A judge in Kenora, Ont., has awarded Rainbow Alliance Dryden and three individuals a total of $380,000 in compensation for homophobic attacks on social media.
The online posts were made on a Facebook page dubbed ‘Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition’ run by Brian Webster, a construction worker from Calgary.
Webster was sued for libel for comments he made on the page related to weekend drag events planned in Dryden and Thunder Bay in 2022.
Performers in Dryden included one of the plaintiffs, Caitlin Hartlen, co-chair of Rainbow Alliance Dryden (RAD).
Hartlen discovered Webster’s Facebook page Sept. 17, 2022, and read a post from Webster that said, among other comments:
“ASK YOURSELF WHY THESE PEOPLE NEED TO PERFORM FOR CHILDREN? GROOMERS. That’s the agenda.”
People responding to Webster’s post said that anyone associated with the drag events were “pedophiles, were mentally ill, were a danger to society that should be ‘hunted,’ and/or were grooming, sexually exploiting or otherwise abusing children,” the court decision said.
Webster “endorsed” the comments with likes and laughing emojis. He was served with libel papers on Oct. 27, 2022.
Then on Dec. 10, 2022, a drag story time event was planned at the Thunder Bay Public Library and was promoted on Facebook as ‘Story Time with TBay Drag Queens.’
Performers at the Thunder Bay event included the other two plaintiffs in the case: Felicia Crichton, a married mother of four children, and John-Marcel Forget, a farmer who has performed in drag shows for 20 years.
The post included photos of Crichton and Forget as their drag characters, identifying them with their drag performer names.
On his Facebook page, Webster used a promotional image for the event with the headline (again in all caps), “CITY OF THUNDER BAY PROMOTING DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR TO CHILDREN.”
“Apparently, our city council is completely unaware of local drag queens who have been criminally charged with child pornography,” the post continued.
“Do your children a favour and have them avoid the library in Westfort today. Don’t ask yourself why drag queens need an audience of children ... The answer might involve the word ‘GROOMING.’”
Not associated with event
“The links to online articles identified individuals who had allegedly been charged with child pornography offences,” the court decision said.
“They were not associated with the plaintiffs or with their event.”
The post generated responses from people accusing or implying that “the plaintiffs were pedophiles, were mentally ill, that the drag story time events constituted pedophilia or sexual abuse of children, or that their event was sexually exploitive of children, grooming them or endangering young people.”
Webster was served with another libel lawsuit on Jan. 13, 2023.
In her decision, Superior Court Justice Helen M. Pierce wrote that the lawsuits, at their core, centre on what is meant by the term “groom” or “grooming.”
In their affidavit, Hartlen said the term is a slur that implies the plaintiffs aim to manipulate children “for the purposes of sexual exploitation.”
“The allegation that 2SLGBTQIA+ people or members of the drag community promote pedophilia, sexually exploit minors, ‘groom’ or ‘lure’ children or ‘recruit’ people is part of a longstanding homophobic/transphobic myth and conspiracy theory,” the affidavit said.
“I have been an active 2SLGBTQIA+ advocate throughout my adult life and I am aware from that work that queer and trans people – including members of the drag community – have routinely and falsely been targeted with these types of accusations.”
‘Departs from social norms’
Among his defences, Webster said his post only “described the behaviour of drag queens as deviant ‘because it departs from social norms.’”
“I brought awareness to the fact that some drag queens have been charged with child pornography and are otherwise pedophiles,” he said.
“I did not state that these particular drag queens are pedophiles.”
But the judge said such an argument was “disingenuous.”
“By attaching a link to a story about a person sentenced for possession of child pornography in Thunder Bay, a person who has no association with the plaintiffs, Mr. Webster clearly intended to connect the plaintiffs with this individual,” Pierce wrote.
“To create a false association was enough to amplify the slur.”
When the post elicited such comments as, “Can we buy tags to hunt these animals??” Webster again responded with approving emojis, the judge wrote.
“By doing so, he created an echo chamber for hate speech, where like-minded persons reinforced each other based on the power of suggestion.”
Pierce ruled the comments attached to Webster’s posts showed that they lowered the plaintiff’s reputation, a key element in proving libel.
She also rejected Webster’s argument that he viewed the term ‘grooming’ as “the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity,” and not something that implies “an adult is engaged in manipulative behaviour engaged in by sexual abusers to gain access to children.”
Definition of grooming
“Mr. Webster’s explanation is not credible,” the judge wrote.
“The post contains the inference that drag queens are grooming children for purposes of sexual abuse. He describes this as an agenda.”
And while the plaintiffs don’t have to prove intent, Pierce said Webster’s intent was clear.
“Mr. Webster intended to create revulsion directed at the drag queens hosting the story hour, counselling people to keep their children away from the event,” the judge wrote.
“Predictably, his readers responded with hate speech, claiming that the plaintiffs were mentally ill pedophiles who exploit and sexually abuse children. Mr. Webster then approved of their hate speech with smiling emojis and other signs of approval.”
Pierce ruled Webster had “malicious” motives toward the plaintiffs.
“The court condemns this conduct,” her decision said.
“It was hate speech. In my view, aggravated damages are warranted to denounce Mr. Webster’s conduct.”
‘Landmark decision’
While Webster fought for a trial with a jury, Pierce said it was within her power to issue a summary judgment. Each plaintiff was awarded $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 each for aggravated damages.
Lawyer Douglas W. Judson, who represented the plaintiffs, said it’s a “landmark decision” that proves making such toxic comments about vulnerable communities comes with a price.
“We’re optimistic that this decision will act will serve to deter further misconduct and online harassment targeting this community,” Judson said.
He said there are a lot of “keyboard warriors” online promoting hate who think they are anonymous.
“But people need to know that there is civil liability that can be attached to them and that it is not difficult to figure out who they are … and where they’re located,” Judson said.
“This case is important (because) it sends an important message that we all have, you know, responsibilities towards one another as citizens. And that there is legal recourse available here in Ontario and other provinces in Canada.”
Read the full decision here.
