THE lawyer for a man accused of defaming election candidate David Marley during an all-candidates debate in 2009 told a judge Thursday that people who put themselves in the public arena are expected to have thick skins.
And he added it has been Marley himself who has done the most to call attention to the comments he found objectionable.
Defence lawyer Rodney Sieg raised the points during closing arguments in the case, being tried before a judge alone in B.C. Supreme Court.
Marley, who ran as an independent candidate in the 2009 provincial election, is suing West Vancouver businessman Peter Kains for defamation for telling the audience at the debate that Marley was under investigation by the police and attorney general for his conduct during the 2008 civic elections.
Kains, a friend and political supporter of Liberal MLA Ralph Sultan, said his information came from an anonymous letter in an unaddressed brown envelope dropped off at his office the day of the debate.
Sieg said Kains had an "honest belief" in what he was saying, and that a complaint had previously been made about Marley's electoral conduct to police.
But Marley's lawyer Don Baron said that file had since been closed, and the only investigation underway at the time of the debate was one that Marley had requested when he contacted police about two groups involved in the previous municipal election campaign.
"What Mr. Kains alleged at this meeting was untrue and slanderous," said Baron.
"It's not that he had some evidence. He didn't have any evidence to support the allegation he made at that meeting. None."
In Kains' defence, Sieg said Marley had been given "more than ample opportunity to respond" to Kains' question by the moderator at the debate but had chosen not to do so.
Sieg said Marley had taken a position that "it was quite surprising a candidate would have to engage in political debate at an all-candidates meeting."
But public figures "are expected to have a thick skin and not be too quick to cry foul when debate becomes heated," said Sieg, quoting from a previous court ruling.
Sieg added Marley had also done more than anyone else to publicize Kains' comments to the wider public, by repeatedly going to the media and sending out emails to supporters.
Marley is "actively engaged in arguing this case in the court of public opinion," said Sieg. "He lets the world know (what Kains said.)"
Baron told the judge Marley wants to clear his reputation. He is still active in politics and "he may in future run for office," said Baron. "You just can't know how permanent the damage can be."
Baron said he believes Kains was motivated by malice, and that he went to the meeting specifically to damage Marley's chances in the election.
Kains' words can't be considered fair comment, he said, because they were not an opinion. "They were a slanderous and untrue assertion of fact."
