[antiwar-van] TORONTO WEAPONS INSPECTORS DECLARED GUILTY

[hanna kawas]

http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/weapons.htm

TORONTO WEAPONS INSPECTORS DECLARED GUILTY

EIGHT PEOPLE FINED FOR THEIR ROLE IN PROTEST AGAINST THE PENDING ESCALATION
OF THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

by Homes Not Bombs

TORONTO, AUGUST 4, 2003 -- Eight citizen weapons inspectors were declared
guilty of trespassing and fined $75 in Ontario Provincial Court for their
role in a nonviolent action at military manufacturer Northrop Grumman/Litton
Systems Canada on Martin Luther King Day, January 20. The action, organized
by Homes not Bombs, had been designed to show that while weapons inspectors
gained unfettered access to suspected weapons facilities in Baghdad,
Canadians were hauled away in handcuffs for undertaking similar actions at
home.

Before the trial even began, it was clear that this was no ordinary day in
the provincial court on Keele Street. Access to these courts, normally
smooth, was slowed up ONLY at court 701, site for the trial, as all
spectators and defendants were searched with airport-style security
equipment.

Once inside, a meeting was arranged with Crown counsel Rebecca Rosenberg. We
told her that we would be happy to concede identification and the fact that
we were there on January 20, all of which was contained in the police
report. All we asked was that she read that report into the record so we
would not have to sit through eight pairs of cops testifying about who we
were and where we were arrested.

She seemed bewildered that we would concede such facts, but "reluctantly"
said she would go along with it. She's not used to seeing people who come to
court prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

She then looked at the file and said that she was only going to proceed
against 73-years-young Ed Babb, a Burlington resident whose arresting
officer was the only one who had yet shown up in court. After a quick
huddle, we told her that either the charge should be withdrawn against Ed or
that all eight of us should be proceeded against, especially since we were
already admitting the facts of the case. Unfamiliar with the concept of
solidarity, Rosenberg said she could not in good conscience do that. We
assured her that, in good conscience, we could, and explained how she could
go about it. Once another crown butted his head into the conversation and
realized what an open and shut case this could be, he urged Rosenberg to
take the deal.

Happy that we could now have our trial and explain our actions, the court
was sent into a flux with the first plea of the day. It's typical of court
language that during the arraignment, there is no such thing as context or
morality, only meaningless terms which are completely divorced from the
action which resulted in the charge.

Thus, when the chief clerk stood up and said, "You, Francis Barningham, were
charged with the offence of fail to leave premises on or about the 20th day
of January in the vicinity of Toronto, how do you plead?" Barney responded,
"I plead for an end to war."

The sullen "justice of the peace", a Mr. Flaherty, reacted with rage. "NOT
IN MY COURT! You plead guilty or not guilty. How do you plead!?!?"

Again, Barney calmly responded that he pleaded for an end to war and that
this was his plea. It directly connected his presence in the court to his
presence at the weapons of mass destruction factory where he had been
arrested six months earlier.

The JP started laying down the rules and, his patience already at the end of
its tether, tried once more. "I plead for an end to war, and not guilty,"
Barney smiled, and sat back down.

And so it went with each defendant, with a plea for an end to war, for the
enforcement of the Nuremberg Principles, for books not bombs, for world
peace, all affixed to a not guilty. The JP held his breath and looked at the
clock. This was going to be a long afternoon.

The Crown's case was short. Shorter, in fact, than we had agreed to. We had
agreed that she would read into the record the police report, which, in one
of those rare occasions, actually got our reasons for protesting correct.
Since this was part of the case we were willing to admit against us, we
figured this was a plus, as it would prevent the JP from interjecting with
his "irrelevant" declarations every time we tried to explain the whys of our
action.

But Rosenberg was in no mood to stick to our agreement. By the end of the
first paragraph, she had omitted the words "citizen inspectors" in
describing the group. In the line where police described us demonstrating,
she omitted "against the pending military action of the United States of
America against Iraq." In the line that said why we were attempting to
enter, she neglected to say "to inspect the premises for mechanisms of war."
Again, this wasn't us speaking, this was the police description.

We objected and had those words re-inserted to the record, and began our
defence. Right off the bat, JP Flaherty objected to the relevance of our
testimony regarding UN Reports, reports from International Physicians
organizations, and reports on the effects of depleted uranium weapons, as
irrelevant. We suggested that the "learned" JP actually look at the trespass
to property act, where he was surprised to learn that a defence against
trespass is listed under "colour of right, when "the person charged
reasonably believed that he or she had title to or an interest in the land
that entitled him or her to do the act complained of."

Although he accepted the reports as exhibits, he never bothered to look at
them.

We explained that the sincere belief in our need to be on Northrop Grumman
property was contained in our citizen inspection certificate, which outlined
21 different international and domestic violations of law which we linked to
the company's "first sight, first kill" equipment, which includes the
guidance system for the cruise missile.

We proceeded to provide the JP with letters announcing our intention to
attend the factory and asking for dialogue (a request which was completely
rejected at the time).

There followed powerful personal testimonies from the various defendants.
Barney Barningham described what it was like to be a 7-year-old boy going
into air raid shelters during the bombing of London in WWII, waking up and
wondering if friends and family would still be alive.

Diana Ralph spoke both of her Jewish roots and of her father, an
international lawyer who worked at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. "All
our lives the importance of the Nuremberg Principles were drummed into us,"
Ralph explained, noting that her brother was thrown out of ROTC during the
Vietnam War for refusing to obey an illegal order. Ralph pointed out that
billions of public dollars have flowed into Northrop Grumman, and now the
company is working on space warfare "which threatens the very existence of
life on earth."

Diana's testimony was followed by Kevin Shimmin's, who spoke both of his
obligations as a world citizen as well as from his frustration that
Canadians all too often blame the U.S. for war without looking into our own
backyard. He spoke specifically of seeing the Bell helicopters, manufactured
in Canada, wreaking death and destruction in Sri Lanka, where he had worked
as a human rights reporter. He reminded the court of the urgency of the
situation at the time of the protest, coming six days before a key U.N.
meeting which was to decide whether or not a green light would be given for
the invasion of Iraq.

Kirsten Romaine spoke movingly of the role that Quakers play in opposing
war, noting "we must at every opportunity protest war and the preparations
for war. And Northrop Grumman is always in a state of preparing for war."

The testimony closed with Ed Babb, who told the JP that he went into combat
for the very first time at the age of 21 in 1951 in Korea. On that day, he
said, "many people were blown to bits. One man was blown up so that he would
have stretched from one end of this room to the other." He said he hated to
see companies like Northrop Grumman profiting from the waging of war, and
that he was proud in his own way to try and inhibit warmaking at the action.

Matthew Behrens provided summation, pointing out that in a variety of Homes
not Bombs acquittals, judges of the Ontario court have concluded time and
again that protests should not only be allowed, but encouraged,. In such a
context, he asked, how can peaceful protests be encouraged if they are met
with arrests, charges, and the potential for a fine, in this instance, as
high as $2,000?

The defence summation continued with cases based on defence of
necessity--that the action was necessary as part of the worldwide
condemnation of the impending escalation of the war. An attempt to enter a
U.S. case, which is commonly done in Canada for informing a defence, was
rejected out of hand. "I do not have jurisdiction in Virginia, in Badgdad,
or in Seoul. I have jurisdiction in Toronto," Flaherty stated. A reminder
that the Supreme Court of Canada has often looked to U.S. decisions for
assistance in Charter interpretation was met with glassy eyed silence.

The Crown's reply was short and pointed. We had no right to be there, she
said, because the corporation is private, and what it does is legal
(notwithstanding the 21 legal violations which we found its weapons
production posed). Without having a chance for us to respond to her
arguments, the JP told us that we were all guilty, including Gary Connally
and Andrew Loucks, who were represented by agent.. How could we not be
guilty, he asked. Though impressed with the personal testimonies, the law is
the law. His reasons were pretty standard, from "the court has extended you
a generous amount of time to present your case" (as if mounting a defence is
a privilege to be "granted" rather than a right to be respected) to the
"there are other ways" to protest and make your voices heard rant..

In that suddenly silent moment when everyone looked around following the
passing of sentence--a $75 dollar fine, equivalent to the fine of a
restaurateur who earlier in the afternoon had been convicted for unsanitary
conditions, far more of a threat than us -- Behrens stood up and called out
to the JP, "We again have an inkling of how difficult it must have been for
German citizens to hold to account their own regime, whose courts were the
legal arm of genocide at Auschwitz and Dachau. You should read your
Nuremberg Principles." The flustered JP ordered security to remove Behrens
from the court.

But in one of those nice moments, when you wonder if it's worth such an
exercise in making a case to someone not willing to hear, we looked around
as we left and saw that all of the police had stayed for the whole trial, as
they normally leave after the crown's case. They seemed intent on listening.
And as we walked past the glassed-in windows of the court clerk's office, a
group of young women, who had been in court earlier on their lunch breaks
for the first part of our trial, stood and applauded. They had gotten the
message and were very supportive of the concept that one must do everything
one can to stop mass murder, and that things like the Nuremberg Principles
are not simply words on paper, but laws which should be respected and
adhered to.

May they one day sit on the judicial benches of this country.

(for more information: Homes not Bombs, PO Box 73620, 509 St. Clair Ave.
West, Toronto, ON M6C 1C0, tasc at web.ca,  (416) 651-5800.)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/antiwar-van/attachments/20030804/b855f3a8/attachment.html>