[COMMENT1] Court
File No. 0103‑14569
[This electronic file (as converted to MSWord) was supplied by the
commercial court reporter employed, not scanned by me from printed copy as were
the first two discoveries for Ms. Laframboise--FC]
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
B E T W E E N:
FERREL CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
‑ and ‑
THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY, NP
HOLDINGS COMPANY, GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE,
Defendants.
‑‑‑ This is the
Continued Examination for Discovery of DONNA LAFRAMBOISE, a Defendant herein,
taken at the offices of Atchison & Denman Court Reporting Services Limited,
155 University Avenue, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3B7, on
Monday, the 21st day of October, 2002.
APPEARANCES:
Bradley J. Willis For
the Plaintiff
F.S. Kozak For
the Defendants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS:
DONNA
LAFRAMBOISE; Previously Sworn................. 250
EXAMINATION
BY MR. WILLIS: (Cont'd)................ 250
INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
Undertakings are noted by U/T and are found on the
following pages: 253, 256, 301
‑‑‑
Upon Commencing at 10:07 a.m.
DONNA
LAFRAMBOISE; Previously Sworn.
MR.
WILLIS: Ms. Laframboise, you
acknowledge that you're still under oath?
THE
DEPONENT: Yes.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. WILLIS: (Cont'd).
1. Q. I'd like to begin today by referring
specifically to the counterclaim in these proceedings, and I would refer you,
first of all, to the initial paragraph, paragraph 27 in which it is alleged
that Mr. Christensen sent an e‑mail containing in which it's alleged
he falsely and maliciously published defamatory words. Now, that e‑mail ‑‑
perhaps we can ‑‑ I believe that's Item 8. A copy of that e‑mail is produced as
Item 8 in the plaintiff's affidavit of productions. Is that the e‑mail to which you are
referring?
A. Yes, it is.
2. Q. Now, what portions of the quoted words do you
claim are false?
A. Well, I think these two lines that we've put
into the counterclaim are the ones at issue.
3. Q. I'm sorry?
A. "You have no idea of the harm you are
about to do." And then the second
line, "If you care anything about journalistic integrity, if you care
anything about whether the movement in Edmonton is destroyed, you will hold off
until you hear the other side of the story."
4. Q. I'm trying to understand. What is said there that is false?
A. I'm sorry.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not clear on whether I'm supposed to be
offering legal opinion. And whether the
issue is false or whether something is defamatory and false, I'm not sure
legally whether those are equal or not.
5. Q. All right.
Let me help you out there. There's an allegation that "you have no
idea of the harm you are about to do."
And did you understand that you were about to do something that might
cause harm?
A. The implication is that I am ‑‑
the allegation "you have no idea of the harm you are about to do"
implies that I am recklessly doing something without any concern for the
consequences.
6. Q. All right.
When I asked you a general question, you said you had some difficulty
giving what you referred to as legal answers.
Now, I'm asking a specific question, and you answered a little bit
different one. My question is simply this: On March 22, 2001, did you have some idea that you
were about to do something that was going to cause harm or might cause harm?
A. No.
7. Q. All right.
So you had no idea that anything you were going to do was going to cause
harm?
A. Not harm.
8. Q. Thank you.
And secondly, on March 22nd, 2001, the story I presume that we're
talking about is the story that culminated in the article which is the subject
of these proceedings, but the story that you had heard at this point was a
story that you heard from your informant Louise Malenfant, correct?
A. I'm sorry, but on March 22nd, I'm fairly
certain that I had spoken to a number of people.
9. Q. All right.
In fact, when we talk about ‑‑ let me ask you
this: So were you satisfied that on
March 22nd you had heard enough of, quote, "the other side of the
story" that you had satisfied whatever your concept of journalistic
integrity is?
A. No.
10. Q. All right.
Did you consider it in some way inappropriate for Dr. Christensen
to suggest that you hold off until you had heard the other side of the story?
A. I considered it inappropriate for him to
suggest that I would not hold off until I had conducted proper research.
11. Q. So as of March 22nd, 2001, had you not
informed people that you were about to publish an article or that you had
drafted an article?
A. I don't remember exactly. I certainly spoke to people telling them that
I was doing research for an article that would be pending in the near future.
MR.
WILLIS: Off the record.
‑‑‑
Off‑the‑record discussion.
MR.
WILLIS: Can you advise me how many
drafts of your article were made and when they were completed?
THE
DEPONENT: I'm sorry, I don't know.
MR.
WILLIS: Can you check your records, and
let me know.
U/T MR.
KOZAK: That will be undertaking 27.
‑‑‑
Off‑the‑record discussion.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
12. Q. Had you drafted an article by March 22nd,
2001?
A. No.
13. Q. Now, in Exhibit 8, Dr. Christensen
refers, if I can refer you to the second last paragraph, he says, quote,
"You don't know Louise. From a
distance, one only sees her good work, not her dark side; I learned that the
hard way when I dug into my old‑age savings to bring her here last
fall." Before you got this e‑mail from Dr. Christensen, did you
know that he had subsidized Ms. Malenfant's activity for some period?
A. Yes.
14. Q. What did you know about that?
A. To the best of my recollection, I knew that he had approached
her when she was in Winnipeg, suggested that she come to Edmonton, and
suggested that he would pay her a modest salary to do the kind of activist sort of work that she'd done in Winnipeg. [I paid her to do research and
writing, not activism.
(That involved investigating accusations of various kinds of child and spouse
abuse and assault.) But the reporter knew Ms. Malenfant's Winnipeg work was
with sex accusations.] [Back]
15. Q. Did you know what he paid her and for how
long?
A. I have no first‑hand knowledge of that.
16. Q. Well, what information did you have?
A. To the best of my memory, I think she
suggested he was paying her a thousand dollars a month.
17. Q. And what did you know about the ‑‑
before at least you got this e‑mail, Item 8 in our productions from
Dr. Christensen ‑‑ what did you know about the
termination of that relationship?
A. I understood from Ms. Malenfant that the
relationship had soured, that there was a great deal of animosity and hostility
between the parties.
18. Q. And why was that? What was your understanding of why that had
occurred?
A. Ms. Malenfant suggested to me that the
occasion that had sparked the parting of ways had to do with her asking
Mr. Christensen, Professor Christensen, what he felt he would accomplish
by picketing an Edmonton newspaper and that he had not responded well to being
challenged. [This is absurd. The real reasons for our split are shown in
great detail in e-mails
between Ms. Malenfant and
me, submitted to the reporter's lawyers during their discovery of me.]
19. Q. Anything else?
A. Sorry, the original question was?
20. Q. What did you know about the termination of
the relationship between Dr. Christensen and Ms. Malenfant?
A. I wasn't terribly interested in paying
attention to the details. I understood
that there was a great deal of e‑mail exchanged between them.
21. Q. So that was the extent of your understanding?
A. Yes, I think she suggested to me that at a
certain point she was receiving multiple e‑mails from him every day and
that had caused her some concern and anxiety. [This too can be fairly well proved to be a huge lie.]
22. Q. Anything else that you can recall?
A. Not that I can recall.
23. Q. Now, when we spoke
last, it appeared that all of your tapes of your interviews with
Ms. Malenfant had been taped over.
Is that correct? We haven't
located any other tapes or records of your interviews with Ms. Malenfant?
A. I don't think they were all taped over
because I think you received a portion of one.
24. Q. Or rather the second tape had been taped
over, correct? Help me out here?
MR.
WILLIS: Let's go off the record.
‑‑‑
Off‑the‑record discussion.
BY MR. WILLIS:
25. Q. When we last met, you'd indicated you'd
provided to your counsel all the tapes that were in your possession, including
whatever was left that hadn't been taped over of your telephone interview with
Ms. Malenfant and with the Law Society person. And you were going to check your tapes to see
how much of both of those interviews remains
and provide me with an accurate transcript.
Did you do that, and have you got one?
A. I'm sorry, as you noted, that undertaking was
not pulled out by the court reporter. So
we did not specifically address that issue.
MR. WILLIS: All right.
So could I specifically ask for that
undertaking, then, that we'll see whether we can clean up Item 20 in your
production and provide whatever there is?
U/T MR. KOZAK: Yes, we'll give you that undertaking. [Next]
BY
MR. WILLIS:
26. Q. Now, just following up on that while we're
roughly on that topic. One of your
undertakings was to inquire from Louise Malenfant ‑‑ this was
your undertaking No. 26 ‑‑ to provide copies of any
correspondence from you to her and any notes she has of any conversations. As of September 13, 2002, you said she had
not responded to a request for the materials. Has she responded since?
A. No.
27. Q. Have you spoken to Ms. Malenfant at any
time since we last had our examinations for discovery?
A. Once, shortly after the discovery.
28. Q. In what context? Was anything said that was relevant to these
proceedings?
A. I'm sorry.
I don't remember precisely. I think I mentioned to her that I'd been out
in Edmonton. But that it being such a strange visit with alarm bells going off
in the middle of the night that I hadn't, in fact, contacted anyone when I was
there including her. I'm sure I
mentioned to her that the discoveries had taken place and that they were not
complete.
29. Q. Did she call you, or did you call her?
A. I am not certain. I probably called her in response to an e‑mail
that she sent to me, but I could not tell you.
30. Q. And is that ‑‑ did you
produce a copy of that e‑mail to your solicitor?
A. No.
31. Q. Would you do so so that he can determine whether
it's relevant to these proceedings?
A. No, I'm sorry. I would not have kept it, it would have just
been a general e‑mail what she was sending out to people and what her
activities were at the moment. There
would have been no reason to keep it.
32. Q. So she sent a general e‑mail about her
activities, and in response to that, you called her you're saying?
A. I hadn't spoken to her in some time.
33. Q. But when was that that you called her?
A. I don't remember. It would have been after the discoveries.
34. Q. And did you keep notes of your conversation?
A. No.
35. Q. Did you ask her to fulfill the undertaking
that was given, undertaking No. 20, to provide her notes and materials?
A. No. I
felt it was proper for my counsel to do that.
36. Q. What was your discussion about then? Tell me
everything you can recall about your discussion?
A. I think I covered the bases. I was in Edmonton. I did not contact her. I did not see her. It was a rushed visit.
37. Q. And where was she when you spoke to her?
A. I presume that I phoned her at home. That
would be to the best of my recollection.
38. Q. Do you know where she is now?
A. No clue.
39. Q. I'm just surprised that you called her. You
told me earlier that you don't consider yourself her friend. Why did you call her?
A. Well, whether we like it or not, she's a part
of the lawsuit. We are going to, at some
point, encounter her in the context of the lawsuit. I thought it was a courtesy.
40. Q. So it wasn't appropriate for you to talk to
her about the undertaking, but it was appropriate for you to call her because
of the lawsuit? What I'm trying to
understand is why would you speak to this witness yourself. She's not a friend. She's no longer a news source.
A. I'm sorry.
I don't remember what was in my mind then.
41. Q. Now, then in paragraph 28, you refer to ‑‑
well, just before we get to paragraph 28, on March 22nd, 2001, you had spoken
to Brian St. Germaine, Carolyn Vanee, Bob Bouvier, and you had received a phone
call from [Tim] Adams. Other than Louise
Malenfant, is there anyone else you had spoken to about the events which
subsequently became part of the article?
MR.
KOZAK: I'm sorry, Mr. Willis. You asked about a number of interviewees and
gave some dates, but I assume that you were looking at a document.
MR.
WILLIS: Oh, yes. I'm looking at your e‑mail dated Friday
March 23rd, your e‑mail to Dr. Christensen, dated Friday March 23rd,
2001.
MR.
KOZAK: Is that a document from our
production?
MR.
WILLIS: It's in both of our
productions. It's Item 14 in our
production. The source of my information
is there is the first paragraph of Item 14.1 in our production. Now, is there anyone else with whom you had
spoken other than the people there mentioned?
MR.
KOZAK: The reason that I had asked is
because I think the dates that you had put to Ms. Laframboise is March
21st. The date of this e‑mail, I
believe, is March 23rd. And specific
dates and conversations that occurred are set out in undertaking No. 17. I think some of the people that you suggested
Ms. Laframboise had spoken to on March 21st had not yet been spoken to on
that date.
MR.
WILLIS: I think the date that I was
using was March 22nd, the date of Mr. Christensen's memorandum. Yes, that was the date of
Mr. Christensen's memorandum, March 22nd.
MR.
KOZAK: Well, in any event, certainly, on
March the 23rd, 2001, it appears from your document 14 that
Ms. Laframboise had spoken to a number of individuals.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
42. Q. All right.
Now, in fact, Ms. Laframboise both Bouvier and Adams had called you
rather than you calling them, correct?
A. No. I
remember that I left a message for Bob Bouvier.
43. Q. But in fact, when he called you, he hadn't
got your message. Rather, he had heard
that you were planning to write this article, and that's why he called you,
correct?
A. I couldn't tell you. I do know that I left a message for him prior
to receiving a call from him.
44. Q. Whereas with Mr. Adams, he simply called
you after?
A. Within a few hours of me starting to make
initial inquiries, yes.
45. Q. Now, so referring next to paragraph 28,
that's Item 19 in our productions. Now,
the first sentence of paragraph 28 of your counterclaim reads, "None of
this is good faith much less honest, journalistic investigation." The previous paragraph recites the first
paragraph 14.1.
MR.
KOZAK: The previous paragraph in the
counterclaim?
MR.
WILLIS: No, the previous paragraph in
Dr. Christensen's e‑mail, Item 19, recites the paragraph to which I
just referred you, that is to say, the first paragraph of 14.1. And then in context, that is to say ‑‑
THE
DEPONENT: Sorry, 14.1 is where?
BY
MR. WILLIS:
46. Q. 14.1 is what I just referred you to, the
first paragraph of your e‑mail to Christensen of March 23rd about the
interviews you had conducted to, supposedly, hear the other side of the
story. You'll note that in the e‑mail
that is referred to in paragraph 28 of the counterclaim, the first paragraph
quotes your e‑mail, quotes the first paragraph of your e‑mail which
is 14.1 in our production. Then the
second paragraph, the part that goes just before the none of this good faith
extract is the one I'm just about to put to you. And it says ‑‑
and
[The following is a short
example, one of many, of such obstructiveness during discoveries.]
let me just
deal with this paragraph. First of all, it says,
"Since none of these people ‑‑", that is to say, the
people referred to in your e‑mail, "‑‑ knew anything
about my book on pornography, you have not made any attempts to hear the other
side regarding my aspect of you pending article." Now, that was true, wasn't it?
A. If you go back to the e‑mail that I
sent, there is no mention in my e‑mail or,
indeed, in Professor Christensen's previous e‑mail about his book.
This was not a story about his book.
[Queries 4, 5, 5.5 & 6 are on the book!
As for my previous email,
I sent it before knowing she meant to attack my book or anything about me.]
47. Q. All right.
I'm sorry, when you say, "this was not a story about his
book", part of the story, certainly, already is about his book, wasn't it? For example, you had told Mr. Bouvier
what you thought was in the book and asked for his response to it, correct?
A. Yes.
48. Q. And you had done?
A. And I also told Mr. Bouvier that if it
had just been the book, it would not be a news story, that the news story was
[Tim] Adams.
49. Q. I only want you to agree with me this far
that part of your story already was to be about Dr. Christensen and part
of that was about his book, correct?
A. Part but not the main, by any means.
50. Q. All right.
And in fact, Dr. Christensen, in this paragraph, says "Since
none of these people knew anything about my book on pornography, you have not
made any attempts to hear the other side regarding my aspect of your pending
article." Now, at that point,
Dr. Christensen's aspect of the pending article related to what you
thought were his controversial views on pornography as set out in this book,
correct?
A. The news story was about the election of
someone with an unsavory background.
That was the main focus of the interviews. That was the main topic of the interviews. [As
we've seen, she told even her first
interviewee (Source A) that the article was to
be about both Mr. Adams and me. (She accused me
to him of having "questionable ideas", but said little else on my
book. A likely reason: he had told the reporter he had read my ideas but
rejected Malenfant's interpretations.) She queried him at length about the
second support group and other actions by me.]
51. Q. With respect, I'm going to ask you this
question again. Dr. Christensen e‑mailed
you and said that you had not made any attempts to hear the other side
regarding his aspect of the pending article ‑‑
A. I had not spoken to him at that point in
time.
52. Q. And my question is simple. His aspect of the pending article was his
views which you regarded as controversial about pornography as set out in his
book, correct? Now, when I asked you
that question, instead of answering it, you went on to tell me what you thought
was the main thrust of the article. I
understand what you're saying, but we're talking about Dr. Christensen's
aspect of the pending article.
MR. KOZAK: Are you asking her what was in his mind?
MR. WILLIS: No.
I'm asking her to confirm that it's correct that she had made no
attempts to hear the other side regarding his aspect of the pending
article. And when I asked that, she
keeps saying yes, but that wasn't the main trust ['thrust'] of the
article. Can I not get a simple answer
to a simple question? [Etc....] [Next]
MR.
KOZAK: I think that she gave you the
answer that she had not spoken to him.
MR.
WILLIS: No, no, that's part of the
answer. But I need a clear admission,
and that's what I'm looking for.
Instead, the witness keeps wandering off the topic onto what she
considered the main trust of the article at time. But I'm here for Dr. Christensen, and
the admission that I sought was simply this:
Dr. Christensen's aspect of the pending article at the time
was ‑‑ and you understood it to be at the time ‑‑
what you thought to be his controversial views regarding pornography as set out
in his book, correct?
THE
DEPONENT: Yes.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
53. Q. And in fact ‑‑
A. No, no, pardon me. His controversial views regarding children
and sex as set out in his book, not regarding pornography. I never had a problem with the pornography
part.
54. Q. And in fact, it was true that you've made no
efforts to hear the other side regarding that at that point?
A. I had not yet contacted Professor
Christensen, and he would be the person to discuss what he meant by certain
passages in his book.
55. Q. And although you had not yet contacted him,
yet, you had made representations to Ms. Bouvier and Ms. Vanee and
Mr. St. Germaine about what was said in the book about child pornography?
A. I think that's fair. You had a text in front of me. You can speak with some confidence.
56. Q. And then Dr. Christensen goes on to say,
"As for [Tim]'s aspect, none of the other three persons named above has
anything but the vaguest knowledge of [Tim]'s work with the support group. And Brian and Caroline have been out of
activity in ECMAS for a long time."
As far you knew, was that statement true?
A. None of the people I spoke to had any direct
knowledge of Mr. Adams? I think
that's correct.
57. Q. Now, in fact, the names of Brian St. Germaine
Caroline Vanee. Those names you got from
Louise Malenfant, correct?
A. I'm not sure.
I would presume so.
58. Q. Incidently, at that time, what did you
understand about MERGE?
A. MERGE?
59. Q. The organization called MERGE?
A. I knew that Professor Christensen was
involved in it, but I did not know ‑‑ I don't think I thought
about MERGE because it was ECMAS. --->
60. Q. MERGE is a nonprofit society called the
Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality. Did you understand the differences between
those two organizations and Professor Christensen's role in them?
A. I suppose so.
Just MERGE didn't come into the equation, so I'm not sure I had ‑‑
I'm sure I did not think much about it. ---->
61. Q. What, actually, did you know about MERGE?
A. I knew they put out a magazine. I knew that Professor Christensen was
involved in it. It had been some years
since I'd seen the magazine. I
didn't ‑‑ I
suppose I knew that the organization still existed but was not clear on what it was doing.[Not clear only if she didn't ask.]
62. Q. In fact, had you received copies of that
magazine from Professor Christensen when it first came out? [Called Balance magazine, back then being distributed to newsstands
across Canada.]
A. I would expect so. I received them probably from him. [In
fact, the top of p. 363 of her book cites an article from Balance, and she
evidently learned from that article about the Kanin research she cites 3 lines
lower on p. 363.]
63. Q. Did you have any idea at that time of whether
MERGE was active or what it was doing or how it related to ECMAS?
A. No, as I suggested, I think I heard that it
was around, but I had no reason to pay any attention to it. [Next]
64. Q. Now, the next sentence that proceeds the
first impugned sentence in paragraph 28 is, "Moreover, you did not contact
[Tim] or Bob. They had to track you down
just as I'd have to do in a desperate late‑hour attempt to get you to
listen to the other side." Well, in
fact, it's wrong that you didn't attempt to contact Mr. Bouvier because
you did as you testified leave a message on the ECMAS message line. And incidently, that's correct, isn't
it? You left the message on the ECMAS
message line for Mr. Bouvier not on his own telephone line?
A. I'm sorry, I don't recall which number.
65. Q.
In any event, that statement by
Dr. Christensen is correct. Is it
not? Both Adams, Bouvier, and
Christensen tried to contact you first in their concern about the article that
they understood you were going the publish?
A. No, it's not.
I tried to contact Mr. Bouvier.
He was not there. I left a
message.
[No one is
"there" at a message line; it was not his own number, and he didn't
know she had called. As seen from her interview with Bouvier, she understood
this at the time; now she is
pretending not to.]
66. Q. I'm simply saying they contacted you ‑‑
okay, you tried to contact Mr. Bouvier, but in fact, he contacted you
first not having received your message, and ‑‑
MR.
KOZAK: She can't answer that.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
67. Q. You understood that from him, didn't
you? He hadn't got your message when you
phoned you?
A. No, I'm sorry, I don't think I can do that.
68. Q. In any event, those three people got a hold
of you rather than you getting a hold of them? That's correct, isn't it?
A. No. I
won't agree to the first one. Mr. Bouvier called me after I left him a
message. I cannot speak to whether he
picked up that message.
69. Q. You couldn't infer that from the nature of
your discussion with him? Is that what
you're saying?
A. Not to the best of my memory, and even if
it's the case, it's a distortion to suggest that he called me first. I called him first.
70. Q. You know, all I'm trying to confirm here is
that ‑‑ and in fact, I didn't ask who called who first. I simply pointed out that these three men
contacted you first. They got a hold of
you first and talked to you first before you got a hold of them, correct, all
three of them?
A. No, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to agree to
the first one.
71. Q. Well, you left a message for Bouvier, but in
fact, it was he who got a hold of you?
MR.
KOZAK: Perhaps, you could ask who
initiated the call where they had their first conversation.
MR.
WILLIS: Well, indeed, I asked that. The
word I used was contact, but the witness wanted to interpret it otherwise. In fact, that's the word Professor
Christensen used. I've asked the witness
to confirm simply this: Professor Christensen
said in his e‑mail, "You did not contact [Tim] or Bob. They had to track you down just as I've had
to do in a desperate late‑hour attempt to get you to listen to the other
side." Now, I understand you to say
that you left a message for Mr. Bouvier, but I'm simply saying that
Mr. Bouvier contacted you and got a hold of you first ‑‑
A. First?
What do you mean first? What does
first mean in that context?
72. Q. He's the one who initiated the telephone call
that lead to your ‑‑ that was your first conversation?
A. By accident.
73. Q. And when he did so, you knew that he hadn't
got your message?
MR.
KOZAK: And she has said she doesn't know
that. Well, Mr. Willis, the point
that I'm making is regardless of what the transcript says, you've asked whether
Ms. Laframboise knew that Mr. Bouvier hadn't picked up the
message. You haven't asked her what
Mr. Bouvier said about that. What
she knew about it, and what he said about it may be two different things.
MR.
WILLIS: Well, let's not speculate. So if
you look at Item FF00487, you'll agree with me that No. 1 ‑‑
MR.
KOZAK: Perhaps, you could just wait
until we get that. What is the document
number.
MR.
WILLIS: It's Item 30 on your
production. And if you look at the first
page, you'll see the basis of my suggestion that you understood that
Mr. Bouvier hadn't got your message and, in fact, was calling you for the
reasons set out by Professor Christensen in his e‑mail.
MR.
KOZAK: Well, Mr. Willis, the first
thing I notice that this is a call that Donna Laframboise initiated.
MR.
WILLIS: If you would be kind enough to
read the entire page, you'll see that it's clearly a return of
Mr. Bouvier's call. And if the
witness will read the entire page, I think she'll have no difficulty in
agreeing with the suggestion that I've been making to her.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
74. Q. Have you read that now?
A. Yes, I have.
75. Q. And now, will you agree with me that, in
fact, it was obvious to you that Mr. Bouvier hadn't got our message, and
he was calling you because of his concern about your impending article?
A. The suggestion in this transcript is that
there was a previous conversation, and in that previous conversation, I became
aware that Mr. Bouvier had not received my message.
76. Q. And you're clearly returning
Mr. Bouvier's call, correct, you understand that?
A. My recollection is that I was calling
Mr. Bouvier at the time that he had appointed on a previous occasion and
that I was somewhat late.
77. Q. And the appointment on the previous occasion
was as a result of a call made by Mr. Bouvier to you?
A. I'm not sure that's evident from the
transcript.
78. Q. Well, may I suggest to you when you say,
"I don't want you to think I wasn't going to call you.", in fact, it
is evident even from the transcript, if you can't remember it?
MR.
KOZAK: Well, it's not evident to me,
Mr. Willis.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
79. Q. Well, now, that I've refreshed your
memory ‑‑ if I refresh your memory by telling you that
Mr. Bouvier called you, and you are now returning his call as agreed, does
that help you to recall that that is so?
Are you able to admit that that's so?
A. No, I'm sorry. If you had a document that suggested that, it
would be helpful.
80. Q. Well, if one looks at the transcript here and
one reads your phrase there, "So I don't want you to think that I wasn't
going to call you because I did leave a message, and I guess it was just the
wrong place." You'll agree with me
that you wouldn't have said that if, in fact, it was you who initiated the call
to Mr. Bouvier?
A. Let me think about that. Perhaps, I think I see what you're getting
at. I think that's a logical inference.
MR.
KOZAK: Testify to what you can remember.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
81. Q. So you see ‑‑ so you're
saying now you can't recall whether you got a hold of Mr. Bouvier first
despite the fact that I've drawn your attention to the transcript in which you
concede that you just left a message on what you refer to as the wrong place
and in which you seek to assure the witness that you don't want him to think
that you weren't going to call him?
That's all right. If that doesn't
help you remember and your answer is that you can't remember, just say so.
A. I think that's my answer. I'm not certain.
82. Q. Thank you.
Now, let's just get the next sentence before the impugned words in the
counterclaim. He then goes on to say,
"If the reports from people you did contact are correct, in fact, your
mind was made up about publishing your attack on us before you even talked to
them." And that's what he says
before he says none of this is in good faith much less honest, journalistic
investigation." Now, in fact, in
one respect, your mind was made up, wasn't it?
Because you've agreed with me that in your conversation you were
encouraging Mr. Bouvier to have Dr. Christensen expelled from the
organization, ECMAS, correct? Your mind
was made up about that?
A. My personal view that what would have been
appropriate behaviour on the part of ECMAS is aside from the fact. As a journalist, I had a working hypothesis
and was interviewing people to see whether the hypothesis was valid or not.
83. Q. The fact is your mind was made up about
this. You encouraged Mr. Bouvier to
take steps to have Dr. Christensen expelled from ECMAS. Did you not?
A. Mr. Bouvier asked me what he should do.
84. Q. Can you not just answer the question? Yes or
no? You did, didn't you?
MR.
KOZAK: She's about to answer the
question.
MR.
WILLIS: No, she didn't. Once again, there's a certain locution. I've simply asked a simple question.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
85. Q. Your mind was made up to this extent that, in
fact, you encouraged Mr. Bouvier to take steps to expel
Dr. Christensen from ECMAS.
A. I'm sorry.
My mind may have been made up about what the appropriate behaviour would
have been. My mind made up about encouraging someone is a little confusing.
86. Q. Must we go over this again? We spent 15 minutes last time before you
finally agreed with me that yes, you had suggested to Mr. Bouvier that he
expel Dr. Christensen. Do you want
me to read that to you again?
A. Yes, please.
87. Q. In fact, why don't you read it again at page
116 of the transcript of your previous discovery.
‑‑‑
Brief adjournment at 11:05 a.m.
‑‑‑
Upon resuming at 11:11 a.m.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
88. Q. Now, Ms. Laframboise, you've had a
chance to reread my questions and your answers on page 116 of your previous
discoveries?
A. Yes, I have.
89. Q. And in particular, I refer you to my last two
sentences, quote, "That's what you meant, right? You meant to advocate to
Mr. Bouvier that Dr. Christensen be expelled from the organization? Answer:
I think that's a reasonable inference." You've had a chance to reread those?
A. "A reasonable inference." Yes.
90. Q. Those words were spoken to Mr. Bouvier
before you had spoken to Dr. Christensen, correct?
A. What words in particular to Mr. Bouvier?
91. Q. The words that of which it was, "a
reasonable inference", of which it may be said that it was a reasonable
inference from them that you meant to advocate to Mr. Bouvier that
Dr. Christensen be expelled from the organization?
A. Yes.
92. Q. So Dr. Christensen, then, just before
the sentence about which you complain in the counterclaim, Dr. Christensen
says, "If the reports from people you did contact are correct, in fact,
your mind was made up about publishing your attack on us before you even talked
to them." And that's in caps. Now, I'm simply asking you to confirm that
your mind was made up about, at least, one thing, namely, that
Dr. Christensen ought to be expelled from the ECMAS organization?
A. Before I talked to them, I think I could have
made up my mind while I was in discussion with them. I'm not sure we can infer that my mind was
made up before I had any discussions with anyone.
93. Q. Are you suggesting that ‑‑
well, now, I think we have your confirmation by way of undertaking that you
spoke to Mr. Bouvier. I'm sorry,
you were uncertain as to the exact date, but in any event, I don't think we
have it in the statement of claim. It
was Thursday March 22 at 10 o'clock a.m. is our information. But in any event,
your conversation with Mr. Bouvier anti‑dated any attempt to contact
Dr. Christensen, correct?
A. Correct.
94. Q. Now, I'm suggesting to you that when you
spoke to Mr. Bouvier, you had made up your mind that Dr. Christensen
should be expelled from ECMAS?
A. Perhaps, I can rephrase it in a way that will
make me comfortable and give you what you're looking for. Before I spoke to Dr. Christensen, did I
view it as public relations nightmare that he was involved in a group that was
helping divorced fathers? Yes.
95. Q. Well, that's helpful to understand your
idea. But the admission that I want is
something simpler. I'm assuming that if
you said words that you knew could reasonably be construed as advocacy that
Dr. Christensen be expelled from the ECMAS organization, that if you said
those words, that you had made up your mind that, in fact, he ought to be
expelled from that organization, that you were not doing it merely to be some
journalistic ‑‑ but that in fact, those were your views, and
you had made up your mind?
A. No, I'm sorry, I think it's very clear from
the transcript of that telephone call that I expressed those views after being
expressly asked by Mr. Bouvier what he should do.
96. Q. What relevance does that have to my
question? My question was simply this: You advocated Dr. Christensen be
expelled, and I infer from that that meant that you had made up your mind that
he should be expelled, correct? That was
my question.
A. I agree.
97. Q. Now, and that leads me to ask this
question: Did you ask yourself whether
it was fair to engage in such advocacy without even having talked to
Dr. Christensen?
A. Part of the process of being a journalist is
to ask provocative questions and see how people respond because that tells you
a great deal about what's going on in the organization.
98. Q. Well, part of the process of the being a
lawyer is to try to ask questions that can be answered yes or no. And the question I just asked, with respect,
can be answered yes or no. Did you ever
think about whether it was fair to engage in such advocacy without even having
contacted Dr. Christensen? Did you
think about it?
A. I don't remember thinking about it.
99. Q. Now, I asked you earlier whether there was
any canon of ethics that you, at the material time, recognized as binding on
you as a journalist, and I understand your answer is no, correct?
A. I think you asked if there were formal ethics
codes which applied to me at the National Post, and the answer was no.
100. Q. I went further. I asked you whether there was any ‑‑
in fact, maybe I'll just refer you to it.
My recollection is that I went further and asked you whether there was
any ethical code about which you considered yourself personally bound apart
from the existence of any formal code, and I think your answer was no. Do you want me to refer you to it?
A. Yes, please.
‑‑‑
Off‑the‑record discussion.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
101. Q. If I can refer you to page 50. Now, at page 50 of your previous discussion,
I asked you at line 12, "Question:
Had you ever formulated a personal journalistic code of ethics by which
you felt bound? Answer: No. Question:
Even if you had not formulated it in writing, did you have in your mind
a code of ethics by which you understood journalists in your position ought to
be bound? Answer: Not in any formal way. Question: All right. In an informal way, had you ever had any
discussion about any aspects of journalistic ethics with your peers which
resulted in some informal statement of ethics by which you felt bound? Answer:
I can't recall any such discussions I did not go to journalism school.
So I suspect those kinds of discussions do happen very formally
there." And then on the next page,
page 51, "Question: Now, at the
time you wrote in article, did you think that there were any special ethical considerations
that apply to journalists that wouldn't apply to other people? Answer:
Nothing comes to mind." And I presume nothing still comes to mind
about that? In other words, there are no
special ethical considerations that apply to journalists. No ethical dispensation, for example, a
journalist might have that other people don't have?
A. That's a very general question.
102. Q. Yes, well, I asked you a general question
last time, and you didn't have trouble giving me that answer. Do you have more trouble now when I said at
page 51, line 9, "At the time you wrote this article, did you think that
there were any special ethical considerations that apply to journalists that
wouldn't apply to other people?
Answer: Nothing comes to
mind." Does something now come to mind?
A. Well, in truth, yes, I have to answer
yes. I think the big one obviously is
that a journalist has the potential to affect people's lives in both a positive
and negative way. It's potential that
should be kept in mind and used. There
comes a responsibility to use that carefully.
103. Q. So ‑‑
A. And I think if we look at the transcript
right beneath where we've just finished off, there's a discussion about a
conversation I had with a colleague which suggests, in fact, that I was aware
of some of those issues.
104. Q. All right.
The particular one that I want to ‑‑ let me enunciate a
general, ethical proposition and ask you if you consider yourself to be bound. By first of all, I understand from what
you've just said is that, if anything, because of the affect that a journalist
can have on other people's lives, you would consider that a journalist would
have a higher obligation than an ordinary person would have, if anything, to be
fair to another person in advocating, for example, how other people should
treat a person?
A. I agreed with everything up to the very last
phrase, a special responsibility to be fair in what one writes in the product
that reaches the public. I have no problem agreeing with that.
105. Q. All right.
And generally speaking, for example ‑‑ but you have a
problem with suggesting that a journalist would have ‑‑ let's
put it this way: You don't have any problem in agreeing that a journalist
should attempt to be fair in advocating how a person should be treated?
A. In writing, the advocating in writing?
106. Q. It's an ethical obligation that you would
agree that every person has? You should
be fair to people in advocating what should happen to them?
A. Sure.
107. Q. All right.
And again, I take it you would agree that to be fair to people,
generally ‑‑ unless the evidence is overwhelming perhaps ‑‑
but generally, you should, if you're about to advocate something that would
affect them or someone else adversely, you should talk to them before you
advocate it?
A. No. I
know that sounds like it's self‑evident, but in this case, I was speaking
to the president of the organization involved.
I think it was entirely reasonable to raise questions before I had
conducted my interview with Professor Christensen.
108. Q. Now, you see, let me just stop you
there. That wasn't my question. My question ‑‑ I wasn't
asking you about raising questions. I
was asking you about advocacy, and I was asking if you would agree with me that
notwithstanding the fact that you don't feel bound by any particular ethical
code you would nonetheless agree with me that just as a human being ‑‑
apart from being a journalist ‑‑ that you would agree that
before one advocates doing something to someone that could have negative
consequences for them or someone that one should, at least, talk to that person
except in extreme circumstances? You
rephrased advocating to raising question.
So I'm taking you back to this issue of advocacy.
MR.
KOZAK: So, Mr. Willis, just so that
I'm clear, are you talking in general terms?
MR.
WILLIS: At the moment, I'm talking in
general terms.
MR.
WILLIS: I'm trying to establish my major
premise.
THE
DEPONENT: So I should never advocate
anything without talking to the person involved first?
BY
MR. WILLIS:
109. Q. I'm asking you this question. Would you accept that, like every
person ‑‑ and I'm for the moment deferring the question as to
whether as a journalist, you have a higher obligation ‑‑ but
that every person before advocating, recommending, saying that something should
be done that would have negative consequences to a person or to other people
should, except in extraordinary circumstances, talk to that person?
A. Well, I think there are a lot of Alberta
constituents here that would advocate quite strongly that Premier Klein should
resign and that they would not feel any obligation to talk to him personally
first. [If done based on established knowledge already
publicly available, fine. But if based on vile
allegations readers are in
position to know about, it would be contemptible if done to him or to anyone.] 110. Q. All right.
That's a counter‑example.
Assume we have
a private individual as opposed to a public figure like Premier Klein, does
that ‑‑ you've carved out an exception for a public
individual. And you've said that one
can ‑‑ that that's a form of public, political advocacy to
which the generalization doesn't apply.
Other than that, is there any other exception that you have in mind?
MR.
KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I think the way
that you frame that that's a hypothetical question. I think that you can ask what happened in
this case.
MR.
WILLIS: You know, this is really
important, Mr. Kozak, and I've looked at the law since we talked
last. Because of the allegations of
malice I'd like you to really reconsider any objections that you have about my
general questions about this witness's opinions. But here we're asking about the ethics by
which she considered herself bound, and these general principles are not
hypothetical. This isn't a hypothetical
question at all. I haven't said if this
and that. I've simply said, At the time,
did you consider yourself bound by this general ethical principle? The witness has very appropriately and
responsively enunciated one counter‑example or one exception to a general
rule. Now, I'm asking her would
she ‑‑ and I think that's one that falls under the
extraordinary circumstances exception that I put to her. Now, I'm simply saying have you got any other
exception, or would you generally agree with that proposition.
MR.
KOZAK: Well, my objection is based on
the fact that you started that somewhat long question with an invitation for
her to assume something. And on a second
point, I don't know that it's clear in the witness's mind what constitutes what
you've referred to as exceptional circumstances because what she described in
my mind is not an exceptional circumstance.
So...
BY
MR. WILLIS:
111. Q. Well, let me ask this question again. I'm
trying to explore this witness's concept of ethics. Now, you'll agree with me
that it's a little difficult in this sense that I can't point to a journalistic
code of ethics by which she considers herself bound. So we have to look at her personal ethics,
and those are at stake here in this case.
This is why you're suing us for all this money. So in my respectful submission, it's very
important for me to explore this witness's concept of ethics and integrity
which of course are a large part of these transcripts. So my question was simply this: Did you at the time consider that you had an
ethical obligation in advocating a course of action that might have a negative
impact on a person or on other people to talk to that person first? And you've said well, not if it was someone
like Premier Klein, and I was advocating that he would resign. So you've responded with that type of ethical
question. But other than matters
involving public advocacy of someone like Premier Klein, is there any other
exception that you can think of to that rule, or would you normally agree with
it?
A. No, in fact, I have to concur with my counsel
that I don't see it as extraordinary. I
think, in fact, one of the amazing things about being a journalist is that one
actually gets the opportunity to interview the subject in the news
firsthand. Most people go around forming
opinions every day about people they'll never have a chance to speak to
firsthand, and they get to vote according to those opinions.
112. Q. All right.
A. That's the way the world usually works.
113. Q. So but generally speaking, if you're going to
propose something as opposed to in a political arena but in a private
arena. You've carved out an exception
for the political arena, the arena of a public figure. I'm saying other than that, do you have any
objection to that as a general, ethical statement?
A. Yes, I've just told you that, in fact, I
think it's not an exception, but I think it's the rule for most people how they
form their opinions is by necessity secondhand.
114. Q. And so for example, if you would consider,
then, and you considered at the time that it would be ethical for you to
advocate something that might have negative consequences for a person without
talking to that person?
A. My opinion may well have changed after I
interviewed Professor Christensen, but I did have an opinion based on what he'd
written in this book beforehand. And
yes, I did consider it appropriate to take a stand based on that opinion.
115. Q. And had you considered it appropriate to, as
you put it, to take that stand without having talked to Professor Christensen?
A. Yes.
116. Q. Now, similarly, I think you recall that you
told Mr. Bouvier that you agree with 97 percent of the things that
Dr. Christensen has said in his book, correct?
A. Something to that effect. I'm not sure if it was 97 percent.
117. Q. Well, shall I remind you of that, or will you
agree that that's what you said? Which
do you prefer?
MR.
KOZAK: She can't remember, so if you
want to...
MR.
WILLIS: All right. I'll refer you to page FF00505 of document
30.
THE
DEPONENT: I think I said 90 percent. So
I've said three different numbers 90, 95, 97.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
118. Q. Let's just put the passage on the
record: "If it turns out that you
find out there's another person in your organization whose written a book about
pornography. Now, let me tell you, I'm
very much a person who would agree with what ‑‑ much of what
is in Ferrel Christensen's book about pornography, okay? I think ‑‑ 90 percent of it
I don't have a problem with it. I think he actually makes some, some very good
arguments. But there is, you know, 3 percent of it. So 95 or 97 percent of it I would agree with. 3 percent of it whenever he talks about kids
and sex, he says some really disturbing things." So you'll agree with me that that of course
is what you said to Mr. Bouvier in the conversation we're talking about?
A. I agree.
119. Q. Now, at that point, if I understand, you'll
agree with me that you knew that Mr. Bouvier hadn't read the book? You knew that?
A. Is there anywhere where it says that?
120. Q. Yes. I
can find that. Of course, perhaps, you
can recall that from the fact that you've now put to him that someone has
written such a book, but I'll find it for you.
A. Okay.
Page 7, "Right, and I guess, I don't know. No, I've not read Ferrel Christensen's book.
I'm not aware of that." Do you see
that?
121. Q. Yes.
All right. So you've referred me
to the part in paragraph 7 where Mr. Bouvier says he hadn't read
Dr. Christensen's book. Now, you'll
agree with me that in the passage I've just quoted you from page 19 that you knew
that Mr. Bouvier ‑‑ or that you intended Mr. Bouvier
to believe that you had read the book thoroughly enough so that you could
say ‑‑ you could even say that you agreed with 95 or 97
percent of it?
A. Yes, we had this discussion last time.
122. Q. But the one thing we didn't ask was about
these ethical principles. You'll agree
that ‑‑ I think you agreed that, in fact, you'd read pages 109
to 113 which Ms. Laframboise had faxed to you and that you ‑‑
or e‑mailed to you ‑‑ and that the other parts or the
earlier parts of the book you'd read years ago and had forgotten, and that was
the status of your knowledge at that time?
A. I don't remember anyone faxing my anything
with respect to the book.
123. Q. I'll save that for trial, but the fact is
you'll agree with me that at the time you made this statement to
Mr. Bouvier ‑‑ that's at page 19 ‑‑ all
that was in your memory about the book other than your general conclusions that
you had made years ago was pages 109 to 113?
A. No.
I'm talking about the general argument of the book, and then I'm talking
specifically about pages 109 to 113.
124. Q. But in fact, you couldn't remember any of the
pages except 109 to 113?
A. No, I could very well remember the general
thesis of the book, and that's why I say that I would agree with most of it and
that he makes some very good points.
125. Q. I think when I asked you before about the
portions of the book other than 109 to 113, you had no recollection other than
that you agreed ‑‑ you recalled that you had agreed with the
previous thesis, but you didn't have any specific recollection of anything
other than those pages, correct? You
remembered you'd read it, and you remembered you'd agreed with it, but you
didn't have any specific recollection of any of it, correct?
MR.
KOZAK: Well, maybe you should put that
passage to her.
MR.
WILLIS: Oh my.
MR.
KOZAK: I think that she had answered
that she had read the first hundred pages or so, and she agreed with the
general sentiments expressed by the author on pornography.
MR.
WILLIS: And she said she'd read them
long enough ago that she couldn't remember anything specific about it, and she
hadn't reread it. And we went through that
in a lot of detail. Must we go through
it again, or can you agree with me?
MR.
KOZAK: Well, she's given you that answer
already you say.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
126. Q. Well, we need to, at least ‑‑given
the time that has elapsed between the last discovery ‑‑ we
need to make sure that we're starting from the same platform because I'm about
to ask a general question of ethics. So
I want male sure that we've got a clear understanding of the facts. My understanding of the facts is that when
you spoke to Mr. Bouvier, you had clearly in your mind pages 109 to 113,
and as for the rest of the book, you just had your general recollection from
the previous reading that you agreed with most of it?
A. Yes.
127. Q. Now ‑‑
A. And I had the book in front of me throughout
the process of doing this article, the entire book not just a few pages.
128. Q. Yes. I
understand you had it in front of you.
And did you think what you did was fair to Dr. Christensen? Did you think the representations you made on
page 19 to Mr. Bouvier were fair to Dr. Christensen?
A. Page 19?
129. Q. Yes.
When you said, "Whenever he talks about kids and sex, he says some
really disturbing things.", did you think that was fair to
Dr. Christensen?
A. Yes.
130. Q. And when you said later on that
Dr. Christensen was suggesting that "sex with kids is maybe not such
a bad thing.", did you think that was fair?
A. Unfortunately that was my interpretation of
his written text.
131. Q. But now, let me ask you this: I take it that you were very confident that
your interpretation of his written text was correct? Am I right?
I say that because if you hadn't been very confident, you would have
scarcely recommended that he be expelled from the organization on the basis of
your interpretation?
A. I was confident that my interpretation was a
reasonable one. Whether it was a correct
one? I'm not sure anyone's interpretation
is necessarily going to be correct, a reasonable interpretation of the written
text.
132. Q. So you didn't think that any discussion or
debate about Dr. Christensen's book was required before expelling him from
ECMAS?
A. I'm sure they would have quite a debate in
ECMAS. I would expect that they would,
that they would get the book, that they would look at the passages, and they
would make up their own mind.
133. Q. But as far as you were concerned, you didn't
need to hear Dr. Christensen on the matter before making up your
mind? You were already prepared to
advocate that he be expelled?
A. Yes.
134. Q. Now, at that time, what understanding did you
have of the ‑‑ let me stop that. Let me rephrase that. Of course you're aware that an organization
like ECMAS consists of men who, in most cases, are going through difficult
legal matters involving divorces or other domestic matters, correct?
A. Yes.
135. Q. And you understand that most of the members
of ECMAS are people against whom serious allegations of one kind or another
have been made?
A. Many, I would not say most.
136. Q. For example, the president, Mr. Bouvier,
you knew that his wife had charged him with assault?
A. I'm not sure I knew that.
137. Q. In fact, I think you said that all of your
informants wanted confidentiality because their cases were coming before the
court, correct?
A. Yes, but that does not mean that they were
charged, that I knew anything about charges.
138. Q. However, you knew that almost every one of
these persons would have some serious and damaging allegations made against
them in connection with domestic matters?
A. No, I'm sorry. I would say that many of them would. I would not say that I could know for a fact
that most of them did.
139. Q. But that in fact, is all I'm asking you to
agree with that you understood that most of them ‑‑
A. Many of them, not most. I will not agree to most, many.
140. Q. All right.
And you're saying you didn't know about Mr. Bouvier's personal
situation, for example?
A. I can't recall it ever coming up.
141. Q. But in any event, you knew that for such
organizations it's extremely important to have people who are associated with
him, who could act as spokesmen, who are not the subject of legal proceedings,
and against whom no negative allegations can be made? You knew that's
important, don't you?
A. Wait a minute. Let's break that into pieces.
142. Q. Well, I'll break it into pieces for you. You knew, for example, that if a man was
charged with having assaulted his wife ‑‑ as some of the
members, many of ECMAS are ‑‑ that for them to speak out about
the unfair treatment of men charged with assault would be difficult?
A. I would agree with that.
143. Q. So for an organization like ECMAS, it's
important to have people who ‑‑ to use the trite clichÚ ‑‑
who like see Caesar's wife are pure and cannot be accused of any such
misconduct?
A. I would agree with that.
144. Q. So a person like Professor Christensen, for
the sake of argument, Louise Malenfant becomes an important person because such
people cannot be said to be biased because of their personal case or personal
situation?
A. I can't say that I know much about Professor
Christensen's personal situation. But
certainly, Ms. Malenfant falls into that category.
145. Q. And generally speaking, an organization like
ECMAS, consisting of people, many of whom as you have conceded, have personal
problems which prevent them from speaking out ‑‑ indeed, all
of your sources wanted confidentiality for just that reason. Such organizations
have a real need of people whose bona fides cannot be attacked, correct?
A. Absolutely.
146. Q. And in part, this is really part of the
reason for your advocacy that Professor Christensen can be expelled; namely,
that his bona fides would now come into question because of what was said in
his 1990 book, correct?
A. Correct.
147. Q. Now, you knew ‑‑ well, would
you agree with me that before you found out about this book, you understood
that Professor Christensen had done valuable work in a movement to which you
were sympathetic, that is, the so‑called mens equality movement?
A. Yes.
148. Q. And you had never heard of anything negative
about Professor Christensen before Ms. Malenfant started to, as you put
it, sling the mud?
A. I never heard anything negative? I don't think that would be true.
149. Q. What had you heard?
A. I heard from other journalists that Professor
Christensen was ‑‑ let me see how we say this ‑‑
was not seen as terribly persuasive or credible. I had heard from others in the fathers'
rights movement that Professor Christensen was perhaps not the nicest
person. Although, he did very good
work. I had heard that he made some
people uncomfortable, other activists, that kind of thing.
150. Q. Now, there's three things you said. First,
you said you heard from other journalists that Professor Christensen wasn't
terribly persuasive. Can you recall from
whom and in what context you heard that?
A. These would have been comments over the
years. This is a movement that I
followed for a number of years. So my
general impression was that if I told a colleague that they should pay
attention to what was going on in Edmonton, that it would be a problem. Because
they would come back to me and say well, you know, Professor Christensen makes
me a little nervous. He doesn't seem terribly credible to me, and it was very
difficult for me because it meant that I was the only one that was writing
anything positive about many of these issues.
Because there was no polish to some of the activists, and journalists
didn't respond well to them.
151. Q. Can you help me out with any of the five Ws
of journalism here? Who said what and
when and why about Professor Christensen?
There's one more W, but I forgot it ‑‑ where? But that doesn't matter. It's Edmonton. So there's only four Ws left. Can you help me with them?
A. The problem is that you're asking me about
things that I would never have made any records of.
152. Q. So nothing sticks out? You don't remember your friend, X, saying
wow, Christensen is not credible. Or
words to that effect. You don't remember
any specific example? That's your
general impression?
A. There's a young man who works for the Post
who was posted in Edmonton. I'm trying
to remember his name. He was the
Edmonton correspondent for a while. When I encouraged him to write about ECMAS,
I think this was around the time that Louise went out to Edmonton. He told me that he had met Professor
Christensen, and what he'd seen had not made him interested in writing an
article, certainly, not a sympathetic article.
His name was [name deleted for reasons explained elsewhere].
153. Q. So he still with the Post?
A. No. I
think the last I heard, he was with CBC. [I'm sure I never met or heard of him; I never dealt with Post people in Edmonton--FC]
154. Q. Is there anybody else you can recall?
A. Other journalists? No specific names, but it was a common
problem for me. I would try to encourage
one of the general assignment reporters in the news pool at the Post to cover
those issues, and they would just be very leery. It was not territory they were interested in
getting into.
155. Q. Now, so that's the only name that ‑‑
or the only particular incident that you can recall at this time?
A. At this time, yes.
156. Q. If there's any other incidents that you
recall, specific incidents, that help form the basis of that impression, if
you'd undertake to advise me through your solicitor?
U/T A. Yes.
157. Q. Secondly, you said that before all this blew
up that people in the fathers' rights movement had told you that while
Professor Christensen had done good work, he was not the nicest person. I think you put it that way. What was it about him that you understood
made him not the nicest person in the opinion of these people?
A. The discussions often did not get very
detailed because I'm not particularly interested in gossiping about
people. But I remembered very distinctly
a very brief conversation with someone who said that he's very smart, but he's
not a very nice person.
158. Q. Did they said why he wasn't a very nice
person?
A. No, these are informal conversations with
people saying shorthand things. Why
would I pursue it? It's something that
happened years ago.
159. Q. So you don't recall anybody saying what it
was about him that made him not a very nice person? Any particular aspect or trait of his
behaviour?
A. I think the perception is that he was a bit
overbearing, very strong personality.
160. Q. All right.
I'm sorry what was the third thing you said? He made people uncomfortable because he was a
strong personality.
A. There was a woman [name and description
deleted for her privacy]. She was on a
speaking tour in Canada. It was the year
the Post launched in '98. And she flew
out to Alberta, and I believe Dr. Christensen drove her between Edmonton
and Calgary, and she felt very uncomfortable in his presence. And I remember it quite distinctly because
this was a woman who, unlike the women shelter activists these days, actually,
thought it was very important to bring battering men into the shelter and to
try to work out marriage difficulties. I
felt that she was a very brave person, but she suggested to me that she felt
physically intimidated by Professor Christensen.
161. Q. Physically intimidated?
A. A very odd remark but one that I remembered. [This is another tale which witnesses from the occasion can
testify is absurd.]
162. Q. Have you ever met Professor Christensen?
A. No.
163. Q. So recalling the context of my question, I
was suggesting to you that people whose ‑‑ for groups like
ECMAS, people whose motives, shall we say, cannot be impugned are important for
such groups, correct?
A. Yes.
164. Q. Of course, so you understood that, in part,
that was part of Professor Christensen usefulness to, quote, "the
movement" that we're talking about and specifically to this organization?
A. I admit now that you bring it up, that makes
sense. I don't think I ever consciously
thought about it from that perspective.
165. Q. Now, if we look at paragraph 28, of your
counterclaim, where Professor Christensen said, "Even your agreement to
delay action be on the planned publishing date of March 24th was not about
getting more evidence for making up or changing your mind. It was closer to blackmail." And he goes on to say, "Blackmail to
what end? Forcing me to leave the
movement I have served for 15 years."
Now, do I understand correctly that your view was that whatever the
rights or wrongs of Professor Christensen's views about children and sex, the
fact that they were controversial was enough to make it, as you put it, a
public relations nightmare that would justify his expulsion? In other words, whatever one might finally
determine on a scholarly review of his book, the controversiality of it was
enough to destroy his usefulness so that he should be expelled?
A. I would agree with that.
166. Q. And incidently, Professor Christensen then
goes on to say, "If reports from people you have talked to are correct,
you may have already slandered me, suggesting that I condone
pedophilia." In fact, you did
suggest to Mr. Bouvier that Dr. Christensen condoned pedophilia,
didn't you?
MR.
KOZAK: Where is that?
MR.
WILLIS: Page 19, bottom line.
MR.
KOZAK: I don't see that passage.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
167. Q. When you say in imaginary dialogue with
Professor Christensen, "You're suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not
such a bad thing." When you said
that, you understood you meant to suggest that Professor Christensen condoned
pedophilia, didn't you?
A. No.
What he's doing is minimizing [.] my read of the passages on pages
109 to 113, or whatever they are, is alarming because he is, in my view,
playing an intellectual game that minimizes the moral concerns about children
having sex.
168. Q. You know, that's an interesting way to put
it. But my question's a little
simpler. You didn't say that to
Mr. Bouvier. You said to
Mr. Bouvier at page 19, "Whenever he talks about kids and sex, he
says some really disturbing things."
A. Disturbing things does not mean condoning
pedophilia.
169. Q. But you then go on to say we ought to say to
him, quote, "You know what? We're
really sorry to lose you, but we cannot afford to have our credibility
tarnished. You're suggesting that sex
with kids is maybe not such a bad thing."
Now, I'm suggesting to you that you knew when you said that that you
were intending to convey to Mr. Bouvier that one of the reasons for
getting rid of Professor Christensen was because he was condoning pedophilia.
A. Well, I'm sorry. I think maybe not such a bad thing is a
pretty equivocal statement. It's
obviously pointing in a certain direction, but it is not the same as ‑‑
if I meant to say he is condoning pedophilia, I would have said that.
170. Q. Do you understand what the word condoning
means?
A. Yes, I do.
171. Q. If one condones conduct, does one ‑‑
one tolerates it?
A. I think there's a difference between tolerate
and condone in the dictionary.
172. Q. And do you understand that if someone ‑‑
to condone something is, in part, to say that, perhaps, it's not such a bad
thing, correct?
A. No.
MR.
KOZAK: Well, Mr. Willis, these
words speak for themselves. This witness
has said that she did not intend to convey nor did she convey in her mind that
Professor Christensen was condoning pedophilia.
MR.
WILLIS: You know, sir, you've got to be
careful here because I'm cross‑examining her now in the context of this
case. In my respectful submission, her
intentions and her thoughts are extremely important.
MR.
KOZAK: And I'm telling you that she's
given you the answer already.
MR.
WILLIS: I take exception to what you're
doing here because I'm trying to explore what she understands, for example, by
the word condones. And this is where
you're interrupting me. And it's her
understanding of what she intended to convey that counts.
MR.
KOZAK: Where's the word condone?
MR.
WILLIS: The question is whether the word
condones that was used by Professor Christensen of which you complain. The question is whether that's a fair
description of what this witness intended to convey to Mr. Bouvier and
others when she used this similar phrase.
And I'm really entitled to explore this without interruption or
quibbling, in my respectful submission. This is not a place to be protecting
the witness.
MR.
KOZAK: I'm not, and I'm not quibbling.
MR.
WILLIS: So you know we have this
phrase. You're suggesting that sex with
kids is maybe not such a bad thing. And
I'm saying to the witness that when she said this to Mr. Bouvier, she
intended to convey that Professor Christensen condoned pedophilia. And she's denying that, and now I'm asking
her what she understands by the meaning of the word condone. Is that unfair?
MR.
KOZAK: I think that you asked her the
question. She gave you the answer, and
then you asked it of her again.
MR.
WILLIS: I'm not badgering her. I asked her in a different way because she
didn't give me the answer, in fact. She
didn't give me a direct answer. She gave me a take on the etymology of the word
condone. So let's keep exploring this.
You'll agree with me, I'm entitled to explore. It's a very important point.
MR.
KOZAK: If you ask her the same question
again, I'll object again.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
173. Q. Well, I'm going to ask you this: When you said to Mr. Bouvier you're
suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, you were intending
to convey more than that Mr. Professor Christensen was playing
intellectual games, weren't you?
A. No.
174. Q. Were you not intending to convey that
Professor Christensen thought that sex between adults and kids was maybe not
such a bad thing?
A. Maybe not such a bad thing? That's what I intended to convey, and that's
what I said.
175. Q. So therefore, that Professor Christensen
thought that pedophilia, that is to say, sex between adults and children was
maybe not such a bad thing?
A. Maybe not such a bad thing.
176. Q. And therefore, that Professor Christensen, at
the very least, that Professor Christensen thought that sex between adults and
children is something of which we should not disapprove?
A. No.
177. Q. Can there be something which is maybe not
such a bad thing of which we should nonetheless disapprove? Wouldn't you go this far with me? If something is maybe not such a bad thing,
if someone says of something that it is maybe not such a bad thing, obviously,
I would ask you to agree that the thing being described is something of which
the speaker does not disapprove, correct?
A. No, not at all. I think you can propose all kinds of
discussions. Maybe, I think it's not
such a bad thing that police officers don't have to go to university. Doesn't mean that I approve of it. I'm having
a discussion. I'm putting out a point of
view.
178. Q. For you, that means you're just putting out a
point of view, but you're suggesting that professor Christian ‑‑
you say it's a disturbing thing that he suggests that it's maybe not such a bad
thing.
A. That's right, and he's entitled to those
views. He's entitled to write those
things. But whether a group that is
helping men facing some very serious allegations, as you pointed out, should
have someone who has publicly expressed these views as a prominent member is
another matter.
179. Q. And that's because if someone suggested that
sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, then that person is suggesting
that sex with kids is maybe something that we should approve, correct?
A. No.
They're merely saying that they don't have a very strong moral stand on
this, and that is disturbing on the larger political context of what type of
group he's involved in.
180. Q. But at least you're going this far. If
someone says that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, that person is
open to the possibility that sex between adults and children may not be a bad
thing?
A. Open to the possibility? Absolutely.
181. Q. And in fact, so that person, according to
you, is saying that that's something that, at the very least, that that's
something about which one should have an open mind?
A. Sure.
182. Q. And are you suggesting that there's anywhere in
Professor Christensen's book or anywhere else that he has suggested that he's
done anything except disapprove sex between adults and children?
A. I think we went through this at some
length last
time. There are very particular passages
in those select
pages where I think there is no disapproval
on his part, and that is what is disturbing. [In her "Pink Kink" web
page there was no disapproval of real rape.
(Some things one just takes for
granted.) So even if this 'no-disapproval' claim were true of my book, it would be an equally "disturbing"
fact re "particular passages" of hers. And a lack of explicit
disapproval is not what she alleged
to my associates--or in print.] [Back]
183. Q. All right.
I know we went through this last time.
But we need to go through ‑‑ it's this particular
passage that I'm looking at now in the context of your counterclaim. So we've got this far that you agree with me
that when you said to Mr. Bouvier that he ought to say to
Dr. Christensen ‑‑ that Dr. Christensen was a person
who was suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, that
Dr. Christensen was a person who didn't have a strong moral stand against
sex between adults and children. That
was your ‑‑ you'll go that far with me at least? That's what you intended to convey? You don't need to look at your lawyer.
MR.
KOZAK: I would like to hear the question
again.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
184. Q. You'll go this far with me? When you said these words to
Mr. Bouvier, the words on page 19 that we've talked about, you intended to
convey to him that Dr. Christensen was a person who did not have a strong
moral stand against sex between adults and children? Please, don't look at you lawyer.
A. I would like to know if it's appropriate for
me to answer or not.
185. Q. You don't need to look at him. He will jump in.
A. I'm sorry, he's given me prior instructions,
and I think I will follow those.
186. Q. To look at him?
MR.
KOZAK: No, my instructions are to give
me an opportunity to object at the end of the question.
MR.
WILLIS: And the witness certainly has
done that, but to do that, you needn't look at him for ‑‑ I
understand what you're doing there. But
your counsel is not objecting. I've
rephrased the question.
THE
DEPONENT: I would agree with your
question.
MR.
WILLIS: Thank you.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
187. Q. Now, in our lengthy discussion last time, and
I can go through it with you again. As I
understand it, the basis for your conclusion was found on pages 109 to 113?
A. Yes.
188. Q. And I think you greed that you hadn't
considered those pages in the context of the book as a whole. You just considered them as an isolated
portion?
A. Yes.
189. Q. You will agree with me that the suggestion
that someone does not have a strong moral stand in matters concerning sex
between adults and children is a very serious allegation?
A. Yes.
190. Q. And you knew that?
A. Yes.
191. Q. And in fact, you despised anyone who did not
have a strong moral stand against sex with children?
A. No, I think that's not true.
192. Q. Did you not hold such people in contempt?
A. No. As
I've previously suggested just a few moments ago, I think people have a right
to write about these things, to talk about them, to debate them. I think that's
very healthy and very necessary for society.
I think it only becomes problematic when people who do that are
associated with father's rights groups.
193. Q. So for example, you understood that someone
might, as part of the passage not necessarily read in context in an academic
book of ten years ago, someone might raise theoretical questions about sex and
children. And this matter might be open
for debate, and you wouldn't necessarily despise them for that?
A. That's correct.
194. Q. But you knew that for most people, anything
involving sex and children is not a subject for debate. That is to say, any suggestion that sex
between adults and children is in any way acceptable is something that the
average person would react to with contempt, hatred, correct?
A. Contempt and hatred is putting it a little
strongly. Would the average person be
concerned and disgusted? Yes.
195. Q. The average person would be disgusted with
anyone who was thought not to have a strong moral standard in this area?
A. I think that's fair to say.
196. Q. On the other hand, one of the things that we
didn't talk about last time was what I would suggest to you is actually the
thrust of pages 109 to 113. You'll agree
with me that there's a difference between sexual conduct between adults and
children and sexual contact between children, correct?
A. There's a difference.
197. Q. Yes.
And indeed, sexual contact between children is something that we all
know happens and we all accept as normal to some extent?
A. Yes.
198. Q. And the question of how much sexual contact
that there should be between children, while it's a debatable and emotional
question, it's not a question ‑‑ and you knew it at the time ‑‑
it's not a question that arouses such emotions as the question between adults
and children, is it?
A. I don't feel I can answer that. I think there are strong reactions to both
things in this society whether for good or ill.
I think parents are very disturbed by the idea of sexual activity with
children, period.
199. Q. But whereas one could have controversial
opinions about the extent of the appropriate sexual contact between children
without disgusting most people, I think you've said ‑‑
A. No, no, if you'll allow me, I think the average
person would be quite disgusted and concerned if they felt someone was
advocating that 9 year‑old neighbors should be having sex with each
other.
200. Q. Well, I suppose that might be, but as a
general proposition, if for example, your views on sex between minors are
somewhat controversial? Would you not
agree, as expressed in your book The Princess at the Window?
A. I'm afraid you're going to have to point out
the passage.
201. Q. I'm referring you, for example, to page
170. This is just one passage at
random. I'll just show it to you, page
270. I just outlined it in yellow. Now,
I've actually read a number of your articles not just this book. And do I understand correctly that you, under some circumstances, would
actually condone sex between teenagers even if they're unmarried and under 18,
17 year‑olds and 16 year‑olds, for example?
A. Yes.
202. Q. And we're talking about sexual intercourse
not mere sex play, correct?
A. Correct.
203. Q. And for teenagers that are somewhat younger,
that would depend on the individual children as to whether one would condone
such activity, correct?
A. Teenagers that were somewhat younger? What
years are we talking now?
204. Q. As I understand your views, they're not
formulated with that much exactness. But
you go so far as to say that people that are 17 and 16 to criticize consensual
sex between people of that age under normal circumstances is foolish and
hypocritical?
A. Foolish and hypocritical. Let's just say that I wouldn't criticize sex
between a 16 and a 17 year‑old.
205. Q. Right.
And as we get to younger ages, you haven't really formulated an exact
age limit in your own mind. But as we
get to younger ages, that would depend on the individual case?
A. Well, no, I think I would have to say pretty
strong if I was a parent, and my child was under 16 and having sex, I would be
concerned.
206. Q. All right.
Of course you'll agree with me that there's many a 14 year‑old
that's far more mature than many a 16 year‑old?
A. Perhaps.
207. Q. And there are many cultures in which people
are married at the age of 12, 13, 14?
You know that?
A. Perhaps.
208. Q. Well, you know that. That's not debatable, is it? That's part of your general education as it
is of everyone's.
A. I think those cultures are diminishing
quickly.
209. Q. That wasn't my question.
A. Was it true 50 years ago that people got
married commonly at 12 in some cultures?
Yes.
210. Q. I am not qualified nor do I intend to debate
these matters with you. I merely want to
find out what you know, okay? And you do
know that there are many cultures in which people are married at such much
younger ages and engage in sexual activity?
MR.
KOZAK: Are you asking her that question?
MR.
WILLIS: Yes.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
211. Q.
That's the question I asked. And she said perhaps. And I'm saying don't fence with me. You know that's so, don't you?
A. No, I'm sorry. I do not know it for a fact. I'm saying it's probably true and perhaps
you're correct.
212. Q. Probably true. You think that's probably so. That's enough for me. Perhaps, I thought was a little bit weak in
terms what you probably know. In terms of the depiction of sex between people
under 16, you don't have a problem with that?
In other words, you've never had any trouble with ‑‑
you've never suggested that depictions or writing about sex between children
under 16 should be banned?
A. Children under 16?
213. Q. You wouldn't ban Romeo and Juliet, for
example?
A. They were both under 16?
214. Q. They were both 14. I mean, this, then, it's a question of how
it's done, I suppose?
A. Do I think Romeo and Juliet and Lolita should
be pulled off library shelves? No.
215. Q.
This is a question of each individual
case, correct?
A. Yes.
216. Q. We all agree that children need to have some
form of sexual enlightenment?
A. Sexual education?
217. Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
218. Q. And we know that there's a heated debate
about when that should occur, correct?
A. Yes.
219. Q. We know that there are some people as in
Freud's famous paper Sexual
Enlightenment of Children who think that children should be told the facts of
life before they go to school. Others
feel that these matters should be taboo for a longer period of time, correct?
A. Yes.
220. Q. And these are matters for debate, and people
hold strongly divergent views, but they tolerate each other's views in our
society, and you understand that, correct?
A. Yes.
221. Q. And so for example, the question of how much
sexual play between children is normal and acceptable and at what ages that is
very much a question up for debate, correct?
A. Yes.
222. Q. So for example, the question of whether 9
year‑olds should fondle each other's genitals whether that is something
that can be appropriate sexual experimentation, again, that is something partly
for each parent but something that is the subject of legitimate debate?
A. It is the subject of legitimate debate
particularly in academic circles. But I
don't think the average parent has much confusion in their mind that 9 year‑olds
fondling each other is not a good thing.
223. Q. Do you think the average parent doesn't know
that preteens engage in sexual play?
MR.
KOZAK: I'm sorry. Are you asking her if she knows that?
MR.
WILLIS: I'm asking her what she thinks
and what she thought. Because what it
turns out ‑‑ you see what this is about, Mr. Kozak. In fact, Dr. Christensen's book, 109 to
113, I'm not trying to sandbag you. In
my submission, even out of context, no one can fairly read it as condoning sex
between adults and children or even saying that sex between adults and children
is, quote, "maybe not such a bad thing." What it can possibly be read as saying is
that ‑‑
MR.
KOZAK: Hold it.
MR.
WILLIS: I'm just telling you where I'm
coming from.
MR.
KOZAK: You've just misquoted that. It
says, "You're suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad
thing."
MR.
WILLIS: And you see this is what
happened to the sex with kids, this word that this witness used, conveyed and
was intended to convey sex between adults in children. But in fact, that's a totally unfair reading
of Dr. Christensen's book, and that's where I'm coming from.
MR.
KOZAK: And I'm suggesting that you just
totally misread the passage that you referred to.
MR.
WILLIS: That's for the Court, isn't
it? My questions are devoted to this
witness's views and understanding of what she was doing to
Dr. Christensen. And I'm suggesting that this witness, if she read this
passage carefully, would never have expressed herself in such an unbuttoned
fashion to Mr. Bouvier. Of course
she didn't read the passage carefully, I'm suggesting. What she's done is to suggest that this
passage meant something discreditable and despicable. When in fact, pages 109 to 113 are restricted
to Dr. Christensen's views on sex play between children and on the sexual
enlightenment of children. And that's
what I'm exploring. So my question was
simply, if we go back to my last question, the witness has said that she thinks
that most parents have very firm views on sexual contact between 9 year‑olds. And I'm saying that you know that most
parents know full well that sexual contact between 9 year‑olds takes
place, don't you? Or are you going to
deny that?
MR.
KOZAK: Do you know that?
THE
DEPONENT: No, I don't know that.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
224. Q. Have you ever read any of the literature on
the sexual behaviour of children under 12?
A. I think that is not relevant to what I know
about what parents think.
225. Q. Well, let's put it this way: In my mind, you've made an admission that
tells us what you know. So now I'm just
trying to explore the basis of your knowledge.
You've said that you don't think that parents are aware that 9 year‑olds
engage in sexual experimentation. And
I'm saying, okay, fine, you don't think that.
I think you've already admitted that you're not a parent yourself,
correct?
A. That's true.
226. Q. Now, since you're not a parent yourself, when
you say that you're not aware that ‑‑ you don't think that
most parents are aware of this, what's the basis of your statement?
MR.
KOZAK: Mr. Willis, do you think
that she said that most parents are not aware of this? I think she said she doesn't know whether
most parents are aware of that.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
227. Q. I believe she said that she thinks most
parents are not aware that 9 year‑olds have sexual contact, didn't
you? Or are you saying you don't know
one way or the other?
A. No. I
don't know one way or the other.
228. Q. I'm sorry.
I misunderstood. I
apologize. I had a clearly other
impression. Please, accept my apologies
because I thought that the witness had said something obviously other than what
she did say. So you don't know one way or the other what most parents think or
know?
A. With respect to that specific question, no.
229. Q. And you would agree with me, though, that
this question of the sexual enlightenment of children and what is appropriate
sexual contact between children this is an extremely important public question
that needs responsible debate, correct?
A. Yes.
Except that I'm a little uncomfortable whenever you use the term sexual
enlightenment in children. I'm not quite
sure what you mean.
230. Q. I'm quoting Freud's paper, but let's call it
sexual education of children.
A. Sure.
231. Q. I'm not trying to use a tendentious
word. So you would agree with me that
this whole issue is a difficult and controversial one, correct?
A. Correct.
232. Q. And so that as a journalist, and to the
extent as you've said that you have a responsibility greater than that of
normal, it's important to treat that in a responsible way?
A. Yes.
233. Q. And it's very important not to misrepresent
someone's views in that area because of the strong feelings that it arouses?
A. Correct.
234. Q. I think I just saw an article ‑‑
it might have been by you ‑‑ about what used to be thought of
as ordinary horse play ends up in the courts with charges of sexual assault.
A. I have not written any articles like that
recently.
235. Q. All right.
Didn't you write some articles taking exception to that sort of thing?
A. Sure.
But you said you just saw an article, and I only had one article
published in the last year, and it was not about that.
236. Q. I'm sorry.
But you, in fact, in some of your writings have expressed concern about,
you know, how ordinary sexual horse play between preteens or young children
ends up inappropriately in the courts under sexual assault charges, correct?
A. I think the article, to the best of my
knowledge, would have talked about young teens.
I don't think young children are ending up in court, and I don't think
even preteens. But I think the general
idea is horse play between teenagers as ending up in court. That's correct.
237. Q. And you are probably aware that there have
been boys expelled from school as young as 5 or 6 because of these whole
questions about sexual contact between young children?
A. Yes.
238. Q. So what I'm suggesting, then, is that we understand
that this is an issue where ‑‑ would you agree with me ‑‑
there is no consensus on exactly what ought to be done about either the sexual
education of children or the sexual contact between children?
A. Sure.
239. Q. Some people think that it's fine for 5 year‑olds
to play doctor, and other people think that it's horrible and that the whole
subject should be taboo. There's a great diversity of opinion in society,
correct?
A. Correct.
240. Q. And on the other hand, there's no diversity
of opinion about sex between adults and children?
A. Well, there is some diversity.
241. Q. But most people, most of your readers, would
think that anyone who condoned ‑‑ and you knew this at the time ‑‑
would think that anyone who condoned sex between adults and children was a
person lacking in ordinary good judgement, correct?
A. Sure.
242. Q. And in fact, most of your readers would go
farther, and they would think if we accept that there's some distinction
between the word condoned and what I'm about to say, most people would think
that anyone who thought that sex between adults and children was maybe not such
a bad thing, is also a person seriously lacking in ordinary good judgement of
moral matters, correct?
A. Yes.
‑‑‑
Brief adjournment at 12:44 p.m.
‑‑‑
Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
243. Q. Ms. Laframboise, you acknowledge that
you're still under oath?
A. Yes.
244. Q. I'm now going to be directing your attention
to paragraph 29 of your counterclaim, and just by way of context, if I can
first of all refer you to Item 14.1 in our production which is the e‑mail
that you sent Dr. Christensen on March 23rd at 1:25 p.m. in response, I
gather, to his e‑mail to you which is attached to that. That's a true copy of the e‑mail that
you sent?
A. It appears to be, yes.
245. Q. And paragraphs 4 and 5 include questions
about the meaning of certain passages in Dr. Christensen's book and about
what, in fact, his opinions are, correct?
A. Okay, sorry, what's the question?
246. Q. Those two questions 4 and 5 are questions
that refer to Dr. Christensen's book, correct?
A. Yes.
247. Q. And in the article subsequently published on
April 17th, if we can look in the right‑hand column, second paragraph
down, that column says, quote, "Just before the Post contacted Professor
Christensen, he sent an e‑mail which began, quote, 'You have no idea of
the harm you are about to do.' When the
Post replied with a list of 13 questions asking, among other things, whether he
has ever urged anyone to hire Mr. Adams and what he means by certain
passages in his book, he declined to answer." Now, when you said questions as to, quote,
"what he means by certain passages in his book", you were referring
to the two question to which I've directed your attention to. Is that not right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
248. Q. And then on Monday the 25th, Professor
Christensen sent to your editor in chief, Mr. White, the letter referred
to in paragraph 29 of your counterclaim and reproduced at 23.1 of the
plaintiff's affidavit of records, correct?
A. I'm sorry, the question again was, He sent
this to Mr. White?
249. Q. Yes.
A. It appears so, yes.
250. Q. And then he faxed, it would appear from our
document 23.1, at 9:43 a.m. on March 26th the following morning he also e‑mailed
a copy of his letter to Mr. White to you personally, correct?
A. Yes, that appears to be the case, 9:43 a.m.
251. Q. Yes.
Now ‑‑
A. Which would be mountain time.
252. Q. All right.
Now, there's some matters in that for the context of that letter before
we deal specifically with paragraphs 29 and 30, the author asked that his
attachment referred to in paragraph 30 be published if what he referred to as
any attack on himself should be published, correct, subject to adjustments that
would have to be made on the same day as the column is printed. It's in paragraph 29. You've referred to the letter of March 25th,
and then in paragraph 30, you've referred to the attachment that begins Moral
Fervor without Accurate Knowledge Does Evil.
And then for context, a part that's been omitted there is that what
Professor Christensen is saying that he wouldn't give up his right to sue you
for whatever you published, but he wanted his attachment to be published if
your article was published.
A. He may well have said that, but I can't see
it.
253. Q. Second paragraph, quote, "Without
prejudice, then, to any legal action which I may need to carry out to protect
my good name, I make the following request:
That if any attack on me should be published, I be allowed adequate
space to respond. Knowing in advance the
type of irrational reasoning which led her, allegedly, to suggest to my
associates that I may condone pedophilia I have prepared provisional response
(attached) ‑‑ one which could quickly be put into final form
in order to be printed on the same day as her column."
A. Yes.
254. Q. All right.
Now, would you agree with me that the attachment responds to your questions
4 and 5 in your e‑mail, Item 14.1, in our affidavit, your e‑mail of
March 23, 2001 ‑‑ I'm sorry, your first five. You had questions 4, 5, and 5, but in your
actual e‑mail you had a double number.
But I'm looking at question 4 and the one marked 5 that follows it, by
the way. May I ask, of course, you read
this letter no later than the morning of March 26, 2001, didn't you?
A. I'm sorry.
I can't tell you when I might have read it. Just because it arrived then, does not
suggest when I read it.
255. Q. Well, you certainly read it before you wrote
your article of April 17th?
A. I would presume so. At that point, I was getting a lot of
material.
256. Q. Are you saying you can't recall? Do you think you might not have read this
letter?
A. I remember the letter. Do I remember reading every last word? No.
257. Q. Did you discuss it with Mr. White before
you wrote your article?
A. No.
258. Q. Did he say anything to you?
A. No.
259. Q. Did anyone discuss the letter to
Mr. White with you other than the lawyer?
A. Not that I can recall.
260. Q. All right.
Please, take your time and review it.
Then let me know when you're ready to answer questions about it.
A. I read the attachment.
261. Q. And I'm suggesting to you that that
attachment answers your questions 4 and 5 in your e‑mail 14.1, correct?
A. No, I'm sorry. I can't agree.
262. Q. Really?
A. I see no reference to page 113 anywhere which
means there's no specific reference to the page number.
263. Q. That's right.
There's no specific reference to the page number.
A. And there's no specific reference to the very
specific and pointed questions that I pose.
I say on page 13 you say this.
Did you really mean that? There's nowhere where there's an answer to
that question.
264. Q. Let's explore that. First of all, your question No. 5. Let's take that first. Your question No. 5 was, "Do you, in
fact, believe ‑‑ as you also suggest on page 113 ‑‑
that pedophiles coercing children into sex 'is potentially no more [serious
than society's] practice of coercing them not to act sexually.'?" Now, if I can refer you to the third page, of
the No. 23.4 in our production.
A. Mm‑hmm.
265. Q. Where the writer says, "The second part
of the claim above is that negative things put into children's minds about sex
itself by those around them, from fear to self‑loathing, can itself cause
serious psychological hurt and harm.
Hence, in particular, these negative feelings can be a dominant factor
in the harm when such children are also sexually abused and can even do more
harm than sex abuse itself. There is
absolutely no scientific doubt about the truth of this. Huge amounts of accumulated evidence prove it
though Ms. Laframboise will evidently not reveal the evidence I have
given." So when the author says
that, "These negative feelings ‑‑ that is to say induced
by negative things put into children's minds about sex itself by those around
them ‑‑ can do even more harm than sex abuse itself.", do
you not have your answer to question 5?
A. No, not at all. I'm saying that in his book on page 113, he
is suggesting that sexual abuse by adults of children, quote, "is
potentially no more serious than society's practice of coercing them not to act
sexually." I'm sorry, but that has
nothing to do with the paragraph in this attachment you just read to me. They're several different matters.
266. Q. When the author says that the negative
feelings that children have can do even more harm than sex abuse itself, you
don't see that as responsive to your question 5?
A. No, not at all. My concern in posing the question is that he
seems to be minimizing the damage by saying that it's ‑‑ that
coercing children not to behave sexually could be just as bad as sexual
abuse. I think that's an astounding
statement.
267. Q. All right.
We have your opinion. Now, I think we also established that you don't
have any evidence for that assumption one way or the other. That's just your
view, correct? We talked about that at
length last time.
A. Sure.
268. Q. But what I don't understand here is that
isn't it clear that the author does stand by that statement, that both these
things are bad. I mean, obviously,
sexual abuse is bad but that the attitudes,
"the negative things put into children's minds
about sex itself by those around them from fear to self‑loathing ‑‑
that is to say, society's attitudes ‑‑ can do even more harm
than sex abuse itself." In other
words, of course abuse by pedophiles is one type of ‑‑ this is
a general statement that goes even farther than the statement you've question,
correct? It says as a general
proposition, the things that children are told that are placed into their mind
that cause fear and self‑loathing can be more harmful than the actual sex
abuse. In fact, the whole previous page
talks about that. Would you agree that's
a proposition wider, stronger, and more general than the one you've asked? So clearly, the answer to your question 5 is
yes, the author believes it.
A. I'm glad it's clear to you, but it was not
clear to me at the time, and it's not clear now. I understand what you're saying, I really do,
but there is no way when I'm reading that just five minutes ago and certainly
when I read that more than a year ago that I would have felt that that
paragraph was a direct response to a particular question.
269. Q. But one thing you did understand was that
this was Dr. Christensen's response to what he understood you were going
to say?
A. Well, no, in fact he sent me a different e‑mail
saying that he wasn't about to respond to me.
This isn't addressed to me. This
is addressed my boss. [The article said I'd refused
to answer "The Post", not that I refused to answer her.]
270. Q. Yes, and the idea was and you understood that
this was to be his reply to what he understood to be your concerns. This is what he wanted published when what he
anticipated as your attack came out, correct?
Even though you didn't think this was much of a response, you understood
that this was his proposed response, didn't you? You understood that he wanted this published
the same day as your article to respond to what he thought you were going to
say. Did you not?
A. Yes, to what he assumed I would say.
271. Q. So you understood, and you knew that what he
assumed you would say was, in part, based on the questions that you had posed to him just the previous
Friday?
A. In part, yes.
272. Q. Yes.
So and nonetheless, you wrote on April 17th that he declined to answer
your questions. But that was misleading, wasn't it?
A. No, I'm sorry. I posed this list of questions. He very clearly sent me an e‑mail back
saying he was not going to answer them.
273. Q. You didn't like his form of answer. You
didn't ‑‑ let's put it this way, you didn't mention that he
wanted to reply to you at all, did you?
You didn't mention this March 25th proposal?
A. No, and I didn't mention all the other press
releases he sent out far and wide to everyone he's ever known defaming me
either. There's a limited amount of
space in a newspaper article. [As she said above, it was not
a press release.]
274. Q. Your answer's no. You're saying he declined to reply. You didn't mention his proposed same‑day
reply, did you?
A. No, I did not. [Next]
MR.
KOZAK: Mr. Willis, I've allowed you
to ask the question. I think that she
said that she didn't view it as a reply.
You've called it a reply.
MR.
WILLIS: Oh, I think it's clear what the
witness is saying. I don't think I'm
trying to or succeeding in putting words in her mouth. I think it's clear that she's trying to say
that this March 25th letter is not a direct reply or is not a reply.
MR.
KOZAK: All right.
MR.
WILLIS: Let's just see whether the court
agrees. That's the question. I believe that you'll agree with me the
record is clear. I'm under no illusion,
and I don't think the record will support any illusion that the witness is
agreeing with me. She's clearly not
agreeing with me.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
275. Q. But on the other hand, let's, then, talk
about your question No. 4, again, where you specifically refer to page
113. But here you say, "Do you, in
fact, believe as you suggest on page 113 of your book, Pornography the Other
Side, that the real problem with children being coerced into sex by adults is
not the coercion, the childhood sex, or the unequal power relationship, but the
fact that children would feel distressed because we live in a society that is
uptight about sex." Now, that's not
a quote from page 113, is it?
A. I think we would have to look at page
113. It is not in quotations.
276. Q. Nor does page 113 say that, does it?
A. It does say on 113, the top paragraph it says
that, quote, "Given that children are particularly vulnerable to coercion,
protecting them from being pressured or forced into something which in present
social conditions can be highly distressing or even psychologically damaging is
a serious concern." Now, I
interpret that to mean that it's important not to coerce children not because
coercion itself is bad but because you would be coercing them into sex, and
there's a social taboo about against sex, and therefore, it would be
distressing to the children to participate in something.
[The reporter might try to resist this consequence by saying she meant that I'd
said child molesting and teaching restraint are both very harmful, not that they're both nearly harmless. But besides claiming that
I treat both as being outside morality, she has already rejected
this other way of equating the two:]
277. Q. Wow. You take from this that the
author does not
think coercion is bad?
A. Yes, because
he then goes on to suggest that, "Though it is potentially no more
so ‑‑", ie, no more damaging, "‑‑ than
the practice of coercing them not to act sexually." [To repeat, my book
and proposed newspaper article both went to great lengths to
show the serious harm that
has been done by coercive attempts to suppress children's sexuality.] [Back]
278. Q. So you don't understand from that that the
author disapproves of coercion of any kind.
You think the author believes that coercion is all right? The author
seems ‑‑ rather than opposing both forms of coercion, and on
top of that adding that a case can be made for the legal prohibition of this
type of pornography.
A. "Given that children are vulnerable to
coercion, protecting them from being pressured for something that's ‑‑"
He's saying let's not protect them from coercion for itself own sake. Let's protect them from coercion because if
they're doing something that society disapproves of, that would be highly
distressing or even psychologically damaging.
279. Q. That's your reading of this passage, and you
stand by that?
A. Yes.
280. Q. And you don't want to look at it some more
and think about it again?
A. No, thank you.
281. Q. Thank you.
But there's no reference to what the real problem is, is there? I mean that's not ‑‑ your
question, question 4, is not even close to being a paraphrase of anything on
page 113, is it? You're asking the
author what he thinks, quote, "the real problem" is. He doesn't use the word the real problem nor
does he use any synonym for the real problem.
So you're saying ‑‑ won't you agree? And you haven't paraphrased page 113.
A. Pardon me, but I really do believe that I
have paraphrased it and reasonably accurately. And if my paraphrase was so
terribly off the mark, this was his opportunity to help me understand.
282. Q. And now, if we look at ‑‑ so
in other words, this is his opportunity to tell you what he thinks the, quote,
"real problem is" if you've failed to understand, correct? And now, I suggest to you that in his letter
of March 25th and the attachment goes to Mr. White, he goes on at great
length about what he thinks the, quote, "real problem is" and
responds directly to your question No. 4.
Will you not agree?
A. I've asked a very specific question about a
very particular passage on a very specific page, and no, I do not believe he's
answered it adequately.
283. Q. So all you wanted him to say was no? Didn't
you want to know what he thought the real problem was if he didn't agree with
you? So it's merely a rhetorical
question? You only wanted a yes or no
answer? Or did you want him to explain what he thought the real problem was?
A. I certainly wanted him to explain. I wish he would have done it in a context
where I understood that he was specifically talking about a particular one of
all of this long list of questions. That would have been helpful.
284. Q. And you didn't understand when you read the
lengthy reply that he wanted published the same day as your anticipated article
that that was his attempt to set out what he considered to be, quote, "the
real problem"? You didn't see that
as responsive to your question 4?
A. No, I did not.
285. Q. So you thought it was all right to tell your
readers that he had declined to reply?
A. Yes, I did.
286. Q. And you didn't think you were misleading them
when you did that or being unfair to Professor Christensen?
A. No.
287. Q. And you didn't even mention anything that he
had written by way of reply except when he said you have no idea of what kind
of harm you're going to do?
A. That's right.
288. Q. You didn't even say that he had replied, but
you thought it was off topic or anything of that kind, did you?
A. No, I did not.
289. Q. In fact, when one reads your article, it
looks like you gave Professor Christensen a chance to tell his side of the
story, and he just wouldn't say anything, doesn't it? All it says about Professor Christensen is
that he declined to answer your questions. It doesn't talk about all his
efforts to ‑‑
A. "When the Post replied with a list of 13
questions...he declined to answer those 13 questions."
290. Q. It doesn't say that. It just says he declined to answer. You've just added, quote, "those 13
questions."
A. It's in the same sentence at the beginning of
that sentence.
291. Q. I'm suggesting to you that what you meant to
convey to people was that you asked 13 questions and got no answer when you
knew darn well that you had this lengthy answer on March 25th. In fact, you're even suing about it?
A. Sorry, what is the question?
292. Q. I say, you intended to give your readers the
impression that Professor Christensen stood silent in response to your j'accuse
of 13 questions. Indeed, Professor Christensen responded, giving his whole
summary of his whole theory on the 25th, just two days later. You gave no hint that he'd replied at all,
did you?
A. No, I did not.
293. Q. Surely you'll agree with me that that was not
fair to Professor Christensen, and you knew it?
A. No, I will not agree that that was not fair.
294. Q. Apart from the ethics of not allowing a
person to reply when he's going to be attacked, is it right to say that
Professor Christensen declined to answer, as you did, giving the impression
that he gave no answer whatsoever?
A. I think I've answered that.
MR.
KOZAK: The preface of that question was
apart from the ethics of ‑‑
MR.
WILLIS: Strike that. That question ends up being triple barrel.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
295. Q. You'll agree with me that when you said
Professor Christensen declined to answer, you didn't give any hint anywhere in
your article that you had been bombarded, as you put it, with e‑mails
from Professor Christensen giving his attempt at self‑justification?
A. No, I think I've answered that already. The answer is no.
296. Q. And don't you think that was wrong of you?
A. No, I don't.
297. Q. Not to tell your readers that, in fact, Professor
Christensen had been trying to reply to you, and you just didn't think much of
his replies?
A. As I've said already, no, I don't think it
was wrong.
298. Q. Well, you'll agree with me that you intended
to give your readers the impression that there was no reply whatsoever from
Professor Christensen, correct?
A. What we say is, "When the Post replied
to his e‑mail with a list of 13 questions, he declined to answer."
299. Q. But even that isn't true, is it? When did he decline to answer?
A. He sent me an e‑mail, I think it was,
one or two lines long which said you've clearly made up your mind, something,
something, something, so I'm not even going to bother to answer.
300. Q. Actually, that's not what it says, is
it? Let's find it.
A. Please, then I don't have to rely on my
faulty memory.
301. Q. Perhaps you could refer me to the reply that
you're talking about?
A. Tab 18.
302. Q. So you're saying he declined to answer, and
you've now located where he declined to answer?
A. It's T00288.
303. Q. Yes.
A. Near the bottom, I say, "I would be
grateful if you would answer the following questions:" And he says,
"Since you've already made all necessary good‑faith attempts to hear
my side, there is no need to ask me any questions now, remember? Beyond that, since our communications from
this point on may have to be through lawyers, I decline to be questioned by you
and will direct any questions of mine about your conduct through counsel."
304. Q. Now, interesting you should point that
out. And that is on Saturday, March
24th, correct? He declined to be
questioned by you, but he doesn't decline to answer, does he, answer your
previous questions. He says he will
communicate through counsel, correct?
A. "I decline to be questioned by you"
certainly in my read of it at the time was I consider your questions
irrelevant. I'm not about to respond to
them.
305. Q. But then two days later, you get the response
that he proposes to give to the article he thinks you're going to publish with
the allegations he thinks you're going to make based on your questions. I'm just trying to get you to admit that
whether or not you thought his response was totally on point to your specific
questions, you understood that on Monday he was giving you his answer to what
he thought was going to be your attack.
You understood that much, didn't you?
MR.
KOZAK: She's answered that already,
Mr. Willis.
MR.
WILLIS: What's her answer?
MR.
KOZAK: Her answer's no, she didn't
interpret the e‑mail sent to Mr. White on the 26th as a response to
her questions.
MR.
WILLIS: You didn't think it had any
bearing on those questions?
MR.
KOZAK: That's a different question.
MR.
WILLIS: Let's ask that, then.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
306. Q. You didn't think that that proposed response
sent on Monday was in any way responsive to your two questions about the
purport of Professor Christensen's work?
A. No.
307. Q. All you would accept would be a direct
response to your specific and direct questions, correct?
A. That's not all I would accept, but the man
has told me that he's not about to answer my questions. I have asked him. He has responded.
308. Q. He said we may have to communicate through
lawyers, but than he went and wrote this letter for which you are suing
him. In other words, subsequent
communications weren't only through lawyers.
He then just two days later, rather than restricting himself to
communications through counsel, wrote a letter to you editor saying here's how
I think she's going to attack me. Here's
how I'm going to respond. But you're
saying because I got this letter from him in which he says I've got to
communicate through my lawyer, I assumed he wasn't going to answer me at all.
A. That's right.
309. Q. When he says in paragraph 3, 20.2, quote, "So
irrational overreaction to real problems, not just to fictional problems, can
produce horrible consequences. In each
of the above witch‑hunts, the motivation has been the same, quote, 'Child
sex abuse is so unspeakably and uniquely harmful, we can't take any
chances.'" And he goes on in the
fifth paragraph to say, quote, "But what if child sex abuse were not
believed to be hugely more harmful than the other kinds of child abuse which
have inspired no comparable insanities ‑‑ would the modern
witch‑hunts with all the broken innocent lives they have left have
occurred? What if, in fact, the origin
of the harms associated with child sex abuse in general is not sexual contact,
per se, but it's accompaniments: on the
one hand, the physical or emotional abuse, notably coercion, that may attend
the sex abuse and on the other hand negative things put into children's minds
about sex before or after any abuse may have occurred." Now, you read that, didn't you?
A. Yes, I believe so.
310. Q. You just told me a few minutes ago that when
you read page 113 of Ferrel Christensen's article, you thought that he didn't
see coercion as a harm in itself. You
just told me that.
A. Yes, I did.
311. Q. And now three days later, you could have read him to say in the
paragraph that I've just shown you that, "The accompaniments of sexual
contact could be the origin of harms. On
the one hand, the physical or emotional abuse, notably coercion ‑‑" So when you read that, if you read that, you
would understand that, at least, even if you're reading of page 113 was a fair
one, that's not what he intended. You'd
understand that, wouldn't you?
A. Now, that you've pointed it out to me, I
think that's a reasonable conclusion.
312. Q. And it directly responds to ‑‑
A. No, it does not directly respond. It is one paragraph in a rather lengthy, long
letter.
313. Q. But when you ask someone what he thinks the
real problem is, don't you expect a lengthy reply? Did you really expect a yes or no answer to
your question 4, to a vague paraphrase in question 4? Didn't you expect a lengthy and considered
reply?
A. Yes, I did, but I do not believe that this is
that.
314. Q. When you say this is ‑‑
A. You're choosing one paragraph out of a multi‑paragraphed
document and saying now doesn't that answer one of those questions in your
list? Well, now, that you sort of point
it out, yeah, kind of, but at the time, did I see that? No.
315. Q. In fact, I'm taking two paragraphs out of a
lengthy and considered reply to suggest to you that you should have read it,
and in fairness, you shouldn't have told your readers that Professor
Christensen declined to answer you.
That's what I'm saying. But you
just thought it was all in the lawyer's hands.
Is that it? Is that why you
didn't read this carefully? [Back]
MR.
KOZAK: Don't answer that.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
316. Q. Let me put it this way: A minute ago, you told me that you thought
Professor Christensen was not opposed to coercion as such but only to the
results of coercion and that you got that from reading page 113, correct?
A. That's right.
317. Q. But now that you've considered the letter
that he sent three days later, you understand that Professor Christensen
believed, in fact, that coercion was in itself one of the main sources of harm,
correct?
A. One of the main sources of harm?
318. Q. Well, in fact, that's what he said. He
mentioned too, he said, "On the one hand, the physical or emotional abuse,
notably coercion, that may attend the sex abuse["]
assumes that
coercion is a notable source of harm."
That's one of the main ones.
There may be other, but you see that clearly, and that's not hard to see
when you actually read the paragraph, is it?
A. Do I see that he is addressing that issue and
that one part of that one sentence? Yes,
I do.
319. Q. And so when I suggest to you that ‑‑
it's not unfair for me to suggest to you it's true, isn't it, that you just
didn't read this carefully? You didn't
read the letter to Mr. White carefully?
A. I can't speak to how carefully or not
carefully I read that letter a year and a half ago.
320. Q. At least, you didn't read it carefully enough
so that you disabused yourself of your interpretation of Dr. Christensen's
views on coercion?
A. That would be fair.
321. Q. Now, if we carry on with this paragraph in
Dr. Christensen's proposed draft reply, just after the paragraph I've
read, he says in the 6th paragraph, "It is largely for espousing the
latter claim, that is to say, the claim that it is not sexual conduct as such
but rather the physical and emotional abuse that may accompany it."
A. If you excuse me, I think he's talking about
sexual abuse not sexual content.
322. Q. I'm going to quote it, so that you can't
misinterpret it. "What if in
fact," he said in the previous sentence, "the origin of the harms
associated with child sex abuse in general is not sexual contact, per se, but
it's accompaniments. Then he goes to
list the two kinds of accompaniments. On
the one hand, physical or emotional abuse, notably coercion. On the other hand, negative things put into
children's minds about sex before or after any abuse may have occurred."
Which I'm suggesting directly responds to your question 5, and you've declined
to say that. Now, he goes on to say,
"It is largely for espousing the latter claim, that is to say, the claim
that it is not the sexual contact, per se, but its two accompaniments: abuse and the matrix of negative things put
into children's minds. It is largely for
espousing the latter claim that I have been attacked by
Ms. Laframboise." He sees
himself as being attacked by you. And of
course, at this point, those are your two questions. You understood that he's interpreting your
two questions as that attack, correct?
A. No. I
asked him, as you point out, 14 questions.
323. Q. But only two of them relate to his work. That's my point, only 4 and 5. So it must be those two questions to which
he's attributing the coming attack.
There's nothing else that you say, is there, other than of course what
you told people over the phone that they reported to him? But if you look in your questions, go
back. You'll see there's nothing else in
them about his work. Won't you
agree? You just finished telling me you
asked him 13 questions, but indeed only these two deal with his work?
A. Right, and nowhere does he mention his work
in this long ‑‑
324. Q. He says, "It's for these views ‑‑"
that you are attacking him. And those
are precisely the views about which you ask your rhetorical questions in Items
4 and the first 5.
A. Well, it would have been very helpful for him
to say as I say in my book X, and this is what I mean. It's very nice that it's so clear to you that
that is a direct response to two questions out of my big, long list, but it was
not clear to me.
325. Q. Let's get one thing clear. And you know, this is a question I asked you
to which you are not responding. You
just referred two questions out of your great big, long list. These are the only two questions that deal
with Professor Christensen's opinions, right?
A. No, there are many other ones that talk about
his opinions. Do you think it's
appropriate for a person whose pleaded guilty to hiring a child prostitute to
be vice president of ECMAS?
326. Q. Well, with respect, you are fencing with
me. I'm talking about the opinions that
are in his book.
A. But he does not talk about his book in this
letter to my boss. [The proposed article I sent
him was all about my book.]
327. Q. Will you agree with me that there are only
two questions that refer to ‑‑ let's talk about this: Dr. Christensen's supposedly controversial
opinions about sex which is of course the subject of this whole lawsuit, your
take on that and your way of conveying that to people across the country. There are only two of your so‑called
big, long list of questions that relate to Dr. Christensen's opinions
about sex, and in particular, sex and children, right? The rest all relate to ECMAS and [Tim] Adams
and so forth and tactical questions.
A. That's true.
328. Q. And the letter that Dr. Christensen sent
to Mr. White. He doesn't bother
defending himself about [Tim] Adams or what is his position with ECMAS. He restricts himself to the questions of his
views about sexual assault and children.
That's what he restricts himself to, correct?
A. That's true.
329. Q. And so I'm saying as those two questions that
you pose to him, rhetorical questions as evidently he interpreted them to be,
they're the only ones. That's the only
communication you had with him that would enable him directly to know what
attack he thought you were going make on him, correct, other than what he heard
from people that you interviewed?
A. It's the only communication from him that
enabled me to know what he thought?
330. Q. That's the only communication from you, those
two questions. You told him. You asked him those two rhetorical questions
about do you really believe this, and do you really believe that? You didn't have any other communication with
him about his views on childhood sexuality?
A.
That's right.
331. Q. And then there were the indirect things that
you said to people in interviews about how he didn't think childhood sex was
maybe such a bad thing. You understood those got back to him as well?
A. Right.
332. Q. So that's the basis of his letter of the
20th, and it could be nothing other, could it?
You knew that there was no other reason for him to be writing other than
your two questions and what you had told people about his book?
A. Pardon me, but by this point, I did not
particularly feel that Professor Christensen was dealing terribly rationally
with the situation.
333. Q. He seemed to think that ‑‑
for example, in his letter he seemed to think that you, someone who didn't even
know him and had made no effort to contact him ‑‑ had decided
before you'd even made an effort to contact him to try to expel him from an
organization to which he'd devoted 15 years of his life. That was the rational
conclusion, wasn't it? Nothing
irrational about that, was there? Can
you answer that? I'm saying it wasn't irrational because that's exactly what
you were trying to do, wasn't it?
A. I think I was trying to raise some concerns
in a group that I was very sympathetic to.
334. Q. You keep talking about raising concerns and
raising questions, but you agreed with me that you were advocating his
expulsion from the group.
A. Then why are you asking me to tell you it one
more time, if I've agreed with you already?
335. Q. Because you just didn't answer my
question. You suggested to me that at
this point, March 25, 26th, you didn't think Professor Christensen was acting
rationally. That in itself was not in
response to my previous question, but I'll waive that for the time being. I'll come back to it. And I said well, he said in his letter that
here you are. You've used threats of
exposing him in your column "to a volunteer group I've long worked with in
an attempt to get them to expel me even though my views on sexuality have never
been taught to anyone connected with the group." Now, I'm saying he's concerned that you're
trying to expel him from a group and that you tried to do this before you even
talked to him. And I'm saying was that
an irrational concern?
A. No.
336. Q. Similarly, he's writing Mr. White, and
he's saying look, I believe there's going to be an attack on me. Reasonable considering ‑‑
not irrational considering as you say you were wanting to expel him. And here's
my response to this attack which I would like you to let me print on the same
day, so people can have both sides of the story. Was it irrational for him to want to tell his
side of the story?
A. No, it would have been very nice if he had a
courteous conversation with me.
337. Q. Do you think that your questions were at all
courteous? Don't you think they were
rude and question begging and rhetorical?
Do you call those questions courteous?
A. Yes, I do.
338. Q. Well ‑‑
A. I think they were very polite. I think they were pointed which is what a
journalist's job is to do, is to ask pointed question.
339. Q. Let me see now, forgetting about the adequacy
of your paraphrase of No. 4. No. 5,
"Do you think it is inappropriate for a person such as yourself who holds
controversial views about child sex to be associating with a group seeking to
help non‑custodial parents many of whom face false allegations of child
sex abuse?"
A. I think that is a very legitimate question,
phrased in a polite way, and I do not understand why if he felt that there was
no concern why he would not try to persuade me of the fact that there's no
concern.
340. Q. When you read that letter, just delivered
three days later, isn't it clear why he thinks it is important for him to be
associated with this group and why he thinks his views, controversial as they
are, are legitimate and not anything that anyone needs to be ashamed of?
A. No, no, he does not, unfortunately, address
at all the issue of what it looks like.
341. Q. You know what a rhetorical question is, don't
you?
A. Yes.
342. Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that your second
No. 5 is a rhetorical question? Do you
call that a polite, open‑ended question?
A. "Do you think it is appropriate for a
person such as yourself who holds controversial views about child sex to be
associated with a group seeking to help non‑custodial parents many of
whom face false allegations of child sex abuse?"
343. Q. Now, Dr. Christensen had been associated
with this group for, as you knew, eight years, right? You knew that?
A. No, I did not.
344. Q. You knew it had been a lot of years?
A. Yes.
345. Q. You knew, even though he wasn't on the
executive or anything, you knew that he was a prominent person associated with
this group?
A. Yes.
346. Q. And did you know that he paid good money to
get Louise Malenfant there, correct?
A. Yes.
347. Q. And you knew that he'd written this book, so
he held these controversial views for 11 years, at least?
A. Correct.
348. Q. And you knew that he was a philosopher and
from your previous information that he was a man of strong views?
A. Yes.
349. Q. And articulate about his views?
A. Yes.
350. Q. So did you seriously think he never would
have thought about whether it was appropriate for him with his views on
childhood sex to be involved in this group?
A. Yes, unfortunately, I really did seriously
wonder about that.
351. Q. You really thought he might never have
considered it, or was this just a rude rhetorical question?
A. No, I'm sorry, I do not believe it was a rude
question. I believe it was a perfectly
legitimate question.
352. Q. And incidently, it's not an open‑ended
question. You don't ask him ‑‑
what sort of an answer did you expect?
Would yes have been a good enough answer for you?
MR.
KOZAK: You don't have to answer that.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
353. Q. Well, when you read the letter of the 20th,
my question is when you say that Dr. Christensen declined reply, let's
take this letter three days later. When you read this letter, didn't you
understand that at the very least you had a reply to your question 5, that
Dr. Christensen considered it entirely appropriate for himself to be
involved and wrong of you to try to expel him?
He used the words expel. You
understood that he thought it was wrong for you to try to expel him?
A. Yes.
354. Q. Therefore, if he thought it was wrong for you
to try to expel him, you understood that he thought it was appropriate for him
to continue?
A. That would be a reasonable inference, yes.
355. Q. And nonetheless, you told your readership
three weeks later that you didn't have a reply to any of your 13
questions. But you knew, and you had a
reply, didn't you?
A. No, I'm sorry. I think that's a really big stretch.
356. Q. Oh, it's a big stretch? You get a letter three days later which taxes
you with serious ethical wrongdoing for trying to expel this man for the work
he had been doing for all these years, and it's a big stretch to infer from
that that he thinks it's all right for him to continue with the group? You call that a big stretch?
A. Yes, I do.
357. Q. Now, again, with regard to your questions,
question 10, "Have you ever urged anyone associated with ECMAS Edmonton to
fire their son/grandson/nephew/spouses/lawyer and hire [Tim] Adams instead? If so, on how many occasions and for what
reason." Now, why didn't you, if
you really wanted answers to those questions, why didn't you put the facts you
had to him? Why didn't you say, for
example, so and so claims that you did this.
Did you?
A. Well, first of all, I was protecting
confidential sources. Secondly, I had a
lot of ground to cover, and that's the most efficient way to cover that
particular point that I could see. There
were allegations made that he has advised people to do this. I'm giving him an
opportunity to say gosh, no, I would never have done that. And if he had said that one sentence, I would
have been morally obligated to include that in the piece, but he didn't say it. And so I could not print it.
358. Q. On the one hand, you tax him because he gives
you a general answer to ‑‑ put it this way: On the one hand you tax him because you
insist on an absolutely specific answer to a specific quote from page 113,
according to you. But on the other hand,
you don't make any specific charge. You
ask him for a blanket denial?
A. Is this something that you've done? And if
so, what would be the reason for doing so?
I think that's a very, very fair line of questioning.
359. Q. You do?
You think it's fair to make a general allegation like this and not to
put to him the names of the people who supposedly are making this allegation?
A. Yes, I do.
360. Q. How ‑‑ for example ‑‑
well, I guess we have your answer. When you say you were protecting your sources, I think
you've said that the reason why you wanted to protect your sources was because
they had cases in court or something of that kind?
A. Exactly.
361. Q. Well, what relevance would that have to
telling Professor Christensen what they were saying about him? That had nothing to do with their cases in
court.
A. You're right.
It's one of the tensions as a journalist that I struggle with. [Back]
362. Q. Not only that. In the past, you've taken a different view,
haven't you? You've taken the view that
people should stand up and be counted if they're going to make serious
allegations about other people.
A. Could you show me the paragraph, please?
363. Q. You can't remember whether you have or
not? I can't ask you just a general
question about whether you've taken that view?
I have to put the expressed passage to you before you'll think it's
fair?
A. Yes.
364. Q. But you don't have to put the expressed
allegation to Dr. Christensen, but I've got to put it to, or it won't be
fair? Is that it? Well, I will then because I think it would
only be fair to put to it you.
A. Thank you.
365. Q. Page 283 of your book, "But who says
taking a political stand should be a 'pleasant experience'? Insulated from all risk, consequence or
inconvenience, changing people's attitudes for the direction of public policy
shouldn't be easy. Demonstrating against capital punishment or nuclear weapons
or for abortion access often isn't pleasant either ‑‑
especially when one is confronted by equally passionate protestors on the other
side of the debate. But surely, this is the price one pays for having moral
convictions. Findley and McKay, though,
seem to be saying that while they believe pornography is harmful to women, they
should be able to protest it without disturbing the calm of their own
lives. Don't get me wrong. These women deserve to be protected from
criminal behaviour like everyone else.
It would be unacceptable for anyone to assault them, for example, or to
commit vandalism against their property.
But why should they be shielded from the opinions of fellow citizens who
disagree with them, or who think their own action raise difficult
questions? Why should they think they're
entitled to a 'pleasant life' when they permititively and of their own free
will chose to set in motion a series of events that have caused other people a
great deal of grief?" Now, your
informants were accusing Professor Christensen of doing something highly
unethical, correct?
A. Highly unethical?
366. Q. They're claiming that he pestered them to
send their custom from their lawyers to [Tim] Adam and so forth?
A. Well, I think it's disturbing. I don't know if I would say it's highly
unethical.
367. Q. Something that the average person would find
highly discreditable?
A. Yes.
368. Q. And in terms of Dr. Christensen knowing
the names of these people ‑‑ one can understand perhaps not
publishing the names in an article ‑‑ but in terms of
Dr. Christensen knowing the names for the reasons you've said ‑‑
by your reasoning, really, if they're going to create grief for
Dr. Christensen, they ought to have the courage to stand up and say who
they are, if they're the alleged victims, correct?
A. You have a point, and it may very well be
that if I had had a conversation with Dr. Christensen, he may have very
well convinced me that he had a right to know the name of his accusers. And the tension that I struggle with as a
journalist is that on the one hand it's very difficult to write some stories
without promising to protect people's identities. On the other hand, I do fundamentally believe
that people have the right to know the names of their accusers. And that's a difficult balancing act. But you see this, is a preliminary discussion
with Dr. Christensen. I'm not about
to give away names at this point. I'm
covering preliminary ground in these questions.
369. Q. Wait a minute. You're saying that Dr. Christensen might
have been able to convince you to tell him the names of these people?
A. He might have convinced me to go back to them
and to talk to them about the possibility of revealing their names to him. Their concern was that their names not be in
the newspaper.
370. Q. And so you didn't even want to tell
Dr. Christensen in your initial question any of the actual details because
he'd be able to identify the people, correct, who were making the allegations?
A. No.
That wasn't the issue. The issue
was there's a lot of ground to cover.
Here is a whole, long list of questions that I think accurately reflect
that ground. Let's have an open
discussion.
371. Q. Why didn't you call
Christensen? Why did you send him an
e‑mail? Why didn't you phone him
like you did everybody else?
A. Well, I intended to phone him, and then I got
an e‑mail from him, and it seemed to me that that was his choice of how
he wanted to conduct things, and so I did the courtesy of responding to him in
the format that he chose. [So I was assumed to be using
my original email to send her a hidden message about
how I preferred to be
interviewed! But at that time, I had
no way of knowing she meant to write about me as well as about Adams. And she could see there was no indication in
that email of mine that I knew she meant to write about me. Finally, she knew
that email is no adequate way to interview anyone.][Back]
372. Q. Well, he didn't ask you for an e‑mail,
did he? He just said that he would hold
off to hear the other side of the story.
You say it's a format he chose. He e‑mailed you, but he didn't ask
that you e‑mailed him back. Why
didn't you call him like you did everyone else?
A. And I've just answered your question. He
initiated contact by e‑mail, and so I chose to continue via e‑mail.
373. Q. Well, in fact, the problem was that you had already
advocated his expulsion from the organization, and he knew that. [Not when I sent that first e-mail] Did you expect
him to think you were open‑minded when you'd already told people that he should be kicked out of
the organization, and he knew that?
A. Whether he was open‑minded or not
doesn't seem to be relevant here.
374. Q. You see, let me ask you this: You don't think it's relevant. You knew, didn't you, that Professor
Christensen had been told by people ‑‑
A. I did not know what Professor Christensen had
been told by anyone. I am not following
his around.
375. Q. You knew that you had told all these people
that in your opinion Professor Christensen should be expelled from ECMAS?
A. All these people? I think I had one discussion with
Mr. Bouvier because he asked my opinion.
376. Q. So we'll get back to that at a later time,
but you told ‑‑ you could well know that Mr. Bouvier
would have told ‑‑
A. Do I know what Mr. Bouvier would have
told Professor Christensen? No, I
don't. I'm sorry, I have no idea of how
close they were, how frequently they talked, how accurately Mr. Bouvier
would be represented the conversation or at what length.
377. Q. What I'm suggesting to you is that when you e‑mailed
Dr. Christensen Item 14.1, you could reasonably have anticipated that
Mr. Bouvier would have told him about your recommendation that he be
expelled, correct? And if you wondered
about that, three days later you certainly knew it when he wrote
Mr. White. You knew that people had
talked to him and told him what you'd said?
A. Sure.
I'm not sure that it's a given that if you tell someone that's president
of an organization that there's a public relations problem that they're going
to spill the beans to them directly.
378. Q. And this kind of surprises me here. You write
Dr. Christensen on March 23rd. One
day previously, you told Dr. Bouvier that you thought he should be
expelled from the organization, correct?
A. Yes.
379. Q. You don't tell Dr. Christensen that. You
ask him the so‑called question.
You ask him what I've said is a rhetorical question that you think is a
perfectly, pointed, wonderful question, that's 5 No. 2, as to whether he thinks
it's appropriate or inappropriate. But
you don't tell him that you've already made that decision, do you?
A. This is his opportunity to respond and
convince me that I'm wrong.
380. Q. Well, you don't tell him what your position
is. You don't do him that courtesy of
telling him that you've already weighed him in the balance and fond him
wanting, do you? Don't you think that
was sneaky of you?
A. I think it's standard journalistic
practice. You do not phone up someone
and begin an interview by telling them exactly what you think of them. You ask
them questions, and give them an opportunity to form your opinion.
381. Q. In he had known, as he learned, that you had
already told people you thought he should be expelled from the organization, it
would have been reasonable for him to think you were biased, wouldn't it?
A. It would have been reasonable for him to
think that I had a strong opinion and that he had an uphill battle.
382. Q. Exactly.
And so maybe he should consult his lawyer. In other words, if had known the truth, that
you had already taken a position advocating his expulsion from this
organization, if you told him the truth, you would never have expected him to
answer your written questions, would you?
A. Yes, I would have. Here's the situation as I see it. Please, help me understand why you do not see
the situation that way.
383. Q. But you didn't say here's the situation as I
see it. You didn't tell him how you saw
the situation, did you?
A. That's true, but you've just asked me if I
would have, would that have been a reasonable thing.
384. Q. Yes, and then of course, instead of directly
responding to my question, you gave a little scenario. Here's the situation as I see it. What do you say? But you didn't do that, did you?
A. No, I did not.
385. Q. Why not?
A. I just told you. It's not standard journalistic practice to
phone someone up and preface interview questions by telling them what your
opinion already is at that point in time.
386. Q. Well, wouldn't you call that ‑‑
in non‑journalistic parlance, we might call that sandbagging. Why wouldn't you do that? Why wouldn't you do Professor Christensen the
courtesy of telling him that you'd already made up your mind about one of the
things you were asking about?
A. I've answered that question already.
387. Q. No, you've just said it's not standard
journalistic practice.
A. And that is my answer, sir.
388. Q. Where do you get this standard journalistic
practice from? You don't have a code of
ethics that you adhere to. So where's
the code of standard journalistic practice?
Is there one?
A. That is way the job is done.
389. Q. So when you talk about this standard
journalistic practice, perhaps that's what I should have asked you about
instead of ethics. Is there a code of
standard journalistic practice that you're aware of?
A. No.
There's a way to get the job done.
390. Q. And has anyone articulated this way to get
the job done in any form that you accept and that you could refer me to?
A. No.
391. Q. Is this just a sort of what you picked up in
your years as a journalist?
A. Yes.
392. Q. And has anyone ever written this down
anywhere that you're aware of?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
393. Q. You must have read quite a few books
about ‑‑ is there any book about the practice of journalism
that is a guide or inspiration to you that would you accept as authoritative?
A. No.
394. Q. What's the reason, then ‑‑
you see, to me, it seems ‑‑ well, perhaps, for the police, we
don't mind them misleading people to try to get statements. Why would it be
standard journalistic practice with someone like Dr. Christensen not to
tell him where you're coming from?
MR.
KOZAK: I don't know if you're suggesting
with that question that Ms. Laframboise was misleading
Dr. Christensen to preface ‑‑
MR.
WILLIS: Mr. Kozak, I accept that
rebuke. Even if it's not a rebuke, I
accept that qualification.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
395. Q. You wouldn't say that just because
something's standard journalistic practice that it's okay to do, that it's
ethically all right?
A. That's true.
396. Q. I mean, we know that most ‑‑
the majority of famous journalists have at some time committed plagiarism. We know that, don't we? I'm sorry.
A. No, we don't know that.
397. Q. We don't?
A. No.
Most of the famous journalists have at some time committed plagiarism?
398. Q. But if they had, would that be all
right? If that was standard journalistic
practice, would that be okay, plagiarism?
A. Of course not.
399. Q. So let's suppose that you ‑‑
I suppose that ‑‑ do all journalists sometimes mislead people
to try to get them to make admissions or to try to get a newsworthy story?
A. I'm sorry, I can't speak for all journalists.
400. Q. Do you know what standard journalistic
practice is?
A. No.
401. Q. Can you articulate standard journalistic
practice? For example, let's just take
the keeping of files. I thought a
standard journalistic practice would be that you have all your files numbered
and dated and stuff, but you don't. Do
you depart from standard journalistic practice then?
A. I would suggest to you, sir, that my files
are far more complete and orderly than the average journalist. I'm a little anal when it comes to files.
402. Q. So I guess ‑‑ wouldn't you
agree with me that the fact that something is standard journalistic practice is
no justification for doing it? You have
to find the justification elsewhere?
A. That would be true.
403. Q. Then I ask you. Here you have a situation in which you got
yourself emotionally involved in a story to this extent ‑‑
A. Wait a minute. Where did I say that?
404. Q. I'm suggesting it to you, that you've
actually made a recommendation to people as to what they should do?
A. And that's emotional involvement?
405. Q. Well, you agree with me that you have
emotional involvement in men's issues, correct?
A. No, I have a sympathy. I think that's rather different.
406. Q. All right.
You've indicated that you have sympathy towards these men's issues?
A. That's right.
407. Q. And you have sufficient sympathy that you see
yourself in a sense as a bit of a lonely crusader when other people have no
sympathy with men's issues or men's groups, other journalists don't, correct?
A. Correct.
408. Q. And to some extent, I'm suggesting to you
that you have said that you have a positive emotional involvement with men's
issues and the groups that espouse them?
A. No, I'm sorry. I'm comfortable with sympathy. I'm not comfortable with emotional
involvement.
409. Q. So one can have sympathy without emotional
involvement?
A. Yes.
410. Q. But when people asked
you ‑‑ when Bouvier asked you, as you put it, for what
should we do, and at this point, you knew that it's not standard journalistic practice to in the middle
of a story make recommendations to people about what they should do, is it?
A. That's right.
411. Q. But nonetheless, you've violated that
standard the journalistic practice because why?
A. Because of my sympathy with the cause
and ‑‑ [Here she admits breaching only "standard practice", not
ethical rules.] [Back]
412. Q. And you don't like the expression emotional
involvement, but sympathy you'll accept?
A. That's right.
413. Q. So your sympathy with the cause overrode your
normal journalistic practice which would be not to be involved, not to become
part of the story?
A. That's right.
My normal journalistic practice would be to give people rope, let them
hang themselves, let them say dumb things, and print every single one of
them. That would be normal journalistic
practice.
414. Q. Right, but in this case, what happens is that
you give ‑‑ and that was then how you wanted to operate with
regard to Dr. Christensen, give him rope, and see if he could say dumb
things in response to your questions?
A. No, I object to that. I really do.
415. Q. Well, you see, if you had such sympathy with
the movement, such sympathy that you're willing to give sympathetic advice to
Mr. Bouvier, what about Dr. Christensen? Wouldn't sympathy have dictated that instead
of sandbagging him by disguising your views, you tell him that you thought he
ought to leave?
A. It's very difficulty to have sympathy with
someone who out of the blue writes you an e‑mail that begins, "You
have no idea of the amount of damage you're going to do." And ends with, "‑‑ impugning
your integrity." Unfortunately, the
sympathy factor kind of goes out the window pretty quickly under that
circumstance. [Writing to oppose her
attempt to do us harm was not writing "out of the blue".]
416. Q. You'd already decided that he should be
expelled. How could ‑‑
the sympathy must have gone before he e‑mailed you, mustn't it?
A. No. I
haven't interviewed him yet. I do,
whether you believe it or not, have an open‑mind and an even‑handed
approach to things. It was quite
possible for him to convince me otherwise.
417. Q. Exactly.
It's important for you to believe that you have an open‑minded and
even‑handed approach ‑‑
A. Thank you.
418. Q. ‑‑ but I'm trying to show you that
you're wrong in this case. And so you've
told me that you had sympathy towards the movement, and that's why you overrode
what you would consider to be normal journalistic practice which would be give
them rope and then hang them. And you gave them advice that you thought was
good, right?
A. That's right.
419. Q. And on the other hand, if Christensen hadn't
e‑mailed you in the way that he did, are you saying that you would have
extended the same type of sympathy to him?
A. Absolutely.
Please, clarify; help me understand.
420. Q. And you would have told him look, in the
interest of the movement, I think you should quit. Let's not make a story out
of this. Why don't you just quit? Is that what you would have ‑‑
A. It's very likely that's what part of our
conversation would have been.
421. Q. So let's look at this e‑mail that may
have changed his views.
MR.
KOZAK: Just off the record for a moment.
‑‑‑
Brief adjournment at 3:20 p.m.
‑‑‑
Upon resuming at 3:37 p.m.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
422. Q. You acknowledge that you're still under oath?
A. Yes, I do.
423. Q. Now, when we broke, we were talking about the
e‑mail that Dr. Christensen sent you, and that is 14.2, and it
starts, "You have no idea of the harm you are about to do." Now, I think you said that if it hadn't been
for this e‑mail, you might well have disclosed to Dr. Christensen
that you had already formed the opinion that he ought to resign from ECMAS
because of his controversial views, correct?
A. I'm sorry if that's what I suggested. I think
what I meant was that if it had not been for this e‑mail, I would have
had more sympathy for Dr. Christensen, and this was difficult to maintain
in the face of this e‑mail.
424. Q. You did say that ‑‑ I
thought you said that if it hadn't been for this e‑mail, that you would
have disclosed him your feelings rather than merely asking him those 13
questions?
A. If it had not been for the e‑mail, I
anticipate that we would have had a courteous conversation along the lines that
I had with Mr. [Tim] Adams, and it is quite possible that I made that
disclosure in that context.
425. Q. So when he said you
have no idea of the harm you are about to do, I take it that in itself you didn't consider
to be an insult or a discourtesy?
A. Yes, I did.
I certainly didn't consider it to be a compliment. I am someone who has written about the
father's rights movement for a long time and very sympathetically. And to suggest that I have no idea what I'm
doing in this particular case was not a courteous thing to say. [Back]
426. Q. All right.
And was that enough? I mean, once
you read that sentence to warrant your sympathy?
A. No, I think it was a cumulation of the entire
e‑mail as well as ‑‑ we have the actual copy. This is
the portion that is attached, and I think looking at the original copy would be
helpful here. So it will be the 21st, I
believe.
427. Q. All right.
That's Item 8 in our production.
A. You will notice that this is not a private e‑mail
sent to me. This is an e‑mail in
which I feel that Professor Christensen is saying some rather discourteous
things about me, and it's sent to a senator in the senate of Canada as well.
428. Q. Okay.
A. Which I interpreted as an attempt to pressure
me into behaving in a certain manner rather than as the beginning of a
courteous dialogue.
429. Q. And then the next paragraph, "[Tim] Adams
had no real interest in being vice president of ECMAS. He made the decision suddenly at the AGM in an
attempt to thwart a bid for power by Louise.
(There was really no danger, but he didn't know the full story at the
time.) Having alienated nearly all of
the regular ECMAS activists, she took a few non‑regulars and a couple of
never‑were members and a couple of alienated members with her, hoping to
grab some power. In a large part, what
she is doing now is revenge Over her rejection by the main body of activists
here." Now, you understood,
actually, that was also the position that Bouvier and Laberge and all these
people took, correct?
A. I think Mr. Bouvier expressed similar
views. I don't think I can say that
Mr. Laberge expressed those views.
430. Q. But this paragraph in itself, I presume, you
took no exception to? You understood
those were his views?
A. Those were his views, yes.
431. Q. And then he goes on to say, "You don't
know Louise. From a distance, one only
sees her good work, not her dark side; I learned that the hard way when I dug
into my old‑age savings to bring her here last fall." So again, I understand to you Louise was
merely a news source and not a friend.
So this was nothing that would cause you problems?
A. Well,
actually, no. First of all, in the first line, I'm being told that I have no idea of
the harm I'm being done. Then I'm being
told that I don't know Louise. Well, in
fact, I do know Louise, and I've had an extensive relationship with her, and
I've found her to be a very reliable news source, indeed. So from a certain
perspective, my judgement is being insulted.
I don't know the harm I'm doing, and I don't know Louise. And rather
than rely on my experience, I should rely on Dr. Christensen's allegation
that she has a dark side.
432. Q. Well, but of course the next sentence doesn't
ask you to rely on that allegation. It
only asks you to rely on it to this extent.
It says, it asks you if you will hold
off until you hear the other side of the [Back] story. In fact, you had told people that you were
going to publish an article on March 24th, hadn't you? You were going to try and buy them time over
the weekend. You referred to buying time for ECMAS. Do you recall that?
A. Unfortunately, there were a number of dates
we were going to try to publish on.
433. Q. But the point being that you recall now you
had told people from ECMAS that you'd intended to publish, really, before
Friday, the 23rd. But you were going to
give them the weekend to try and get their affairs in order including expelling
Christensen.
A. Well, we wouldn't have published before
Friday. It seems to me that the plan was
always to publish this on a weekend. And
at a certain point, we made a decision, because the story was still developing,
to give them the weekend.
434. Q. Okay.
But originally, and when you ‑‑ from an internal point
of view, you made that decision because as you said the story was still
developing. But what you told
Mr. Bouvier and stuff was that you had succeeded in buying them time so
that they could get their house in order?
A. Yes.
435. Q. So that the story would not be Group Makes
Horrible Mistake, but the story would be Group Corrects Horrible Mistake.
A. Well, frankly, if they corrected the mistake,
I doubt there would have been the story.
436. Q. That's why you told them you were going to
buy them time, correct? You told
Mr. Bouvier I've succeeded in buying you time. You now have the weekend, so you can have
your meeting and correct the situation.
A. But you asked me if the story would change
from this to this, and I'm saying the story may well have disappeared at that
point.
437. Q. Now, what I'm saying to you is that around
about this time, March 22nd, 23rd, you had been telling people you'd spoken
to ‑‑ among whom was not Dr. Christensen because you
hadn't phoned him or made any attempt to contact him at that point ‑‑
that you were going to publish this article forthwith?
A. We were certainly ‑‑ our
intent was to publish it as soon as possible, yes.
438. Q. So you could understand why
Dr. Christensen would be urgently trying to convince you to hold off?
A. Yes.
439. Q. And in fact, you had already decided by March
22nd to wait at least the weekend so that your story would develop?
A. No, I'm sorry. I can't tell you when we made that
decision. We made it at some point, but
I cannot remember when, whether it was made on the 22nd or the 23rd or the
21st. [Then she's forgotten what is plain in her
Bouvier interview.]
440. Q. But when you read Dr. Christensen's e‑mail ‑‑
let's put it this way ‑‑ you knew that he thought you were
going to write a story without necessarily even contacting him? [Again: when I sent my first email, I had no
idea she meant to attack
me as well as Adams, so I had no reason to think she intended to contact me.]
A.
Yes, and it was an absurd supposition
on his
part. So you know, there we are.
441. Q. You say it was an absurd supposition on his
part that you would write the story without contacting him?
A. Yes.
442. Q. Well, why, actually, did you not contact him
earlier?
A. When there are allegations being made about
people, the most efficient way to approach the issue is to interview as many
people as possible about those allegations, to listen to those allegations, to listen to people who don't
make those allegations, to gather all of that information together, and
then present it to the person who is being accused. That would have been my preference when I
dealt with Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams phoned me, and so I, out of courtesy,
responded almost immediately. That was
not my choice at that point to interview Mr. Adams. And so with Professor Christensen, it was the
same thing. I was going to interview
lots of people. Then I was going to
contact them and say there are being all of these different things said about
you. Would you, please, respond?
443. Q. I thought the story was [Tim] Adams, correct?
A. Yes.
444. Q. And his misconduct or alleged
misconduct. With regard to Professor
Christensen, in terms of his views, those views were communicated to you by
Louise Malenfant, right?
A. No, they were communicated to me in his book.
445. Q. Well, but for example, did various people
draw that book to your attention?
A. No.
Ms. Malenfant drew the book to my attention, but what are his
views? The views are contained in his
book.
446. Q. So once she had drawn the book to your
attention which was on or about March 12th, you had all the information you
needed to talk to him about that, didn't you?
A. That's true, but I was asking people ‑‑
I was talking to people who said he was advising them to fire their
lawyers. So I wanted to get his opinion
about that as well. And often, it's very
difficult to actually get in touch with someone you want to interview. You've
leaving voice messages. You're playing
telephone tag. You don't want to have to
do it multiple times.
447. Q. But in this case, you didn't make any attempt
to get a hold of Dr. Christensen?
A. No, I did not have the opportunity before I
received his e‑mail.
448. Q. That was just a minor point I wanted to
raise. If you look at your production
No. 19, page U00342, this is, we believe, your interview with [Source B]. Although, this is one of your so‑called
confidential sources. And if I can refer
you to page 7, you say to [Source B]...
MR.
KOZAK: Is that part of your question?
BY
MR. WILLIS:
449. Q. I'm sorry, you said to the source ‑‑
that was inadvertent, sorry. You say to
the source, "Now, one of the things you may not be aware of is that
Professor Christensen wrote a book a few years ago. Answer: Right.
And I've heard about it. I
haven't read the book. DL: Yeah, I have the book right here. I think ‑‑ let me just see
when he wrote it, 1990. So, you know,
ten years ago. And there is a lot in the
book and, you know, it is interesting.
There is much that I would agree with.
You know, 98 percent of it is, you know, it's the man's opinion. And you'll agree or you don't agree, but
there's a small little bit of it where he talks about sex with children, and he
suggests that he doesn't really think sex with children is such a bad
thing. Holly." Responds the witness. Then you say, "Yeah, yeah, and so, you know, I wouldn't have even
known about this. But I started looking
into [Tim] Adams." Well, that actually wasn't true, was it, because you'd
read the book?
A. Okay.
I've read the book. I don't think
I read that part the first time.
450. Q. But actually, Louise Malenfant had drawn the offending passages in the
book to your attention before?
A. You're right.
That is not quite true the way I phrased that.
451. Q. And then the source says, "uh-huh. DL: And then
they said oh, but, you know, some people I've been talking to have said well,
have you read what Professor Christensen says about sex with children? Because
he seems to think it's okay. So, you
know, now I'm saying holly
cow." That actually was a complete misrepresentation of what happened to the source. Now, you've told the source that
you started interviewing [Tim] Adams, and then some people you'd been talking to
then said well, have you read what Professor Christensen says about sex with
children because he seems to think it's okay.
So now, I'm saying holly cow.
A. You're right.
I got the order confused
there. [Since Ms. Malenfant alleged this to her for at least a week
before the reporter interviewed anyone about Mr. Adams, and not one of them said it to her, this is not
a case of just getting "confused".]
452. Q. Why did you do that?
A. I don't know. [This is actually a familiar pattern of deceit:
To make a story sound more
robustly real, a speaker embellishes it with details fabricated on the fly.] 453. Q. And again, you'll agree with me here that in
this case, however we may fence about what you told Mr. Bouvier when he
says he doesn't seem to think it's such a bad thing, here you come right out
and you say to this source because he seems to think it's okay. So here you're
definitely ‑‑ I take it you wouldn't disagree with me that
here you're telling this source that Professor Christensen condones sex with children?
A. You're right.
It is a stronger wording of it than two
paragraphs above.
454. Q. And you'd accept that condones is not an
inappropriate word for what ‑‑
A. "He seems to think it's
okay. He's certainly neutral on the
subject." [The second quote-mark is
misplaced; it
should follow 'okay'. And
clearly 'not neutral' was actually
said or meant. So she is granting here that this
claim of hers lacks the tentativeness of 'maybe' or 'suggesting' in what it
says about my views.] [Back]
455. Q. Now, in paragraph 29 of your counterclaim,
I'm trying to understand. We're looking
at the third paragraph which says, "Allegedly, to suggest to my associates
that I condone pedophilia." I guess
I'm having trouble with this. At this
point, when you talk to the source, Dr. Christensen hasn't done anything
to offend you. You know, it's a small
part of the book. You talked earlier about the ambiguity of the reasoning and
that sort of thing. And you talk about
your sympathy with the movement for which Dr. Christensen was, in part, a
representative. Why did you express yourself in
the fashion that you did to this particular source?
A. One of the difficulties I encountered while
writing this article was that many of the people I spoke to did not recognize
that there was a public relations problem with [Tim] Adams or, indeed, with
Professor Christensen. And so one of the
things that I expect that I did was push the envelope a little to try to kind
of poke people a little into understanding why there were some issues here that
they weren't seeing. So I would suspect
that that's probably the best explanation.
[In part, this is a desperate fabrication. The interviewees to whom
she made these claims ("Source B" and ECMAS president Bouvier) had
given no indication of not "seeing" the problem with my book, for she
made it to them out of the blue. It
follows that she realized, before
describing the book to them, that simply telling the truth about it would not
get people in general to oppose me over the book.] [Back]
456. Q. Let me ask you about this. I mean, because this general proposition, the
public relations problem, I mean obviously, if you don't write the story,
there's no public relations problem?
A. Well, just the journalist down the street who
already has an ax to grind against all these groups is going to write the
story, and then there's really the public relations story.
457. Q. Is there any indication that anybody else was
interested in the story at all?
A. Yes, it was one of the reasons that we ran
the news story, the short version that we did, is that we heard that there were
other members of the media in Alberta were picking up the story. [Again: this was Malenfant's lie to her.]
458. Q. I mean, for example, there are other views
that Christensen has that perhaps are equally controversial. For example Christensen's views on violence
and pornography as expressed in his book.
Are you familiar with those?
A. Not off the top of my head.
459. Q. You'll agree with me that this whole issue of
violence and pornography is a big one?
A. Absolutely.
460. Q. And Christensen argued strongly that
aggression is bad, but pornography is okay, if I may over simplify. You understood that to be a fair ‑‑
A. Yes, that's fair.
461. Q. In fact, he seems to be ‑‑
if we look at page is 153, now I appreciate you haven't read 153. Have you read
the book now?
A. No.
462. Q. Still not?
Are you purposely not reading it so as not to corrupt your former
pristine impressions, or you just haven't got around to it?
A. I haven't got around to it.
463. Q. In that case, I won't further your potential
corruption by referring you to page 153.
"If we are to do anything significant about all the aggression in
this society, the remedy must include a lot of things such as attacking its
social and economical roots. It must
also include simply doing a better job of teaching morality to children ‑‑
real morality, that is ‑‑ respect and concern for others, and equal
dignity for all. If guilt is to be
taught (and it probably must be), let it be only other genuine evils like
aggression itself." Now, although
Dr. Christensen's views on pornography and aggression are somewhat controversial
in the sense that he's saying that just because aggression accompanied
pornography that's no reason to ban pornography, his views are actually less
controversial than yours, aren't they?
A. In what way?
464. Q. In that you don't take such a strong
view. You've expressed yourself on many
occasions on the question of pornography.
And you don't take such a strong view against aggression or depictions
of aggression as Dr. Christensen does in his book?
A. So my views are more extreme because I don't
write against aggression?
465. Q. To the extent that I'm just saying in this
one respect, that is to say, in the evil of the pornography and aggression,
your views are considerably more controversial than Dr. Christensen's,
wouldn't you say?
A. No, I'm sorry. I'm not sure I've ever written about
aggression. So I'm not sure we can
conclude what my views are one way or the other on it.
466. Q. Or violence, let's say, violence, aggression. I'm not distinguishing between the two.
A. No, I'm sorry. I just don't ‑‑ you know,
unless you want to point me to some of my writings about pornography and
somehow make the link a little more clear, I don't want to compare myself to
his views one way or the other.
467. Q. So you wouldn't say that you hold
controversial views about violence and pornography?
A. I hold controversial views about pornography
for sure.
468. Q. And in particular, about violent pornography,
that is, pornography involving depictions of bondage and domination and things
of that kind?
A. I don't consider that violent porn.
469. Q. Right, but most people do.
A. Bondage is violent pornography?
470. Q. Most people would find your views
controversial in matters involving violence, physical submission, things of
that kind. Wouldn't you agree with that?
MR.
KOZAK: You've lumped a couple of things
together there.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
471. Q. Well, let's just take your views on bondage
or [non-]consensual sex appearing in pornographic fantasies. You don't necessarily think that's bad,
correct?
A. That's true.
472. Q. In fact, you have a collection on your web
site of such materials.
A. From romance novels, yes.
473. Q. And you'd agree with me that your views are
controversial in that regard because most people have a different view?
A. Well, therein lies the paradox. If most people have a different view, why is
romance novels 55 percent of paperback sales? [The violent ones are a far smaller proportion.]
474. Q. Yes, nonetheless, your views are ‑‑
let's just say you'd agree with me that those views are controversial?
A. Yes.
475. Q. And so holding those views ‑‑
such views can create the so‑called PR problem?
A. Certainly.
476. Q. Dr. Christensen's views on these
matters ‑‑ well, I presume we can say that even the rest of
his book with which you agree, the 98 percent or 95 percent of which you agree,
a good deal of it is controversial?
A. Absolutely.
477. Q. And the part that you singled out to talk to
about people, of course, that's like a digression within his book which is
mostly about pornography, correct? In
other words, there's a chapter on child pornography. Within that chapter, there are four pages,
and within those four pages, there are a few sentences that deal parenthetically
with the effects of sexual contact on children.
A. Okay.
Just to be a little more precise, there's a chapter called Sex and
Psychological Health. And within that
chapter, which goes from 102 to 113 ‑‑
478. Q. Yes, but you didn't read that one.
A. ‑‑ there's a section from 109 to
113 entitled Sex and Young People.
479. Q. Yes.
So I guess what I'm saying is ‑‑ and let me ask you
this: Those views are controversial of
Dr. Christensen's. There's no issue
about that nor does Dr. Christensen in Item 20.1 deny that, indeed, he
talks about witch‑hunts and rational beliefs and things of this kind.
A. That's true.
480. Q. Did you ‑‑ I'm trying to
find a way to phrase this. You certainly
had no evidence that Dr. Christensen, in any way, advocated grown people
having sex with children?
A. That's true.
481. Q. Nor really did you come across anything that
caused you to suspect that Dr. Christensen was in any way involved with
advocating or condoning or in any way supporting sex between adults and
children?
A. It's a long list, but I think that's true,
yes.
482. Q. And in terms of Dr. Christensen's
support of Mr. Adams, you never learned anything that caused you to feel
that Dr. Christensen thought that the sex that Mr. Adams had had with
the 15 year‑old prostitute that resulted in his being disbarred was in
any way defensible or okay or not so bad or anything of that kind?
A. Well, the fact that he feels that it's
appropriate for someone with that background to be intimately involved in ECMAS
and, indeed, to assume the position of elected office suggests to me that
perhaps he's not as uneasy with a conviction connected to a minor prostitute as
some other people might be.[I told
her how he was elected.]
483. Q. All right.
But I mean, there's the fact that Mr. Adams is who he is, and with
a conviction that he has ‑‑ but of course, I
think you've admitted in your undertakings and everybody else knew that too about
Mr. Adams. In other words,
Mr. Adams's conviction was common knowledge?
A. That's right.
484. Q. The fact that Mr. Adams had been
disbarred was common knowledge?
A. Yes. [Back]
485. Q. And but other than the fact that
Mr. Adams had been found guilty of that sexual misconduct, you were not
aware of in all this time and all the people you spoke to of
Dr. Christensen having said anything which suggests that he minimized or
failed to take with proper seriousness Mr. Adams's disbarment?
A. Not directly.
However, Professor Christensen is an educated man. He's a philosophy professor. I think it's reasonable to have expected that
he might be a little more sophisticated in his analysis than the ordinary Joe
off the street who's just coming to ECMAS because they're looking for
help. If anyone could make the distinction
and understand the public relations
implications, I would have expected it would have been an educated gentleman
like Professor Christensen. And so yes,
everyone knew, I would suggest, that Professor Christensen was in a better
position than most to draw certain conclusions based on that knowledge.
486. Q. Well, tell me this: Did you ever learn anything that suggested
that Mr. Adams himself was not appropriately remorseful and accepting of
the wrong that he had done? In other
words, Mr. Adams was convicted. He was sentenced. He was disbarred. Did you ever learn anything that suggested
that Mr. Adams in any way advocated the kind of conduct of which he had
been convicted?
A. It was suggested in one of the interviews I
conducted that when the person ‑‑ and I don't remember
who ‑‑ learned about Mr. Adams's disbarment, the
narrative that he was told was that Mr. Adams had been set up by the
police, that it was not that Mr. Adams had made a grievance judgement,
error in judgement. It had been oh,
well, he'd been set up by the police.
That suggested to me that perhaps within the group there was some
minimizing going on of the seriousness of the offence.
487. Q. But that did not come from Mr. Adams?
A. No.
488. Q. And in fact, you had read the judgement of
the Court of Appeal. So you knew exactly
what did happen?
A. Yes, and I believe there is something in that
judgement as well that suggests that the judges are not convinced that
Mr. Adams fully appreciates the nature of his offence.
489. Q. Of course, you know that the Law Society's
decision to disbar him was 2 to 1, don't you? Or did you know that?
A. I don't remember.
490. Q. Did you know who the dissenting person was?
A. I don't remember.
491. Q. Did you know it Alan McLeod, QC, who
subsequently became the president of the Law Society who dissented and felt
that Mr. Adams should not be disbarred?
A. I don't remember if I knew that.
492. Q. And when you talked to Mr. Adams, was
there any indication that he was anything other than remorseful and apologetic
for what he had done?
A. Mr. Adams, it seemed to me, was far more
interested in keeping his name out of the paper and in not having any more
problems with the Law Society than he was in the reputation of ECMAS.
493. Q. I'm sorry.
What made you conclude that? I
understand that Mr. Adams resigned immediately when it was pointed out to
him that his executive position was going to create a so‑called PR
problem?
A. Well, if he resigned, I certainly never
received any copy with his resignation letter.
And I subsequently was told that his resignation was not accepted. [She was told in writing that his resignation as VP was
accepted but he wasn't expelled.]
494. Q. Let's go back to my question which you
answered slightly different. Did you
ever have any indication other than this scuttlebutt of sort of vague hearsay
that some people may have been attempting in some way to minimize what happened
to Mr. Adams? But in your
discussions with Mr. Adams himself, was there any indication on your part
that he in any way attempted to minimize his offence or condone it?
A. I don't remember. I would have to look at the transcript
again. As I said, I certainly felt that
his concerns were rather skewed.
495. Q. All right.
And you're saying they were skewed towards protecting himself rather
than protecting ECMAS, in your view?
A. Yes.
496. Q. I've read the transcript of the interview
with Mr. Adams, and I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where that's
coming from. Let's find it. Here with
are. It's 31. So the first thing he says at page 2 is,
"That's my primary concern that my children don't need to see this in the
paper." I suppose you could figure
out that Mr. Adams's children had suffered a good deal because of his
foolish error, couldn't you?
A. Yes.
497. Q. And I suppose that you could figure that
Mr. Adams wouldn't particularly want his teenage children to see this in
the paper?
A. I'm not sure I knew his children were
teenage, but yes.
498. Q. Whatever, his children to see it in the
paper?
A. Yes.
499. Q. Did you consider this an unworthy motive on
his part or a skewed motive?
A. No.
500. Q. "You know, obviously, my children come
first, and they don't need to read about this.
So if that's a decision I have to make, I consider it made." So you
knew that ‑‑ and then he goes on on the next page, after you
assure him the last thing you want to be doing as a journalist is making
news. "I don't think that changes
my position as a father and responsible father. Regardless of what happened
five years ago, I cannot afford, being it newsworthy, not to put my childrens'
reputations in jeopardy. And if I have
to resign from this position to the very least reduce the chance of that being
publicized, that's the position of an over abundance of caution I have to
take." Will you agree with me that
perhaps your recollection of his motives being skewed was faulty?
A. No, I'm sorry. There was a great deal left of the
transcript.
501. Q. Why don't you read the rest of it then, and
tell me where it's faulty?
A. This is 13 pages. Unless someone wants to stretch their legs...
‑‑‑
Brief adjournment at 4:19 p.m.
‑‑‑
Upon resuming at 4:27 p.m.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
502. Q. You've now had an opportunity to read the
transcript of your interview with Mr. Adams?
A. That's right.
503. Q. And now that you've read it, actually, you
know that you've got a message from him at the very end in which he said that
his resignation was given to Mr. Bouvier?
A. Yes.
504. Q. And he said, quote, after that,
"Hopefully that will serve you at least some restraint in possibly
printing my name. And my three children
are all in school, and I certainly don't want to expose them to anything
embarrassing or humiliating, and I would implore you to listen to the bias of
those who are bringing this sort of thing to your attention and to look into
their dirty laundry as well, if that's what this all going to be about and see
if he who is throwing the first stone is truly without sin." So in fact,
you did know that he resigned?
A. If I truly believed that this had been a bona
fide resignation, I expect the story would have died. The problem is shortly afterwards, I spoke to
Mr. Bouvier who tells me that his resignation was refused. And then they
have practically an all‑day meeting, is my understanding, to debate
whether they should accept his resignation or not.
505. Q.
And ultimately, they accept it?
A. Ultimately, they do.
506. Q. Right.
But Mr. Adams himself ‑‑ I've noticed every single
place here where he talks about why he wants you to hold off. He mentions his three children even in the one
occasion where he mentions his desire not to get in trouble with the Law
Society. So you'll agree with me that
his main motivation ‑‑ at least it's mentioned something like
seven times if I count correctly ‑‑ was to avoid embarrassment to
his children?
A. He mentions his children. I'm not sure how many, several times.
507. Q. I count seven. And even when he talks about the Law Society,
in the same breath, he mentions his children.
A. Where is that?
508. Q. That is on page 525. "And secondly, I don't need to raise the
hackles of the Law Society. Because you know someday, somewhere maybe I'll
reapply, and you know, I don't want to have to deal with any problems of any
oversights on my part. You know, putting
the degrees on or not getting people to sign the waiver. It's simply not worth
it. My life's been ruined once. I don't want it to be repeated, and I don't
want my children's lives ruined either."
But of course, that didn't stop you, did it, from writing your story
about Mr. Adams?
A. What didn't stop me?
509. Q. Well, for example, you said it might not be a
story, you told people, if Mr. Adams resigns. The story is Adams resigns.
A. But his resignation is not accepted, sir.
510. Q. What I'm saying is that Mr. Adams did
everything that you could have wanted
him to do to avoid the story being written.
A. No, he did not. Did he fax me a resignation letter? Did I have something concrete in front of
me? No.
I had no resignation letter, and I had a continuing debate about whether
his resignation was accepted or not.
511. Q. So you thought he might have been lying when
he phoned you and said I had a meeting last night. My resignation was given to Mr. Bouvier.
A. No, he wasn't lying. He told the truth. He just didn't tell me the second part of the
story.
512. Q. And then he gave you a cell number to
call. Did you call him and ask for a fax
if you really had a doubt? "Please
give me a ring at ‑‑"
And it gives his regular number, and it gives cell number. You could have reached him in a minute if you
needed a fax. Why didn't you?
A. I was told his resignation was not accepted,
and that's the issue.
513. Q. And when you found out just a day or two
later that it was accepted, that still didn't make any difference?
A. Well, unfortunately, by then, I had invested
a great deal of company time on this story, and the way that the matter had
been dealt with, and arguably poorly dealt with, it was deemed to be newsworthy
by my editors.
514. Q. And by the way, I
notice something else here. You were saying that you had all
these questions to ask Mr. Christensen about his relationship with [Tim]
Adams. But you didn't ask [Tim] Adams
anything about his relationship with Mr. Christensen. Why not?
A. It wasn't relevant.
515. Q. Well, I thought you said that one reason you
wanted to talk to Mr. Christensen was that you had all kinds of question
about his relationship with [Tim] Adams?
A. Yes, I wanted to know if Professor
Christensen was advising people to fire their lawyers and hire [Tim] Adams.
516. Q. So now, you have [Tim] Adams on the phone, and
you don't ask him one question about Professor Christensen?
A. Because he doesn't
know. The person to ask about
that is Professor Christensen. And if
you remember from the very beginning, we have 30 minutes. Because I'm doing a
guest lecture and have to go out of town.
We asked questions. Perhaps, we
should have asked more.
517. Q. You got his cell phone and a person that is
more than eager to talk to you. Do you
ever phone Mr. Adams and ask him anything about his relationship with
Mr. Christensen?
A. No.
518. Q. Why not?
If you're going to publish it and you're with an anonymous sources,
obviously [Tim] Adams would know.
A. He would know what Professor Christensen is
saying in a private telephone conversations to third parties about him? [She
has said I was in meetings that he attended urging
people to hire him, even
joined him in financially questioning "prey"; but now, to explain why
she asked him nothing about me, insists he couldn't have known anything about
all of my work for him. Such great desperation can only be to keep from
admitting she avoided evidence in planning to smear me.] [Back]
519. Q. The allegation is that there's ‑‑
in your article ‑‑ is that there's a close relationship
between Dr. Christensen and Mr. Adams whereby Dr. Christensen is
recommending to people that they go see Mr. Adams, correct?
A. Yes.
520. Q. And it would follow that if
Dr. Christensen were making a habit of doing that, then Mr. Adams
would know something about it, would he not?
A. Perhaps.
521. Q. In fact, more than perhaps, overwhelming
publicly to any reasonable person?
A. Perhaps.
522. Q. More than perhaps.
MR.
KOZAK: She just said perhaps.
BY
MR. WILLIS:
523. Q. I know she said perhaps, and I'm merely
suggesting with as polite irony as I can muster that she's being obtuse. Even if we go as far as perhaps, it therefore
would be standard journalistic practice to ask the person who ought to know the
second most about it other than Dr. Christensen; namely, Mr. Adams. Would it not be standard practice to ask
Mr. Adams?
A. No, I think your premise that he would be the
person to know the second most about it is flawed.
524. Q. He's getting the clients from
Dr. Christensen, and he's doing that on a regular basis. And actually, wouldn't it be surprising if he
knew nothing about it?
A. I don't think we've established that he's
gotten any clients. What we have is a
pattern of people saying that they've received this kind of suggestion.
525. Q. Wouldn't it be ‑‑ assuming
that you have some difficulties talking to Dr. Christensen because of he's
so quickly gone to Julian Porter, QC.
Wouldn't it be elementary to ask Mr. Adams about these particular
clients? For example, to determine
whether he actually had them or whether they were referred by
Dr. Christensen or whether he knew who referred them or where he is
referral source came from or anything of that sort? In fact, there was some discussion between
you and Adams about his referral sources from ECMAS and how many people came
from ECMAS.
A. Yes.
526. Q. Well, people know who referred their clients
to them. Adams would know who his
referral sources were in the normal course.
Have you ever run into a lawyer who doesn't know where he got his
clients from? I'll call my friend's
raising his hand a valuable contribution to the levity of the situation, but
I'm quite serious. It seems to me to be
quite obvious that Mr. Adams would know who referred his clients to him.
And if it isn't obvious, it would be obvious that you should have asked
him. Wouldn't you agree?
A. No, I don't agree. We know that Mr. Adams is going to the
support those meetings. We know that
there's a suggestion that people should use him. I don't think it particularly mattered to
Mr. Adams whether people used him because Professor Christensen personally
suggested that that might be a good idea or because it was just suggested in a
general way at a support group meeting.
527. Q. No, but it matters to Dr. Christensen
when defamatory suggestions are made by people whose names are not given, and
you might have avoided defaming him if you had asked the question. That's my point. So you know, it's true that without
Mr. Adam's input, we don't know for sure who referred people to him or if
any of these people actually went to see him.
But we don't know that because you didn't ask it. At least, we won't know it until trial. So did you even think about asking
Mr. Adams about this?
A. I don't believe so.
528. Q. And you see, when you were saying well, I
really wanted to talk to Dr. Christensen because I really wanted to ask
him about [Tim] Adams and his relationship with [Tim] Adams, see I can't
understand how it is that you had it so clearly in your mind that you wanted to
talk to Christensen about the referrals to Adams and yet you didn't talk to
Adams.
A. Well, what can I say? I'm sorry you don't understand.
MR.
WILLIS: Okay. Thank you.
‑‑‑
Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING
to be a true and accurate
transcription of my shorthand notes
to the best of my skill and ability.
Kim Barker, CSR(A)
Computer-Aided Transcription
[COMMENT1]Prepared with Macro Version 7.02
June 12th, 2001
Macro Run by: Kimberly Ann Barker
Macro Run in WP Version 8.0.0.272