Day 22
Note: I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations. My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in. I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.
Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history. Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in Glossary.
Continued Cross-Examination of Jivraj by Mr. Harrison
Telephone Conversation Between Jivraj and Defendant Luke Lebrun (Press Progress)
On March 18, 2018, Jivraj had a telephone conversation with Defendant Luke Lebrun, then the editor of Press Progress, working under contract with the Broadbent Institute. Press Progress recorded the call, and the recording was played in court. The following quotations come from the official transcript.
Page 1617 of transcript:
“So, uh to give you the news. Um, I was disqualified”
“From running for the federal conservative party nomination Calgary Centre”
“Un, so I’m not thrilled about it. Uh, but it kind of liberates me in a way”
“Because I, I have some, some bones to pick”
Page 1619 of transcript:
“Uh, which is a violation of the provincial rules”
“Huge, huge privacy issue”
“Huge privacy issue. Now truth be told, I was absolutely guilty of all of these transgressions, but I’m not a public figure anymore.”
Page 1628 of transcript:
“Um, you need to target Caylan Ford, cause she’s the one who said these thing. Um, and it need, it needs to be an article about her, about those comments.”
“… because the campaign is gonna be announced on March 17th, so I actually went back and forth, um telling myself, wait, should I, should I give these guys the information once the writ is dropped or beforehand? I actually think this should be released now because he [Jason Kenney] still has the option to disqualify her.”
Page 1630 of transcript:
“Caylan Ford has threatened to sue a whole bunch of people in the past; she never follows through.”
Page 1631 of transcript:
“And this is what I find to be the most damaging. But I would wait. I would do the Pride one first. Hit.”
Page 1634 of transcript:
“Okay, so here’s”
“What I would do”
“I can send you a series of questions to ask her, where she will not give you a response, okay. So instead of asking her to comment on the article.”
“What you should ask are pointed questions.”
Page 1637 of transcript:
“And and, most beautifully, the stupidest thing they could have done was to disqualify me because had I been the federal candidate, I would have had to be extremely careful. Um, now I don’t give a shit.”
Evidence of Jivraj
When asked about his motive for speaking with Lebrun, Jivraj testified: “At the time I wanted a hit piece published on Ms. Ford.”
He could not recall what “transgressions” he was referring to when he said he was “absolutely guilty of all of these transgressions.”
He could not say whether he was aware of the Press Progress article when it was published.
On March 17, using his “Whistleblower” identity, he emailed Press Progress attaching a photo of Caylan and Jason Kenney. See the photo, [click HERE to view]
On March 18, Press Progress published its hit piece on Caylan, featuring the identical photo on the front page. [click HERE to view]
He discussed with Press Progress their proposed description of him as a “conservative Muslim.”
Comment
The telephone conversation and Jivraj’s testimony establish that he:
Had a bone to pick with the conservative movement
Was collaborating with Press Progress
Had been pitching multiple stories about Caylan over several months
Wanted a hit piece published on Caylan
Wanted an article designed to inflict maximum damage
Wanted it published at the moment it would cause the most harm
Suggested that Press Progress ask Caylan pointed questions rather than give her a fair opportunity to comment
Press Progress did publish a hit piece on the day before the writ dropped. Press Progress did ask pointed questions rather than provide Caylan a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Some Defendants argue that Jivraj was merely a conduit for information and that his character is irrelevant. The evidence demonstrates the opposite: Jivraj was not an independent conduit but a partisan actor on a vendetta. His objective was to destroy Caylan, and the Defendants enabled him to do so.
Post–March 18 Conduct
Use of Pseudonyms
Using the pseudonym “Mr. Wilson,” Jivraj published numerous derogatory posts about Caylan.
Using the pseudonym “@serena84,” he published additional derogatory posts.
Interference With Caylan’s Interviews
Caylan gave three interviews after March 18:
Joel Crichton
Andrew Lawton Pollock
Danielle Smith
Jivraj sent letters to all three interviewers threatening litigation.
Joel Crichton initially removed his interview but later reposted it.
Jivraj described the Danielle Smith interview as “awful to endure.”
Regarding his interaction with Corus Entertainment, he testified: “that was settled – written apology, financial settlement, and take down of the interview.”
Interaction With Journalist Graeme Gordon
Graeme Gordon later published A Political Hit Job in the Name of Progress: How UCP Candidate Caylan Ford Fell from Grace.
Before publishing, Gordon interviewed Jivraj and recorded the conversation.
When confronted with statements from the transcript, Jivraj repeatedly said he “could not remember” making them.
His Selection of Screenshots
Jivraj testified that:
He chose screenshots he considered “relevant” and “concerning” to white nationalism.
He selected screenshots relevant to “a potential story on the interplay between race and culture.”
He shared the Pride Parade message because it was, in his view, the most “concerning” to the public.
He did not send subsequent messages that provided clarifying context.
Context He Withheld
He did not provide Caylan’s clarifying statements about Pride, including:
“I am too prudish for pride. I believe in sexual modesty, and unrestrained passion and exuberance is just not my idea of a good time.
If there was a gay Haydn concert where the conductor and the musicians were all queer, I would attend. Can I propose that as an alternative to a parade?”
He also withheld messages in which Caylan rejected white nationalist views, including:
“On whether Canada should remain an essentially white country, I’m kind of agnostic. I doesn’t make a lot of sense to me given our history as an immigrant nation to insist that one race ought to remain dominant in perpetuity.I fear that you attribute to me positions that I don't actually espouse. My interest is in seeking truth, and that entails asking questions and sometimes challenging orthodoxies, and I think that's a vitally important process.A white nationalist might say that race is the primary determinant of culture, for instance, and I wouldn’t agree with that.”
He admitted:
He did not want to send messages that contradicted his narrative that Caylan was a white nationalist.
When asked whether he avoided including messages that contradicted his narrative, he replied: “that seems like a fair assessment.”
He could not recall why he did not send the complete conversations.
He claimed the public had a right to know Caylan’s views, but when asked why the public did not have the right to know all of her views, he said: “Can’t answer the question.”
He added: “I can’t recall what my logic was.”
Cross-Examination by Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute, Lebrun, Magusiak)
The cross-examination confirmed:
Jivraj communicated with both Lebrun and Magusiak.
He sent an affidavit to Lebrun.
Magusiak met Jivraj for coffee and scrolled through messages on Jivraj’s phone to confirm authenticity.
Further Examination
Jivraj was then briefly examined by:
Mr. Franken (Counsel for Nanda)
Ms. Cooper (Counsel for the Toronto Star)
The examinations concluded, and Jivraj was excused.
Court adjourned.