Sticks and stones may break their bones, but words do truly hurt them

Two peas in a pod: current and former school trustees Carin Bondar and Barry Neufeld crave attention, but only if they control the narrative

The highest court in British Columbia is still yet to publicly decide whether Chilliwack School Board trustee Carin Bondar's successful defamation lawsuit against former trustee Barry Neufeld should be overturned.

Neufeld infamously said terrible things about the entire LGBTQ community, teachers and advocates in 2017, launching his narcissistic saga of ignorance and ego. During the pandemic, he said Canada's top health officer Theresa Tam is transgender so shouldn't be trusted. He also got some attention when he called yours truly and two others "retards," which got him into a schadenfreude-inducing pot of hot water.

He's said a lot of terrible things.

Former BCTF president Glen Hansman called Neufeld's repeated comments about the LGBTQ community "bigoted, hateful and transphobic." Former Education Minister Rob Fleming called for Neufeld to resign.

“In addition to targeting the LGBTQ community and peddling conspiracy theories about [Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam] and COVID-19, he is now targeting ableist slurs at individuals,” Fleming said in a series of Tweets from November 2020.

“It’s time for him to step down.”

Neufeld also called Bondar a "striptease artist" because of a Miley Cyrus-themed science video in which she ends up naked. He insulted the wrong person as he would soon find out.

While we are at the insult-flinging game, Bondar called me a "misogynist" when I was editor of the newspaper. That defamation was because reporter Eric Welsh used a still image from her video, a video that is still on YouTube and as of Feb. 17, 2025 had more than 380,000 views. Welsh used the still from the video because the lawsuit was about allegedly defamatory comments made about the video. Follow?

"U really gotta go so big on the wrecking ball narrative?" she wrote via Messenger to me on Oct. 11, 2022, adding that she has done other things in her career, including made a CBC documentary.

"I know sex sells but you are looking like a misogynist by using this photo and example," Bondar wrote, to which I was naively gobsmacked. The publicly available and well-watched wrecking ball video is precisely what the alleged defamation news story was about. Wa she gaslighting me?

The CBC also used a still image from the video to report on the court. case about the video in a story by reporter Tessa Vikander, who describes herself as someone who brings "a deep understanding of governance, public policy, social movements, education, and 2SLGBTQ topics to my work as a journalist." Not a misogynist.

That wasn't enough for her, so while Carin Bondar was suing Barry Neufeld for defamation, she began a campaign of attacks against imagined enemies, which included me. She created a private Facebook group called "Chilliwack Anti-Misogyny League," launched with a 20-minute selfie video tirade that looked like it was shot in a minivan. In the first five minutes of the video, before she moved on, she described to her unquestioning fans why I, Paul Henderson, am a misogynist. I'm not so vain as to think her "CAML" Facebook group (or the followup group "CAML2") was about me, but I was apparently living rent free in her head for quite some time.

Bondar's acolytes lapped it up. One friend, an individual of some prominence, who barely knows me called me a "raging creep" in the comments. A local hobby chicken farmer friend who doesn't know me at all called me a "gross human," and asked if Bondar wanted her to "throw eggs at his white guy dreads?"

The Oprahs of defamation

My admittedly rambling point here is that Barry Neufeld and Carin Bondar have been flinging insults and degradations at one another and others like sugar-laden elementary-school kids at recess for as long as I've known them.

Both know how to give insults and defame people. Neither are willing take it.

Both are happily high profile in the public eye in the Fraser Valley and beyond of their own decisions. They both filed defamation lawsuits when they were accurately called out on who they are, in the case of Neufeld, or when they were called something inaccurate and dumb in an offhand comment, in the case of Bondar.

If I filed defamation lawsuits every time someone publicly said something insulting and untrue and potentially hurtful about me, I'd need a full-time lawyer on retainer. But I can take an insult. I don't much care any more if you lie about me. And your words don't much hurt me.

I should have gone to law school: An update on the cases

As of this writing, Feb. 19, 2025, we have one winner and one loser with Bondar and Neufeld, but it isn't quite over yet.

Back in 2019, the BC Supreme Court dismissed Neufeld's defamation lawsuit based on its flimsiness as well as recent legislation in B.C. aimed to stop frivolous lawsuits against critics of public figures precisely like his against Hansman.

In 2020, Neufeld looked to the BC Court of Appeal, and in 2021 the highest court in B.C. overruled the BC Supreme Court decision ordering the case continue to a jury trial. Calling that a "victory" for Neufeld is a bit of a stretch. While they allowed the trial to go ahead, they did not exactly paint Neufeld in a positive light. The justices of the high court concluded that freedom is very fragile precisely because those who seek its protection are, like Neufeld, often the least sympathetic with views that are, ahem, “offensive, confrontational, and even abusive.”

Before a trial could be held, in 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear Hansman’s appeal of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, and in 2023 the highest court in Canada agreed with Hansman (and the original BC Supreme Court decision) and dismissed Neufeld's lawsuit citing "fair comment."

“In (this) case, Hansman’s expression is counter‑speech motivated by a desire to promote tolerance and respect for a marginalized group in society,” the SCC decision stated, thereby ending the matter.

Meanwhile, back to Miley Cyrus, Bondar sued Neufeld for defamation after he made the off-hand “striptease artist” comment on an internet talk show about her video entitled “Organisms Do Evolve.”

“It was not mudslinging, it was just a fact as I saw it,” Neufeld testified at the trial about a comment about a video in which Bondar is scantily clad at the start, then is wearing less and less clothing until she is naked. But it wasn't the actions of a stripper nor was it even sexual. So calling her a "striptease artist" was nothing more than Neufeld being insulting and/or ignorant.

He testified that it was his “honestly held belief," arguing that "a person who makes a video first scantily clad, then totally nude, except for rubber gum boots, in my mind, that was a striptease artist.”

While Bondar won the case and Neufeld was found to have acted with “reckless indifference as to the truth,” the judge actually accepted Neufeld's testimony that he subjectively and honestly believed what he said. As such, Bondar was denied aggravated damages.

Justice Michael Stephens ordered Neufeld to pay general damages of $35,000 and punitive damages of $10,000.

“In short, she was not, and did not perform as, a striptease artist in the parody video,” Justice Stephens wrote in his decision, noting the comments were “demeaning” and “objectively insulting.”

“This was an effort to discredit his opponent in a school board trustee election, which crossed the line and constituted defamation.”

Six months ago, in August 2024, Neufeld's lawyer Paul Jaffe filed an appeal.

In the factum entered to the BC Court of Appeal by Jaffe, as reported by Jennifer Feinberg (I did not read it), he claims that Justice Stephens erred in multiple ways: by finding the "striptease artist” comment defamatory; by rejecting the defence of justification; by rejecting the defence of fair comment; and by rejecting the defence of qualified privilege.

Throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks, Jaffe also added that if none of those arguments are accepted, the judge erred regarding the damages.

“This exceeds the purpose of defamation law, sends a chilling message to participants in the public arena and undermines freedom of expression,” Jaffe argued. “In taking a narrow and highly technical approach to the 'impugned words' the judge closed his eyes to surrounding circumstances such as the reputations of both parties and the notorious nature of Chilliwack school board politics.”

Those italics for emphasis in the above paragraph are mine. I believe it is worth repeating: Neufeld's lawyer says the judge ignored Bondar's and Neufeld's "reputations" and “the notorious nature of Chilliwack school board politics.”

That is hard to disagree with. The context of nonsense flung between these two would have been near impossible for the judge to grasp. However, we (if you've read this far, you are probably part of that "we") all have that context and we've seen the nastiness on all sides. Some of us, for example, called a “misogynist” on the one hand and a “retard” on the other hand in public forums have also been victims of defamation from these two. As I've said, if everyone files a lawsuit after every nasty word is hurled we will be in a more litigiously ridiculous state of cancel culture than we already are.

Part of Neufeld's original defence against Bondar was akin to Hansman's defence against Neufeld, namely, that they were all in an “ideologically charged political arena” where harsh language is thrown around to discredit one another.

As of Feb. 19, 2025, the BC Court of Appeals has not yet published its decision on the Neufeld-Bondar case.

Pseudonymic letter writer wraps the subject up with a bow

In October of 2022 I received a letter to the editor signed "Myrtle Rivett." I can easily see now that this is an unusual, made-up sounding name, but people have odd names. I also did know the letter came from a real person, a woman who I found out later – too late – wrote it under that pseudonym. (See below for more on this topic.)

Her letter summarized the whole Neufeld-Bondar sticks-and-stones-and-words-hurt-me debacle better than I could have at the time, or maybe than I have in the above. She points out that if two extremely narcissistic people who so desperately crave public attention are so offended by a few words, it only shows their own serious confidence and self-esteem issues.

Fake Myrtle's letter:

“Defamation suits are out of control and more importantly, out of order.

“With regards to the most recent crying of defamation by Carin Bondar, I would say you did your own defamation by the video. I paid absolutely no attention to Barry Neufeld’s or anyone else’s remarks on your video. I can tell you that as a voter, I found your effort of teachings in this manner very distasteful, vulgar and unprofessional.

“In fact, I would equate it to some secret desire on your part to be part of the Hollywood set by referencing your acts to Miley Cyrus.

“I found it all bizarre and discreditable, and my conclusion had nothing to do with anyone’s comments. If these people throwing defamation suits around like Halloween candy truly believe their ‘reputations’ have been defamed, then I would suggest they have some really serious confidence and self-esteem issues. To give such power and control over to someone’s comments only demonstrates weakness. If your character and reputation are of the stellar level that you claim, then no amount of negative name calling or opinion of someone who does not know you will matter one iota to those that find you of good character. Here’s a phrase of wisdom passed to me by my parents (post Second World War and now deceased): ‘Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.’

“A phrase repeated many, many times in my school years through much bullying. Try it. Good luck Carin!”
– Myrtle Rivett

My own personal Myrtle scandal

After that letter came out, my current friend Peter Lang – who at that time was my enemy (for reasons we shan't get into here), prior to which was a friendly acquaintance – called me out on the existence of “Myrtle Rivett.”

The more I hear the name the more I like it. Never mind Rosie the Riveter, Myrtle Rivett sounds like the name they should have used for the handkerchief-wearing cartoon woman flexing her bicep in those Second World War recruitment ads for female workers.

Peter and I clashed hard over this. His claim was that I ran a letter to the editor from an anonymous person so maybe it was fake. It wasn't. But his criticism was, at least in hindsight, well-taken as something that goes against general editorial standards. We don't run anonymous letters and we should fact check people who sign letters. Peter searched high and low to find someone by that name in any corner of the community and came up short, concluding it was a fake name. He was right.

When I got in touch to discuss this with my “Myrtle,” the actual woman who wrote the letter, she told me her real name. She also pointed out that this type of attempted doxxing by my friend Peter was precisely why she used a pseudonym.

-30-