She was giving her opinion on this school.
But she have to prove that what she says is true. Specially with the status of "reporter".
Author in slander trial says Muslim school’s teachings go against Quebec values
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
She was giving her opinion on this school.
But she have to prove that what she says is true. Specially with the status of "reporter".
Like Gerryh said, she wasn't saying that it was her belief, or why. She stated it as fact.
She was giving an interview. She was not pretended to present a report or an inquiry. To me, it's like an editorial.
But, by the way, a reporter made an inquiry about this school. It's interesting.... and confirming that integrist muslim are involved in it.
Des mosquées et des écoles entre les mains des islamistes | JDM
What she presented as facts have been confirmed by the school.
what the school's representative says, it's that interview made a mess in the school and a bad reputation.
because of her opinion that what the school promote is not in line with Quebecers values.
Brothers, uncles and fathers have no place in democratic societies to force woman, and girls to follow some archaic laws, which includes female genital mutilation and to live under dark cloths. By accepting these practices, we end up with incidence such as the 4 females who were shot, placed in a car, and then pushed in a river near Kingston, ON. These girls had done what? oh yea nothing. The brother and the father had murdered them because they were being disobedient and wanted to date Canadian boys, yikes!. Most of them know better and live their lives as used and abused citizens. Is it our business though? NO, only if it's happening on our soil where we have laws that should protect and value all its citizens.
Montreal Muslim school president was ‘devastated’ by feminist’s criticisms, slander trial hears | National Post
Ahmed Khebir, president of the board of the Muslim School of Montreal, told the court that when he listened to Benhabib’s first interview on the Internet, he couldn’t believe his ears.
“I was devastated, appalled, horrified, insulted and worried,” he said in response to questioning from the school’s lawyer, Julius Grey. “How was it possible that someone who had never set foot inside our school could make such damaging and insulting statements?”
He said the school follows the provincial curriculum with three additional hours a week of instruction in Arabic and Islam. Most of the school’s students go on to university, and none has ever joined the jihad in Syria or committed an honour crime, he said.
Khebir testified he has five daughters who have either graduated or are still attending the school, and only one chooses to wear the headscarf.
So, again I say, I hope they nail the bitch to the wall and find for the school for at least the 95k PLUS lawyer and court costs.
Ahmed Khebir, president of the board of the Muslim School of Montreal, told the court that when he listened to Benhabib’s first interview on the Internet, he couldn’t believe his ears.
“I was devastated, appalled, horrified, insulted and worried,” he said in response to questioning from the school’s lawyer, Julius Grey. “How was it possible that someone who had never set foot inside our school could make such damaging and insulting statements?”
He said the school follows the provincial curriculum with three additional hours a week of instruction in Arabic and Islam. Most of the school’s students go on to university, and none has ever joined the jihad in Syria or committed an honour crime, he said.
Khebir testified he has five daughters who have either graduated or are still attending the school, and only one chooses to wear the headscarf.
So, again I say, I hope they nail the bitch to the wall and find for the school for at least the 95k PLUS lawyer and court costs.
I'm thinking that you should be reported to csis and the rcmp for your terrorist ideals and threats.
It's in the article. Can't you read?
It's a civil trial. There is no finding of guilt.
So, let's recap. You don't know the difference between civil and criminal law, you don't know what the standard of proof is, you don't understand the relationship between freedom of speech and defamation, and you don't understand the burden of production and defenses in defamation.
But you read the National Post.
When I mistakwnly said guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I meant balance of probabilities. And yes, in civil there is no finding of guilt. I was using that as short hand meaning they'd probably have to pay the money.
I suppose that's possible. But when somebody makes three references to criminal law when commenting on a civil trial, isn't at least reasonable to conclude that person's a mite shaky on the difference?
I'd been discussing and writing about criminal law offline for a while recently, not professionally but still.
You discuss it enough and you go into autopilot on anything remotely related.