Activist Communiqué

Krystalline Kraus's picture
Krystalline Kraus is an intrepid journalist and veteran reporter for rabble.ca since its 2001 beginnings. She needs neither a red cape nor safety goggles to fly into her latest political assignment. She often live-tweets from events -- almost exclusively First Nations and environmental issues. You can follow her on Twitter @krystalline_k.

G8/G20 Communique: Alex Hundert remains in jail after refusing to sign unjust bail conditions

| October 13, 2010
Photo by krystalline kraus

G20 defendant Alex Hundert remains in jail after his Sept 17, 2010, re-arrest for refusing to sign what he deemed to be overly restrictive, excessive bail conditions that would have triggered his release -- Hundert was already out on bail when he was re-arrested after his participation in a September G20 panel discussion.

By refusing to sign the Justice of the Peace's bail conditions, he is forced to remain in jail. Hundert will be appealing these addition bail conditions, which include 1: non-association with individuals such as Harsha Wallia and Dan Keller and groups such as AW@L and No One Is Illegal; 2: no planning and or participating/planning public meetings or marches and 3:  no expressing political views in public, including in the media.

I am honestly not sure if these types of conditions are even legal, (I'm trying to find out) but the last one is a real kicker. No expressing political views in public? Does that include voting in the October 25, 2010 election? Would Alex get re-re-arrested for wearing a pin with a slogan?

This current bullshit (yes, I did go there!) stems from Hundert's participation-by-invitation to speak at Ryerson University on Sept. 17, 2010 at a G20 panel called "Strengthening Our Resolve" (please click this link to see the video for yourself).

--Because he spoke at the panel discussion, Hundert was arrested later that evening for allegedly breaching his bail conditions.

--Because of the G20 bail conditions imposed on him at the time -- which included the condition of non-participation in public demonstration -- the government concluded that Hundert's speaking on that university panel was akin to participating in a demonstration.

--Stemming from that arrest, on October 8, 2010, Hundert was found to be in breach of his no demonstration bail condition for speaking as an invited panelist at that and one other university event.  

--On Oct. 12, the court ruled that although Hundert had breached his bail conditions, his bail would not be revoked if he agreed to sign up for extra bail conditions. He refused to sign.

Demonstrations were held across Canada in support of Hundert on Tuesday Oct. 12, 2010, and activists from Environmental Justice Toronto dropped a solidarity banner off the Gardiner Expressway early Tuesday morning. It is inspiring to see such community activism based on a "we've got your back' model. Very inspiring. I'd like to see much more of this in the future.

Now. there has been some playful but cynical, back and forth regarding the government's apparent confusion between a public demonstration and a panel discussion. But let me be clear, there is NO confusion on the part of the government.

The government and the police know exactly what they are doing, dragging Hundert back into court like some animal caught between its teeth.

It had already attempted to get Hundert's bail revoked. This will be the third time in total that the government has put Hundert behind bars for his alleged involved with the G20 protests.

This case originally stem from the government's allegations that Alex Hundert was one of the G20 "ringleaders" and he faces conspiracy charges for his community organizing around the late June G20 protests in Toronto. He was originally arrested at gun-point in a pre-dawn raid on June 26, 2010.

Released on July 19, 2010, the government then challenged his court ordered bail release but on Monday Sept. 13, 2010, Justice Todd Ducharme ruled that Alex Hundert could remain free on bail. Now he is back in jail yet again on yet another breach of bail question.

See a pattern, anyone? Anyone?

Governments all around the world try to break the back of social justice movement through the extremely expensive and time consuming judicial system in what can only be described as a war of attrition.

If anyone is breaking the law -- through obstruction of justice -- it is the government, not Alex Hundert.

Yes, the potential for arrest just for participating in a public discussion is worrisome, but this worry does not stem from a simple, buffoon-esque confusion between two entirely different events, but represents instead a free-fall down the slippery slope of criminalizing dissent.  

I'll say it again. This is bullshit.

embedded_video

Tags:

Comments

@Citizen H As to your point 1) above, I'd have to say you are not entirely correct. A person alleged to have committed a crime does not forfeit any rights, UNLESS letting them have this freedom infringes on other people's rights. This is why people accused of violent crimes are most often denied bail before their trial, because of the possibility of their committing violence infringing on other's rights before their trial is held. The protection of the people comes over the rights of the individual.

 Also in regards to this statement "Poeple have every right to complain about the substance or content of speeches or debates. But unless something being said violates Canadianhate speech laws, it is not illegal and doesn't warrant detention."

I'd have to say it's also not entirely true. Hate speech is not the only type of speech that is illegal in this country. Unfortunately, there is still a little remembered and mostly unused law on the books in Canada regarding sedition, a felony charge with a 14 year sentence, which essentially states "A person has a seditious intention if he teaches or advocates, or publishes or circulates any writing that advocates the use, without authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada". Anyone who reads Mr. Hundert's blog could easily say that he is calling for force to change governmental policies, with statements such as "People and communities are under attack and it is time to fight back. If you're not willing to stand up and fight, or to support those who are, please at least get out of the way.", or "Property destruction is violent. So fucking what?... Sometimes it is ok to use violence." Among *numerous* other things. Thankfully for him, this law is not being invoked in this case.

Violent crimes in Canada are often accompanied by infringement on the rights of the accused so that the public can be protected from their violence. Again, not knowing the full details of evidence they have on Mr. Hundert after a year's undercover work, we don't know whether his current detention is warranted or not. But based upon his violent writings and speeches I have heard and read, most of which are fully available in public, I'd say the likelihood that he was planning to quietly protest the G20 without violence is incredibly slim.

1) A crime is alleged until proven in court. Someone alleged to have committed a crime does not forfeit any rights.

2) No one, as far as I know, has made registered any official complaints about any of Mr. Hundert's comments. Both Universities, faculty, staff and students, are standing in support of Mr. Hundert.

3) You notion that anyone here is advocating for the return of all land is a strawman. No one is making that argument. What are you talking about?

4)Sorry to dissapoint. My mention of violence was in response to your threat of a slap upside the head.

There are some things you are clearly missing. Firstly, the concept of innoccent until proven guilty. By stating outright that people accused of a crime should forfeit basic right and freedoms you reveal yourself as someone who has no belief in an ethical sense of justice.

** Not so. By starting that when someone commits a crime that they then - in turn - forfeit a number of their own rights as awarded to them through the CCRF I am simply stating a fact as it is written. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's section #1... the part most people seem to skip right on past when they want to cut and paste Section 2 - the part about 'Freedom of Speech'.


Secondly, your analysis of Indigenous sovereignty activism is way off base. By willfuly dismissing an entire movement for indigenous sovereignty based on what is really a fantastical and ludicrous assertion you paint yourself as either grossly ignorant or a racist.

** I am neither and in fact have a (albeit small) amount of Indigenous ancestry. Not enough for a 'card', but enough to appreciate the diversity of my family tree. I'm not dismissing the Indigenous Sovereignty movement. I am saying that the polar ends of it are ridiculous. We can't give back ALL the land (as some feel is the appropriate action), neither can we offer NO restitution. The solution lies somewhere inbetween and is to be negotiated by officials on both sides... not by 'average civilians' like myself or you or hot-headed activists that don't have a full hand of cards.


I do suggest that you actually do some reading on indigenous struggles in canada. I think you will finding it enlightening.

** I have. Other than my small about of blood connection, the REST of my ancestry lies firmly in the Old World. No one of my family - I can say this with virtual certainty - has ever subjugated an Indigenous People of North America... I can't say the same for some of my German relations circa World War II vis-a-vis the Jewish population, however.

As for the demonstration thing. The bail conditions you cited are the new ones and not the original ones Alex is accused of breaching. But I think you probably knew that.

** The bail conditions are the ones that Hundert has now agreed (albeit reluctantly) to. Thus they are THE bail conditions to be concerned about now.

You seem to be getting confused in the difference between illegal and offensive. Poeple have every right to complain about the substance or content of speeches or debates. But unless something being said violates Canadianhate speech laws, it is not illegal and doesn't warrant detention.

** Illegal is illegal... that's true enough. 'Offensive' possesses a LOT more clout than you think, though. If someone finds something offensive - and enough people feel the same way, the offending party must comply with any strictures placed upon them by the legal system.

Bail restrictions on the content of what one says are a violation of charter rights and must be seen as different from restricting one's freedom of movement. House arrest and a gag order are on quite different levels. You insinuate that Mr. Hundert vioalted other people's rights. This is a fallacy.

** By definition, it is the right of anyone to stand on the street and preach against the horrors of abortion. Technically speaking, it's not illegal for someone to have propaganda and posters depicting in graphic detail things like unborn fetuses... that is, until someone becomes offended by it. THEN they are in violation of someone else's rights. It's happened before - on University campuses across the country. Some of the universities have enacted sweeping 'bylaws' so as to prevent ANY forms of graphic depictions to avoid future situations from happening.
As for Hundert, I don't think it's his 'hate speech' that's the reason for his incarceration... call it a hunch. I dislike quite a few of the policies the Harper government has established and am firmly convinced that if the Cons had won a majority that women would have lost the right to vote. Simply conjecture on my part, but a belief nonetheless. Can I stand on the street and say that? Sure. Can I stand on the street and yell it into someone else's face? No. Can I stand with a bunch of people and sloganeer it into a nifty little rally and walk to the parliament buildings and chant all day? Sure. Can I plot to cause criminal violence while doing so? No.
Can I encourage OTHER people to do the same? No.

** I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me that - even IF Hundert did say NOTHING about his plots and the events leading up to the G20 and stuck to the subject matter and abstract commentary on the state of the government, etc, etc... that someone might have found it distasteful. Is it likely? Who knows? Look at all the information the authorities have in regards to Hundert already... are you telling me ALL of that is false?

Finally, as for my "dickishness", I suppose if I met you in person, and heard you spouting the drivel that you're posting above, with no desire to actually listen to what others are saying, with no desire to base any of what you're saying in facts of common sense, I might actually be just as much of a "dick".

** I am more than willing to listen to an opinion when it makes sense and is argued without name-calling, derision or slander. Shall we start again, then?

Nice to know you're the sort who would respond with violence. That'll get you far, I'm sure.

** What violence? Are you saying that my insinuating that you are a 'dick' is a violent gesture? Please say yes.

 

@ The Blade

There are some things you are clearly missing. Firstly, the concept of innoccent until proven guilty. By stating outright that people accused of a crime should forfeit basic right and freedoms you reveal yourself as someone who has no belief in an ethical sense of justice. Secondly, your analysis of Indigenous sovereignty activism is way off base. By willfuly dismissing an entire movement for indigenous sovereignty based on what is really a fantastical and ludicrous assertion you paint yourself as either grossly ignorant or a racist. I do suggest that you actually do some reading on indigenous struggles in canada. I think you will finding it enlightening. As for the demonstration thing. The bail conditions you cited are the new ones and not the original ones Alex is accused of breaching. But I think you probably knew that. You seem to be getting confused in the difference between illegal and offensive. Poeple have every right to complain about the substance or content of speeches or debates. But unless something being said violates Canadianhate speech laws, it is not illegal and doesn't warrant detention. Bail restrictions on the content of what one says are a violation of charter rights and must be seen as different from restricting one's freedom of movement. House arrest and a gag order are on quite different levels. You insinuate that Mr. Hundert vioalted other people's rights. This is a fallacy.

Finally, as for my "dickishness", I suppose if I met you in person, and heard you spouting the drivel that you're posting above, with no desire to actually listen to what others are saying, with no desire to base any of what you're saying in facts of common sense, I might actually be just as much of a "dick". Nice to know you're the sort who would respond with violence. That'll get you far, I'm sure.

Whoopsie... that'll teach me for posting while low on caffeine... the prof with the A+ fetish is

Denis Rancourt.

My bad, sorry guys. Ignore the stuff on Hundert being an Ottawa prof.

@rousing
"Certain freedoms allowed to average citizens are denied of those out on bail or to those
in jail. A person on bail cannot expect freedom of speech (many are not allowed to
communicate via telephone or internet), cannot expect freedom of movement (many are not
allowed to even leave the home, except for doctor's appointments or court appearances), or
freedom of association. Essentially, one on bail is being jailed. They can expect a
restricted life."
** Yes, exactly! Part 1. of the CCRF says that if you break the law you lose some of your
'unalienable' rights.

They have been charged with a crime, and until they are cleared of that crime-they are not
free to live their life normally. This is our legal system. This is not the
"criminalization of dissent" as I keep hearing. This is not merely your average citizen or
activist who is now facing severely curtailed freedoms for no reason.
Let's not forget that Hundert is not being charged with a minor, slap-on-wrist offense,
but rather conspiracy to commit indictable mischief-a charge that can carry up to ten
years in prison. He openly advocated violence on his websites, and in speeches against the
state and private property through his black bloc and diversity of tactics stance, and as
such, will face the repercussions of that stance. His group was also infiltrated by the
police for over a year-so who knows the evidence they have on him, or the level of
violence that was being planned. If, for example, he had planned to bomb a public space to
prove his point, as some black bloc and diversity of tactics anarchists in Ottawa did-
should he be freed and allowed to continue this type of behavior? I should hope not. A
person who advocates violence in public is not your "average activist", and I find the
comparison severely disturbing.
** What I want to know is... what proof do we have that he DIDN'T do the things they are
saying he did? Conspiracy to commit a crime... is still a crime, last I checked. Plus he
and his followers made a mess of downtown Vancouver protesting the 2010 Olympics which
were going to happen whether or not he got his panties in a bunch over it. Letès face it...
some people just can't play well or get along with others.

As a strong advocate of non-violence for many years, I find this "diversity of tactics"
trend to be troubling. I fail to see how advocating for violence in public, such as
bombing a bank is any different from say an anti-abortionist who blows up an abortion
clinic. Both believe they are being "just", that their "enemy" is wrong and violent, and
that the only way to "solve" the problem is by resorting to violence themselves. When did
two wrongs ever make a right? If violence is the only solution you can find to the problem,
you just aren't being creative enough-and if you think that violence is going to somehow
magically "overthrow oppression", you are sorely mistaken.
**Thank you for being a reasonable voice. I agree with you. Change has to happen... but it
won't happen with ball-flattening speed... and despite the delusions of the angry 'masses',

anarchy isn't an option.

Frankly, I'd like to see more outrage on those who are still being jailed, without the
privilege of being bailed in the first place, or those who were wrongly jailed in the first
place-and less on someone who can reasonably be considered to be inciting violence in the
public sphere.
** Agreed. The latest Nobel Peace Prize went to a Chinese national who was imprisoned.
Where's the public outrage at THAT?

@Cytizen H
2) You state that Mr. Hundert breached his bail by "by participating in a public discussion
 of the topic he was forbidden to discuss". This, again, is totally factually inaccurate.
The bail condition read that he was not to assist in the planning of, organize, or attend
at any public demonstration. I'd have thought the difference was obvious.
** Apparently it's not. Not to me, not to most people and not to the courts who - last I
checked - were still arguing over what dictionary definition to use. And... let mne quote
from the article above: "1: non-association with individuals such as Harsha Wallia and Dan
Keller and groups such as AW@L and No One Is Illegal; 2: no planning and or participating
/planning public meetings or marches and 3:  no expressing political views in public,
including in the media." That 'participation in public meetings' thing is a bit of a thorny
subject. You'll note that I'm actually not siding one way or the other. I prefer to have
all the evidence in front of me before I pardon or condemn someone... so if he went to this
'public discussion' and simply discussed, then so be it. Personally I think the police are
being a little heavy handed on him... but if he said or discussed ANYTHING in regards to
what should have happened, the organization of the event or details thereof, then by
definition (this is me splitting hairs - which I'm sure most legal wranglers LOVE to do)
he's 'demonstrating'.

3)In terms of the hypocrisy you ascribe to Mr. Hundert regarding his stance on Aboriginal
land, you clearly have never read any of Mr. Hundert's writings on Indigenous Sovereignty,
and thus are, once again, simply making shit up. There is no argument being made that all
land owned that sits on stolen Aboriginal land should immediately be handed over. To assume
that this is the only logical following is imbecilic at best.
** I'm so glad I have you as a moral compass. I'm also grateful that Hundert ascribes
'degrees' of ownership... does that mean all the land that's owned NOW gets grandfathered...
 but everything ELSE should go back to the Aboriginals? And... considering his stance on
the events preceding the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver (for instance) and his advocation of
violence and social disruption, I find his dialogues leave much to be desired. Like
@rousing said above - if he's using violence, he's not being creative enough.
Furthermore, Mr. Hundert does not own land.
** Then, by definition of what I said above, he's not talking out of his ass. But the fact
remains that it's ALL unceded Native land, sunshine. The fact that some whities populated
it and super-imposed a government over it doesn't change that fact... that's why new
developers have to bring in Anthropologists when they are clearing near to formerly known
Aboriginal settlement areas or whenever human remains are found.

4)Bail conditions. Do your goddamned homework. Non-association and non-communication bail
conditions include a total restriction on indirect non-communication.
** And for someone who's so-far been willing to breach his conditions of probation twice
now, what difference would it make to not continue? Seriously. Do I have to show you people
how to get shit done with no one knowing about it? It would be ridiculously easy to
accomplish - even with his prohibition - which thus far he's thumbed his nose at repeatedly.

5) Yes, voting is a basic right. So is the ability to express your political views. Jerk.
**Says the guy who's dropping insults at every turn? A charming piece of hypocrisy you got
going there. But don't let ME stop you. Voting IS a basic right. Expressing your political
views falls under the freedom of expression... BUT... if you infringe upon someone else's
rights when you do it, you end up leaving YOUR rights at the door. That's part 1 of the
CCRF... the part most people skip right on past when they rush to copy-paste section #2 in
their rants about 'freedom of speech' etc. ad nauseum.

6) As for the definition of demonstration... Show me 5 people who actually believe that a
University panel, regardless of what's being discussed, could possibly be perceived as a
demonstration. It won't happen. And for the record the definition used by the crown was from
 the Oxford concise dictionary. The full Oxford Dictionary's definition of a demonstration
is actually more in line with how any reasonable person would define a demonstration. And,
furthermore, you may be right that some people might complain if a professor was using their
 position to push view that were offensive, but only an imbecile would equate that with
calling the class a demonstration.
** Do you get this angry at everything? You must be great fun at parties... in Kingston,
Ontario any group of 4 or more people gathered together is considered a 'mob'. That's only
to demonstrate the silliness of some of these bylaws (municipal, university, etc). I'd be
willing to bet that I could find 5 people willing to say that they feel people gathering
together to voice their opinions at a university is a 'demonstration'... and I have a
feeling that 100% of those people would feel strongly AGAINST the subject matter of the
discussion/demonstration. Like the recent anti-abortionists that were arrested in Ottawa.
They were disallowed to even gather - if I recall correctly - simply on the grounds that
their belief system is different than others. The official university reason is that their
propaganda was 'graphic and offensive'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, here... but I'd bet
 dollars for donuts that the material was found to be offensive by the University 'Proper'
because enough people complained. If you have one ideology (of whatever) you can't possibly
think that EVERYONE will share that mindset. The more controversial your subject matter,
the more polarized the audience opinion will be.

7) As for Mr. Hundert's level of involvement in the G20, the correct answer is zero. He was
arrested pre-dawn on Saturday June 26th, before the G20 began. He is alleged to have been
involved in some of the planning, which included the 5 days of themed resistance which were
inspiring, powerful days of ACTUAL demonstrations for which less than 4 charges have been
laid on any of the thousands of people involved in those actions.
** It stands to reason in my opinion that - if he was innocent of all charges as people are

shaking their fists and jumping up and down about - like the hundreds of people before him,

wouldn't he have already been let go? He's small-potatoes. One guy. There are plenty of

other vocal 'protester' types with more political or socio-political clout out there than some

grad student. And I believe enough in the strength of his defense that - if he is truly innocent

of all charges - then it stands to reason that he will be let free, no?

Any questions?
** Are you this much of a dick in real life - or only on the internet where you can't get
slapped in the head for being a prick? Hey... YOU asked. =P

@The Blade 1) Alex Hundert is not nor ever has been a university prof so your whole theory about how he grades paper is factually inaccurate and totally irrelevant, except that it speaks to your willingness to ignore facts to make your "argument" 2) You state that Mr. Hundert breached his bail by "by participating in a public discussion of the topic he was forbidden to discuss". This, again, is totally factually inaccurate. The bail condition read that he was not to assist in the planning of, organize, or attend at any public demonstration. I'd have thought the difference was obvious. 3)In terms of the hypocrisy you ascribe to Mr. Hundert regarding his stance on Aboriginal land, you clearly have never read any of Mr. Hundert's writings on Indigenous Sovereignty, and thus are, once again, simply making shit up. There is no argument being made that all land owned that sits on stolen Aboriginal land should immediately be handed over. To assume that this is the only logical following is imbecilic at best. Furthermore, Mr. Hundert does not own land. 4)Bail conditions. Do your goddamned homework. Non-association and non-communication bail conditions include a total restriction on indirect non-communication. 5) Yes, voting is a basic right. So is the ability to express your political views. Jerk. 6) As for the definition of demonstration... Show me 5 people who actually believe that a University panel, regardless of what's being discussed, could possibly be perceived as a demonstration. It won't happen. And for the record the definition used by the crown was from the Oxford concise dictionary. The full Oxford Dictionary's definition of a demonstration is actually more in line with how any reasonable person would define a demonstration. And, furthermore, you may be right that some people might complain if a professor was using their position to push view that were offensive, but only an imbecile would equate that with calling the class a demonstration. 7) As for Mr. Hundert's level of involvement in the G20, the correct answer is zero. He was arrested pre-dawn on Saturday June 26th, before the G20 began. He is alleged to have been involved in some of the planning, which included the 5 days of themed resistance which were inspiring, powerful days of ACTUAL demonstrations for which less than 4 charges have been laid on any of the thousands of people involved in those actions. Any questions?

@The Blade-Alex Hundert is NOT a university professor. He was an undergraduate student at WLU, he was not even a graduate student who was doing tutorials or anything of the type. Just to clarify.

I tend to agree with you though Blade-that spinning and misrepresenting an issue is counterproductive, and I believe this martyrization is severely misplaced.

Certain freedoms allowed to average citizens are denied of those out on bail or to those in jail. A person on bail cannot expect freedom of speech (many are not allowed to communicate via telephone or internet), cannot expect freedom of movement (many are not allowed to even leave the home, except for doctor's appointments or court appearances), or freedom of association. Essentially, one on bail is being jailed. They can expect a restricted life. They have been charged with a crime, and until they are cleared of that crime-they are not free to live their life normally. This is our legal system. This is not the "criminalization of dissent" as I keep hearing. This is not merely your average citizen or activist who is now facing severely curtailed freedoms for no reason.

Let's not forget that Hundert is not being charged with a minor, slap-on-wrist offense, but rather conspiracy to commit indictable mischief-a charge that can carry up to ten years in prison. He openly advocated violence on his websites, and in speeches against the state and private property through his black bloc and diversity of tactics stance, and as such, will face the repercussions of that stance. His group was also infiltrated by the police for over a year-so who knows the evidence they have on him, or the level of violence that was being planned. If, for example, he had planned to bomb a public space to prove his point, as some black bloc and diversity of tactics anarchists in Ottawa did- should he be freed and allowed to continue this type of behavior? I should hope not. A person who advocates violence in public is not your "average activist", and I find the comparison severely disturbing.

As a strong advocate of non-violence for many years, I find this "diversity of tactics" trend to be troubling. I fail to see how advocating for violence in public, such as bombing a bank is any different from say an anti-abortionist who blows up an abortion clinic. Both believe they are being "just", that their "enemy" is wrong and violent, and that the only way to "solve" the problem is by resorting to violence themselves. When did two wrongs ever make a right? If violence is the only solution you can find to the problem, you just aren't being creative enough-and if you think that violence is going to somehow magically "overthrow oppression", you are sorely mistaken.

Frankly, I'd like to see more outrage on those who are still being jailed, without the privilege of being bailed in the first place, or those who were wrongly jailed in the first place-and less on someone who can reasonably be considered to be inciting violence in the public sphere.

 

As much as I am an advocate of positive social change, deliberate spin and misrepresentation of an issue - on either side - does little for constructive alteration of what we'd call the 'status quo'. Case in point: Alex Hundert.

Hundert is a smart man... one can easily (hopefully?) surmise this as he was a university prof... admittedly, he was discharged for his anti-authoritarian leanings and his gesture of 'A+ for everyone' in a vain (some might say vainglorious) attempt to thumb his nose at the administration and demonstrate (yes, I went there) that the current marking scheme and obsession about grades by the student body as a whole is a misrepresentation of the quality of work students can do. In short, give the students the marks, so that the marks aren't what they end up hung up on and then they can actually LEARN something. Or something like that. It's a bit far fetched, however idealistic.
Which is why for the life of me, for all his presumed intelligence, I can't figure out why Hundert is such an idiot with his head up his ass.
Yeah, I went there, too.
See... there are PLENTY of ways to give students higher grades without the paper-pushing admins even batting an eyelash... but Humbert decided to go the 'obvious' route. Did he genuinely want this students to learn the subject material? Most likely. Was it altruism? No.
This was one of many cases of a person wanting immediate change to the system with no regard for procedure, protocol or respect for others in their vicinity.
Here's a hint. Anarchy actually wouldn't work as a social mechanism of order.

The same thing happened here.
Hundert breached the conditions of his bail by participating in a public discussion of the topic he was forbidden to discuss. So far there's no 'nefarious misdeed' on the part of the authorities. If anything, Hundert's ego is getting in the way of his actual participation in social change.

As far as his advocacy goes? If he 'legally' owns property in Canada, then he's talking out of his ass with regards to his stance on 'aboriginal land ownership'... let alone anything else. Am I saying that everyone who feels the settlers of Canada did the Native people wrong should sell their property? Why not, if they feel so strongly about it? It's a bit disingenuous to expect the government to bend over backwards when the house someone lives in is ALSO on quote-unquote "unceded Native land". It's kinda like weekend Christianity... party and curse and sin all week long, head to the House of the Holy and say your Hail Marys and get back at it Monday morning. It's hypocritical.

As for being forced to stay in jail after breaching the conditions of his bail and not accepting new bail conditions? That's usually what happens, yes.
Are the new bail conditions fair? They don't appear to be at first (or to the untrained eye)... but then if anyone with a mind for real change was to think about them, they aren't all that restrictive. So he has to stop associating with specific individuals? Talk to an intermediary (or three). Not allowed to protest publically? Then go 'underground'. Honestly. The Tea Party Movement in Boston in the 1800s and the French Revolution happened without the use of modern conveniences like cars, telephones, email or webpages, and they managed just fine... and their results were far more significant than a lone teacher shaking his impudent fist at the government.

And... just as an FYI, voting in a Federal election isn't 'expression of one's views', it's exercising a constitutional right of free speech. There's a difference - and it's why hardened criminals get to vote... but thanks for playing the 'fearmongering' game. The delicious irony to your statement is that if Hundert stays in prison until the aforementioned election, he will actually be able to CHOOSE where his vote registers: the riding he lived in before incarceration, the riding his spouse or dependants currently reside in, the riding in which he was arrested, or the riding in which the court that convicted him is located.
He'll be able to assist in (more) positive social change using a form of 'Single Transferrable Vote' that the rest of us are chomping at the bit for!

As far as definitions between 'demonstration' and 'panel speaking', it all depends, I suppose on what one's definition of 'public' is, how one defines a 'demonstration'... and the courts seem to be hung up on which dictionary definition to use. Personally I'd have to side with the OED as opposed to wikipedia, but that's just me commenting on the unreliability of a community-contributed website.
Is a university prof that 'lectures' about his own personal opinions as opposed to specific course material 'demonstrating'? It would seem so. Allow me to counter with a question, if I may: if you were in class and your prof started lecturing you about something you found offensive - let's go with obeying the law and paying your taxes - would you find it offensive? If the prof continued to use his lecture podium as a soapbox and continued to express his solidarity for the legal system, would you complain? I'm betting you would.
It often helps when one tries to walk in someone else's shoes.

As for the reasons for his arrest, does anyone really know his level of participation in the G20 protests? (most of which were illegal by the letter of the law, incidentally...) Has he ever admitted to specific actions? Of course not. He'd rather play the martyr.

Arrested for X reason, released on bail. Breaches the contract of his bail conditions, gets re-arrested. Breaches the bail conditions yet again, gets arrested again.
Yeah I see a pattern.
Someone (no one's really sure who) once said:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"

 

All the support and sharing in our frustration and rage around Alex's situation has been empowering and inspiring. Please write to Alex in prison.

 

Toronto East Detention Centre

55 Civic Rd
Toronto, ON
M1L 2K9

 

Login or register to post comments