A false racism smear just backfired

A professor called Candis McLean’s book “racist garbage” without reading it. A Canadian court ruled the attack crossed the line

Interview requests

Candis McLean just proved there are limits to calling Canadians “racists.” A University of Regina professor branded her book “racist garbage” without even reading it—and paid the price in court.

McLean’s book, When Police Become Prey: The Cold Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild’s Freezing Death, examined how two Saskatoon police officers unjustly lost their careers after the tragic death of 17-year-old Neil Stonechild, who was found frozen outside the city. Stonechild’s 1990 death became a flashpoint in debates over alleged “starlight tours,” the claim that police abandoned Indigenous people on the outskirts of Saskatoon in freezing weather.

Dr. Michelle Stewart, an associate professor of women’s and gender studies at the University of Regina, took to Facebook to dismiss McLean’s book as “racist garbage.” She later admitted she hadn’t even read it.

McLean sued. The trial judge did what Stewart did not: he read the book.

He ruled that by calling the work “racist garbage,” Stewart was effectively calling McLean herself a racist. In Canadian law, it is usually safe to criticize ideas or institutions, but calling a living person a racist crosses into defamation. Stewart refused to retract or apologize. The judge ordered her to pay damages for injury to McLean’s reputation and dignity, along with part of her legal costs.

By standing up for herself, McLean also stood up for many Canadians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have dared to dissent from the mainstream narrative on Indigenous issues. She proved that truth, carefully researched and argued, can still triumph over a drive-by insult. Her case stands out against a wider backdrop where accusations of racism have become routine in Canadian public life.

For the last two decades, many prominent Indigenous leaders and activists have pursued a remarkably effective campaign, political, legal and rhetorical, to expand their “nation-to-nation” authority and secure more taxpayers’ money.

A common response to criticism has been to brand Canadians as “racists,” “systemic racists” or “colonialist settlers,” a move that often discourages debate.

Consider the record.

The Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak declared Canada’s police forces “systemically racist.” Chief Clarence Louis of the Osoyoos Indian Band, in his book Rez Rules, accused Canada of racism and claimed non-Indigenous “bloodlines” were inferior. Oddly, this racist assertion drew praise from none other than former prime minister Paul Martin.

Pamela Palmater, academic and author of Indigenous Nationhood, calls white people the “enemy” and insists that “the entirety of the colonial structures, powers, laws, authorities and measures” exist to dispossess Indigenous people and keep them poor.

Tanya Talaga, a journalist of Indigenous ancestry and a Globe and Mail regular, accuses Canadians in Seven Fallen Feathers of betraying treaties and letting Indigenous children die by “flat neglect.” Her more recent The Knowing contains language that some readers could see as deeply hostile toward non-Indigenous people.

Jesse Wente, also of Indigenous ancestry and a former CBC journalist, in Unreconciled, thunders against Canada’s “racist systems and structures.” The CBC, predictably, swooned.

Jody Wilson-Raybould, former justice minister in Justin Trudeau’s government, in True Reconciliation, insists Canada’s French and British colonization was morally wrong and that Canadians must “decolonize” their own country.

Taken together, these examples show how sweeping accusations have become normalized. They usually escape defamation law because they target groups rather than individuals. McLean’s case shows what happens when that line is crossed.

The lesson for Indigenous leaders and activists should be obvious: stop resorting to sweeping epithets that demean people and deepen division. The stakes go beyond one lawsuit. Ottawa has framed reconciliation as the moral project of our time, but the term has too often been used to justify sweeping accusations rather than constructive debate. If reconciliation is truly the goal, the McLean decision ought to be a turning point.

Peter Best is a retired lawyer living in Sudbury, Ont. He is the author of There Is No Difference: An Argument for the Repeal of UNDRIP and Section 35 of the Constitution and a contributor to The 1867 Project – Why Canada Should Be Cherished, Not Cancelled.