six Million Dollar SLAPP.”

Your article notes that the book that is the subject of Barrick’s lawsuit describes “… alleged human rights abuses carried out by Barrick Gold in various African counties, including the deaths of more than 50 Tanzanians in 1996 and fueling the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” To be somewhat more expansive, the book accuses Barrick, among other things, of homicide, genocide, association with the mafia, arms trafficking and promoting armed conflict in the Congo resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. These are the most serious allegations of misconduct imaginable.

These allegations, however, are utter fiction and should never have been made, repeated or embellished. For example, contrary to the three chapters of the book that focus on Barrick, Barrick had no mining operations whatsoever in the countries in question (i.e., Tanzania, the Congo, and Uganda) at the times that the alleged “pillage, corruption and criminal activity” that is the subject of Barrick’s lawsuit took place. Had even a cursory check of the authors’ “facts” been conducted – including any consideration of Barrick’s extensive public disclosure of where it was operating during the relevant time periods – it would have been obvious to the authors that the book is simply false and misleading as it relates to Barrick.

It is our understanding that a generally accepted definition of a “SLAPP” lawsuit is one which attempts to prevent (1) constitutionally protected speech; (2) by imposing the burden of a non-meritorious lawsuit; (3) that is designed to inhibit public dialogue. Here, however, the false allegations that Barrick was responsible for homicide, genocide, arms trafficking, and the like, are not constitutionally protected speech. These are the very sorts of statements that we understand the laws of Canada to proscribe. This is so because the statements are demonstrably false, injurious to Barrick’s reputation, and were made with reckless disregard for the truth. Indeed, to my knowledge, the authors made no effort whatsoever to check any of their facts with Barrick as part of their “research.” Then they rushed to publish the book even though they were warned in advance by Barrick that the allegations referenced above were false. Consequently, the lawsuit clearly is both meritorious and warranted.

We believe it is fundamentally wrong to characterize the lawsuit as a SLAPP, pitting David vs Goliath. Barrick is a Canadian public company that finds itself subject to demonstrably false accusations of genocide, mass murder, involvement in organized crime and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. For Barrick, the issue is not about the relative size of the publisher or the authors. It is about the truth – and the protection of a company’s reputation - which is important to Barrick’s more than 100,000 shareholders, 20,000 employees, and the scores of communities in which we operate.

Barrick filed the lawsuit so that the truth about the authors’ allegations – and the utter lack of facts supporting them – will become clear to all. Surely Barrick cannot be barred from seeking the protection of the courts solely because it is large and successful while the authors and publisher that chose to make and promote these vicious allegations apparently are less so.

We appreciate that the authors and publisher would apparently prefer not to be held accountable for their character assassinations. They would apparently prefer to have the truth or falsity of their extremely serious accusations resolved as a matter of “public opinion” by petitions, letters of support, “solidarity” campaigns – and book sales. However, when determining the truth of serious allegations such as those made by the authors we have the right to an objective forum that protects fairly the rights of all concerned and where accusations of extraordinarily serious misconduct can be addressed on the basis of sworn testimony and documentary evidence rather than unfounded rumours and innuendo. Barrick’s lawsuit does not inhibit public examination of these issues, as would be the case with a SLAPP suit. On the contrary, it ensures that there will be a transparent and objective public forum for their resolution.

Thank you for considering Barrick’s perspective on the subject of freedom of speech and the responsibilities that accompany it.