Facebook Post Calling Drag Performers ‘Groomers’ Not Protected by Free Speech: Ontario Judge

A woman uses her mobile phone to check Facebook. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)

A defamation lawsuit against the administrator of a Thunder Bay, Ontario, Facebook page can move ahead after an Ontario Superior Court judge in a recent ruling denied a motion that referring to drag queens as “groomers” was protected under Canada’s freedom of expression laws.

Rainbow Alliance Dryden (RAD), a Pride organization in Dryden, Ont., along with a drag performer in the northwestern Ontario city, filed a civil lawsuit against the page’s administrator, Brian Webster, last December. They alleged that a September 2022 post made on the Facebook page “Real Thunder Bay Courthouse Inside Edition” was defamatory.

Egale Canada, an LGBT advocacy group, is also part of the lawsuit against Mr. Webster.

The Facebook post was accompanied by screenshots of a CBC news article about a drag show in Dryden being planned by RAD. The event included a drag storytime at the local public library and a drag brunch for all ages.

Accompanying the post was the text: “ASK YOURSELF WHY THESE PEOPLE NEED TO PERFORM FOR CHILDREN? GROOMERS. That’s the agenda. Just look at the face of the one child in the photo. Tells you all you need to know.”

The original statement of claim made by RAD and drag performer Caitlin Hartlen, who performs under the name “Jack Doff,” or “Jack D,” said the use of the term “groomer” to describe drag performers was “defamatory” because it falsely accused them of “predatory behaviour” against children and was damaging to individual and organizational reputations.

The plaintiffs are each seeking $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. They are also asking that special damages be awarded in an amount yet to be determined.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied

Mr. Webster responded by filing a motion calling for the case to be dismissed based on Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects freedom of speech. SLAPP refers to “strategic litigation against public participation.” This law allows a court to dismiss a case on grounds that it involves protected speech on a matter of public concern.

He said the post was an expression of his opinion about the CBC article, the issues raised by the article, and the way it was reported, according to documentation referenced in the judge’s ruling.

Justice Tracey Nieckarz dismissed Mr. Webster’s motion in a Dec. 14 ruling, saying the argument that he was commenting on a CBC article had no merit, adding that anti-SLAPP provisions are “not a ‘carte blanche’ to defame.”

She also shot down Mr. Webster’s “fair comment” defence, saying it did not apply to “unfounded accusations.”

“If the post merely questioned the propriety of drag storytime for children, or expressed his opinion that drag storytime is not appropriate for children, I may have been inclined to find that the matter was social commentary and public interest speech,” the judge wrote. “However, the Defendant’s comments went well beyond that.”

Justice Nieckarz added that Mr. Webster’s Facebook post elicited a number of comments from the public that included accusations of child grooming, pedophilia, and bestiality.

There were other similar comments, which the plaintiffs allege Mr. Webster approved of because he allegedly responded with “likes” or laughing-face emojis, she added.

The Epoch Times reached out to Mr. Webster and RAD for comment but did not hear back by publication time.

A Facebook post on RAD’s page simply says: “And that’s how you do it,” referencing the judge’s ruling.