On Tuesday, October 28, the State’s second attempt to convict me as thesupposed architect of a “planned riot” at Queen’s Park on June 15, 2000,went off the rails. As one of a series of pre-trial motions that we putbefore the Court, my lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, had argued that my constitutional rights had been violated because the matter had not beenbrought to trial within a reasonable time. The judge in the case accepted this and ordered the charges against me stayed. While we do not have anywritten reasons for the decision as yet, it is likely that a sevenmonth delay in providing us with disclosure of potential evidence was themain factor involved.

The judicial stay that has been ordered puts the charges on the shelfand, as such, they are no longer hanging over my head. My massivelyrestrictive bail conditions are null and void. Within 30 days, theCrown must decide whether or not to appeal but, if they do, they must taketheir case to the Ontario Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court ofCanada. Even if they went to such lengths, they would then have to setthe date for a third trial and go at it all over again. With the new,Liberal Government in power in Ontario, and in the Attorney General’s Office, this isunlikely in the extreme. Clearly, we have won a major legal and an evenbigger political victory.

We said all along that these charges were an attack on the wholemovement. In the first trial before a jury earlier this year, Stefan Pilipaand Gaetan Heroux, faced two years in jail for “participating in ariot” having been singled out as “leaders” by the police and Crown. I waslooking at up to five years for “counselling” people to riot and assaultpolice. Had they been able to convict Stefan and Gaetan, no one who joined ademonstration that the cops turned into a confrontation would have been safefrom prosecution. If I had gone down on the basis of having made a speechat a demonstration, the chilling effect on the right to dissent is even moreobvious.

After the jury in the first case became deadlocked and a mistrial wasdeclared, the decision to retry me was astounding and without precedent.Their failure to get the matter before a second jury is a vindication of astrategy that we developed in the course of this whole long battle. Wefirmly believed that it was possible to mount a principled defense that was,at the same time, legally effective. My lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, wasremarkable in agreeing with this and finding the means to combine winninglegal arguments with solid political conviction.

We went before a jury andacknowledged our militant politics and the plans we had on June 15, 2000, todemand entry for a delegation to the Legislature.

If there was a riot onthat day, however, we laid it at the door of an intransigent government anda reckless and provocative police force. We used all legitimate legalarguments available to us but never went in for any cringing apologetics.

We emerge from this long ordeal with our heads held high.

It would be improper to end this statement without thanking all thosewho stood in solidarity with us. In addition to the jury trials, dozensof others faced legal attacks after June 15 and remained solid in the faceof it. Hundreds of people came out to court to show solidarity. Tradeunionists and community leaders wrote hundreds of letters on our behalf.People in dozens of countries added their names to statements of support.In the U.S., South Africa and Korea protests were organized in our defenseand, just as the judge’s ruling brought things to a halt, solidarityactions were being planned in Britain and Brazil.

We did not just win thelegal battle. We have come out of this stronger than when we went into it.Now, we will take that strength into our fight against poverty and thosewho inflict it on us.