Nanaimo Mayor Gary Korpan sues Angela Negrin of Pirate Chips

[sheena]

I can't believe the pirate is gone. He added interest to downtown - which is a good thing in my humble opinion. Please bring the pirate back!!!!!!! As to the reference to Nelson - I fell in love with downtown Nelson when I first visited there - the sidewalk eateries were very cool. The heritage buildings with their funky stores - I could poke around there for hours. I wish downtown Nanaimo was like that.

[Piper]

While driving by Angela's place today I saw the pirate watching out the window. At least he will be warm for the winter.

[titan5]

Pity about the pirate getting the boot off the sidewalk. I always liked the pirate. I don't think he ever bothered anyone, did he?

It's little things like the pirate on Commercial Street that help to give the city core character and humor. Too bad he had to go. Sheesh! He was only out there for what, 4 years? I wonder why the change had to happen now?

--
TH

Like I said in my initial comment, the story is by-law was pressured by the Mayor's office.

Likely because Angela challenged the Mayor in the last election, she flagrantly displayed the Free Nanaimo bumper stickers and is now locked in a legal battle with the very same Mayor.

Bullying 101.

[queen of the waterfront]

Just make sure you dont protest with music and get donations. They will slap you with an injunction cite the old Rascal trucking case and denigrate your good name in public.

[Piper]

I see the stickers are showing up in big numbers around town, Also t-shirts are available for a small fee if you know the right person.

[dirtnap]

The timing is highly suspect. --
TH

The timing is so bad! It makes it obvious to anyone paying attention that asking her to remove the pirate is so not about the bylaw.
Maybe Korpan suspects he won't get re-elected so it's his last enforcement hurrah.

As for chairs/tables out front, I think you need to apply to the city for a permit to have those. That could be why some people are allowed and some are getting flack.

I think people should follow the bylaws, but I also think the city needs to be generous with the variances, and to err on the side of whatever makes a funky downtown.
I mean, all those cruise shippers that we ring the church bells for don't know that the mayor and the lady with the chip shop are having a feud. They just see a funky place that they might remember when they leave and tell their friends about. Everyone I know from out of town flocks to Pirate Chips like it was the only place to get french fries west of the rockies. Whether that's about the quality of her product or her ambience almost doesn't matter. It's the whole product they like. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, but my point is that it's a memorable place, and people love it. It's too bad the city is targeting her, and they should appreciate better what an asset she is for tourism. And no, I'm not a spokesperson, that's just my honest observation.

[Piper]

I'm sure Angela has a lease on her place but if this game is to move her out then they must be after the space. I hope she is not pushed out I like her food.

[Smokey©]

Interesting enough, in Canada the onus is on the the libeller to prove that their statements are true. This is the exact opposite of USA libel law where the defamed party must prove that the statement is false.

This makes Canada the best place along with the UK and Australia.

Under the current legal regime, you can be sued for anything you say about another person that damages their reputation. If sued, the onus is on you to prove the truth of your statements; the fact that you genuinely believed them to be true is not good enough. Even truth is not an absolute defence --- if the court finds you told the truth but your intent was malicious, you might lose anyway.

In this case, it would be up to Tony Parkin and Angela Negrin to prove that Gary Korpan is indeed guilty of corruption. Good Luck .. .

More Information

[yogi bear]

Smokey,

Thanks for an interesting perspective on Canadian libel law....however, would the suit in question not be more based on the onus of Mr. Korpan to prove the bumper stickers were actually claiming that he personally was corrupt? The verbiage (Gawd I hope that's the correct term : ))the authors chose seems to be rather ambiguous on this point, while still seemingly quite damning of Mr. Korpan.

As always I find your perspective and knowledge very refreshing, thanks!

Cheers,
Al

[Smokey©]

If I remember correctly, Gary asked Angela to remove the sticker from her restaurant and she refused. I would bet that Gary told her why he wanted it removed (because of the implication) and her refusal probably showed that she believed the implication to be true. By filing suit under libel, he put her in the position of proving it. I am unsure how Tony fits into the whole scenario and don't know if others have been added to the libel lawsuit.

Of course the implication has been verified simply by the posts in here assuming it means that Gary is corrupt. The newspaper articles also show the connection between Gary Korpan, corruption and the NCC. I doubt if the implication of what the sticker means is really the question.

I wish we had a court date. .. . but I would bet that both Angela and Tony are dragging their heels on this matter rather then Gary.

Reminds me of a conspiracy charge against a friend of mine. Same scenario, the government was required to prove he was involved in a conspiracy, the friend did not have to prove he was not involved in the conspiracy He won.. . .

anyone confused yet?