This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
It demanded she suppress truth. She was "advised to preserve and maintain all records and communication".regarding the production and publication of (her) video."
Gashoka went public . On February 11, she addressed Rock and U of O senate members. "Does the University of Ottawa plan on funding a lawsuit against me," she asked? She entitled to know.
In November 2012, she advised St. Lewis of her video. She posted it on her blog. She requested comments or corrections. No response followed.
Weeks later, a notice of libel arrived. Her open letter responded. "Please confirm that the University of Ottawa will not be funding a defamation lawsuit against me," she requested.
She included links to her video and notice of libel. Rancourt calls it "morally wrong for (U of O) and St. Lewis to try to silence" her."Using public funds and student tuition money to fund repressive litigation against her would be ironic, as the university claims to promote discourse and debate on matters of public interest."
Canadian law affirms free expression and opinion. Gashoka is entitled to express her views freely. St. Lewis has no right to expect immunity from justifiable criticism.
Rancourt "call(ed) on (Rock) to state publicly, without further delay, that the university will not fund a lawsuit against (Gashoka) for her video, and to clarify the university's criteria for funding lawsuits against its critics."
Gashoka announced a February 27 press conference. Media representatives and other interested parties are invited to attend. It's scheduled for 11AM at U of O's Rotunda of Tabaret Hall.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
