Article content continued

For Ms. Innes, who claims these libels “destroyed [her] political career,” there may be nothing left to lose. But for politicians with sophisticated communications staff, libel cases can often look like the wrong choice, said Dennis Pilon, associate professor of political science at York University.

It is not just Liberals. Prime Minister Stephen Harper sued the Liberal Party in 2008 over the claim he knew of an effort to bribe the vote of Independent MP Chuck Cadman, whose dying public act in 2005 was a confidence vote that saved Paul Martin’s Liberal government. Federal cabinet veteran Tony Clement, likewise, sued former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty over a corruption claim in 2000, leading to an apology.

In all cases, accusations of “libel chill” followed close behind, and in many cases the chill lasted. For example Mr. Hudak and his colleague MP Lisa MacLeod, also named, have not repeated their claims quite so forcefully.

It is a tricky balance.

“Do you run for the courts to take care of it, or do we have it out? The idea, I think, behind libel is have you damaged the reputation of someone and they don’t have an ability to really defend themselves, or you’ve created a problem for them for which now they need an extraordinary measure to correct,” Prof. Pilon said. But for politicians, this rarely seems to apply.

“It does seem weird, perhaps, using a hammer to hit a tack, but on the other hand I think it speaks to some of the communications challenges. It may be this is a tactic that parties are increasingly turning to, political entrepreneurs are turning to in the case of Innes, to try and get above the noise. We know that Canadians aren’t as involved in parties anymore, so parties aren’t as much of an alternative channel as they once were, and so to get above all the noise that’s going on, and of course the disaffection of the populace from the details of politics, the use of libel pushes the issue higher,” he said.