Blog

Posted on

Lawton and True North: 1. Canada: 0

I never thought I’d wind up in a battle against my own country, but for what it’s worth, they started it.

We finished it.

The Federal Court in Toronto heard Andrew James Lawton and True North Centre for Public Policy v. Canada (Leaders’ Debates Commission/Commission Des Debats Des Chefs) and Attorney General of Canada on Monday.

Or as the case will appear in court records, Lawton v. Canada, which has an oddly satisfying ring to it given events of the past few weeks.

It felt from the day True North’s and my stellar lawyer filed the case as though it was a David and Goliath story in the making. (Though my friend Mark Steyn thought Canada was the David in this analogy).

“In any showdown between you and the Dominion of Canada, a mere G7 and Nato member has to be accounted the underdog,” Steyn wrote to me.

He was right.

We won. Justin Trudeau’s government lost. Press freedom and freedom of speech were the real victors, however.

This whole case came about because the Leaders’ Debates Commission – a government agency set up to organize and run “independent” election debates, banned me from covering the debate for True North, a startup media outlet published by a registered charity, the True North Centre for Public Policy. Also banned were Keean Bexte and David Menzies of Rebel News, who filed a similar successful suit.

I applied on September 24th for accreditation – one day after the Government of Canada accreditation portal for the debates opened up. I heard nothing until October 4th, which was the last business day before the Monday debate. The rejection was a mere two sentences long. The reasoning was that True North, in the eyes of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, to which accreditation had somehow been outsourced, is “actively involved in advocacy.”

As I’ve noted in interviews and posted online, True North has no advocacy mandate. The charity’s sister organization, the True North Initiative does, but I have no role with it, nor does it have any role in the media division of the True North Centre for Public Policy. This may seem a bit confusing – my friend and True North’s founder Candice Malcolm’s column in Quillette offers more detail about the organizational structure, and how it’s not uncommon even in the mainstream media world.

Neither the Leaders’ Debates Commission nor Parliamentary Press Gallery asked any questions about this though. Had they done so, we could have easily cleared things up. No, they decided to drop the hammer on my coverage plans, which had been in the works for nearly two months, in the eleventh hour so no challenge or appeal would even have been possible.

So we did the only thing we could do by filing for an emergency injunction, which was granted after a hearing of less than 90 minutes, in which the presiding judge not only recognized True North and I as producers of journalism, but also accepted that we would be irreparably harmed, as would Rebel, by exclusion from a debate funded by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.

I would have loved to have been in the courtroom, where our lawyer, Jessica Kuredjian, delivered a stellar case by the accounts of those present (and by the result). But I was following it all on Twitter from my hotel room in Ottawa, ready to get to the leaders’ debate in Gatineau on a moment’s notice in the event our case succeeded. Spoiler alert: it did.

The judge delivered his finding at about 4:45pm. Within 15 minutes I was in a car on the way to the debate location, where my press credentials were being printed off.

I can’t overstate that this was a team effort. Our lawyer worked all-nighters through the weekend to meet the federal government’s arbitrary timeline demands. Malcolm exhibited immense confidence in my journalistic credentials by deciding True North would take a stand and fight this. Our legal bills cleared $20,000. Had we not been successful and had the judge not awarded costs, we would have been on the hook for that as an organization. Malcolm put up a hefty sum of her own money to kickstart the case.

I must also thank donors from across Canada and as far away as the United States and Australia for believing in our fight as well.

My role in the case was a small one – albeit I have the honour of going down in the law books as the one who took on Canada. As much as I joke about it, I don’t take it lightly. I had minutes to decide whether I was comfortable putting my name on this case. I did so because I recognized instantly it was about something much bigger than me, and much bigger than True North. It is about the freedom for all journalists in Canada, and for those wishing to start their own ventures in a climate that’s inhospitable to traditional, legacy business models.

This is why I chose to use the first opportunity I’ve had in this campaign to formally pose a question to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to challenge him on his commitment to press freedom.

Trudeau claims to be a stalwart defender of press freedom while his party has banned me from covering its campaign. His attorney general vigorously fought against our press freedom fight in court.

“This afternoon, a federal court judge ruled that I had a right to be here, to cover this debate as a journalist despite opposition from your Attorney General,” I said to Trudeau in the scrum. “This comes after two weeks of me being kicked out or not being allowed into your campaign rallies. The Conservatives have criticized you for being ‘not as advertised.’ You’ve advertised yourself as a champion of press freedom. Will you take a stand right now sir, as the leader of the Liberal party, and allow me to cover your campaign like every other journalist?”

“We are a party, and we are a country that respects journalistic rights and who respects the freedom of the press and we will continue to,” Trudeau said.

Even a day later I’ve no idea whether his answer to my question was yes or no. My attempt to get a clarification yielded a nearly identical response.

“We are a party and a country that respects the hard work and the freedom of the press, and we will continue to,” Trudeau said on the second go-round.

Well at least he changed a few words.

While most of the response to this exchange has been critical of Trudeau, a few in the mainstream media commentariat have criticized my question as being self-serving. I was asking to be treated like every other journalist who’s asked to cover the Liberals – a question that would have been unnecessary had the mainstream media been standing up for press freedom for all, as my media colleagues did a few months back at the Global Conference for Media Freedom in London.

I had to ask Justin Trudeau about his party’s opposition to my press freedom with the country watching, because this attitude will extend to other journalists if it isn’t exposed and challenged now. And by court order and the grace of God, I had an opportunity to do that Monday night.

Trudeau’s answer, if one can call it that, shreds his ability to blame staff or a miscommunication. He had an opportunity to right a wrong in front of a national audience and didn’t take it. Silence, as they say, is deafening.

Nothing changed. The day after the debate, the Liberals made their way to Iqaluit, in Canada’s north. I would have followed them there, but no commercial flights could get me there before his event. Instead, I caught up with the campaign Wednesday in Markham. Once again, I was told I couldn’t enter the supermarket for Trudeau’s announcement, because I’m not “accredited media.” Even with a court decision saying I am. My inquiries to the Liberals’ communications director went unanswered. Trudeau’s press secretaries briskly walked past me in Markham with no willingness to stop and explain why, still, I am persona non grata in their view.

Despite the undoubted victory in the Federal Court’s ruling, Trudeau’s evasion of my question and the Liberal party’s continued refusal to recognize my credentials underscored the main issue facing independent journalists in Canada: rights are meaningless if governments and politicians don’t respect them.

Trudeau proved that his laudatory words about journalists and press freedom only extend to those his party approves of, which defeats the purpose of a free press.

Posted on

Trudeau won’t let me cover his campaign. His ban is an attack on Canada’s free press.

First published in the Washington Post on October 2, 2019.

On Sept. 22, I showed up to cover one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s campaign stops in a Toronto suburb on the first day of what was to be a week-long assignment to cover the Liberal campaign. But I wasn’t allowed to board the media bus that takes journalists from stop to stop. I was also barred from entering Trudeau’s press conference. The reason the Liberals provided is that I wasn’t “accredited.”

This was news to me. I’ve been accredited by the Canadian and British governments, by courts in Canada and the United Kingdom, and the Republican National Committee at various points in my career.

But this wasn’t the first time the Liberals had created roadblocks for my coverage.

The staff of Trudeau’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, barred me and another conservative journalist from attending a newsconference of hers at the ironically named Global Conference for Media Freedom in London in July, for which I’d been accredited by the co-hosting Canadian and British foreign offices. Realizing the gross hypocrisy of this display, some journalists refused to attend themselves unless we were all permitted to attend. Finally, Freeland caved and we gained access.

Press freedom won. At least until now.

Despite several conversations with Trudeau’s secretary and director of communications, and even a direct request to Trudeau himself (from which he walked away without saying a word), I’m still not accredited. I’m relegated to covering the campaign from the sidewalk and finding my own way from whistle stop to whistle stop.

With a combination of last-minute flights, rental cars and far less sleep than is healthy, I followed the campaign for a week, basing my plan for the next day on the itinerary published by the Liberals in the evening.

This ended up being fraught with challenges. For starters, police pulled me over and detained me at roadside on the second day of my coverage wanting to know why I was “following everybody around,” despite the officer’s admission — which I filmed — that I hadn’t broken any laws.

The Liberals even had me removed by two police officers from a public rally —for which I had registered and been given an admission wristband — in a stunning overreach that the Liberals apologized for a day later.

At no point have the Liberals explained to me or anyone else what the standard for accreditation is. Just that I and my outlet, True North, don’t meet it.

True North is a start-up conservative news platform published by a registered charity with an investigative journalism mandate. I don’t hide my conservatism, though it’s ideological, not blindly partisan. I hosted a popular daily talk radio show until last year, and I’d often interview politicians of all stripes — including Trudeau, in fact — without issue.

By saying I’m not a journalist, which the Liberals are unilaterally doing, they’re not only undermining my career and credentials, but also press freedom more broadly. Governments and political parties cannot decide who gets to cover them without eroding the fundamental accountability a free press is meant to ensure.

This isn’t exclusively a Liberal problem. David Menzies, a journalist from Rebel News, was escorted by police from a Conservative news conference after party staffers told him he wasn’t accredited. The Conservatives have since said their position is to not accredit media organizations with a “history of political activism.”

This may come as a shock to Trudeau’s press team, but Canada has no centralized accreditation bureaucracy for journalists. Nor should any country whose constitution enshrines freedom of speech and of the press.

Anyone is entitled to practice journalism. That doesn’t mean anyone is capable of it, or even that anyone claiming to practice it is doing so with the standards it demands. But these are points for the industry and consumers to deal with — not politicians.

Politicians stand to lose the most by journalists covering them freely — so the media must swiftly and loudly condemn any effort to restrict access. I’ve received some support from my colleagues in media, though clearly not enough.

When a journalist’s rights are threatened, the rights of all journalists are. This display would be wrong from any political party in a Western democracy, but it’s particularly galling from Trudeau, who has extolled his commitment to media freedom to score political points against the Conservative party, which has historically been standoffish with the press.

“Freedom of the press is a fundamental right and must be defended everywhere in the world,” Trudeau tweeted in May.

I agree wholeheartedly. It’s a shame he, in reality, doesn’t.

Posted on

I’ve been banned from attending Justin Trudeau’s campaign media events

First published at True North on September 23, 2019.

In most campaign media coverage, you’ll see Trudeau referred to as the Liberal leader, so as to avoid appearing to give him an edge based on incumbency. Irrespective of this convention, he is the prime minister. And I’m not allowed to cover announcements of what he’ll do if his party is given another mandate.

I learned this on Sunday when I showed up to a suburban home in Brampton, Ont. Trudeau announced a measure to cut cellphone bills in the house’s backyard. Or so I heard. I wasn’t actually there. Instead, I stood on the sidewalk and waited for it to end so I might get an opportunity to ask Trudeau a question, as the Liberals’ approved reporters were allowed to at the press conference.

I had intended to ask him about policy, though now the only question worth asking was why I was banned from covering his campaign. He shook my hand, presuming I was there as a supporter. He ignored my question about my campaign coverage.

Maybe he didn’t hear me.

I did get an answer from a party official – Trudeau’s press secretary on the campaign trail, Cameron Ahmad – who told me I was barred because I’m not with an “accredited” media outlet.

Ahmad knows me. I’ve corresponded with him numerous times over the years, and it was he who arranged an interview between Trudeau and I during the last campaign. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I hosted a daily talk radio show for five years and have written national columns in the Toronto Sun, the National Post and Global News. Despite being conservative, no one has ever accused me of being unprofessional, which is why I’ve interviewed people of all parties without issue – former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and numerous Liberal cabinet ministers included.

Despite this, Ahmad said I’m not engaged with an outlet that is “recognized” as being a journalism outfit. Recognized by whom, though? It’s not clear.

Journalists don’t require state permits in Canada. There is no centralized database or registry of people in media. Nor should there be, especially in an era of evolving media business models. Just because I don’t work for a corporate legacy outlet doesn’t mean I’m not doing real work.

Two subsequent interactions with Ahmad have revealed the Liberal party doesn’t really have a cohesive definition of “accredited” – just that True North, a digital outlet published by a charity registered with the federal government as having a mandate for journalism, doesn’t fit the bill.

This isn’t the first time I’ve been banned from a press conference. It happened in July at Global Conference for Media Freedom in the United Kingdom, co-hosted by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and the Government of Canada. I was accredited to cover the conference – but hand-picked by Freeland’s staff, alongside Sheila Gunn Reid of the Rebel, to be excluded from Freeland’s press conference.

Reporters from all outlets who were invited stood firm and told Freeland’s office they’d boycott the press conference if Gunn Reid and I weren’t permitted to attend.

But on Sunday afternoon in Brampton, I was standing alone. The approved reporters were quickly ushered into the backyard, unaware that I was fighting for my right to report on the day’s events.

I hope they’ll take a stand for my cause today, though I haven’t heard anything yet.

I’m still assigned to cover the Trudeau campaign for True North. Though our requests to be invited onto the campaign’s media bus – despite our willingness to pay for it, as all outlets must – have been rebuffed for the same reason, a lack of accreditation.

This morning, I rented a car (a red one, coincidentally) in which I’ll follow the campaign bus and do what I can from the outside.

For a prime minister who talks about media freedom, this is just plain wrong. It’s also short-sighted. As I told the Liberals yesterday, by excluding me from access to the campaign, I’m left to cover my own exclusion.

Candice Malcolm and I have appealed our case to the Liberal Party of Canada’s director of communications at the request of the team on the tour. We’ve been directly and unequivocally told she will be in contact to work through whatever issues there are.

Posted on

“Like the sword of Damocles”: Judge dismisses Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Tim Ball

A mere eight-and-a-half years after Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Canadian professor Tim Ball, the case has been tossed out for its “inexcusable” delays.

Justice Christopher Giaschi of the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued his decision in Vancouver on Aug. 22, in response to an application to dismiss by Ball.

Based on his reasons, included in full below, the dismissal was ultimately justified by glacial pace at which the proceedings moved, and what the judge characterized as an absence of action by Mann’s team.

The judge noted several periods of inaction between the commencement of the action in March, 2011 and the date of his decision.

While Mann submitted four binders worth of documentation to combat the motion to dismiss, the judge found there was “no evidence from the plaintiff (Mann) explaining the delay.”

Giaschi said the “inordinate delay” was not excusable, and that it prejudiced justice.

An excerpt:

The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.

Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.

I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant.

The judge awarded Ball legal costs for the dismissal motion, and also the case itself.

Reasons for Dismissing Mann… by Andrew Lawton on Scribd

Posted on

Maxime Bernier’s letter to debate commissioner David Johnston

The Leaders’ Debate Commission sent the first round of invitation to its two official leaders’ debates, including in it the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Green and Bloc Québecois parties. Absent from the invitation recipients was Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada.

In his letter to Bernier, debate commissioner David Johnston requested information on three to five ridings in which the PPC believes it has a legitimate chance of victory, to satisfy the criterion that “candidates endorsed by the party have a legitimate chance to be elected in the general election in question.”

Today, Bernier sent this letter to Johnston, citing five ridings in which PPC candidates have considerable profile, as well as media monitoring findings showing more coverage of Bernier than of the Green and Bloc Québecois leaders, who were invited to the debate.

Maxime Bernier’s letter to debate commissioner David Johnston by Andrew Lawton on Scribd