Three individuals have been charged over the weekend in the May 18, 2010, firebombing of an RBC branch in the Glebe neighbourhood of Ottawa.
A group calling itself the FFFC - which we now know stands for Fighting For Freedom -- posted a video manifesto online a few hours after the incident. No one was injured in the 3:30 am blast. Damage to the branch is estimated at $500,000.
Ottawa residents Roger Clement, 58, Claude Haridge, 50, and Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32 are accused of targeting a Royal Bank branch. Haridge and Morgan-Brown will appear in court via video link some time Monday, while Clement will appear in court again Friday. A fourth man was arrested but then later released.
The charges against Clement and Morgan-Brown include arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, use of explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief.
Haridge was charged with mischief and careless storage and handling of ammunition after police seized hundreds of rounds -- including numerous military-calibre bullets -- during a Friday raid.
The 30-day investigation was conducted by the Ottawa Police Arson and Major Crime Units who made the arrests Friday; assisted by the Ontario Provincial Police and RCMP. Further charges could be pending regarding "domestic terrorism," though that determination would be from the RCMP.
Police said two of the suspects were also charged with an attack on another Royal Bank branch in Ottawa on Feb. 1, 2010, where two people were observed damaging multiple windows and ATMs with rocks and a hammer.
Advertising
Two of the men are being represented by the law firm of Lawrence Greenspon (who also represented Mohamed Momin Khawaja; the first person convicted under the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act.)
"Pre-trial comments that attempt to characterize offences are not helpful to the administration of justice," Greenspon told reporters on Saturday.
I think we must be caution here to remember that these individuals have simply been charged with the bombing but should still be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We don't yet know if these are actually the individuals responsible.
Case in point, in late May, 2010, the 58 year old retired public servant, Roger Clement, went to the press declaring his innocence, stating that while he did rent the SUV that police had linked to the get away vehicle used on May 18, 2010, he had nothing to do with the bombing.
Ottawa Movement Defence held a support rally for those accused on Saturday June 19, 2010 and 50 people were present for their court appearance. In a statement released over the internet, "It's vital we make it clear to the Crown, to the cops, and to the media that these three individuals are part of our communities and that we won't allow them to be railroaded or treated unfairly by the justice system."
I have to note here that the big reveal by police was made on Saturday, one week before the planned G8/G20 Summit protests in Toronto; almost as a way to keep the media talking, stringing together words like "activists," "violence," "terrorism." It also benefits the police and government in their attempts to justify the $1.1 Billion dollar security price tag.
I think calling for caution right now is the best tact to take. Again, remember the principles of "innocent before proven guilty", we don't know yet if the three men are members of the FFFC or involved in the bombing.
Last names can be deceiving, we don't know yet the ethnicity of those charged. I state this in reference to whether these men are a part of the First Nations community in some fashion, since they did claim in their manifesto the attacks were made against corporate "Kanada" in defence of indigenous land rights and the environment. The names sound Franco-white, but that might just be the legacy of colonization.
Regardless of their ethnicity or where they call home, there needs to be some accountability to the First Nations movement since the actions of the FFFC directly impact them.
First Nations groups have spoken out publically about the bombing to establish that it was not done in their name - including the organizing group for Indigenous Solidarity actions on Thursday June 24, 2010.
But it has led CSIS to intensify its surveillance on native activists such as those from Red Power United who recorded their interactions with CSIS agents for APTN.
Activists need to be vigilant when it comes to dealing with the police or CSIS agents as it is confirmed that they are visiting local activists and events leading up to the Summit demonstrations.
The question remains, will a solidarity movement coalesce around these three men?
Well, if they maintain their innocence of the actual arson, and if there's evidence they're being framed, or the victims of overzealous persecution, then I certainly hope and expect such a movement to coalesce. But I would also hope such a movement would also issue the call to catch and charge the real culprits.
OK...People can split semantic hairs all they want, but I'm sorry - a bombing is violent, even if there aren't people there. This goes beyond breaking a few windows, although even that isn't exactly non-violent. Arson is violent. If anyone still wishes to argue the point, just imagine if vigilantes burned down the place where you meet for your meetings to 'protest' against your politics. Would that or would that not be a violent act? So that's one thing. As for this intriguing concept of 'respect for a diversity of tactics', I wonder how far this goes. Are we now compelled to support anything anybody ever does in the name of the 'cause'? Do tell. Consider this - some people are speculating that these firebombings are the work of agent provacateurs. Why? Why would the police commit actions that would be good for the protest movement? Now imagine that those responsible aren't police officers, but activists keen on 'diversity of tactics'. Does the mere fact that they sincerely believe in what they're doing rather than cynically trying to smear the movement make their actions any more beneficial?
Oh, and someone made the point that Krystalline Kraus should not criticize the firebombers because the firebombers haven't criticized her. Well, speaking for myself, I don't care if they criticise me because I have the right to speak out. Let them criticise me. Let them prove that their way is better than mine. They don't speak for me and I don't speak for them. My solidarity for them only goes so far as to say that they should be treated fairly.
"Roger Clement, went to the press declaring his innocence, stating that he did not rent the SUV that police had linked to the get away vehicle used on May 18, 2010."
INCORRECT. Clement did in fact rent the SUV and admitted to doing so but denied having anything to do with the firebombing. Very significant difference. "He says he didn't loan the vehicle to anyone and, he added that if it had been stolen he would have reported it to police. The Ottawa man also said that he, alone, put 1,500 kilometres on the SUV's odometer in just two days, driving from Ottawa to Peterborough and back, not once but twice to help his brother with "something." "I've been told not to talk. I'm worried and I need to talk to my lawyer," he told the Citizen Friday afternoon."Fixed. Thanks for flagging that.
Comments on firebombing arrests 'inappropriate,' lawyer says
Toronto Star Article here:
"Lawrence Greenspon said Monday it's not right for public figures to talk about a case before the courts, noting a presumption of innocence is "a fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system."
"And I think it's at the very least inappropriate to have public figures commenting on the nature of charges once those charges have been laid," said Greenspon, who represents 58-year-old Ottawa resident Roger Clement."