Notes of an anti-Atlantica arrestee: illegal bail conditions, criminalization of dissent and continuing struggle

Asaf Rashid

July 6, 2007

I was one of the many political prisoners arrested in Halifax at the June 15th demonstration against the Atlantica Congress (June 14 – 16, 2007) and its associated corporate agenda. There were a total of 18 anti-Atlantica political prisoners, who all have to deal with restrictive bail conditions, which I will get into further below. That is one of my focuses here, but I want to relate it all to the larger context of struggles at a systemic level — bail conditions form only a piece of broader mechanisms of oppression. First though, I’d like to get into some context. Sufficient context, to explain why many may have chosen to put themselves in a more “arrestable” situation at the June 15th demonstration, is usually missing from the corporate press.

Here are some examples of corporate press characterizations:

“A group of self-described anarchists broke away from the main demonstration and a confrontation developed, with protesters throwing paint-filled light bulbs, firecrackers and rocks at police. Police responded with pepper spray and stun guns to control the crowd.” – CBC, June 16.

“Most of the protesters were peaceful, but at one point, a group of about 50 dressed in black and wearing balaclavas broke away from the main group. They threw paint-filled light bulbs, firecrackers and rocks at police, businesses and journalists. In return, police used pepper spray and electric stun guns to control the protesters.” – CTV, June 16

“About 50 people, many masked and wearing dark clothes, broke away from a larger group of anti-free-trade demonstrators in the afternoon and headed away from the World Trade and Convention Centre, where the Atlantica conference is being held.” – CBC, June 15.

SOME ACTUAL CONTEXT (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE)

My own synopsis of how things played out, with some context, is as follows. There was a conference in Halifax from June 14 - 16, the Atlantica Congress, at which business leaders – including the elite corporate community in the Atlantic Canada and North Eastern U.S. – and regional political leaders were meeting to discuss the methodology of pushing forward the corporate-driven Atlantica transportation and energy corridor, which is being designed to prioritize the cheap and high volume delivery of commodities and energy to markets in the U.S. During the approach and arrival of the Congress (going months back), there has been increasing recognition amongst people in the affected region that their social rights and the safety + health of their environment in the “Atlantica” region is becoming negotiable, a point that is being openly stated and/or implied by Atlantica organizers.

The fact that the whole Atlantica organizing process is, and has been, going on without there being any real/significant opportunity for public engagement and challenges to the agenda from opponents has increasingly upset opponents. The opponents include members of labour unions, environmental groups, social justice activists, etc (see some commentaries on stopatlantica.org). They are alienated through the Atlantica organizing process, not only because they are being attacked through it, but also because they either cannot afford to participate in such events as the $600 (registration) Atlantica Congress, or else do not see these as offering possibilities of effective engagement because of closed ears of elites at the events, or both. Thus, they have been left out on the streets to make more direct challenges against the Atlantica advocates and intended beneficiaries, who are drawing bolder class lines down between themselves on one side and the poor, working class and even sectors of the middle class on the other side. The Atlantica advocates and intended beneficiaries include various financial institutions such as BMO, TD Bank, Scotiabank; corporations such Irving and Emera; corporate think tanks and other corporate-driven institutions such as the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce and the Eastern Maine Development Corporation.

At a particular point of contention between proponent and opponents, at the June 15th anti-Atlantica demonstration in Halifax, one portion of the crowd (between 50 – 70 people) contained those who wished to make some more emphatic / direct challenges against the intended Atlantica beneficiaries, i.e., the undemocratic drivers of Atlantica, and its corporate backers + associates. A common argument justifying more direct challenges is (and was) that they deter, or inspire the deterrence of, greater crimes from taking place. Namely, such crimes encompass the unrestrained / unchecked economic and physical violence, which the drivers of Atlantica and associates either carry out or are in association with (Check out Corpwatch, Bankwatch, the Maquila Solidarity Network, etc online for more details), examples including violating activities such as throwing people off their land, attacking union leaders, exposing communities and workers to toxins, essentially depriving people of the means to access basic necessities (by way of terrible wages, stolen land, etc), while such people are mostly only trying to survive.

Many of the folks who put themselves in the potential space to make more emphatic challenges were dressed in black and masked in order to (any or all of the following): blend together and become a leaderless mass; prevent later identification from the police, who would pursue future criminalization and targeting / harassment of those profiled / arrested; have protection from tear gas and other dangerous and potentially lethal weapons used by police; and, a host of other reasons that could be explained best by the various people who were there. Not everyone threw things at corporate targets or police lines, but some obviously did, as the corporate media reported; however, whether or not any of these actions were justified was not addressed within the corporate media through more explanatory frames, which could have been
offered by honestly seeking out in-depth and diverse answers to at least some key questions (which would unavoidably give the context of social relations in our society):

(1) What effect do such disruptive actions have on public perception of the corporations & financial institutions targeted and the scope of tactics available to concerned people?

(2) What are some of the concerns people might have about the corporations and financial institutions targeted that might have led them to do engage in such actions?

(3) Can such disruptive actions be justified in some cases if they draw attention to and possibly deter corporate crimes?

(4a) Instead of guarding the corporations without question, why do the police not arrest the corporate criminals, thereby making actual efforts to “keep the peace”?

(4b) Were any of the people who apparently threw small objects and paint at the police actually trying to injure the police (with whatever pathetic-as-weapons implements that were allegedly used) or were they simply trying to either move them out of the way, keep them from advancing and/or express relatively moderate frustration against them for acting as security guards for corporations and financial institutions?

(5) When the police and political authorities do nothing to stem the corporate mayhem, and concerned people have already asked nicely for changes that did not arrive, what options are left for these concerned people?

ARRESTS AND INJUSTICE OF JAIL

Of course, I recognize that in the capitalist system we live in the police are mandated to defend the corporate criminals and instead target the emphatic opponents of the established order…but the police try and justify their role another way:

“We applied a very measured response and escalated our force as necessary,” said police spokeswoman Theresa Brien. She added, “We respect everyone’s right to protest peacefully and lawfully, but are forced to take action when people take criminal activity.” – Canadian Press, June 16.

The police blanketed all of the 18 anti-Atlantica political prisoners for engaging in various criminal activities, which included alleged unlawful assembly, allegedly carrying weapons with the intent to use them, wearing masks in order to allegedly carry out crimes, as well as a number of other charges that varied for different people. We may as well have picked our charges out of a bowl. On everyone’s little piece of paper, there would have been – at minimum – the charge of unlawful assembly (I believe everyone got this one), but the others were a bit more of a lottery.

Before finally getting to the ridiculous bail conditions, which is an extension of punishment & imprisonment, it is important to point out that punishment was heavily delivered already. After being placed under arrest, 18 of the 21 people originally arrested were kept in jail for three days. We were deprived of food and water for the first day (all 21 were at least partially subjected to the harassment / abuse / deprivation on the first day), with only ONE Powerbar provided to each person in a span of time (24 hours), when we should have gotten 4 meals, and (non-freegan) vegans could not eat the Powerbars because they contained dairy-based ingredients. Many only received one bottle of water during this whole time and some got two, the weak water faucets in our cells didn’t all work and none of the faucets looked very sanitary. On the next day, when we were moved to the Burnside Correctional Facility, vegans had to endure the first day of non-vegan food despite clearly labeling their dietary choices on processing forms upon entry into the correction facility. Many arrestees were not allowed to talk to a lawyer within a reasonable time frame (should have been as soon after arrest as possible) and not read their rights upon arrest. But perhaps the most abusive treatment was the experience many had in enduring brutal arrests, which involved the use of electrocution devices (Tazers), pepper spray, billy clubs, choking-out techniques, and the list can carry on. But the police tactics should be of no surprise. As ALWAYS in such protests as on June 15th in Halifax –challenging corporate power + capitalist institutions — the police violence astronomically outweighed any scant violence by the protesters (property damage and vandalism are NOT violence; they are “property damage and vandalism”); however, the police are almost never punished for their brutal assaults.

THE BAIL CONDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL

To add more layers to the punishment, the courts have the nerve to extend the chains outside of the jail through bail conditions, which VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. After 3 days in jail, we were all finally granted a hearing where we were all given the “opportunity” for a conditional release. We were made aware, by the court-appointed lawyers, that there would be release conditions, and that we would not have the opportunity to challenge them unless we wished to stay in jail until another bail hearing could be scheduled (because of “time constraints”), which would have been an unknown number of days away. Some were able to insist to have conditions revealed to them, but not everyone was simply granted this information, as we should have been when we appeared in court. Everyone knew that the conditions would be somewhat limiting; however, everyone agreed, not surprisingly, to the conditional release, signing their forms reluctantly on their way out of the courthouse. People likely wanted to avoid an unknown number of days of further mild torture through the prison. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Hardly.

The two conditions that I believe every one of the Atlantica political prisoners have to endure, which are also the major violators of fundamental freedoms are: (1) not to participate in protests or public demonstrations, and (2) do not associate with, or be in the company of the following persons: (list is made up of all the arrestees) except incidental contact in an education or treatment program or while at work and to travel on one occasion from Halifax to their home between June 18, 2007, and June 20, 2007.

There are some serious problems with these conditions, in that bring up some major legal contradictions, i.e., the conditions are technically ILLEGAL even within the capitalist legal system (property and profit are undeniably given the priority) which we were arrested. I’ll speak of these from my own point of view, but they apply to everyone who has these conditions hanging over them. Here goes…

As a result of the alleged offenses I am being charged with (listed further below), I recognize that it is a part of “due process” and “fundamental justice” (process though the “justice” system) for there to be some limits placed on my freedoms, but the conditions need to pass certain tests of fairness in order to be even remotely considered lawful themselves, i.e., for there NOT to be contradictions between the conditions and other legal standards. My arguments and proposed change of the conditions are as follows. I’ll deal with the “no protest” one first:

Section (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

“1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

“Reasonable limits” could include any variation of fair limits on some of my guaranteed rights as contained in the Charter, but I would argue that certain freedoms cannot really be limited in a fair way at all, such as section (12) of the Charter,

“Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”

There should be no exception to that one, ever, nor to the rights contained in part (a) of the fundamental freedoms as stated in section (2) of the Charter:

“2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”

I understand, however, that some very specific exceptions can be made to (b), (c) and/or (d), in the cause of “fundamental justice” (in response to my alleged offenses), as qualified in section (7) of the Charter:

“7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

I would like to emphasize that in exercising “fundamental justice”, the standard of “reasonable” must still be met. The logical interpretation of “what are reasonable limits?” in my specific case relates to the nature of my alleged offenses, for which charges against me are being pursued. A reasonable limit, i.e. condition, would not unfairly restrict my fundamental freedoms any more than is required to provide “reasonable” safeguards against me committing any offenses that can be considered an extension of any or all of the offenses I was alleged to have committed. The 3 offenses I allegedly committed, were: (1) unlawful assembly; (2) possession of weapon for dangerous purpose (a marble; no I’m not kidding); and, (3) wearing a disguise with the intent to commit a crime (the “apparent” crime is that I planned on throwing the marble they found in my possession, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of this intention).

So how do the conditions relate to the alleged offenses? The “not to participate in protests or public demonstrations”, condition is without doubt intended as a response to the allegation of me committing “unlawful assembly”. It is only on very shaky foundations that any connection can be made between the said condition and “possession of weapon for dangerous purpose” or “wearing disguise with intent…” These 2 hysterical allegations are more logically responded to with the condition, “keep the peace and be of good behaviour”, which is so vague it cannot really restrict day-to-day activities very easily, so I’m not putting much time into challenging it.

I will now focus fully on the unreasonableness of “not to participate in protests or public demonstrations” as a fair response to the alleged offense of “unlawful assembly”. Returning to the Charter sections I addressed above, if there is to be any consistency between sections (1), (2) and (7) of the Charter and the Criminal Code, the standard of “reasonable limits”, and nothing more, on my fundamental freedoms must be exercised. What makes, “not to participate in protests or public demonstrations”, an unreasonable condition is that it prevents me from exercising my fundamental freedoms in a rather sweeping fashion, going well beyond what is necessary. There are many hypothetical examples I can give of the inconsistency between the Charter and the said condition. I will run through a few entirely hypothetical examples to illustrate how the questionable condition violates various combinations of my fundamental freedoms:

1) If I was to do a solo hunger strike, in a lawful manner, in a public space to bring attention to Canada’s general refusal to recognize and respect aboriginal rights and jurisdiction over technically un-ceded traditional territories, I would be breaking the said condition while exercising my rights to, at least, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” and “freedom of conscience”.

2) If I was to participate in a public and lawful rally for the protection and advancement of the rights of refugees and all non-status people, I would be violating the said condition while exercising all of my fundamental freedoms.

3) If I was to join a legal picket of workers on strike, in an effort to show support for their struggles, I would be violating the said condition while, again, exercising all of my fundamental freedoms.

The overarching point I am trying to illustrate with the above examples is that protests and public demonstrations are the arenas in which fundamental freedoms are very directly and publicly exercised. Protests and public demonstrations are, in fact, the catalytic centers from which all of our fundamental freedoms, as well as our social and environmental rights, were arguably fought for in the first place. The Charter just lists bare bones of what people + movements had already made headway on. But these bare bones are legally real. Everyone technically should have the protected right to engage in protests and public demonstrations.

All of the above being said, and considering that I am willing to accept a “reasonable limitation” on my fundamental freedoms (only because at least some limitations are unavoidable upon my arrest in our “guilty until proven innocent (if you’re poor)” legal system that I have had imposed on me), I will offer the following as a reasonable variation of the said condition:

“Will not attend or remain at a demonstration once it has become unlawful and the police have asked people to leave.”

As for the “do not associate with…” condition, most of my above arguments also bring this one into question. The solution is, again, to look at the actual charges and ask, “Which of the alleged crime(s) is this condition intended to prevent/stop?” I would narrow it down to one of them, using the following logic. Would the arrestees coming together or communicating in any form at any place and at any time, i.e. “associating or being in the company of” each other, encourage each other to put masks on and try and engage in “criminal activity”, including carrying rather benign “weapons”, anywhere and everywhere we go due to some quasi-innate tendency? I think that’s just a little hysterical of an assumption of our characters and I’d hope any reasonable judge would display any manner of deep frowns, furrowed eyebrows and/or any other “I’m unimpressed” expressions if forced to listen to such ridiculous poo-filled arguments. It could be more reasonably assumed by the Crown (though I actually don’t agree) that the arrestees may, when we come together at protests or public demonstrations, perpetuate unlawful assembly at such protests or public demonstrations because of our political standpoints — which should be fine, in the cause of attempting to foster social change, but (of course) the “justice” system tends to defend the basic tenets of capitalism, such as the rights to maximize profits and defend private property, which means fighting from within comes with serious limitations. All that being said — considering the limited options — I’d say the “do not associate with…” condition, in order to be reasonable, has to be firmly attached to an attempt to try and prevent / stop the arrestees from engaging in “unlawful assembly” and not the other charge, since this is the only charge that the “non-association” condition can respond to in a reasonable way. I would say a reasonable variation of the “do not associate with…” condition is:

“Do not associate with or be in the company of (list of arrestees) at protests or public demonstrations that are unlawful”

In summary, conditions should not be set in such a manner to allow for broad interpretations that can be used to prevent (in this case) me and my co-accused from exercising fundamental freedoms while participating in any public, political causes. Conditions open to broad interpretations could very repressively and conveniently be used against the arrestees by any combination of the State, all provinces, any municipalities, or private interests to have dissenting voices silenced. This kind of enforced silence is what is meant by criminalization of dissent”.

IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE BAIL CONDITIONS; IT’S THE WHOLE SYSTEM

As anyone may be able to read from my above attempts to find space for justice within the system we are in, there are some serious problems, and those arrested have essentially been forced into the confines. Perhaps the largest problem can best be put as a question: How is it that we are the ones stuck fighting against such impositions — arrests, bail conditions, etc — through the justice system when corporate crimes continues unabated, indigenous lands continue to be stolen and/or unreturned without significant legal remedies, landlords continue to get away with evicting poor people from their homes while the poor cannot afford lawyers to challenge their homelessness, etc, etc, etc?

It is sadly the case that people who boldly challenge the system are the ones who end up burdened by it, which is entirely logical (as is the case with challengers to any system); however, the fact that such burdens are NOT being alleviated means that justice is not being served for the majority, nor are things moving in that direction, which is why I wanted to state the initially rather obvious point. Significant progressive social changes (breaking the chains of poverty and environmental destruction) are NOT happening; there has actually been a regression in the last few decades (speaking of the confines of Canada). It is shown in the escalating CEO salaries, which rocket upwards to the point that they are regularly more than 100-fold what the workers make; it is shown in the incredibly disproportionate (high) level of indigenous people in prisons (around 70% of the prison population in Canada); it is shown in the weakening of power of the labour movements; in the escalating costs of education that limit the poor from access; in closing rural hospitals; in the escalating of imperialist war (resource annexation) and war profiteering under the disguise of a “War on Terror”; in continual environmental destruction in the wake of enormous profits from polluters.

The system is sick and the cures are essentially imprisoned. But foundations can be broken. Amongst the most solid of those foundations is the idea that corporations are a living body, “corporate persons” that can be harmed and subjected to violence. Corporations, though their capitalist ideologues have crafted the image that their private enterprises have a “life force” or sorts, which is essentially the growth of their profits. They have LEGALLY established that they have a right to have their “projected” profits. Through such nightmares as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, corporations have achieved the ability to sue governments over environmental and social protections that they have alleged cut into their “projected” profits (for examples, see “chapter 11 cases” at the link: http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/CH__11/). But this life force is a fictitious one – albeit dangerous and pacifying when reified into form — which has created beings that have more rights, proportional to their profit margins, than any actual person or other life. This super-personification of corporations is really founded on placing an incredible life-like value on private property. And when this value is pounded into the general population through public (and private) schools, the corporate media, the workplace, etc, shock is elicited amongst the general population when anyone would dare throw paint at or break a corporate window, or dare to throw even benign objects at the defenders of such property (police). Such foundations must be broken that allow the “violence” of (allegedly) throwing various paint vessels, random projectiles or whatever is said to have happened (on June 15th, 2007 in Halifax) to be considered more grotesque than that which is legally justified through corporate activities and the brutality of the police in defending such activities (willfully or not). It is these foundations upon which so much oppression is perpetuated, and unless such foundations are defeated, and socially and environmentally sustainable alternatives built in their wake, most injustices in our poverty-producing system become invincible to defeat.

Such foundations will be broken when the nature of their oppressive tendencies are more thoroughly exposed and their fictitious nature can be shown clearly (through more massive alternative education), but people must simultaneously be liberated from the mentally imprisoning onslaught of corporate media and public / private education - disinformation, which perpetuates the ideological foundations. This needs to be done along with the support of existing alternatives that challenge oppression in their design and hold a maximum respect for life, together with the creation of new alternatives of similar natures and inter-networking amongst it all (there are already many examples out there). But the fundamental importance of resistance cannot be forgotten amongst it all. Liberating spaces for alternatives and holding on to what is already there and holds potential is crucial. Education, organization, resistance, mutual support, creation; the movements for change must bring this all together to build new foundations.

“I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the heart of the beast” — Ernesto Che Guevara