Thanks for the update. I can't believe that many of us would want to live in a Canada that denies people due process or equal protection under the law. Yet here we are. It has been a long, slow process as this case grinds through the court system, but perhaps there is light ahead.
So Brad, where does this leave us? Is the way clear for Steven Galloway to proceed with his case or not? Years have passed and it is time for clarity on the issue of his innocence. The endless efforts of the defendants to drag this through the courts instead of just settling and apologizing for their actions is quite disturbing.
I am not sure about the third decision. Andrea Dworkin famously said all heterosexual sex is rape by men of women, because of their societal power differential. She was publicly accusing all men of being rapists. Is that no longer allowed? Whether or not you agree with Dworkin, it has been a foundational feminist thought exercise. Narrowing in, what about the statement “all johns are rapists”, ergo, a particular man arrested for buying sex is ipso facto a rapist. Many people may not AGREE with that statement but it is a commonplace one in radical feminist discourse. Is it illegal now?
I can see that this is in one sense far from the case of Galloway, who on the basis of heated baseless gossip was publicly pilloried in egregious ways. But a ruling that “internet discussions of whether a particular thing done by a particular man constitutes rape, even if in present legal frameworks it absolutely does not” does seem to me alarming on grounds of intellectual freedom. Spousal rape did not used to be a thing, legally speaking. Child prostitution was long treated legally as a simple variant of prostitution, not a horrific crime. Women publicly talking about these definitions and how we should think of particular men doing those things was how that changed.
Kathleen thanks for bringing this up. A couple things to clarify. First there wasn’t a “third decision” rather this was taken from the defendants’ submissions.
Raising Dworkin is a good example. There’s nothing illegal about such commentary. Madam Justice Adair made this clear in her decision, not being able to accuse a person of violent crimes puts no limit on public discourse. But this is what the defendants are claiming. It’s simply not supported by any reasonable reading of the actual lower court decision nor of the meaning of the words they are being sued over.
The defamatory statements they published were found to carry the meaning that Galloway was a violent rapist and criminal.
The harm from that statement is clear. The defendants are saying it’s not clear and that Adair relieved Galloway of his duty to prove that damage because of the criminal nature of the defamations.
Also it’s important to keep in mind that this is all in relation to a motion to dismiss under the PPPA. So what they are effectively saying is that they should be able to speak about other citizens in a manner that carries the meaning that a citizen committed violent rape but that there is wriggle room there in discussing how much damage this does to someone.
Defamation law has zero impact on healthy or even unhealthy public discourse of the issues. It’s alarmist to claim otherwise and the defendants are attempting to do so for self serving reasons.
I am sure the defendants here are just wriggling, yes. Nevertheless changing laws on spousal rape meant saying “these specific men ARE rapists even though current law does not agree”. It did require publicly and vociferously calling men violent criminals who were NOT violent criminals under the law. It sounds to me like these defendants are making a decent argument on legal grounds, even if we think they personally are not nice or admirable people and their intent in this case was to join a vicious internet pile on for kicks, not to change sexual assault law. They can still have a point about public accusations of the type they were making sometimes being an important type of public speech. This part of the decision though emotionally satisfying seems to me potentially worrisome if it is invoked in other contexts.
Thanks for the update Brad. Exemplary as ever. I hope Steven Galloway cleans out AB and the UBC three (Maillard, Lyon and Rooney) in particular for everything they have. They’ve done the most damage to him than anyone else. They deserve what’s coming to them.
Non-criminal rape, eh? Almost an oxymoron, isn't it? And wasn't the specific allegation of rape in the Criminal Code replaced by "sexual" assault, with penetration without consent being but one instance? So there are other forms of sexual assault, the proof of a charge of whatever form a sexual assault is alleged being subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My reading of the law is that there can be no non-criminal sexual assault at all, at least under the Code. It's either criminal or it ain't so feminist theory or doctrine may be interesting in sociological terms but, at least in so far as the law is concerned, it cannot be dispositive.
I quote at the bottom of this comment some central points that were brought up in the above noted 2016 Ubyssey article.
Some questions, which I hope the courts in British Columbia, and the administration at UBC, might consider going forward:
Did Galloway properly disclose his relationship to appropriate members of his department?
Following UBC policy at the time, did Galloway ensure that "AB" had her work evaluated independently of himself?
When Galloway was promoted to department head, which would have meant that "AB." was necessarily under the authority of Galloway, what steps were taken to make sure that "AB.'s" thesis, academic mentoring, and overall evaluation were handled in a way that was entirely independent of Galloway?
Are UBC's policies around professor/student relationships adequate to ensure that students are not harmed academically if they have a relationship with a professor?
How do professor-student relationships affect the learning environment in a university department?
Do professor-student relationships create an expectation for students to engage in sexual relationships with professors in their departments?
When he became Department Head, did Galloway's conduct online in various social media platforms inappropriately sexualize the Creative Writing Department at UBC.
Going forward, what measures can be put in place at UBC and in British Columbia to ensure that the inherent power imbalance in professor-student relationships, or supervisor-employee relationships, do not harm students and subordinate employees?
Is it appropriate to group rape, sexual harassment, and inappropriate supervisory behavior all under the specifically Canadian legal term "sexual misconduct"?
----------
Ubyssey article quotes:
“After an exhaustive review of the whole of the evidence, Ms. Boyd [The Honourable Mary Ellen Boyd, a former justice of the BC Supreme Court] found on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Galloway had not committed sexual assault,” said the statement."
"The sole complaint substantiated against Galloway, according to the statement, was that he engaged in inappropriate behaviour by having a two-year affair with a student during his professorship at UBC."
"Professors and students are permitted to date as long as the professor discloses the relationship to the university, according to current conflict-of-interest policies at UBC. The professor must also ensure that someone else is evaluating the student’s work."
"“While these provisions are in place, I still remain concerned about how ‘consent’ and ‘conflict’ are defined in an environment where there is a power imbalance,” said Martha Piper, who was UBC’s interim president, in an emailed statement to The Ubyssey from May of this year for another article. “On the one hand, we need to respect the decisions of consenting adults, and on the other, ensure that the rights and interests of students are appropriately protected.”"
But the court rulings are not about the propriety of what he was doing. He was, after all, fired. You can’t just breezily say “apart from the rape allegation”.
While I appreciate what you are doing, I think what is being lost in all of this is that, professionally speaking, Galloway shouldn't have been having a relationship with AB. He also shouldn't have been pursuing sexual relationships with other potential candidates to his department. Pursuing or having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in any business or academic context is not rape, but it violates various other social norms. I am not sure if having a relationship with a subordinate is illegal in British Columbia. Depending on context, it could be considered to be a form of sexual harassment. The line of reasoning is that, among other things, it can poison the work environment for other students or workers. The legal precedent for this in California was that a boss consistently pursued sexual relationships with those working for him. Other workers began to feel that they had to provide sexual favours to this boss. A number of US institutions of higher learning have toughened their policies around inappropriate workplace relationships. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of them.
Speaking as a former officer of the Canadian Armed Forces (in fact, one of the first women to graduate from the Royal Military College of Canada in 1984), and also a former graduate student at UBC, I can speak to the fact that British Columbia seems to be completely clueless as to how inappropriate sexual relationships in the workplace harm meritocracy and productivity.
In point of fact, in the 90s, after graduating from UBC, I had been working at a technology startup in Burnaby. I got so fed up with the sexually saturated environment, and the discriminatory work environment, that I decided to move to California. And yes, it's better in California. Not perfect, but laws that enforce professional workplace norms have advanced in California, while, if anything, they have regressed in Canada. Living in California, there are many things I miss about Canada, but Canada's failure to address workplace misconduct and sexual harassment is not something I miss.
I've mentioned before on this substack that the evidence does not indicate that Galloway was a rapist. I don't agree at all with the manner in which his accusers proceeded. However, at least in California, and at many US institutions, Galloway probably would have been fired for having an inappropriate workplace relationship.
I am fed up with the Margaret Atwood contingent that emerged from a culture of widespread condoned sexual harassment.
Apart from the rape accusation, Galloway's case is not that different from that of David Sabatini, the MIT biology professor that was fired after having an inappropriate relationship with one of his direct subordinates.
The legal arguments around this case will likely continue to grind through the Canadian courts. But win or lose, Galloway's case will do little to address workplace sexual harassment at UBC or in British Columbia.
Thanks for the update. I can't believe that many of us would want to live in a Canada that denies people due process or equal protection under the law. Yet here we are. It has been a long, slow process as this case grinds through the court system, but perhaps there is light ahead.
Thanks Rachel. The SLAPP held things up for five years. No stopping the trial now. A lot of good will hopefully come from it.
And hopefully some relief and closure too. Appreciate your persistence in getting this out, Brad.
So Brad, where does this leave us? Is the way clear for Steven Galloway to proceed with his case or not? Years have passed and it is time for clarity on the issue of his innocence. The endless efforts of the defendants to drag this through the courts instead of just settling and apologizing for their actions is quite disturbing.
Yes more on that soon. The case will be moving to trial.
Another excellent and detailed piece about Steven Galloway's fight for justice. Much appreciated.
Thanks Diane!
Well done, Brad. Keep on keeping on.
Thanks Ken!
Love what you're doing here, Brad. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Oscar!
I am not sure about the third decision. Andrea Dworkin famously said all heterosexual sex is rape by men of women, because of their societal power differential. She was publicly accusing all men of being rapists. Is that no longer allowed? Whether or not you agree with Dworkin, it has been a foundational feminist thought exercise. Narrowing in, what about the statement “all johns are rapists”, ergo, a particular man arrested for buying sex is ipso facto a rapist. Many people may not AGREE with that statement but it is a commonplace one in radical feminist discourse. Is it illegal now?
I can see that this is in one sense far from the case of Galloway, who on the basis of heated baseless gossip was publicly pilloried in egregious ways. But a ruling that “internet discussions of whether a particular thing done by a particular man constitutes rape, even if in present legal frameworks it absolutely does not” does seem to me alarming on grounds of intellectual freedom. Spousal rape did not used to be a thing, legally speaking. Child prostitution was long treated legally as a simple variant of prostitution, not a horrific crime. Women publicly talking about these definitions and how we should think of particular men doing those things was how that changed.
Or maybe I misunderstand the third ruling.
Kathleen thanks for bringing this up. A couple things to clarify. First there wasn’t a “third decision” rather this was taken from the defendants’ submissions.
Raising Dworkin is a good example. There’s nothing illegal about such commentary. Madam Justice Adair made this clear in her decision, not being able to accuse a person of violent crimes puts no limit on public discourse. But this is what the defendants are claiming. It’s simply not supported by any reasonable reading of the actual lower court decision nor of the meaning of the words they are being sued over.
The defamatory statements they published were found to carry the meaning that Galloway was a violent rapist and criminal.
The harm from that statement is clear. The defendants are saying it’s not clear and that Adair relieved Galloway of his duty to prove that damage because of the criminal nature of the defamations.
Also it’s important to keep in mind that this is all in relation to a motion to dismiss under the PPPA. So what they are effectively saying is that they should be able to speak about other citizens in a manner that carries the meaning that a citizen committed violent rape but that there is wriggle room there in discussing how much damage this does to someone.
Defamation law has zero impact on healthy or even unhealthy public discourse of the issues. It’s alarmist to claim otherwise and the defendants are attempting to do so for self serving reasons.
I am sure the defendants here are just wriggling, yes. Nevertheless changing laws on spousal rape meant saying “these specific men ARE rapists even though current law does not agree”. It did require publicly and vociferously calling men violent criminals who were NOT violent criminals under the law. It sounds to me like these defendants are making a decent argument on legal grounds, even if we think they personally are not nice or admirable people and their intent in this case was to join a vicious internet pile on for kicks, not to change sexual assault law. They can still have a point about public accusations of the type they were making sometimes being an important type of public speech. This part of the decision though emotionally satisfying seems to me potentially worrisome if it is invoked in other contexts.
Thanks for the update Brad. Exemplary as ever. I hope Steven Galloway cleans out AB and the UBC three (Maillard, Lyon and Rooney) in particular for everything they have. They’ve done the most damage to him than anyone else. They deserve what’s coming to them.
Non-criminal rape, eh? Almost an oxymoron, isn't it? And wasn't the specific allegation of rape in the Criminal Code replaced by "sexual" assault, with penetration without consent being but one instance? So there are other forms of sexual assault, the proof of a charge of whatever form a sexual assault is alleged being subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My reading of the law is that there can be no non-criminal sexual assault at all, at least under the Code. It's either criminal or it ain't so feminist theory or doctrine may be interesting in sociological terms but, at least in so far as the law is concerned, it cannot be dispositive.
Looking forward to this trial!
Here is an article from the Ubyssey from 2016:
Galloway admits to affair with student, speaking up for the first time
https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/galloway-finally-reveals-his-side-of-the-story/
I quote at the bottom of this comment some central points that were brought up in the above noted 2016 Ubyssey article.
Some questions, which I hope the courts in British Columbia, and the administration at UBC, might consider going forward:
Did Galloway properly disclose his relationship to appropriate members of his department?
Following UBC policy at the time, did Galloway ensure that "AB" had her work evaluated independently of himself?
When Galloway was promoted to department head, which would have meant that "AB." was necessarily under the authority of Galloway, what steps were taken to make sure that "AB.'s" thesis, academic mentoring, and overall evaluation were handled in a way that was entirely independent of Galloway?
Are UBC's policies around professor/student relationships adequate to ensure that students are not harmed academically if they have a relationship with a professor?
How do professor-student relationships affect the learning environment in a university department?
Do professor-student relationships create an expectation for students to engage in sexual relationships with professors in their departments?
When he became Department Head, did Galloway's conduct online in various social media platforms inappropriately sexualize the Creative Writing Department at UBC.
Going forward, what measures can be put in place at UBC and in British Columbia to ensure that the inherent power imbalance in professor-student relationships, or supervisor-employee relationships, do not harm students and subordinate employees?
Is it appropriate to group rape, sexual harassment, and inappropriate supervisory behavior all under the specifically Canadian legal term "sexual misconduct"?
----------
Ubyssey article quotes:
“After an exhaustive review of the whole of the evidence, Ms. Boyd [The Honourable Mary Ellen Boyd, a former justice of the BC Supreme Court] found on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Galloway had not committed sexual assault,” said the statement."
"The sole complaint substantiated against Galloway, according to the statement, was that he engaged in inappropriate behaviour by having a two-year affair with a student during his professorship at UBC."
"Professors and students are permitted to date as long as the professor discloses the relationship to the university, according to current conflict-of-interest policies at UBC. The professor must also ensure that someone else is evaluating the student’s work."
"“While these provisions are in place, I still remain concerned about how ‘consent’ and ‘conflict’ are defined in an environment where there is a power imbalance,” said Martha Piper, who was UBC’s interim president, in an emailed statement to The Ubyssey from May of this year for another article. “On the one hand, we need to respect the decisions of consenting adults, and on the other, ensure that the rights and interests of students are appropriately protected.”"
But the court rulings are not about the propriety of what he was doing. He was, after all, fired. You can’t just breezily say “apart from the rape allegation”.
While I appreciate what you are doing, I think what is being lost in all of this is that, professionally speaking, Galloway shouldn't have been having a relationship with AB. He also shouldn't have been pursuing sexual relationships with other potential candidates to his department. Pursuing or having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in any business or academic context is not rape, but it violates various other social norms. I am not sure if having a relationship with a subordinate is illegal in British Columbia. Depending on context, it could be considered to be a form of sexual harassment. The line of reasoning is that, among other things, it can poison the work environment for other students or workers. The legal precedent for this in California was that a boss consistently pursued sexual relationships with those working for him. Other workers began to feel that they had to provide sexual favours to this boss. A number of US institutions of higher learning have toughened their policies around inappropriate workplace relationships. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of them.
Speaking as a former officer of the Canadian Armed Forces (in fact, one of the first women to graduate from the Royal Military College of Canada in 1984), and also a former graduate student at UBC, I can speak to the fact that British Columbia seems to be completely clueless as to how inappropriate sexual relationships in the workplace harm meritocracy and productivity.
In point of fact, in the 90s, after graduating from UBC, I had been working at a technology startup in Burnaby. I got so fed up with the sexually saturated environment, and the discriminatory work environment, that I decided to move to California. And yes, it's better in California. Not perfect, but laws that enforce professional workplace norms have advanced in California, while, if anything, they have regressed in Canada. Living in California, there are many things I miss about Canada, but Canada's failure to address workplace misconduct and sexual harassment is not something I miss.
I've mentioned before on this substack that the evidence does not indicate that Galloway was a rapist. I don't agree at all with the manner in which his accusers proceeded. However, at least in California, and at many US institutions, Galloway probably would have been fired for having an inappropriate workplace relationship.
I am fed up with the Margaret Atwood contingent that emerged from a culture of widespread condoned sexual harassment.
Apart from the rape accusation, Galloway's case is not that different from that of David Sabatini, the MIT biology professor that was fired after having an inappropriate relationship with one of his direct subordinates.
The legal arguments around this case will likely continue to grind through the Canadian courts. But win or lose, Galloway's case will do little to address workplace sexual harassment at UBC or in British Columbia.