A recent lawsuit against a Quebec City journalist has raised questions on what news publications are permitted to report.
Ahlem Hammedi and spouse Saber Briki sued journalist Mihai Claudiu Cristea for $150,000 in Quebec Superior Court and were awarded $3,500 each after Cristea published a picture of them for an article on wearing Muslim face covers in Quebec City in the June 2012 edition of Les Immigrants de la Capitale.
Hammedi's face is not visible in the photo, as she was covered in a full face veil when shot from 50 metres away selling wares at the Ste. Foy flea market.
She is wearing gloves, so only her eyes are visible.
Her husband is wearing a t-shirt and a cap.
The picture and small article were published in Cristea's little magazine which has a circulation of 3,000 and was first launched in 2005.
The couple, who moved to Canada from Tunisia in 2011, told the court that that they felt humiliated and shamed by the photo and thought that it affected their employment opportunities.
Cristea, who is originally from Romania, argued that the article and photo were newsworthy and in the public interest as it dealt with the legitimate question about how people would react to a full burqa on a vendor in Quebec City. It was noted that his article was not sensationalistic and included viewpoints from both for and against. He did not ask permission to take or publish the photo.
He might've gone too far, however, by stating that she was wearing sky-blue eye makeup, which she denied and said was forbidden under her religion.
Cristea said that when he learned that they were unhappy he offered them space in his publication to share their viewpoint and believed that it was settled.
A La Presse writer attempted to interview the couple prior to the decision but could not reach them. He said he wanted to ask whether the wearing of the niqab itself was what would have brought attention to her rather than the article and wanted to know who paid their lawyers fees, which he stated cost over $13,000.
Cristea mused that the Qubec City Muslim community might have backed the couple up in the fight against his publication based on previous articles he had written.
Quebec has a legal tradition of slamming photographers who publish photos of strangers and that's the result of a photo taken in Montreal in 1988. Photographer Gilbert Duclos shot a picture of Pascal Claude Aubry sitting on the stoop of a bank for the cover shot of a Vice Versa magazine. She dclined his later offers to compensate her financially and took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Photographer Duclos has since argued that Quebec placing limits on street photography represents an attack on art and freedom of expression.
The September 23, 2014 decision rendered by Justice Marc Paradis does not reference the Duclos case but instead cites other right to privacy cases such as Godbout v. Longueuil (1997) which shot down an order that employees live in the same town and R. v. Dyment (1988) over a blood sample taken from a DUI suspect.
Ahlem Hammedi and spouse Saber Briki sued journalist Mihai Claudiu Cristea for $150,000 in Quebec Superior Court and were awarded $3,500 each after Cristea published a picture of them for an article on wearing Muslim face covers in Quebec City in the June 2012 edition of Les Immigrants de la Capitale.
She is wearing gloves, so only her eyes are visible.
Her husband is wearing a t-shirt and a cap.
The picture and small article were published in Cristea's little magazine which has a circulation of 3,000 and was first launched in 2005.
The couple, who moved to Canada from Tunisia in 2011, told the court that that they felt humiliated and shamed by the photo and thought that it affected their employment opportunities.
Cristea, who is originally from Romania, argued that the article and photo were newsworthy and in the public interest as it dealt with the legitimate question about how people would react to a full burqa on a vendor in Quebec City. It was noted that his article was not sensationalistic and included viewpoints from both for and against. He did not ask permission to take or publish the photo.
He might've gone too far, however, by stating that she was wearing sky-blue eye makeup, which she denied and said was forbidden under her religion.
Cristea said that when he learned that they were unhappy he offered them space in his publication to share their viewpoint and believed that it was settled.
A La Presse writer attempted to interview the couple prior to the decision but could not reach them. He said he wanted to ask whether the wearing of the niqab itself was what would have brought attention to her rather than the article and wanted to know who paid their lawyers fees, which he stated cost over $13,000.
Cristea mused that the Qubec City Muslim community might have backed the couple up in the fight against his publication based on previous articles he had written.
Quebec has a legal tradition of slamming photographers who publish photos of strangers and that's the result of a photo taken in Montreal in 1988. Photographer Gilbert Duclos shot a picture of Pascal Claude Aubry sitting on the stoop of a bank for the cover shot of a Vice Versa magazine. She dclined his later offers to compensate her financially and took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Photographer Duclos has since argued that Quebec placing limits on street photography represents an attack on art and freedom of expression.
The September 23, 2014 decision rendered by Justice Marc Paradis does not reference the Duclos case but instead cites other right to privacy cases such as Godbout v. Longueuil (1997) which shot down an order that employees live in the same town and R. v. Dyment (1988) over a blood sample taken from a DUI suspect.
These tend to all be worthless judgments...just try to collect on them. Can't seize a principal residence, can only get a lien, so, maybe 30-50 years down the road, when you yourself may be dead anyway...someone has to have viable assets to seize, so only worth it to take companies of a certain size to court.
ReplyDelete