Aug 28 2017 – Kevin Yaworski – Proud Canadian, UK Citizen and volunteer public advocate.
We should not be concerned, afraid or bullied out of informing the public about allegations of corruption related crimes or other serious wrong doing. There is a few things we need to consider and do to be protected by our Charter of Rights and International Covenants Canada has signed and ratified with legislation when exercising Freedom of Speech.
We have heard from several members and the general public about information they feel should be public knowledge but are afraid to write or speak about it openly.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of Speech protects those that speak or write about allegations if they are a matter of public interest (more info below).
There is also Whistle Blower and related legislation in Provinces and Canada to help protect insider that need to speak out forthe betterment of the public.
Aside from the serious issues we are seeing regularly in MB and to a lesser extent in other Provincial Summary Convictions Courts (Traffic, Parking or Bylaw alleged offenses) where the name alone symbolises guilt and some less frequent issues with the higher Courts we have one of the best Judicial systems in the world.
Although it has room to improve the Canadian and Provincial Judicial systems including the reforms started to deal with unreasonable delays are still well respected internationally.
If someone wants to speak out to inform or protect the public about serious concerns and are in a contract or agreement not to disclose it maybe best to get legal advice from a lawyer if they can afford or a law clinic if they cannot. Most legislation can’t trump our Charter and Constitutional rights but there is some exceptions or consideration for good reasons including when serious criminal offenses involved. There is many lawyers and legal organisations who have stepped up to help whistle blowers.
Much of what we have posted that is related to WiseUpWinnipeg is a collection of information collected from FIPPA request records, Ombudsman Complaints, APEGM Complaints, Court Decisions, Transcripts and many other public records, media coverage, different members and the public’s 1st hand accounts and related.
More specific information about some of the more serious allegations:
We think we have done our homework on any of the information or allegations we have posted about Jon Butcher, ACS or others and are confident there is enough evidence and information that this is a matter of public interest (allegation of bribery, breach of trust or …).
They have been stated as allegations only unless we have information to say otherwise.
We are confident the alleged offenders would not want to risk exposing more of their part in wrong doing in a lawsuit as it would hurt them more than us. We have a proven track record including court decisions, transcripts, FIPPA requests, Ombudsman and other formal complaints, media coverage that we speak on behalf of the public.
From what we have heard first hand, what former EDS / HP CEO heard 1st hand and what else we know from public records there is plenty of weight with these allegations against Former WPS Jon Butcher related to ACS and photo enforcement in Winnipeg and elsewhere.
These recent allegations against him heard 1st hand independently from several women or their partners adds weight to this.
Several recent defamation lawsuits in Canada and the US were decided in favor of those speaking on behalf of the public to help expose corruption and wrong doing.
One involving BP and the Deep Water Horizon explosion, oil spills and ecological disaster and related. Another against an ex city councillor in AB who was exposing breach of trust with fraudulent OT then got terminated or forced out. Then used social media to continue exposing. The Crown was trying to use an old law that a previous unreported court decision found was unconstitutional.
The Justice found in favor of the accused speaking on behalf of the public.
We have tried to contact John Butcher and ACS / Xerox but could not find contact info for them or they would not return our communications.
DEFAMATION: LIBEL AND SLANDER
Responsible communication on matters of public interest
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations—even if not true—if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience.
This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance,
and the journalist used reliable sources,
and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court defined journalist widely to include bloggers and anyone else publishing material of public interest in any medium.
Please share this online and by word of mouth to encourage others with inside information that should be public knowledge to share it and intern help strengthen the transparency and accountability of politicians, individuals, corporations and our democracies.