It is to be hoped that the judge in the case of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, key organizers of the notorious Freedom Convoy, has more common sense and respect for justice than the prosecution which seems intent on nothing more than revenge and retribution.
Whatever one’s view of the Freedom Convoy and its actions during a three-week period in early 2022, a prison sentence of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber would throw the administration of justice into disrepute.
That the Crown is asking for these sentences is shameful and ignores some of the other issues in this country that is making Canadians doubt that the legal system is fair, balanced, impartial and beyond reproach.
Most of the prosecution case has been demolished. Lich was facing six charges and Barber seven for a variety of accusations including mischief, intimidation, counselling others to break the law, obstructing police and counselling others to obstruct police.
At the end of a 45-day trial the organizers of the convoy were both found guilty of mischief and Barber was also found guilty of counselling others to disobey a judge’s order to stop honking horns.
They were found not guilty of the majority of the charges and yet the Crown demands a penalty that is entirely unjustified.
This week they will be sentenced by Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey but at the weekend Lich
that the Crown was asking for seven years imprisonment for her and eight for Barber.
Their fate will be decided three years and five months after they were first arrested. An old adage says justice delayed is justice denied.
But it is interesting to note that in her April 3
finding the pair guilty, the judge said she accepted that Lich and Barber came to Ottawa “with the noblest of intentions to simply protest their wish for the government and Prime Minister (at the time) Trudeau to end COVID mandate.”
Further, “The Crown agrees that the accused came to Ottawa to advance a noble cause and had the right to protest against COVID mandates, but argues they crossed the line with the means used to achieve their ends.”
The Freedom Convoy was certainly a nuisance. It caused inconvenience and hardship for citizens for some three weeks. The honking of horns was particularly annoying until stopped by a court order.
The judge said in her ruling, “Persons testified that the noise from the truck horns made it difficult for downtown residents to sleep and focus on work. Others testified that the egress from their buildings was blocked or that because of the streets being blocked that it was difficult or impossible to get to work and appointments. Generally, the central core of the city came to a standstill.
“The downtown residents who testified including persons and their families who lived in the downtown core, owners and employees of small businesses and other institutions such as churches suffered significant interferences in the use and enjoyment of their property and in their daily activities because of the protest.”
But the Freedom Convoy was not violent.
The line that Lich and Barber crossed is one written in sand, shifting, defined only after the fact by the courts and only after a contest between competing rights.
The judge said that there is a “delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order and individual rights and freedoms on the other.”
There was “tension” between those rights, she said.
Judge Perkins-McVey quoted a judge in another case who said, “in a free and democratic society such as Canada, we welcome and encourage people to hold demonstrations if such is necessary to exercise their right of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of association as guaranteed by section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“However, society also expects demonstrators to exercise these rights to do so without violating the rights of others to move about freely or to engage in activities which they have a perfect legal right to do so.”
Here is the nub of the case. The judge had to balance the tension between Lich’s and Barber’s perfect right to protest with the rights of people to go about enjoying their daily lives.
“At the heart of the competing interests in this case lies the question to what extent does the exercise of the right to protest protects those from criminal liability when the rights of other citizens to enjoy their property have been impacted by their actions. Even Charter-protected rights are not absolute,” said the judge.
The defence argued the pair were “engaged in and encouraged a lawful and constitutionally protected peaceful protest.”
The judge has found them guilty, but clearly from her ruling there has been, and will be going forward, much more debate and cases involving protests and citizens’ rights.
Since October 7, 2023, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and other Canadian cities, have seen constant anti-Israel protests (along with demonstrations in support of the terror group Hamas) that have blocked streets, traffic, led to emergency vehicles being diverted, and caused much annoyance, nuisance, fear and alarm to citizens.
Yet they are continuing and more are planned.
Who decides that the rights of citizens have been impacted to such an extent that the protests are unlawful? The protesters won’t do it. As is the case with protests, they push boundaries until they cross lines they don’t see.
As for the citizens of Toronto, Montreal, et al, they aren’t being listened to.
Regularly blocking intersections and causing distress to citizens in downtown Toronto for 21 months doesn’t appear to be a crime. And yet honking horns and, yes, causing annoyance to the citizens of Ottawa for three weeks, is deemed worthy by the Crown of sending people to jail for seven and eight years.
Canadians will not see that as right, proper, balanced or fair.
What began in 2022 as a noble protest shouldn’t end in 2025 with a sordid persecution.
National Post
