Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench Justice Neil Robertson ruled that Candis McLean's book on Neil Stonechild’s death is not racist, and that Professor Michelle Stewart's statement about it was 'objectively false.'Heywood Yu/The Canadian Press
A university professor who called a book “racist garbage” on social media and was part of a campaign to cancel the author’s bookstore events has been found liable for defamation, in part because she didn’t read the whole book.
Michelle Stewart, a professor in gender, religion and critical studies at the University of Regina, who is also an associate dean for academic integrity and equity, was sued over a Facebook post in 2016 that was critical of When Police Become Prey: The Cold Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild’s Freezing Death.
Mr. Stonechild, a Saulteaux First Nation teenager, was found dead of exposure in a field in 1990, and his death was the subject of a public inquiry. The book, written by Alberta-based journalist Candis McLean, argues that two Saskatoon police officers who were fired after the public inquiry were treated unjustly.
Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench Justice Neil Robertson ruled that by calling the book “racist garbage,” Dr. Stewart had defamed Ms. McLean. While the word “garbage” could be defended as fair comment, he wrote that being called “racist” is defamatory.
“Many Canadians will shun and decline to listen to a racist,” he wrote.
Justice Robertson concluded that the book is not racist, however, and that Dr. Stewart’s statement is “objectively false.” He wrote that the defendant did not point to anything in the book that would support her accusation. He described commentary such as “racist garbage” as part of a “cancel culture,” which seeks to curtail debate and suppress books rather than debate their merits.
Dr. Stewart did not respond to an interview request.
In court, Dr. Stewart’s lawyer had argued that as an expert in policing and colonialism, it was not only her right but her responsibility to comment on the book, according to the ruling. However, the judge found that Dr. Stewart had not read the book before making her comment, or at least not all of the book, and therefore could not rely on the defence of responsible communication.
Responsible communication is one of the common defences to a charge of defamation and was established by a 2009 Supreme Court decision related to publications on matters of public interest.
Dr. Stewart had argued that she had reviewed parts of the book and understood its premise, and that her life’s work is anti-racism. The judge, however, found that there was no “diligence in verification” and her communication was therefore not responsible.
The comment that prompted the lawsuit was made in 2016 on a Facebook page connected to a group called the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism, which undertook a campaign to persuade venues to cancel Ms. McLean’s book-signing events. Dr. Stewart and others called the venues to complain about the book, and the venues responded by cancelling Ms. McLean’s events.
The judge ruled that Dr. Stewart’s actions induced a breach of contract and therefore Ms. McLean was entitled to compensation.
Ms. McLean had been seeking more than $160,000 in damages; however, the ruling awarded just slightly more than $6,450. An apology was never published, although the two parties disagreed over whether one was offered, the judge wrote.
Ms. McLean said the eight-year court battle was worth it, even if the amount she will receive is far less than the approximately $40,000 she spent on legal fees.
“It was really the principle of the thing,” Ms. McLean said.
Tavengwa Runyowa, Ms. McLean’s lawyer, said his client “has laid her own brick in the wall of justice.” He said the amount awarded by the judge may reflect that the Facebook post was likely seen by a relatively limited group.
Ms. McLean said what troubled her was that Dr. Stewart did not carefully read the book before attacking it.
“In all of Dr. Stewart’s high-flown, virtue-signalling verbiage, such as her claim it was her obligation as an expert to speak out, not once did I find her mention the word truth. Truth is discovered by doing the hard work of following the dictates of the evidence, wherever that may lead,” Ms. McLean said.
“I find it both disappointing and alarming that an academic criticized me and my book without first doing a close textual exegesis.”
Ms. McLean said she has written to University of Regina president Jeff Keshen to say the incident has caused her to lose confidence in the school.
“Academics should not react blindly. They have a duty to gather all the facts before taking action that could harm someone or create a false narrative,” Ms. McLean wrote in her e-mail.
Mindy Ellis, a spokesperson for the University of Regina, said the university has been apprised of the court’s judgment and has no comment.