Day 41
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.
Toronto Star Testimony Continues
Direct Examination of Ms. Boyd by Ms. Cooper (Day 2)
Ms. Boyd read Caylan’s Apologia.
She did not assign anyone to write about it.
Reading Apologia did not change her view of Caylan’s Facebook comments.
Cross‑Examination of Ms. Boyd by Mr. Harrison
Ms. Boyd inferred from the PressProgress article that Caylan was promoting racist white supremacist talking points.
She understood that Caylan intended to be perceived and understood differently.
The Toronto Star did not publish anything positive about Caylan, even after:
the Danielle Smith interview;
the publication of Apologia; and
the Joel Crichton interview.
In the Danielle Smith interview, Caylan explained what she meant by “demographic replacement” and clarified that it was not the same as the “Great Replacement” theory.
Ms. Boyd acknowledged that with more context, Caylan’s discussion of demographic replacement would be understood differently.
Comment
An About Face
Mr. Leavitt recognized as early as January 2019 that Jivraj was a questionable source. Jivraj had provided him with a nine‑page rant filled with hyperbolic falsehoods about Jason Kenney, the UCP, and Caylan. The fact that such a document came from someone presenting himself as a conservative and demanding anonymity would raise immediate red flags for an experienced reporter. And Mr. Leavitt appeared to have recognized those red flags.
He shared his information and his concerns about Jivraj with Ms. Boyd and they mutually agreed at that time not to publish a story because they:
were concerned about Jivraj’s insistence on anonymity;
were concerned about his motives;
were concerned about the authenticity and context of the messages; and
did not consider the story sufficiently newsworthy to overcome those concerns.
But in March 2019, the Toronto Star abruptly jettisoned those earlier journalistic reservations and joined the media pile‑on. They escalated the narrative by characterizing Caylan as a racist white supremacist. They granted Jivraj anonymity, thereby avoiding scrutiny of his character and reputation.
Confusion and Defamation
Ms. Boyd read in the Press Progress article that Caylan had used the words demographic replacement. She confused Caylan’s discussion of “demographic replacement” with the “great replacement theory” and concluded that Caylan was an evil, racist white supremacist who should be condemned, excluded from political life, and permanently cancelled. Perhaps Ms. Boyd was predisposed to that conclusion, but it was a conclusion wrapped in righteous moral certainty, and by characterizing Caylan as she did, Ms. Boyd could justify and later defend repeated defamations of Caylan.