PRESS COUNCIL CLEARS SPECTATOR

Paper's Use Of 'Criminal' Upheld

TORONTO -- A person convicted of drug-trafficking may reasonably be
described as a criminal even though the offence is not governed by the
Criminal Code of Canada, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a
complaint against The Hamilton Spectator.

Walter A. Tucker and Michael J. Baldasaro, ministers of the Church of the
Universe in Hamilton, maintained that an editorial published June 23, 1999
went too far in describing them as "criminal defendants" because
Baldasaro's convictions were under only the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act.

Citing a variety of authorities, they insisted the act is not a matter of
criminal law but rather falls within Parliament's general jurisdiction to
legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of Canada.

The editorial, dealing with their proposal to establish a nude beach,
described them as "self-proclaimed ministers of the marijuana-as-sacrament
Church of the Universe." It added that "some area residents have already
seen enough of Brother Walter et al. in their sun-wizened birthday suits at
their Nude Olympics and various other protests and publicity stunts — and
even in courtrooms where they both have been civil plaintiffs and criminal
defendants."

Tucker said he didn't complain on his own behalf because he has a
criminal record from the distant past. Baldasaro admitted he had been
convicted of trafficking in marijuana but had never been charged in a
"criminal proceeding" and does not have a criminal record. He added that
both times he appeared in court on a drug charge, the judge reminded the
jury that it was not a Criminal Code case.

Suggesting the complaint relied on "a pedantic and erroneous premise," The
Spectator said "the contention of the complainants that only convictions
under the Criminal Code of Canada constitute 'criminal' infractions is
wrong-headed." It added that the Dictionary of Canadian Law, which defines
a criminal offence as "an offence against an Act of Parliament," does not
restrict its definition exclusively to offences involving the Criminal Code.

Baldasaro and Tucker originally objected to the editorial in general but
narrowed their complaint after The Spectator published their letter August
24,1999. It said they had been subjected to a "scurrilous, unprofessional
hate article" and added that "the ayes out-number the nays" in support of
their "legitimate demand" for a nude beach.

Text of the adjudication:

Walter A. Tucker and Michael J. Baldasaro, ministers of the Church of the
Universe in Hamilton, complained that an editorial in The Hamilton
Spectator June 22.1999, erred in describing both as "criminal defendants"
since Baldasaro had been convicted only of offences under the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, rather than the Criminal Code. They objected to
the newspaper's description of Baldasaro as "criminal because he smoked
marijuana for spiritual and physical health."

The Spectator replied that the complaint relied on "a pedantic, and
erroneous, premise, namely, that Baldasaro's drug-trafficking convictions
do not constitute a criminal record." Maintaining its use of the words
"criminal defendants" conformed to accepted usage, the newspaper added that
the contention that only convictions under the Criminal Code "constitute
'criminal' infractions is wrongheaded."

The Ontario Press Council says that while Baldasaro may not have been a
criminal defendant in the narrowest sense, drug trafficking is probably
considered a crime by most newspaper readers and that support for that
view can be found in the definitions in a number of respected dictionaries.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council accepts the newspaper's contention
that use of the word "criminal" falls within the parameters of popular even
academic, usage.