Court File No.

: CV-19-00079414
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MICHELE DI FRANCO
Plaintiff
- and -

MICHAEL BUECKERT
Defendant

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

1. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14,

17, 26, and 29 of the statement of claim.

2. The Defendant denies in whole or in part as set out below the allegations contained

in paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34,

35, 36, 37, and 38 of the statement of claim, except to the extent expressly

admitted herein, and denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief claimed

in paragraph 1 the statement of claim.

3. The Defendant has no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraphs of 2,

12, 23, 31, and 32 the statement of claim.

1
I. OVERVIEW

4. The ‘free speech’ advocate Plaintiff has initiated this action because he was

offended that the Defendant called him “alt-right”. The action is monumentally

meretricious and wasteful. If labeling the Plaintiff ‘alt-right’ was defamatory, it was

an opinion on a matter of public interest, fairly inferred on the basis of publicly

available and accurate information about the Plaintiff’s political affinities with alt-

right views and political figures, and conveyed in good faith. In any event, the

comments are justified.

5. The Defendant has caused no loss to the Plaintiff. To the extent that the Plaintiff

has suffered any damage, he is solely responsible for it.

II. THE PARTIES

6. The Plaintiff Di Franco is a master’s student at the University of Ottawa and Vice

President of Finance of the University of Ottawa Students for Free Speech

(“UOSFS”). He is a supporter of numerous far right and alt-right public figures and

has repeatedly endorsed and promoted far right and alt-right views, including those

of Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Alex Jones.

7. The Defendant Bueckert is a graduate student studying sociology and political

economy at Carleton University. He comments frequently on matters of public

interest, including politics and student issues. His comments are often

disseminated on his social media. He is politically progressive and identifies with

the left end of the political spectrum.

2
 8. The Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s political views are at odds. Prior to the incidents

that are the subject of this action, the Defendant did not know or know of the

Plaintiff. The Defendant’s knowledge of and interactions with the Plaintiff are

limited to the events that are the subject of this action.

III. FACTS

Background

9. In June 2018, the Defendant began publicly criticizing the Ford government’s

education policy initiative to promote ‘free speech’ on university campuses in

Ontario. In the Defendant’s view, the initiative was designed to require universities

to permit speakers from the far right, alt-right, and extreme right of the political

spectrum to give talks on campuses.

10. The Plaintiff was involved in the formulation of this policy. He and other

representatives of ‘free speech’ organizations from university campuses had been

invited by the Ford government to a consultation in Toronto on August 30th, 2018.

11. The Defendant’s public criticisms of this policy began in June 2018 and continued

into February 2019. The criticisms were published on his social media and other

internet venues.

12. The Plaintiff’s name first appeared in these criticisms beginning in January 2019

and continuing into February 2019. In his critique, the Defendant suggested that

3
 the Plaintiff’s influence on the government’s ‘free speech’ and ‘Student Choice

Initiative’ policy was problematic because he was a proponent of the ‘alt-right’.

13. The Defendant’s critique of the Plaintiff’s influence appeared A) on the Defendant’s

Twitter and Facebook accounts, B) in a blog post on medium.com, and C) in a

interview on Rob Rousseau’s podcast hosted by ricochet.media (together, the

“Publications”).

14. On February 19th, 2019, Plaintiff counsel emailed and mailed a cease and desist

letter to the Defendant. The letter was not personally served in accordance with

section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act.

15. On February 22nd, 2019, the Defendant posted the cease and desist letter publicly

on his social media accounts along with his own counsel’s response letter. The

posts reiterated the Defendant’s view that Di Franco is a proponent of the alt-right

but offered to retract the impugned statements if the Plaintiff distanced himself from

McInnes’s racism and proved that he did not support the alt-right.

16. The Defendant’s Tweets of February 22nd stated:

An executive of the “uOttawa Students for Free Speech,” who was consulted by Doug Ford on
changes to student fees, is threatening to sue me for suggesting in a blog that he may hold alt-
right ideological views due to his association with Gavin McInnes.

I’m at a loss at how it is “defamation” to imply that somebody might be alt-right, when they
freely associate with alt-right and extremist figures. The “cease-and-desist” gave me less than
72 hours to cough up $2000 and a retraction if I want to prevent a lawsuit.”

Here’s my response. There’s no way to know what is in his heart. I’m willing to issue a retraction
if he publicly distances himself from Gavin McInnes’s racism.

4
 17. Defendant counsel’s response letter, which was published as an attachment to the

Tweets of February 22nd, explained the basis of the Defendant’s view that the

Plaintiff’s political affinities were fairly described as alt-right. Defendant counsel’s

letter included the statement that:

At no time has my client asserted that your client is a member of or is affiliated to [white
supremacist, neo-Nazi, or neo-Fascist] political ideology. [Brackets and underlining added]

18. On February 27th, 2019, the Plaintiff issued his statement of claim.

19. In answer to the claim, the Defendant pleads the following:

1) The impugned statements are not defamatory.

2) In the alternative, the statements imply meanings that are alternative to

the meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff. When read in their entirety, the

statements constitute the fair comment that the Plaintiff’s political views

and affinity may reasonably be described as “alt-right” based on a clear

pattern of his past statements.

3) In the further alternative, the Defendant’s statements are justified as they

are true statements of fact.

1) The Statements are Not Defamatory

A) The Tweets

The ‘Sting’ of Some of the Tweets is not Directed towards the Plaintiff

5
20. The tweets that the Plaintiff complains are defamatory (“Tweets”), listed at

paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, are not all capable of conveying a

defamatory meaning.

21. The following tweets are not defamatory because they do not refer to the Plaintiff

or their sting is not directed at the Plaintiff:

1) Tweet dated January 17th, 2019: “Never forget that before @fordnation killed
democratic student representation on campus, he first intervened to force universities
to provide a safe space for Nazis and bigots. These are connected.”

2) Tweet dated February 6th, 2019: “Its okay because when @cusaonline &
@CharlatanLive & @CKCUFM close down and vacate their offices, there will be more
room for the lectures by the neo-Nazis and race IQ scientists who universities are now
not allowed to turn away, thanks to Ford’s beautiful racist brain.”

3) Tweet dated February 6th, 2019: “White supremacists and MAGA Chuds are cheering”
[published above a picture of the Plaintiff with Premier Doug Ford – nobody is cheering
in the photo]

22. Viewed in their entirety, and in the context of the other tweets and public

statements made by the Defendant about the Plaintiff, as well as in the context of

the forum in which they were published (Twitter), these tweets meant and were

understood to mean that the Ford Government’s Free Speech policy for university

campuses would have the effect of requiring universities to permit talks on

campuses by neo-nazis, race IQ scientists, white supremacists, and bigots.

23. Taken together, these tweets were also understood to mean that neo-nazis, race

IQ scientists, white supremacists, and bigots would therefore be supportive of the

policy.

24. These meanings are not defamatory towards the Plaintiff.

6
The Remaining Tweets are not Capable of Conveying Defamatory Meaning

25. When read in their entirety, the remaining Tweets pleaded at paragraph 8 of the

Statement of Claim, read together with the tweets of February 22nd pleaded above

at paragraphs 16 and 17 above, do not convey the meaning ascribed to them by

the Plaintiff. The Defendant denies the meanings detailed at paragraphs 10 and

11 of the statement of claim. In particular, the Tweets do not mean that:

1) Di Franco is a white-supremacist;

2) Di Franco is a white-separatist, anti-Semite, neo-Nazi, neo-Facist, neo-

Confederate, Holocaust denier, conspiracy theorist, or part of other far-

right fringe hate groups;

3) Di Franco is intolerant towards women; and

4) Di Franco is a “race IQ scientist”.

26. When read in their entirety and read together with the Defendant’s tweets of

February 22nd, 2019, the Tweets meant and were understood to mean, by

implication:

1) Di Franco harbours alt-right views, including views that are:

(a) illustrative of a concern about border security and immigration;

(b) supportive of a Donald Trump presidency; and

(c) critical of political correctness.

7
 2) Di Franco is a “free speech asshole”.

27. These meanings are not defamatory towards the Plaintiff. Meaning 2) is merely

vulgar abuse and cannot be defamatory.

B) Article posted on Medium.com

28. The Defendant’s Medium.com article (the “Article”) does not convey the meaning

ascribed to it at paragraph 15 of the statement of claim.

29. Even if the Article was capable of meaning that Di Franco is part of an organization

that is ‘hateful’, that meaning is not defamatory, or it is vulgar abuse.

30. The Article meant and was understood to mean:

1) University of Ottawa Students for Free Speech is one of several student

‘free speech’ organizations that was formed to defend the presence of

discriminatory views on campuses in Ontario;

2) Some of these organizations appear to have alt-right tendencies

themselves; and

3) These organizations, including UOSFS, have hosted speakers who

espouse discriminatory views.

31. None of these meanings are defamatory towards the Plaintiff.

8
C) The Rob Rousseau Podcast Interview of January 19th, 2019

32. The comments the Defendant made during his interview on Rob Rousseau’s

podcast (the “Interview”), transcribed at paragraph 17 of the statement of claim, do

not convey all of the meanings ascribed to them at paragraph 18 of the statement

of claim. In particular, the comments do not imply that Di Franco is:

1) misogynist; or

2) antisemitic.

33. They imply that Di Franco harbours alt-right views by virtue of his association with

Gavin McInnes. They convey the implied meanings described above at paragraph

26, and not the meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff as [popular] “innuendos”.

34. None of these meanings are defamatory towards the Plaintiff.

D) Being Called Alt-Right is not Defamatory

35. When read in their entirety, the Publications were understood to mean that the

Plaintiff’s politics are ‘alt-right’. The Defendant states that calling the Plaintiff ‘alt-

right’ is not defamatory.

36. There is no one authoritative and comprehensive definition of what constitutes the

alt-right and this is a view held by academics who work in this area, journalists who

report on this subject and by the Defendant.The definition of alt-right has been

subject to considerable public and academic debate, and no one definition

prevails. Some of these definitions are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning,

9
 and others are not. The Defendant denies that the Publications conveyed the

defamatory meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff and puts the Plaintiff to the strict

proof thereof.

2) In the Alternative, the Defendant’s Comments were Fair

The Alternative Meanings of the Publications

37. In the alternative, when read in their entirety, in addition to the meanings pleaded

at paragraphs 26, 30, and 33 above, the Publications meant and were understood

to mean by a reasonable person informed of the context:

1) Di Franco harbours alt-right views, including views that are:

(a) Racist;

(b) Anti-feminist;

(c) Anti-immigration;

(d) Anti-semitic;

(e) Culturally chauvinistic from a western perspective;

(f) Otherwise discriminatory.

The Alternative Meanings Were Fair Comments on Matters of Public Interest

38. Insofar as the Publications were statements of fact, they were true in substance

and in fact, and insofar as the words complained of were expressions of opinion,
10
 they were fair comment made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public

interest. In particular, the words complained of consisted of the following opinions,

articulated in the Article published on January 18th, 2019 on medium.com:

[Referring to student free speech campus clubs in Ontario universities] “These particular
‘free speech’ groups were formed in recent years in order to defend the presence of hateful
and bigoted views on campus, from Jordan Peterson’s transphobic conspiracy theories to
Faith Goldy’s ethno-nationalism. In fact, these groups often appear to have alt-right
ideological tendencies themselves.” [Brackets added]

39. In addition, the Publications conveyed the following opinion, expressed during the

Interview with Rob Rousseau of January 19th, 2019:

“…it really gives you a sense of like [Di Franco’s] political ideology that he would associate
with Gavin McInnes.”

“[Di Franco is a] random alt-right bro.” [Brackets added]

40. Lastly, the Publications conveyed the following opinions, articulated in the

Defendant’s Tweets and Defendant counsel’s letter published with those Tweets

on February 22nd, 2019:

I’m at a loss at how it is “defamation” to imply that somebody might be alt-right, when they
freely associate with alt-right and extremist figures…

[…]

There’s no way to know what is in his heart. I’m willing to issue a retraction if he publicly
distances himself from Gavin McInnes’s racism.

[…]

“…[Di Franco’s] politics and the political values of his organization are fairly described as
‘alt-right’ or sympathetic to the alt-right …”

“The term ‘alt-right’ finds currency primarily amongst the left and centre-left, which use the
term to describe the emergence of an amorphous right-wing political movement that is
distinct from preceding right-wing movements, such as neoconservatives, paleocons,
white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists and their ilk. Though there is overlap in the
11
 political philosophy of these groups, they are distinct conservative political movements. At
no time has [Bueckert] asserted that [Di Franco] is a member of or is affiliated to these
other movements and political ideologies.” [Underlining and brackets added]

41. The above opinions were fairly inferred from the facts set out below and which

were also set out in Defendant counsel’s letter published on the Defendant’s

Twitter and Facebook accounts on February 22nd, 2019. The Defendant’s

statement that the Plaintiff’s views are alt-right is supported by the Plaintiff’s public

comments and endorsements, including the following:

1) The Plaintiff’s endorsement on his social media of with Gavin McInnes,

Janice Fiemengo, Jordan Peterson, Tim Moen, Joseph Watson, Steven

Crowder, Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren

Southern, James Damore, and Maxime Bernier, among others.

2) The intro to his Facebook page states that he is “Milo [Yiannopoulos] on

Facebook: James Damore in real life.”

3) The following statements and endorsements made by the Plaintiff on his

social media, set out in Defendant counsel’s letter of February 22nd,

2019:

(a) “A tweet alleging that communists get ‘George Soros money’ (antisemitic trope
and conspiracy theory consistent with the alt-right’s preoccupation with Soros);

(b) A tweet celebrating George Zimmerman’s verdict of not guilty; (a common theme
amongst proponents and members of the alt-right and generally consistent with
the alt-right’s antipathy towards the Black Lives Matter movement)

(c) A tweet expressing disagreement with reparations for black Americans and
attributing support for reparations to ‘leftists’ (bizarre preoccupation with
reparations that is consistent with alt-right ideology);

(d) A tweet promoting ‘cultural appropriation month’ (self-explanatory);

12
 (e) A tweet defending Lauren Southern, who handed out flyers in London containing
the statement ‘Allah is a gay god’. Your client defended her stating that she is
not ‘alt-right,’ just ‘right’ and asserted that ‘The west is the best.’

(f) Tweets illustrating a preoccupation with ‘illegal’ immigration in a manner

consistent with alt-right political ideology;

(g) A tweet purportedly defending free speech and endorsing Gavin McInnes’s
notion of the ‘war on fun’ – ‘fun’ referring to McInnes’s and others’ discriminatory
vitriol, and the ‘war’ referring to the protests against him and other alt-right
commentators; and

(h) Tweets illustrating a general preoccupation with ‘free speech’, but only as it
relates to the right of far right and alt-right pundits to express their discriminatory
and other right-wing views. These representations do not illustrate a general
commitment to free speech per se, and they are consistent with the alt-right’s
preoccupation with ‘free speech’ as a means to defend their dissemination of
discriminatory views.”

4) The Plaintiff’s organization, UOSFS, has hosted only one guest speaker

to date, Janice Fiamengo, who harbours and openly expresses anti-

feminist and Islamophobic views, and who has publicly endorsed the

Proud Boys.

5) The Plaintiff’s organization has either invited or expressed an intention

to invite Jordan Peterson (who is popular amongst people who self-

describe as alt-right), Libertarian Tim Moen, and Gavin McInnes. Neither

Peterson nor McInnes are advocates of free speech per se exept to the

extent that they invoke it as a shield against criticism of their overtly or

implicitly discriminatory views. To our knowledge, there have not been

any invitees from any other end of the political spectrum.

6) People who are commonly considered to be alt-right reject the ‘alt-right’

label.

13
42. The Defendant’s opinion that the Plaintiff is alt-right and/or bears alt-right views is

both fair and reasonable given the diversity of ways in which the “alt-right” is

defined both in popular culture and in academia in North America.

43. In view of the conceptual breadth and variety of markers of what constitutes the

alt-right, the Defendant states that his opinion is fair as it falls within the parameters

of the spectrum of opinions regarding the alt-right, but that it is also fair because it

is a considered and rational perspective that is consistent with a set of commonly

accepted features of what constitutes the alt-right.

3) In the Further Alternative, the Defendant’s Comments Were Justified

44. Alternatively, if the words impugned by the Plaintiff, in their natural and ordinary

meaning and insofar as they refer to the Plaintiff, were statements of fact, they

were true in substance and in fact. The particulars of justification are as follows:

1) The Plaintiff has publicly endorsed and promoted on his Facebook and

Twitter accounts numerous public commentators that are considered far

right and/or alt-right, including Gavin McInnes, Alex Jones, Milo

Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, Steven Crowder, Jack Posobiec, Mike

Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Janice Fiamengo, Jordan Peterson,

James Damore, and Maxime Bernier.

2) Milo Yiannopoulos, who is admired by the Plaintiff, has defined the alt-

right as everyone who is “resistant to immigration from all sorts of other

places, worried about border security, worried about trade, pro-military

14
 but anti-intervention overseas, loathing of political correctness” and

includes many “fellow travelers” on the rightwing of the political spectrum

who reject the mainstream conservative establishment.

3) The Plaintiff supports the Donald Trump presidency.

4) The Plaintiff contacted Gavin McInnes in order to offer to appear on his

show.

5) The Plaintiff announced on December 9th, 2018 that he intended to

cancel his subscription to conservative internet streaming website The

Blaze for cutting ties with Gavin McInnes.

6) The Plaintiff has publicly espoused views and endorsed comments on

his social media and privately to third parties that are consistent with alt-

right political ideology. These comments include:

(a) The Plaintiffi’s Facebook intro states: “[I am] Milo [Yiannopoulos] on Facebook:
James Damore in real life” [Brackets added]

(b) On August 23rd, 2017, the Plaintiff completed a Facebook poll in which he
identified his political ideology as “Milo” [Yiannopoulos].

(c) Retweet dated January 5th, 2019: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dances as she
promised all immigrants a better and FREE life in America”

(d) Tweet dated September 13th, 2018: “Lol the communist party thinks we’re
backed by @fordnation. We don’t get the George Soros money – that’s you
guys”.

(e) Tweet dated August 10th, 2018: “Why am I involved in the free speech
movement? I think @Gavin_McInnes summed it up beautifully – it’s because
this transcends free speech and now it’s a war on fun.”

(f) Retweet dated August 6th, 2018: “The Alex Jones Channel has been
permanently DELETED by YouTube. This is a coordinated PURGE. This is
political censorship.”

15
 (g) Tweet dated August 6th, 2018 containing a picture depicting the Plaintiff posing
with Alex Jones along with the hashtag “#FreeInfowars”.

(h) Tweet endorsed on July 19th, 2018: [referring to Lauren southern] “She’s not alt-
right, she’s just right. The west is the best.”

(i) Tweet dated July 3rd, 2018: “easy there talc” referring to biracial public figure
Shaun King.

(j) Tweet dated June 26th, 2018: “Sotomayor: ‘ignoring the facts…inflicts [pain and
suffering] upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United
States citizens.’ Extremely lax immigration policy and not enforcing the good
laws also does that too, but far be it for me to say anything.”

(k) Retweet dated 26 June 2018: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL
BAN. Wow!”

(l) Retweet of a tweet by Jack Posobiec dated June 21st, 2018 reminding readers
that there are US consulates in Mexico that will accept immigration applications
without causing the separation of children from families.

(m) Tweet dated June 18th, 2018: “leftists: don’t punish kids because their parents
brought them here illegally[.] [sic] also leftists: whites owe reparations because
[of] the actions of historical whites who they aren’t even related to[.]. this is why
we can’t find common ground”

(n) Tweet dated June 7th 2018: “If Doug Ford was as much like Trump as the
slacktivists on [T]witter say he is, I would have voted for him twice”

(o) Tweet dated June 5th, 2018: “@scrowder during cultural appropriation month,
there better be a Jean-Guy sketch”

(p) Facebook post dated March 17th, 2017 containing a picture depicting the Plaintiff
holding a sign that states “THE ANSWER TO 1984 is 1776” and wearing a
MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) hat.

(q) Two tweets dated July 13th, 2013 celebrating the acquittal of George
Zimmerman: “When i see people saying #nojustice for travyon, I feel like saying
#nojustice for ron and nicole.” And “It seems like I’m the only one who agrees
with tonight’s verdict.”

(r) Facebook comment from circa October 2015: “Thomas: I understand you’re
concerned about how a joke might lead to another holocaust. Let me assure
you, the holocaust will never happen again … not with these gas prices”.

7) The Plaintiff’s organization UOSFS has hosted, invited or expressed an

intention to invite speakers who espouse far right or alt-right and

discriminatory views, including Janice Fiamengo, Jordan Peterson, and

Gavin McInnes.

16
 8) The Plaintiff’s organization UOSFS has never hosted, invited or

expressed an intention to invite speakers who espouse views from any

other end of the political spectrum.

9) Organizations similar to UOSFS on other campuses in Ontario have

hosted speakers from the far right and alt-right and who espouse

discriminatory views, including white nationalists Paul Fromm and Faith

Goldy.

10) The Ford Government’s ‘free speech’ policy for university campuses will

ensure that universities may not prevent white nationalist, white

supremacist, and neo-nazi speakers from holding talks on their property.

For this reason, those who affiliate with these ideologies are supportive

of the policy.

IV. NO DAMAGES

45. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged and puts

the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

46. If the Plaintiff has suffered any damage to his reputation, it is nominal. The

Publications are not easily accessed when the Plaintiff’s name is searched on the

internet. The Publications have a limited reach.

47. In addition, the Plaintiff himself shares responsibility for the damage as he

disseminated one of the allegedly defamatory tweets by retweeting it on his Twitter

17
 account on January 23rd, 2019 with the comment “Find someone who’s as into you

as @mbueckert is into me”.

Aggravated Damages not Warranted due to Lack of Malice

48. In the alternative, if the Plaintiff has suffered damages, he is not entitled to

aggravated damages.

49. The Defendant denies that he acted with malice in publishing the impugned

comments. He acted in good faith. The Defendant’s sole objective in making the

Publications was to influence public opinion and build awareness around the Ford

Government’s policy. The Defendant harboured no personal animosity towards the

Plaintiff and in fact did not know of him prior to his participation in the Ford

Government’s consultation. The Publications only critized the Plaintiff to the extent

that he played a role in shaping the Ford Government’s education policy. These

criticisms were made in good faith on an issue of public interest.

50. The Defendant’s subsequent criticism of the Plaintiff has related only to the

Plaintiff’s efforts to suppress the Defendant’s exercise of free speech through

frivolous litigation. All of the Defendant’s criticisms have been sincere and made in

good faith on issues of public interest.

51. The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff’s action must be dismissed pursuant to

section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act RSO 1990, c. C.43 as a form of strategic

litigation inappropriately attempting to quell the Defendant’s exercise of free

speech.
18
Plaintiff Entitled Only to Actual Damages for Failing to Serve Notice of Libel

52. In the alternative, if the Plaintiff has suffered damages, he is only entitled to recover

actual damages because

1) the impugned publications are “broadcasts” within the meaning of the

Libel and Slander Act; and

2) the Plaintiff failed to properly serve the Defendant a Notice of Libel

pursuant to section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act.

53. The Defendant pleads and relies upon sections 5, 22, 23 and 24 of the Libel and

Slander Act.

54. The Defendant therefore requests the dismissal of the action with costs on a

substantial indemnity basis.

April 1st, 2019

AVANT LAW LLP

331 Cooper, suite 403
Ottawa ON K2P 0G5

Daniel S. Tucker-Simmons
LSUC #: 67632K

Tel: 613.702.7980
Fax: 613.702.7970
Lawyer for the Defendant

19