what this is, and what it ain't

I hate being censored. I hate being shut down. I hate it especially when there is a good reason for publishing an account of how a small group of people in a community like Kanehsatake can abuse their positions and get away with it. I hate it when they make it difficult for that account to be read by others in the community - not because ti's wrong. Not because it didn't happen. But because they don't want anybody to read it. Maybe even ask questions of their own afterward.

Yep. That pisses me off.

Somebody gets fired in a most brutal way.  There are people who cheer.  There are others who don't.  The reason I wrote about that was because IF this bunch could violate one person's rights, then they could do it to anyone else's too.

The so-called board of directors violated my rights as well.  They took over a board - the board for the Health Center - by stacking it with themselves. Why? Not because the Center was being mismanaged. Policies were followed. Budgets were maintained.

Some people might not like the style of management - but that's is not a firing offence.  That's the point.  There was no legal justification for taking over the board - my board - and refusing to hold a public meeting of the community membership so that we members could control our own Health Center.

They took away my right to be represented on that board.

They took away my right to complain about the board and its actions.

And they threatened me with legal action for saying so.

Bastards. Gutless bastards.

the kicker - a community flyer

A kicker, in newsroom parlance, is a quirky or funny little story to end the newscast on a bright note. After all, the entire newscast may have been all doom and gloom, death and destruction, or maybe just boring stuff. So the lineup editor hopes - prays - that someone cane whip up a little something that can get a chuckle or even a full belly laugh out of someone out there.

Sometimes, it's ironic humour. A bit of absurdity.  Like this little thing that the so-called board of directors put out about moi - your truly.  Yes, my name is peppered liberally throughout with warnings not to read that damn Dan David's Facebook pages because it's all lies etc etc.  But everybody already knows what this bunch doesn't want folks to read.  So it's not about anything I've published online. Nope. It's all about their refusing to acknowledge reality.

But about this community flyer... Did I take offence? No.  Did I threaten to sue?  Mais, non!  Sacre bleu!  I have a sense of humour, unlike those poor sods who cling so desperately to their idiotic notions of power.  It is to laugh.  ha ha

Page 2 libel threat

And this is Page 2.  I suppose some law firms will do anything for money.  Shame on them too.

Threat to sue for defamation

When I first posted this on my Facebook group called "Protect the Kanehsatake Health Center", I added the comment that in order to sue for libel or defamation, one should first have a good reputation to damage.  Of course, Facebook kept allowing the so-called board of directors at the Kanehsatake Health Center (aka the band council and its minions) to "block access" to my group pages.  FB has no qualms censoring me.  Shame on Zukerberg and the rest of them at FB.

The so-called board of directors wasn't serious about suing me because they didn't have legal leg to stand on. No justifiable complaint. So the following letter is a SLAPP.  According to Wikipedia, a SLAPP is a:  

" strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.^[1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.