Tiger in the Bedroom

Is there a recognizable social justice price to be recognized for vicious slander and personal vindictiveness causing irreparable harm to someone's reputation?  Of course there is always the fact that people will fight back if they know who the perpetrator is that is attempting to destroy their most precious personal resource; their regard as a decent human being. 

And if the blow-back is wide enough then the slanderer likely will suffer harm themselves through a diminished reputation as someone who has gone out of their way to destroy another person's integrity value to themselves and to others.  One can almost feel a bit sorry for someone whose vicious ad hominem attack against another person has been revealed.

In the case of a Byward Market restaurateur, mother of three children, wife of the co-owner of the Mambo Nuevo Latino and another restaurant, the fact that her covert, malicious work in attempting to destroy the reputation of a woman who gave her restaurant a bad review for service, one might think that the story, having gone as far as the New York Times and Dr. Phil's attention, represents punishment enough.

"The sensational nature of this case has sprung well beyond the impact felt by all parties.  This most serious impact has been felt and will continue to be felt", is the opinion of lawyer Henry Burr, recommending Marisol Simoes, his client, be given a conditional sentence; curfew or house arrest.

In her victim impact statement, Elayna Katz informed the court of her deep concern that her "clean and good reputation has forever been tarnished", as a result of Simoes having impersonated her, sending lewd emails in her name to the chief executive and board of directors of the Federation of Canadian municipalities, where Ms. Katz works.

Those emails laid claim to boasting of Ms. Katz's exploits as a "tiger in the bedroom", inviting her colleagues to look a little closer at her as a potential sex partner.  In that it was suggested she would be amenable to threesomes and group sex, because she was in reality, transgendered.

This nasty attempt to smear Katz resulted from her having eaten at the restaurant back in 2009, and her wish to speak with the owner explaining her less than pleasant experience there as a customer.  Ms. Katz left her business card asking she be contacted and she engaged in subsequent attempts to contact the owners of the restaurant, but there was no acknowledgement.

It was at that point that she wrote her critical review, that drink service was slow, and her offence taken that staff insisted she pay for two meals, including the one she had sent back to the kitchen when she was served a pasta dish with olives after particularly having requested the dish contain no olives.

"I was an emotional wreck", after the online attacks, she explained to Ontario Court Justice Diane Lahaie.  Judge Lahaie, in consideration of the verdict of guilt of criminal libel, is yet to decide the extent of her judgement, whether it will include jail time or simply be comprised of a conditional sentence.

It may not have helped Ms. Simoes, in view of the evidence assembled against her at trial that she pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against her.