Mig and the others constantly warned us about the libelous nature of some posts.
Now relief is on the way for those who can’t control themselves.
thetyee.ca/Life/2009/12/11/BoobGifts/
newswire.ca/en/releases/arch … c4177.html
Maybe something else to consider…
Criminal Code of Canada
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/
Defamatory Libel
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 262.
Publishing
299. A person publishes a libel when he
(a) exhibits it in public;
(b) causes it to be read or seen; or
© shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 263.
Punishment of libel known to be false
300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 264.
Punishment for defamatory libel
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.
Also consider the bogus Brit based premise of the libel law.
The accused must prove the libel did NOT harm the party. The Yanks require proof that harm was done.
So I guess I ‘libeled’ Canadian Law… 
What am I to do, I guess it is time to maybe do like Dex and copy everything which I figure looks as if it may baffle someone. Yeah I will do that. " I am so sorry for everything I have ever said about the city council and other suits, please forgive me".
I don’t think that you need worry much. Here are some other provisions of the Criminal Code:
-
No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
-
No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or …
Criminal libel is rarely applied in this country. It is intended to protect society against grave threats to public security and order, eg promoting sedition, extreme statements about the judiciary are never a good idea, baseless allegations about prison officials executing people etc. Those who like to blaspheme on occasion should take note of s 296 of the Criminal Code, but probably should not lose any sleep.
Far more common is civil defamation. The truth (justification) is always a defence against liability for defamation. Another defence is ‘fair comment’, ie statements that can be reasonably inferred from the facts, even if others may draw other inferences or conclusions. The defence of ‘qualified privilege’ is available where one has a duty to report something to others who have an interest in the matter, even if they don’t get all of the facts right. The civil claimant may also have trouble proving damages, even if they otherwise have a good case.
I think that where new information about civic affairs is uncovered and reported to fellow citizens, ‘fair comment’ and ‘qualified privilege’ may apply even if not all of the facts are available or correct. Sometimes governments are not as transparent as they could or should be and it is up to citizens and the press corps to dig things up; acting in good faith.
In my opinion, it is best, though, to focus on what public bodies are doing and steer clear of the private lives of public officials. Just because someone is a public official does not mean that aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with the performance of their duties are open for scrutiny and irresponsible comment.
Finally, some posters may be comforted to know that statements that are so obviously ridiculous that no reasonable and sober person would believe them are unlikely to be defamatory.