这脸把侨领打的 潘妙飞牛奶金诽谤案黄河边胜诉

半岛文化

<font size="5"><b>先睹为快：潘妙飞诉黄河边诽谤案法官究竟怎么说（判决书节选）</b><br><font color="rgb(51, 51, 51)"><font face="-apple-system-font, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;"><br></font></font></font>&lt;iframe width=&quot;560&quot; height=&quot;315&quot; src=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/embed/FZqWXaY3SxE&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot; allow=&quot;accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture&quot; allowfullscreen=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;<font size="5"><font color="rgb(51, 51, 51)"><font face="-apple-system-font, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;"><br><br><div align="left"><font color="rgb(62, 62, 62)"><b>为了方便大家更好地了解卑诗省最高法院关于潘妙飞诉高冰尘（黄河边）诽谤案判决书的内容，我们把其中部分重要节段、特别是大家关心的牛奶金争议、是否有恶意等翻译如下，以飨读者。全文468段，150页。</b><br></font></div><div align="center"><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/Xvp425rddu0MBEuQiblExFUuwL00xUQJic8l7pAzebrf9KJ5IAJhFMmXcAsI0awib0VgCpqVibrpQjkpe8qo2SBRgA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg" border="0" alt="" style="max-width:400px"></div><div align="left">案卷号：S1611795</div><div align="left">判决时间：2018年11月30日</div><div align="left"><b>法官：Sharma</b></div><div align="left"><b>BC省法院判决书中文版（节选）</b></div><div align="left">恶意（199，436）</div><div align="left">毁誉的定义（118）</div><div align="left">毁誉的抗辩（127）</div><div align="left">公共性（182）</div><div align="left">尽责（384，411-413）</div><div align="left">真实性（128，129）</div><div align="left">“问题”侨领的称呼（460）</div><div align="left">名誉受损（463）</div><div align="left">加拿大儿童税务福利，俗称牛奶金（174，445，448）</div><div align="left">新证据（439，441）</div><div align="left">语言和文风（147-149）</div><div align="left">宪法自由-言论和出版（117，136，410）</div><div align="left"><b>恶意</b><br></div><div align="left">[199]<b>由于所有这些原因，原告(潘)未能履行他的责任，证明被告人在撰写任何被质疑的陈述，诽谤言论或10篇文章时都是出于恶意。</b></div><div align="left">[436]<b>作为一个（*论述伤害）起点，我已经得出结论，原告未成功举证被告由恶意驱使，因此原告无权获得加重赔偿。同样因为我没有发现恶意，我不同意有理由对被告的行为给予惩罚性的赔偿。</b></div><br><div align="left">什么是诽谤</div><div align="left">[118]为了证明诽谤的初步证据，原告必须确立三个要素：</div><div align="left">a）被谴责的言辞具有诽谤性，因为它们会倾向于降低原告在合理的人眼中的声誉;</div><div align="left">b）提及原告的字样;</div><div align="left">c）它们已被出版，这意味着它们被传达给至少一个原告以外的其他人。</div><br><div align="left"><b>诽谤的抗辩</b></div><div align="left">[127]根据被质疑的陈述是事实还是意见，可以提供诽谤法中的不同抗辩。事实陈述可以作为真实或负责任的沟通来辩护，而意见通常被认为是公正的评论。因此，为了确定被告可以获得的辩护，重要的是要考虑诽谤性陈述是事实还是意见。</div><br><div align="left"><b>公共性</b></div><div align="left">[182]特别关注第一篇文章（就是本案最大的争议，也是引发诉讼的主要文章，即是关于牛奶金的争议。 ---译者注），我确实认为它涉及公共利益问题。公共利益是一个“相对容易得出”的“广义概念”：见WIC Radio案第30段.原告是华裔加拿大社区的公众人物。他（潘）在家中接待总理引起了全国媒体的关注。被告解释了当他在集会上看到原告时他是如何读到环球邮报的文章所想起，并因此质疑为什么与总理有联系的人会抗议遭受歧视。这显然是一个公众重要的问题。</div><br><div align="left">尽责</div><div align="left">[384]勤奋（即，事件的严肃性，事件的公共性，事情的紧要性，材料可信度，是否遵循原告方的故事，是否包含了降低名誉的材料的合理性，诽谤性陈述的公共利益是否由事实构成而非真实性构成，等）</div><div align="left">[411]原告（潘）提出，被告本可以在不作出诽谤性陈述的情况下撰写突出相同主题的文章。我不同意。<b>第一篇文章是被告人看到原告参加集会和回忆起原告在其家中接待总理的汇合。他随后的文章对原告对第一条的回应以及原告宣布他将起诉被告作出回应。</b></div><div align="left">[412]<b>被告（高）认为诽谤言论对于传达一个具有公共重要性的事项是必要的，我认为这些言论符合公众利益。无论别人是否同意他，我都认为被告的立场在逻辑上是一致的，客观上是合理的。</b></div><div align="left">[413]在我看来，各种因素倾向于得出结论是被告做到了勤奋（即，事件的严肃性，事件的公共性，事情的紧要性，材料可信度，是否遵循原告方的故事，是否包含了降低名誉的材料的合理性，是否从事实而非真实的角度陈述，等）。</div><br><div align="left"><b>真实</b></div><div align="left">[128]对诽谤主张的完全辩护是正当理由或实质真实。为了使辩护成功，这些词语的含义必须是真实的或基本上正确的。测试的是诽谤性陈述是否会对读者或听众产生不同于恳求真相所产生的影响。</div><div align="left">[129]被告人确定“诽谤的主旨是真的，如果被告人证明诽谤言论基本属实，那就足够了”; 即使是轻微的不准确也不能阻止被告成功进行辩护，“只要出版物传达了准确的印象”。</div><div align="center"><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/Xvp425rddu0mAfIzElwQyNCGKhXqYibicwhTic3icd5QlGrLMHgW1egeehrROrByYCfPaqraLzN17IMqibS3aOz8oibA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg" border="0" alt="" style="max-width:400px"></div><br><div align="left"><b>问题侨领</b></div><div align="left">[460]原告（潘）认为，被告（高）有可能继续发表诽谤言论。我（法官）根据衡平或概率考虑，不同意审判中的证据支持这种认为。原告指出被告在盘问中的证词中认为原告是一个“<b>有问题的”社区领袖</b>，在此基础上，被告会继续发表关于原告的言论。<b>我没有发现被告对原告“问题”（侨领）的描述是诽谤性的，所以这并不是支持原告认为被告将继续诽谤他的结论。</b></div><br><div align="left">名誉受损</div><div align="left">[463]<b>原告(潘）还提出，如果不批准禁令，他将在个人和声誉方面遭受无法弥补的伤害。鉴于我的调查结果表明，他的声誉遭受损害的证据不足以使原告获得实质性损害赔偿，我也发现原告声誉极不可能会遭受任何持久性伤害。</b></div><br><div align="left"> <b>牛奶金</b> </div><div align="left">[174]...<b>因此，相反，依据最初的不披露以及前面段落中提到的所有情况，我得出了原告确实申请了CTB（加拿大儿童税务福利）的不利推论。</b></div><div align="left">[445]然而，原告（潘）作证表明他所遭受的个人困难，因为他从文章中感到羞耻：缺乏睡眠，压力和焦虑。鉴于我对他的可信度表示担忧，我不满足于原告片面之辞认为诽谤言论引起了这些困扰。<b>此外，我（法官）已经得出（原告申领加拿大儿童税务福利）结论是真实的，我会认为至少对原告申领CTB（加拿大儿童税务福利）的指控也同样可能带来压力和焦虑。</b> </div><div align="left">[448]其次，<b>我对原告缺乏对法院的坦率感到不安，这表现在他的证词和他在本诉讼中缺乏提供文件。我强调一点，我并不是轻描淡写地得出原告（潘）申领牛奶金的不利推论。他在这个问题上同本法院采取躲避态度是值得谴责的，</b>我拒绝在此基础上给予原告实质性的赔偿（指潘提出的数十万赔偿要求。---译者注）。</div><br><div align="left"><b>新证据</b></div><div align="left">[439]<b>最有说服力的是，原告没有被要求辞去任何社区协会的任何职位。他声称自己的声誉受到了损害，但协会本身显然并不这么认为。最不利于他的立场的事实是，即使在他选择辞去温州同乡会主席职务之后，很多人也希望他继续担任“荣誉”主席。</b>这发生在所有10篇文章发表后的2017年2月。</div><div align="left">[441]我发现被告（高）所引用的新证据表明，原告在华裔加拿大社区的声誉并未像他在审讯时所声称的那样遭受损失。原告同意新证据中描述的事件是准确的，但质疑被告要求我得出的推论。但是，我发现证据本身在没有任何一方解释的情况下，同被告的立场比原告的立场更为一致。<b>我不接受能在当地华裔加拿大社区能参加各类大型活动上获得“荣誉证书”的人是声誉受损的人</b>。</div><br><div align="left"><b>文风和语言</b> </div><div align="left">[147]指称诽谤言论的背景至关重要。至关重要的是，原告（潘）辩称的诽谤言论是不能孤立地阅读。在这种情况下，在本判决中复制10篇文章的英文翻译会很繁琐，所以我没有这样做。但是，我强调我的分析和发现是基于阅读了所有完整文章后进行的，而不仅仅是原告在起诉书中的摘录。</div><div align="left">[148]我发现文章中的语气和语言与他们的解释有关。被告使用丰富多彩的短语，类比，俗语，讽刺，幽默，修辞问题（他在一些文章中包括了一个手绘卡通片）和整篇文章中的夸张表达。以便吸引和吸引人阅读，所以风格和语调有些夸张。【看待】这种类型的写作，需要将此类语言解释为一种冒犯的倾向同其文章内在的浮华内容和风格相平衡。</div><div align="left">[149]此外，重要的是所有有争议的出版物都要进行翻译分析;他们都是用中文写的。据称诽谤性言论发布在社交媒体上，可在加拿大境内外使用，但仅限于那些可以阅读中文的人。因此，无论多么准确，都可能存在“在翻译中丢失”的东西。英语和汉语不是同源同宗的语言，但更重要的由于汉语是一种语素文字【注：历史上发展成熟而又代表高度文化的语素文字只有两河流域的楔形文字、古埃及的圣书字和中国的汉字】，所以根本不同。因此，无论解释有多好，逐字翻译都可能无法捕捉到书写的完整口吻或风格。在我看来，在分析文章含义时必须考虑到这一点。</div><br><div align="left"><b>宪法自由-言论和出版</b></div><div align="left">[117]诽谤法承认个人的声誉对个人的自我价值和尊严感至关重要。一旦受损，修复一个人的声誉可能会很困难，尤其是在专业背景下。但是，<b>它的保护必须与“宪章”保障言论自由保持平衡</b>：（希尔诉多伦多科学教会，1995年第1130段）。<b>言论自由的重要性不容小觑，新闻自由的重要性也不容忽视</b>。</div><div align="left">[136]在WIC电台案中，加拿大最高法院Binnie大法官将公平评论的辩护描述为，在两个基本价值观之间保持平衡：即保护声誉免受不公正的伤害以及言论和辩论的自由（第2段）。在第28段（WIC 电台案），Binnie大法官列出了辩护的要素：</div><div align="left">a）评论必须涉及公共利益;</div><div align="left">b）评论必须基于事实;</div><div align="left">c）评论虽然可以包括事实推论，但必须被认为是评论;</div><div align="left">d）评论必须满足以下客观测试：任何[人]是否可以诚实地表达对已证明事实的意见？</div><div align="left">e）即使评论满足客观测试，如果原告可以证明被告是[主观上]有明确的恶意驱使，则可以使被告的公平评论的抗辩失败。</div><div align="left">[410]<b>加拿大最高法院已经表示，编辑的选择考虑应该被赋予“慷慨的范围”</b>（第118段）。结合保护言论自由和新闻自由的基本和无可争议的首要地位，<b>我得出结论，</b><b>要求被告所跨越的【辩护】门槛非常低</b>。</div><div align="left"><b>2018年11月30日</b></div><div align="center"><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/Xvp425rddu3VHxfVDNTG94CacXjm1QgbUHPVvibiabFCxqHpr8vtoyNBqYKq43WO6EnYoxia2fDHN5ChDgM1DqxzQ/640?wx_fmt=jpeg" border="0" alt="" style="max-width:400px"></div><div align="left">黄河边去年10月手持应诉状在BC省高院前，他面对的腰缠亿万的原告以及他聘用的三人律师团。</div><div align="left"><b>附：英文判决书（节选，与以上翻译相同）</b></div><div align="left">Malice</div><div align="left">[199]&nbsp; &nbsp; For all these reasons, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onusdemonstrating the defendant was operating with malice in writing any of theImpugned Statements, defamatory statements or the 10 Articles.</div><div align="left">[436]&nbsp; &nbsp; As a starting point, I have concluded the plaintiff has not establishedthe defendant was actuated by malice and therefore the plaintiff is notentitled to aggravated damages. Similarly, for the reasons why I did not findmalice had been established, I do not agree that the defendant’s behaviourjustifies an award of punitive damages.</div><div align="left">Defamation</div><div align="left">[118]&nbsp; &nbsp; To prove a prima facie case in defamation, a plaintiff must establishthree elements:</div><div align="left">a)&nbsp; &nbsp;that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they wouldtend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;</div><div align="left">b)&nbsp; &nbsp;that the words referred to the plaintiff; and</div><div align="left">c)&nbsp; &nbsp;that they were published, meaning that they were communicated to atleast one other person other than the plaintiff.</div><div align="left">Defence</div><div align="left">[127]&nbsp; &nbsp; Different defences in defamation law are available depending whether theimpugned statement is fact or opinion. Statements of fact can be defended astruth or responsible communication, while opinion is generally defended as faircomment. Therefore, to determine the defence available to the defendant, it isimportant to consider whether the defamatory statements are fact or opinion:</div><div align="left">Public Interest</div><div align="left">[182]&nbsp; &nbsp; Looking specifically at Article One, I do find it addresses a matter ofpublic interest. Public interest is a “broad concept” which is “relatively easyto discharge”: WIC Radio at para. 30. The plaintiff is a public figure in theChinese-Canadian community. His hosting of the Prime Minister at his homegarnered national press attention. The defendant explained how he was remindedof the Globe and Mail Article when he saw the plaintiff at the rally, and thusquestioned why someone who had a connection with the Prime Minister should beprotesting about discrimination. That is clearly a matter of public importance.</div><div align="left">Diligence</div><div align="left">[384]&nbsp; &nbsp; For ease of reference, I repeat the main elements of this defence. Thereare two basic elements. First, the matters reported on must be of publicinterest. Second, the defendant must have been diligent in his reporting. Thefollowing are factors identified in Grant that should be considered whendetermining whether the defendant was diligent: (i) the seriousness of thematter; (ii) the public importance of the matter; (iii) the urgency of thematter; (iv) the status and reliability of the source; (v) whether theplaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported; (vi) whetherinclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable; (vii) whether thedefamatory statement's public interest lay in the fact that it was made ratherthan its truth, and; (viii) other considerations.</div><div align="left">[411]&nbsp; &nbsp; The plaintiff submits that the defendant could have written the Articleshighlighting the same topics without making the defamatory statements. Idisagree. Article One was prompted by the confluence of the defendant’s seeingthe plaintiff participating in the rally and recalling the plaintiff’s hostingof the Prime Minister in his home. His subsequent Articles were responsive bothto the plaintiff’s response to Article One and the plaintiff’s announcementthat he would sue the defendant.</div><div align="left">[412]&nbsp; &nbsp; The defendant believed the defamatory statements were necessary tocommunicate a matter of public importance and I have found they were in thepublic interest. I find the defendant’s position logically consistent andobjectively reasonable, regardless of whether a person would agree with him ornot.</div><div align="left">[413]&nbsp; &nbsp; In my view, this factor weighs in favour of concluding the defendant wasdiligent.</div><div align="left">Truth</div><div align="left">[128]&nbsp; &nbsp; A complete defence to a defamation claim is justification or substantialtruth. The meaning of the words must be true or substantially true in order forthe defence to succeed. The test is whether the defamatory statement would havea different effect on a reader or listener than what the pleaded truth wouldhave produced: Lougheed Estate at para. 164, citing Madam Justice Adair inCasses v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2015 BCSC 2150 [Casses].</div><div align="left">[129]&nbsp; &nbsp; It is sufficient for the defendant to establish that “the gist or stingof the defamation was true, and it is sufficient if the defendant proves that adefamatory expression was substantially true”; even minor inaccuracies do notprevent the defendant succeeding on the defence, “so long as the publicationconveyed an accurate impression” (Casses at 550).</div><div align="left">Problematic community leader</div><div align="left">[460]&nbsp; &nbsp; The plaintiff submits that there is a likelihood the defendant willcontinue to publish defamatory statements. I do not agree the evidence at trialestablished this on a balance or probabilities. The plaintiff pointed to thedefendant’s testimony during cross-examination that the defendant believed theplaintiff was a “problematic” community leader and that on that basis, he wouldcontinue to publish about him. I did not find the defendant’s description ofthe plaintiff as problematic to be defamatory, so this is not evidence tendingto support the conclusion that the defendant will continue to defame him.</div><div align="left">Reputation</div><div align="left">[463] The plaintiff also submits he willsuffer irreparable harm, personally and to his reputation, if the injunction isnot granted. Given my findings that the evidence of damage to his reputationwas insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to an award of substantial damages, Ialso find it is highly improbable that he will suffer any lasting harm to hisreputation.</div><div align="left">CTB</div><div align="left">[174]...Therefore, in the alternative,relying on the initial non-disclosure and all circumstances referred to in thepreceding paragraphs, I draw the adverse inference that the plaintiff did claimthe CTB.</div><div align="left">[445]&nbsp; &nbsp; However, he also testified of personal difficulties he suffered becauseof the shame he felt from the Articles: lack of sleep, stress and anxiety. I amnot satisfied based on his word alone that the defamatory statements causedthose difficulties given my concerns about his credibility. Moreover, I wouldhave found it at least equally probable (if not more) that the stress andanxiety were caused by the allegation that he claimed the CTB, which I haveconcluded is true.</div><div align="left">[448]&nbsp; &nbsp; Secondly, I am disturbed by the plaintiff’s lack of candour with theCourt, manifested both in his testimony and his lack of document production inthis litigation. I emphasize I did not draw an adverse inference about hisclaiming the CTB lightly. His evasiveness with this Court on that issue isdeserving of rebuke, and I decline to award him substantial damages on thatbasis.</div><div align="left">New Evidence</div><div align="left">[439]&nbsp; &nbsp; Most telling is the fact that the plaintiff was not asked to resign anyposition on any Community Association. He claimed his reputation was harmed yetthe associations themselves apparently did not think so. Most detrimental tohis position is the fact that even after he choose to resign as president ofthe Wenzhou Society, many people wanted him to remain as the&nbsp;&nbsp;“honourary” president. This was in February2017 after publication of all 10 Articles.</div><div align="left">[441]&nbsp; &nbsp; I find the fresh evidence adduced by the defendant demonstrates that theplaintiff’s reputation in the Chinese-Canadian community has not suffered as heclaimed at trial. The plaintiff agreed the events described in the freshevidence were accurate, but challenged the inferences the defendant asked me todraw. However, I find the evidence itself, without any explanation by eitherparty, was more consistent with the defendant’s position than the plaintiff’s.I do not accept that someone who receives “honourary certificates” at wellattended functions in the local Chinese-Canadian community is someone with adamaged reputation</div><div align="left">Style and language</div><div align="left">[147]&nbsp; &nbsp; The context in which alleged defamatory statements are made is critical.It is vital that the statements the plaintiff pleads are defamatory not be readin isolation. In this case, it would be onerous to reproduce the Englishtranslation of the 10 Articles within this judgment, so I have not done so.However, I emphasize that I conducted my analysis and based my findings upon myreading of the entire Articles and not just the extracts identified by theplaintiff in the NOCC.</div><div align="left">[148]&nbsp; &nbsp; I find that the tone and language in the Articles is relevant to theirinterpretation. The defendant uses colourful phrases, analogies, idioms,sarcasm, humour, rhetorical questions (he has included a hand-drawn cartoon insome of the Articles) and hyperbolic expressions throughout the Articles. Thestyle and tone are somewhat exaggerated in order to be engaging and captivatingto read. In that type of writing, the inclination to interpret the language asbeing offensive may be tempered by its inherently flamboyant content and style.</div><div align="left">[149]&nbsp; &nbsp; Also, it is significant that all the publications at issue are beinganalyzed in translation; they are all written in Chinese. The allegedlydefamatory statements were posted on social media and available within andoutside of Canada, but only to those who can read Chinese. Thus, no matter howaccurate, there may be something “lost in translation”. English and Chinese donot share a root language, but more importantly are fundamentally differentbecause written Chinese is a logographic language. As such, no matter how goodthe interpretation, word for word translations may not capture the full tone orcharacter of the writing. In my view, that must be taken into account whenanalyzing the meaning of the Articles.</div><div align="left">Charter Freedom</div><div align="left">[117]&nbsp; &nbsp; Defamation law recognizes that an individual’s reputation is central tohis or her sense of self-worth and dignity. Once tarnished, repairing one’sreputation may be difficult, especially in a professional context. However, itsprotection must be balanced with the Charter guarantee of freedom ofexpression:&nbsp;&nbsp;Hill v. Church ofScientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130 at para. 124.The importance offreedom of expression cannot be overstated, nor can the importance of a freepress.</div><div align="left">[136]&nbsp; &nbsp; In WIC Radio, Justice Binnie described the fair comment defence asholding the balance between two fundamental values: protecting reputations fromunjustified harm and freedom of expression and debate: para. 1. At para. 28,Binnie J. lays out the elements of the defence:</div><div align="left">a) the commentmust be on a matter of public interest;</div><div align="left">b) the commentmust be based on fact;</div><div align="left">c) the comment,though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment;</div><div align="left">d) the commentmust satisfy the following objective test: could any [person] honestly expressthat opinion on the proved facts?</div><div align="left">e) even thoughthe comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if theplaintiff proves that the defendant was [subjectively] actuated by expressmalice.</div><div align="left">[410]&nbsp; &nbsp; The Supreme Court of Canada has said that considerations of editorialchoice should be granted “generous scope”; Grant at para. 118. Combined withthe fundamental and unquestioned primacy of protecting freedom of expressionand freedom of the press, I conclude the threshold for a defendant meeting thisfactor is very low.</div></font></font><br></font><br>

apple

要证明自己没拿，提供法庭税单即可，这么简单的事，扭扭捏捏，千般推搪，最后实在没办法叫个会记师来给自己做证明，还被黄抓住漏洞。死活就是不提交税单，潘当法官是傻子，所以法官也当他是傻子哈。
2 E; {7 q1 ^; g# Q( E4 I. @