Last fall, Wiebo Ludwig and Richard Boonstra seemed in danger of being “lynched” by their neighbours in northwestern Alberta.
Public sentiment, as the result of a two-year campaign of violence in the Alberta oil patch, had reached the point where the two men and their families were under constant suspicion.
Over the last two years, the men had gone on record advocating violence as a means to stop the environmental damage they claimed oil drilling operations caused. They blamed the oil companies for the ill- health of their livestock, crops and family.
Ludwig even ventured so far as to suggest that officials at some of the oil firms be forced to watch the video of the farmer’s stillborn grandson and then to have their throats cut.
The last straw came in October when a well-site shack was blown up. Predictably, when news of the bombing surfaced and no one claimed responsibility, all eyes in northwestern Alberta turned on Boonstra and Ludwig.
But, in fact, the men had nothing to do with the bombing. It came to light last month that the RCMP were the real culprits in the affair. The police force bombed the shack, Oct. 14, in order to lend credibility to their informant and to further their investigation against the two men.
As it turns out, that investigation led to the arrest of the two men last month. They were charged with conspiring and counselling related to nine counts of oil patch vandalism -— the most serious charge being in relation to the November bombing of a service road.
And, amid all the public speculation that Boonstra and Ludwig were responsible for the October bombing, the RCMP was content to sit back and let the public think the men were responsible.
The police force wouldn’t come forward and admit they’d bombed the shack for fear of jeopardizing their own investigation of the two farmers. And, by not immediately admitting their involvement in the bombing, the RCMP threw suspicion upon the two men, thereby damaging their reputations.
Richard Secord, the lawyer representing the two men, feared for his clients’ safety in the face of growing public speculation.
“There were people that were ready to go out and lynch them,” he said.
Consider section 298 of the Criminal Code, which defines defamatory libel as “matter published, without lawful justification or excuse that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.”
Further, “a defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony a) in words legibly marked upon any substance, or b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.”
It is subsection b which is key in this debate. While defamatory libel normally pertains to published material, can it not be argued that the RCMP’s actions in this case directly put Boonstra and Ludwig at risk of public ire?
By playing on public suspicion that the men were responsible for the bombing, the RCMP committed an act which amounts to defamatory libel.
As a result of the police force’s actions, two men who had been suspected of being involved in some acts of minor vandalism were being called nothing short of “eco-terrorists” by the media. Ludwig and Boonstra had their faces plastered across every newspaper in the country as they were arrested, Jan. 15 on charges of conspiring and counselling related to nine counts of oil-patch vandalism. The Mounties got their men, but at what cost?
It seems ironic that of all of the 160 incidents of oil-patch vandalism over the last two years, the one in which Boonstra and Ludwig definitely had nothing to do with is the one of which they were most suspected.
The RCMP walk a fine line here between acceptable tactics in investigations and conspiracy to incite hatred against individuals.
While they may be able to justify their actions in blowing up a shack, they may be wise to tread softly when it comes to matters of defamation and reputation.