Of Certain Defendants

 Politics v. Responsible Journalism

Both the CBC and Press progress made prominent and frequent and slanderous allegations against Caylan.  Each organization had good reason to distrust anything coming from Jivraj who was the sole originating source.

Journalism is supposed to have standards, and those standards will be a subject of the trial

The CBC

The CBC is Canada’s national broadcaster and in its 2019-2020 fiscal year received $1.2 billion in total subsidies from the Federal Government.  The Liberals were in power but maintained in power by the NDP.

In the 2019 Alberta election the two main adversaries were the NDP and the UCP.  Caylan was a star candidate running for the UCP.

The CBC's proclaimed policy, laid out in their Journalistic Standards and Practices stresses accuracy as a top priority– they claim to double check facts, rely on multiple credible sources, and run everything through fact -checking plus several layers of editing before anything gets published. 

Caylan informed the CBC, in writing and in spoken communications on March 19th 2019, that Jivraj had purchased Caylan’s internet domain name, that he had a history of fabricating quotations and attributing them to her, that he had been sanctioned by the UCP for his conduct, and that she had filed a complaint of criminal harassment against him. 

They disclosed none of this information to their readers.  The questions that arise are: who double checked the facts and what facts were checked. What was their “credible source”?  Why was Jivraj granted anonymity in the CBC publications?  What did they do to corroborate his claims about Caylan’s character and beliefs?  Who comprised the layers of editors approving the decision to rely on edited excerpts of a leaked private correspondence?  Did the CBC insist on viewing the full context of the leaked conversation?  Why didn’t they follow up when more information became available and why did they continue to publish defamation of Caylan?

Such questions will be the subject of probing inquiry at the trial,

Press Progress

Press Progress is really The Broadbent Institute in disguise.  The Institue was established by Ed Broadbent, the former leader of the federal NDP party.  Among its purposes is to get “progressive” (meaning left-leaning) politicians elected.  Press Progress describes itself as a “project” of the Broadbent Institute.

In 2019, Press Progress had no written policies about ethics, truth, or concerning the authenticity of its publications

Press Progress knew (or could or should have known) that Jivraj had been effectively blacklisted by federal and provincial conservative parties, and that he made false allegations about Caylan in the past. They actively collaborated with him over a period of several months in 2018 and 2019 and they jointly worked on the content of the damaging article and agreed that it should be published only on the date on which it could “do the most damage” to Caylan.  They provided the platform from which Jivraj could defame and destroy Caylan.  

Press Progress also concealed Jivraj’s identity; his name was never mentioned as a source.  Rather, in one instance they portrayed him as a credible but anonymous Muslim who was concerned about white supremacy.  They also falsified his motives by making him appear as an anonymous member of the conservative party concerned about the party’s welfare because of Caylan.

Such facts will be major subjects of the trial.

One of the issues to be determined at trial is if Press Progress was ideologically driven to publish anything damaging to the UCP party’s star candidate, regardless of its source or truth.