Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jim Shepard Concerned Citizens Of BC makes borderline liable comment about Adrian Dix


Recommended Posts

I had no idea what 'concerned citizens of bc' was so I went to their website. Front page, attack ad against the NDP. How to help page, attacking the NDP.You decide page, same thing.

So, a Liberal hackjob website is attacking Dix. Why is this a thread on its own? This just gives legitimacy to these clowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BC Liberals love the green party - their vote splitting won them the last election. So ya kinda surprised that Cristy isn't there biggest supporter. Every vote for them is essentially a vote for the Liberals..... I like some of there parties platform but once you get beyond environmental issues they are weak on much substance in regards to economic issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Michael Smyth's take on the ad:

A brutal pre-election attack ad aimed at Adrian Dix drags up the most notorious episode from the NDP leader's past: the infamous "memo-to-file."

Dix better get used to it. The Liberals will pour salt in this wound all the way to election day.

"Adrian Dix: he was chief-of-staff to B.C.'s premier," says the new TV commercial from Concerned Citizens For B.C., a pro-Liberal group headed by Premier Christy Clark's former strategic adviser.

"He was found to have forged a document in the premier's office during the course of an RCMP commercial crime squad investigation.

"Forced to admit his guilt after police examined his computer, he was fired."

For those of you having trouble remembering all the way back to the 1990s, here's how this bizarre episode went down:

On March 2, 1999, police raided the home of then-NDP premier Glen Clark. They were looking for evidence of corruption in the government's approval of a casino licence for one of Clark's friends.

The next day, Dix produced the "memo-to-file" that said Clark had informed him the casino-licence applicant was a friend, and that Clark was to have no involvement in the approval process.

How convenient! And how suspicious. As the investigation unfolded, Dix admitted he had back-dated the uncirculated memo, even obtaining an official "Office of the Premier" stamp from the desk of Clark's secretary, and rolling back the date to July 17, 1998.

"It was a mistake and I take responsibility for it," Dix told me.

As you consider this blot on Dix's record, here's an important distinction to keep in mind: Although Dix admits back-dating the memo, he denies doing it during the police investigation, as suggested in the pro-Liberal commercials.

Dix testified at Clark's trial that he created the memo in "September or early October 1998" — five months before Clark's home was searched by police.

So did Dix know that police were investigating Clark — and that the premier desperately needed an alibi — when he created the memo?

"Of course not," Dix replies. The cops have said they had started an undercover investigation of Clark by December 1998.

But here's the problem for Dix: There has never been any evidence produced proving precisely when he created the memo.

Dix testified he tore the hand-written notes of his original conversation with Clark out of his notebook and destroyed them. And although police examined his computer, Dix said he doesn't know if the cops were ever able to verify whether the notorious "memo-to-file" was created at the time he claimed.

"None of that matters," Dix told me. "It was wrong and I acknowledge it."

But it seems to me if there was proof Dix created the memo before the police investigation, it would matter a lot, and the NDP would be shouting it from the rooftops.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the top news story is http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/07/bc-sukh-liberal-tax-charges.html

and that is left alone by those that demand every second of the NDP be held to full account - its not a case of if they loose credibility - it completely removes any doubt as to there complete lack of it. If an NDP candidate faced tax charges and Mr Dix didn't remove him this board would be alive with people demanding he resign and using that as an example of the inability to lead. However when its the "other" party its no big deal - not even a passing mention. It's not what that group is saying that is so wrong - its what they are not saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you mean "libellous" in that it is defamatory.

It does not seem to me to be to even close to the borderline.

Dix admitted to committing fraud and forgery as well as attempting to obstruct justice - so it seems to me that more than supports the observation that he is unethical. Dix's position - It was a mistake. Ya think? Or is it only a mistake because you got caught?

Dix has played fast and loose with the law in a number of circumstances. I set it out in detail in the past:


Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun notes that Adrian Dix's ethical lapses are not limited to fraudulent memos.

  • Dix slithered around the laws regarding recall campaigns - and that law was passed by the BC NDP.

  • Pulling the Six Mile Ranch out of the ALR - Dix was dispatched on behalf of Glen Clark to try to pressure the Chair of the ALR which is supposedly an independent tribunal - again established by the NDP. The Chair of the ALR called for a public inquiry - that was ignored by the NDP government.

  • The BC Hydro/ Raiwind Power Project tax dodge - Dix attended the meetings on behalf of Glen Clark when the scheme was hatched but we are supposed to believe that nothing was known of this by the Premier? BC Hydro John Laxton fell on his sword as result.

As Palmer points out if you are going to point a finger at the BC Liberals you best be coming to the party with clean hands and Dix does not have them.


As such the comments seem to fit squarely within the defence of fair comment set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in a defamation suit brought by Christian values advocate Kari Simpson against radio host Rafe Mair and WIC Radio Ltd.

WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, 2008 SCC 40


The judgment sets forth the standards for defamation to be found in areas of public interest and they are:

(a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest;

( B) the comment must be based on fact;

(c ) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognizable as comment;

(d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any [person] honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?

(e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test, the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice.

So in summary this comment does not appear to be anywhere near the borderline and in fact may be several miles miles distant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...