Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian Press) – The RCMP officer who fired his Taser at Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver’s airport the night the Polish immigrant died has filed a libel lawsuit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In a writ of summons filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Const. Kwesi Millington asks for damages from the CBC and claims the network’s publications and broadcasts have defamed him.
Millington was one of four officers who confronted Dziekanski at the airport in October 2007, and he fired his Taser within seconds of arriving on the scene.
The incident gained worldwide attention after amateur video of the altercation was released, which appeared to contradict official accounts from the RCMP.
In the writ, which doesn’t specify what the CBC published or broadcast that was defamatory, Millington says his reputation has been seriously injured, he has suffered embarrassment and distress, and has been brought into public ridicule.
The writ contains allegations that haven’t been proven in court and the CBC could not immediately be reached for comment.
A public inquiry examining Dziekanski’s death wrapped up last month.
Hi,
My name is Leonard Cler-Cunningham and I’m finishing up an investigative book and some format of a broadcast documentary “Not in the Public Interest”: Aboriginal Deaths in Police Custody.
One of the effects of the lawsuit, intended or not, will be to further libel chill. The threat of a lawsuit is a very real filter editors run possible stories through when they commission pieces.
While some might say this is not the golden age of policing neither is a golden age for journalism.
That said – I also support his right to bring the suit and we should remember that the courts could bring costs against him if he loses – including the cost of the CBC lawyers.
I agree with Turner…there is an important fundamental right here.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
Well Turner, you have me there. The plaintiff in this case is after cash…lots and lots of cash. You see that’s how a civil suit is supposed to work. Party A is alleged to have caused harm to Party B…say for instance defamation, embarrassment, loss of reputation. So B sues A. B, or more properly B’s evil/courageous lawyer (choose whichever you like…this is a kind of Rorschach test in which your emotional comfort with the subject of the suit predisposes you to see it and everyone connected with it as good or, if you like, bad) seeks financial compensation through the courts. If you stop and think about the mechanics of the process (let’s see if we can just set the particular Millington v CBC action aside for a moment) it makes sense. Pending a court finding in the plaintiff’s favour the court will apply guidelines and award compensation. Why is that sensible? Because if A harms B through public defamation there is no way to repair the damage done, so the monetary award is a payment for having committed the wrong…and a rebuke to the defamer. And if the court finds in the defendant’s favour, no compensation and the defendant may be on the hook for court costs, so there is some balance in the system. Long way from perfect but let’s not allow the mythical “perfect” become the enemy of the workable…
No free speech? You are wrong. Look around you. People of vastly different views post comments here. Indeed, they post them all over the place. Some dare to criticize powerful interests like police, lawyers, and judges. Not the thing to do in some regimes past and present, but here you and I and anyone who cares to, gets to express himself or herself. Q.E.D.
Enslaved by regulations? Full Stop? All of them? So you clamor for a a society free of laws and regulations? All of them? Full Stop? Let’s consider what that world would look like. You could drive your Hummer through a school yard at recess aiming at the little ones and you could point your unregistered machine gun at anyone who gave you a dirty look to dispatch them (unless they outdrew you). Oh, maybe you didn’t mean all the regs and all the laws. Maybe you just meant the ones you LIKE! But you see that’s the problem with this approach…absent consensus there is no workable social fabric. Make sense of that.
So unless you plan to set up shop in your own undiscovered country and colonize it with like minded free thinkers, ranting and raving at laws and all that other %$#!!*^@ stuff is about the same as my dog baying at the moon. It’s immensely satisfying for the dog (otherwise why would he keep doing it?) but it is nothing but a theoretical exercise with no outcome. Zero.
I must have missed the “Marxist culture revolution” under way here over the past several years. Where is it so we can hunt it down and send it to a re-education camp? Wait, let me get my tinfoil hat and I’ll join you…this is exhausting: out last night on a Snipe hunt, then out again tonight looking for Marxist culture. Whew!
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Deepthroat says:
“How is it, Turner that you know Kwesi thought process in that he wishes for a cash grab? Perhaps it is to move another pawn located on the big legal chessboard of our legal system.”
Not to belabour your point of a “thought process”, but I could ask you the very same question on your own assertion of “….to move another pawn…..”!?
And, if you think the intent of “big legal chessboard” comprised of lawmakers, attorneys, scholars, and courts all equally taking a noble part in guiding jurisprudence to absolute truth in every matter…..then I can only leave you to dwell in that fantasy, too.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
How is it, Turner that you know Kwesi thought process in that he wishes for a cash grab? Perhaps it is to move another pawn located on the big legal chessboard of our legal system. The same system that lets you espouse your views in this forum.
You are correct with the National Post quote, however, your democracy limitation suggestions are somewhat misleading.
You may get your desire for employment terminations, as the slow grinding of the various legal gears has not been completed yet.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Social Critic says “Constable (Kwesi) Millington is availing himself of his rights as a citizen of a democracy.”
Nonsense!
First, Kwesi is trying to “avail” himself to the opportunity of attaching his hands onto the pot of gold located at the end of the lucrative rainbow institution commonly known as the C.B.C. — bought and paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
Despite all the shameless and unwarranted support of Kwesi’s RCMP bosses in this keystone cop debacle, he still finds it necessary launch a lawsuit to alleviate his hurt feelings by way of filling his pockets with wads of cash.
Free Speech? We no longer have that right in the peecee Canada that exists today. The Marxist culture revolution has been under way for several years, if you’ve not noticed.
If I wrote certain unfavourable expressions pertaining to particular racial groupings in this country, I may be subject to the Kangaroo Court of Human Rights.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” -Johan Wolfgang von Goethe
Democracy? Another fallacy in this land enslaved by laws, regulations, political correct speech patterns and those who would denounce me for being a “racist”, even if I mentioned the fact that Kwesi is a Black man.
“As the National Post reported on June 27, 2005, the so-called shortfall of QUALIFIED applicants to the RCMP academy was due to its gender and racial hiring quotas that required Canadian White males to score 20% higher than women…… and 33% HIGHER THAN VISIBLE MINORITIES on aptitude tests to be accepted!”
Oh really? I’m beginning to see the “bigger picture” here.
Kwesi and the three other disgraced mounties should have been dismissed forthwith, if not for the excessive tasering (5x equalling 32 sec.) that resulted in death, then at least fire them for fabricating stories and lying in their testimony on the inquiry stand.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
Am I a supporter of Constable Millington? No, but…
Constable Millington is availing himself of his rights as a citizen of a democracy. Today, November 11 – Armistice Day, at the Cenotaph I listened as the Chaplain reminded us all that Canadians fought and died to secure those rights Constable Millington seeks to exercise. They are valuable rights. They were purchased with Canadian lives.
Plaintiff Millington claims he was defamed and has suffered damages as a consequence of the alleged defamation. It follows that his lawyers would file a writ and statement of claim to pursue a civil action against the CBC. It follows also that the CBC will instruct its lawyers to file a statement of defense within the prescribed time limits or within such extended time limits as the court may allow. That’s how a civil suit for damages begins as it proceeds through the courts.
It might surprise you how little it costs to gain access to the courts should one wish to sue. The filing fee isn’t all that much. And you can at the very least start your action based on just about anything. Sometimes it is a claim against a car company for alleged safety lapses when gas tanks rupture and immolate occupants following rear end collisions. Or you could just as easily begin a suit against your neighbour for reading your thoughts with Martian Moon Rays manufactured in his basement in a washing machine (the former suit likely gets fairly deep into the legal process while the latter may not last long and in fact be dismissed as “frivolous and vexatious”).
But the point is we all are guaranteed certain rights in our democracy. You don’t get to file a suit only if you are popular; only if your case is “likeable”; only if a “man on the street” straw poll deems your claim sensible. A parallel democratic institution is freedom of speech. As Alan Dershowitz once commented, the real test of one’s belief in freedom of speech is one’s willingness to defend another’s free speech rights even though that person’s views are utterly repugnant and detestable to the defender.
Am I a supporter of Plaintiff Millington? No.
Have I a wish for him? Yes. I wish him a fair and prompt hearing before the courts. I wish the same fairness and dispatch for the defendant CBC.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
“investigators are routinely told that a company’s lawyers have forbidden employees from talking to police investigating a case of alleged wrongdoing at a firm.”
So I gather that the powers requested would be to be able to get information from whistleblowers and employees without the company threating them. How do you bend that to hiding their actions?
As for the NDP bill, creating an independent agency to investigate them, how exactly does that make them “look good”?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
This is what happens when the Justice system fails to do their jobs right and favors their own.
All of this mess could have been avoided and all the millions of dollars saved and use in a better way but no they must always look good and right dispite the fact that they can’t seem to sway public opinions anymore in their favor they will continue to try in anyway they can to have people fail and coward in the face of their bullying tactics.
Only this time they are after the big guys and not the little ones….. this all shows how powerful they have become and they are asking for more POWERS???
In the face of all of this I must ask the question will this allow them to do their jobs better or to better hide their actions behind their new powers?
I bet they don’t tell us what they are really up to and the NDP bill intruduced will likely be to make them look good and to calm the concerns of the people as did the RCMP Complaints Commission and the RCMP Access to Information and many other departments created to hid paper trails and gather information to silence genuine complaints against the departments concerned and there’s not much it seems anyone can do but we must continue to try to secure a better JUSTICE SYSTEM or I fear it will only get worst.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0