I am not a legal scholar, but I don't understand how a judge can adjudicate a defamation case and not be influenced by his values regarding the speech in question. In this case, Hansman did defame Neufeld if his speech was not transphobic. But, clearly, whether or not you think being in favour of family values or "calling into question the socially constructed nature of gender" is transphobic depends on your values.
Fair comment as a defence does not require proof that a statement was true, only that it is a fair opinion in light of the public interest of the speech at issue. In other words, calling someone's transphobic can indeed be in the eye of the beholder, and that doesn't make it defamatory.
I don't see the progression from being critical of a curriculum, to being bigoted and transphobic.
Here's a good test: when your 'criticisms of a curriculum' lead you to make claims about child abuse, you're probably being transphobic.
Thank goodness some us still trust our legal systems
I am not a legal scholar, but I don't understand how a judge can adjudicate a defamation case and not be influenced by his values regarding the speech in question. In this case, Hansman did defame Neufeld if his speech was not transphobic. But, clearly, whether or not you think being in favour of family values or "calling into question the socially constructed nature of gender" is transphobic depends on your values.
Fair comment as a defence does not require proof that a statement was true, only that it is a fair opinion in light of the public interest of the speech at issue. In other words, calling someone's transphobic can indeed be in the eye of the beholder, and that doesn't make it defamatory.