Ideas are being put on trial in Canada. This became clear sitting in the courtroom at Toronto's Old City Hall on Thursday, April 28.
Jaggi Singh, one of the nation's most prominent anti-capitalist activists, pleaded guilty to urging people to take down the $5-million G20 summit fence erected in downtown Toronto last June. He was officially charged with "counselling to commit mischief over $5,000."
Jaggi's statements (part 1, part 2), used as evidence in court Thursday, were made to reporters at a No One Is Illegal press conference in front of the fence a few days before the G20 meeting opened. "I'm here today to stand with people who question the legitimacy of this fence and support those who want to take down the fence -- to take down those fences and walls that separate us," Singh said to gathered press.
For making this statement, Singh could face up to six months in prison and two years on probation. That's what Crown Attorney Jason Miller is seeking as an "exemplary sentence." Miller explained to the judge, Justice Robert Bigelow, that the sentence he sought was not to deter Singh, but to deter others within his "community" from committing similar offences.
Members of that same community Miller wishes to defuse attended the hearing to support Singh, including a few of his co-accused. The state wishes to make an example of Singh and the 17 other radical activists being charged with conspiracy. Not for their actions, but for the militant ideals they very publicly seek to legitimize.
Singh's lawyer Peter Rosenthal pointed out that the general public felt this kind of security measure was completely unjustified and wanted to see the fence removed. Was building this multi-million-dollar fence even reasonable (especially given the heavy police presence at the summit), asked Rosenthal.
"Rosenthal, that's got nothing to do with me," responded Justice Bigelow to Rosenthal's question in court.
Advertising
It's just one issue swept under the rug as the trial and targeting of 18 radical activists, including Singh, drags on.
In the corridors outside the courtroom Singh remained consistent. "It's not in the courts that we decide what's permissible for us or isn't. We decide in our movements, through our debates, principles, organizing, [and] struggles what tactics, what strategies are necessary for us to achieve social justice and that'll always be the case," he said.
"There is nothing that I can admit to in the conspiracy charges, because there really was no conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy of thousands of people to resist the G20, which of course is not a conspiracy, it's organizing," Singh explained.
Outside the court community organizations spoke in support of Singh. No One Is Illegal read a statement that called to drop charges against Singh and his 17 co-accused.
"There is no deterrent that is going to stop resistance. People are going to continue to fight back," John Clarke from OCAP told reporters. "Jaggi Singh has more justice in his fingernail than that place has in its entire building," he said, pointing to the courthouse.
"The fact that Jaggi today was being judged by something he said in the media is a huge attack and a blatant attack on free speech," said Jaroslava Avila of the Women's Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu. Like Singh and other organizers, Avila was accused of conspiracy for last summer's G20 protests. The charges against her were dropped in December.
"They had no ultimate proof. But then we can see that this entire circus that this case is all based on the criminalization of dissent," explained Avila. "The only thing that we have been guilty of is organizing in the face of our issues and announcing them to this government."
Singh still regrets the fence remained in place throughout the G20. "There are contexts and places in the world where that kind of fence would not even be considered, where people would rise up together and tear it down and yet it was accepted in polite Toronto under the Stephen Harper billion-dollar security budget," he said in between court sessions.
Singh urges people to support those still facing charges. He suggests people educate themselves about the charges, raise money and awareness, and continue organizing. "Those things go a long way to maintaining people's morale," he said.
As part of Singh's plea agreement the three remaining counts of conspiracy against him will be dropped, he will not cooperate with the Crown or police or apologize for his actions and the plea can't be used against his co-accused in legal proceedings.
Rosenthal is arguing that the one week Singh spent in jail and six months under house arrest should count as time served in addition to a $10 fine. Singh will be sentenced in June.
Carmelle Wolfson is a journalist based in Toronto.
Thanks for this report. It's clear, as Alvina says, that this is about the criminalization of dissent, and as Jaggi says: "There is nothing that I can admit to in the conspiracy charges, because there really was no conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy of thousands of people to resist the G20, which of course is not a conspiracy, it's organizing." It's in our most fundamental democratic interest to support their right to free speech and to organize against G20 injustices.
funny, Tom Flanagan never had to plead guilty for 'counselling' although he was saying (on national tv) that someone (Julian Assange) should be killed, not just to have a(n illegitamate) fence torn down
there were no police or crown attorneys asking for any penalty at all for Flanagan
guess John Clarke knows what he's talking about, Jaggi's fingernail wins the day
conspiracy charges are false where activists have spoken openly, and the charges thus do seem to be an attack to make an example of some activists, which isn't just.
taking down an illegitimate fence is an issue of debate.
I personally think the fence was illegitimate, however it needed to be taken down with a plan discussed as to what to do after it was taken down, like calmly voting to walk to the meetings and present specific demands, or presenting demands at the site where the fence is taken down. maybe that would have happened at the event.
The problem is that when some activists say they are going to do these kinds of actions, the police and other authorities over-react as they did in Quebec CIty FTAA protests, and obviously the G8/20 events, poisoning everyone within a kilometre of the event with toxic pepper spray and tear gas or arresting bystanders. Police behaviour and the instigative behaviour of authorites in establishing fences in the first place, then assaulting everyone afterwards, is the behaviour which is physically and psychologically destructive. It is the police behaviour and actions of authorities which is the most destructive behaviour.
Individuals and groups that act unilaterally without negotiating and reaching agreement with other groups are a problem for activists. If media report that some groups say they will 'attack' without specifying if that is 'attack a policy', 'attack human rights abrogation', or 'attack a fence', those like myself who have experienced some trauma in past police abuses get afraid they will become victim to more police abuses, and decide not to attend protests. Activists groups need to negotiate before a protest and let others know the result of negotiations. I didn't see anything at babble/rabble before the G8/20 protest that said, ' here is the plan- some people are going to calmly and respectfully take down the illegitimate fence and then walk to the meetings and present the following demands. This has been agreed upon by all activist groups participating in the protest.' At the time i didn't have the capacity to absorb more police abusive reaction so i didn't attend G20 protests.
It was the combined failure of groups to reach useful consensus ahead of time as well as the fact that, even if groups had decided to calmly take down the illegitimate fence and hold a religious ceremony there at the site of the fence, along with demands, police would likely have assaulted protesters and bystanders anyway. Police may have sent in provocateurs to stir up trouble directly, as they did in Montebello, as they seem to have done at the G20 protests too, and legal demonstrators would have been rounded up and assaulted anyway. Legal dissent is stifled, initially by authorities which use G20 meetings to assault populations, again by Harper in deciding to hold the meeting behind ridiculous fences and without the participation of those affected by policies, and again by those directing or allowing police to abuse.
It is 'easier' to prove illegal police behaviour when activists have negotiated agreement prior to protests. Perhaps negotiation and agreement did occur yet mainstream media and rabble missed reporting it, or i missed seeing it.
In any case, these notes about personal, negotiation, media, police, and authorities' behaviour are separate from the issue of inaccurate 'conspiracy' charges against Jaggi Singh. He was open and clear.