40 Days for Life has successfully blocked a legal motion that might have quashed its defamation lawsuit
by John Sikkema
The pro-life group 40 Days for Life has successfully blocked a legal motion that might have quashed its defamation lawsuit against a pro-choice advocate who sought to “ruin” its campaign.
As a result, says the group’s lawyer Phil Horgan, the suit will proceed unless the matter can be settled out of court or unless another injunction is granted at a hearing Nov. 4.
“We are pleased with the decision,” Horgan told The Catholic Register. “For 40 Days for Life, the decision on this motion allows the action to proceed. We will still need to prove our case at trial, which will be pursued, unless a resolution is reached.”
The annual 40 Days for Life campaign calls for peaceful protests for 40 days outside of abortion facilities across North America.
Last year, a Tik-Tok user, Brooke Dietrich, with the help of her Tik-Tok followers, sought to undermine and disrupte a 40 Days for Life campaign at a Waterloo hospital. Dietrich posted over a dozen videos about 40 Days for Life on Tik-Tok last October, calling on viewers to “(ruin) 40 Days for Life goal to fearmonger” and to “(mess) with 40 Days for Life schedule.” She encouraged fake sign-ups on 40 Days’ online calendars, displayed contact information of several persons associated with 40 Days and encouraged “shopping cart abandonment” on 40 Days’ online store in an attempt to tie up its inventory of books and clothing and prevent sales to genuine customers.
While the latter effort failed, the first two succeeded in undermining 40 Days’ vigils by filling up attendee lists with fake sign-ups and by causing certain 40 Days’ staff and volunteers to be spammed and harassed.
Dietrich’s videos also made certain claims about the conduct of actual 40 Days’ volunteers, including that they shout at people entering hospitals, which 40 Days considers false and defamatory.
As a result, 40 Days’ filed a lawsuit seeking to end Dietrich’s online campaign of harassment and defamation. Its lawsuit also alleged that Dietrich and other unnamed defendants engaged in civil fraud, breach of contract (breaching the terms that volunteers agree to when signing up) and conspiracy.
But Dietrich fought by filing what is known as an “anti-SLAPP” — or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation — motion to try to get the lawsuit dismissed. Such suits seek to prove that litigation is actually designed to silence a critic or opponent. Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act allows a defendant to ask the court to dismiss such a lawsuit.
Click here to read the rest of the article at The Catholic Register.