Democracy on Trial: The Morgentaler Affair by Paul Cowan, National Film Board of Canada
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Lawsuit for Treaty Rights
PRESS CONFERENCE - 2 p.m. Thursday November 27, 2003
Lawyers Murray Klippenstein and Andrew Orkin are representing one of the Iroquois Firepeople who lit the Ancestors' Sacred Fire in the Red Hill Valley in early August 2003. The expressway will violate and destroy Iroquois rights pursuant to a major Treaty between the Five Iroquois Nations and the British Crown of 1701.
The $100 million lawsuit will be announced at a PRESS CONFERENCE at the Worker's Arts and Heritage Centre, 2nd Floor, 51 Stuart Street (immediately east of Bay St.), Hamilton, Ontario at 2 p.m. Thursday November 27, 2003.
-30-
this media release is presented here for information purposes, Hamilton Action for Social Change is not a party to the lawsuit (although we are certainly happy to see more people stand up to the city for First Nation's rights!)
TREATY RIGHTS LAWSUIT TO STOP RED HILL VALLEY EXPRESSWAY
HAMILTON, Ont.: Lawyers representing a Six Nations man are commencing legal action against the City of Hamilton to prevent construction of the proposed expressway though the environmentally significant Red Hill Valley in Hamilton.Lawyers Murray Klippenstein and Andrew Orkin are representing one of the Iroquois Firepeople who lit the Ancestors' Sacred Fire in the Red Hill Valley in early August 2003. The expressway will violate and destroy Iroquois rights pursuant to a major Treaty between the Five Iroquois Nations and the British Crown of 1701.
The $100 million lawsuit will be announced at a PRESS CONFERENCE at the Worker's Arts and Heritage Centre, 2nd Floor, 51 Stuart Street (immediately east of Bay St.), Hamilton, Ontario at 2 p.m. Thursday November 27, 2003.
this media release is presented here for information purposes, Hamilton Action for Social Change is not a party to the lawsuit (although we are certainly happy to see more people stand up to the city for First Nation's rights!)
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Citizens Held-Up for 123 grand
City Demands $123,000 from Expressway Opponents
Hamilton City Council has decided to seek $123,000 in court costs from six citizens who oppose the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. The decision was taken today in Committee of the Whole which authorized the City's lawyers to make a written submission to Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson.
McMaster professor Jim Quinn, one of the six citizens, called the Council's decision "vindictive" and "an attempt to silence opposition to the expressway and prevent discussion of need and alternatives as they've done since 1985".
The six citizens volunteered to present legal arguments against an application for an injunction made by the City in early August to stop protests at the site of planned construction of the proposed expressway. They were among several hundred people who picketed the site and blocked construction vehicles on August 5, 6 and 7. The protestors believed that the City had not received the permits and approvals required to allow construction to begin. They also pointed out that nesting migratory birds on the site were protected from disturbance by federal law.
After filing the injunction application, the City released letters purporting to show that the three required permits were obtained on July 28, July 30 and August 5. However, they filed a report that migratory birds were still nesting on the site on August 21, thus showing that the protestors had actually saved the City from breaking the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Court evidence also showed that the City still does not have other key approvals for the expressway project, including the authority to re-locate 7.6 kilometres of Red Hill Creek, and a permit to excavate 70,000 tonnes of the toxic Rennie Street dump which lies in the path of the proposed road.
Justice Henderson approved the injunction request in a 23-page decision issued on September 12. Despite this, the City has not started work because the site has been occupied by citizens of the Haundenosaunee (Six Nations) Confederacy. On Friday, the City agreed to begin discussions with the Confederacy about treaty rights and aboriginal burial sites in the valley.
City officials claim they ran up $235,000 in legal expenses in the injunction. The City was represented by the Toronto law firm of Gowling Lafleur Henderson which fielded a team of seven lawyers in the day and a half of court hearings in early September. Court cost awards only allow for reasonable expenses, and make it impossible to recover excessive legal fees.
The six citizens represented themselves and spent less than $500. They each stepped forward voluntarily to argue that the injunction.
For further information:
Don McLean
Chair, Friends of Red Hill Valley
Dr. Jim Quinn
Hamilton City Council has decided to seek $123,000 in court costs from six citizens who oppose the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. The decision was taken today in Committee of the Whole which authorized the City's lawyers to make a written submission to Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson.
McMaster professor Jim Quinn, one of the six citizens, called the Council's decision "vindictive" and "an attempt to silence opposition to the expressway and prevent discussion of need and alternatives as they've done since 1985".
The six citizens volunteered to present legal arguments against an application for an injunction made by the City in early August to stop protests at the site of planned construction of the proposed expressway. They were among several hundred people who picketed the site and blocked construction vehicles on August 5, 6 and 7. The protestors believed that the City had not received the permits and approvals required to allow construction to begin. They also pointed out that nesting migratory birds on the site were protected from disturbance by federal law.
After filing the injunction application, the City released letters purporting to show that the three required permits were obtained on July 28, July 30 and August 5. However, they filed a report that migratory birds were still nesting on the site on August 21, thus showing that the protestors had actually saved the City from breaking the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Court evidence also showed that the City still does not have other key approvals for the expressway project, including the authority to re-locate 7.6 kilometres of Red Hill Creek, and a permit to excavate 70,000 tonnes of the toxic Rennie Street dump which lies in the path of the proposed road.
Justice Henderson approved the injunction request in a 23-page decision issued on September 12. Despite this, the City has not started work because the site has been occupied by citizens of the Haundenosaunee (Six Nations) Confederacy. On Friday, the City agreed to begin discussions with the Confederacy about treaty rights and aboriginal burial sites in the valley.
City officials claim they ran up $235,000 in legal expenses in the injunction. The City was represented by the Toronto law firm of Gowling Lafleur Henderson which fielded a team of seven lawyers in the day and a half of court hearings in early September. Court cost awards only allow for reasonable expenses, and make it impossible to recover excessive legal fees.
The six citizens represented themselves and spent less than $500. They each stepped forward voluntarily to argue that the injunction.
For further information:
Don McLean
Chair, Friends of Red Hill Valley
Dr. Jim Quinn
Friday, September 12, 2003
injunction function and first nations solidarity
Expressway opponents vow support for Aboriginal rights
Hamilton, Ont. -- Opponents of the Red Hill Creek Expressway expressed support today for members of the Six Nations Confederacy who are continuing to occupy lands in Hamilton's Red Hill Valley, despite a court injunction granted to the City of Hamilton.
"We agree with the Haudenonsaunee people that this decision has no bearing on their rights," said Jim Quinn, a spokesperson for the ShowStoppers Union, a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to the expressway. "We will try to support their struggle in any way we can."
The ShowStoppers expressed disappointment at the decision of Superior Court Judge Joseph Henderson in granting an injunction that allows work to begin on a bridge-ramp at the end of Greenhill Avenue in east end Hamilton.
"We respect the decision of the court but we will continue to oppose the expressway," Quinn said. "There has been a huge outpouring of support since the beginning of August to keep the Red Hill Valley expressway-free."
ShowStopper pickets successfully prevented the beginning of work at the Greenhill Avenue site in early August by Dufferin Construction. The picketing was peaceful and no arrests were made, in spite of police monitoring of the protest.
On August 11, the city applied to the Ontario Superior Court for an injunction to halt the picketing and allow construction to begin. Six individuals acted as defendants in the case and represented themselves in court hearings on September 5 and 8 against a high-powered team of seven lawyers hired by the City.
Justice Henderson's decision, released earlier today, can be read here (pdf).
Hamilton, Ont. -- Opponents of the Red Hill Creek Expressway expressed support today for members of the Six Nations Confederacy who are continuing to occupy lands in Hamilton's Red Hill Valley, despite a court injunction granted to the City of Hamilton.
"We agree with the Haudenonsaunee people that this decision has no bearing on their rights," said Jim Quinn, a spokesperson for the ShowStoppers Union, a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to the expressway. "We will try to support their struggle in any way we can."
The ShowStoppers expressed disappointment at the decision of Superior Court Judge Joseph Henderson in granting an injunction that allows work to begin on a bridge-ramp at the end of Greenhill Avenue in east end Hamilton.
"We respect the decision of the court but we will continue to oppose the expressway," Quinn said. "There has been a huge outpouring of support since the beginning of August to keep the Red Hill Valley expressway-free."
ShowStopper pickets successfully prevented the beginning of work at the Greenhill Avenue site in early August by Dufferin Construction. The picketing was peaceful and no arrests were made, in spite of police monitoring of the protest.
On August 11, the city applied to the Ontario Superior Court for an injunction to halt the picketing and allow construction to begin. Six individuals acted as defendants in the case and represented themselves in court hearings on September 5 and 8 against a high-powered team of seven lawyers hired by the City.
Justice Henderson's decision, released earlier today, can be read here (pdf).
Thursday, April 24, 2003
PRIVATE PROPERTY PINS PEACE
"Wescam Three" Acquitted
Anti-War Protesters Cleared of Trespass Charges but Sternly Lectured on the Pre-Eminence of Private Property by Restaurateur turned Justice of the Peace These people [military manufacturer Wescam] run a business. I don't know what it is and I don't care what it is." - Burlington Crown Attorney Tom DaviesAndrew Loucks and David Jefferess of Hamilton and Matthew Behrens of Toronto had been part of a group of 20 people who gathered at the site of Burlington, Ontario military manufacturer Wescam last December 10, 2002, International Human Rights Day, to seek a meeting with the head of the company. They were charged with trespassing.
But the road to acquittal was a rocky one, as an air of acrimony greeted them upon their arrival in court.
Perhaps it was the fact that the justice of the peace, the Harris government appointee Barry Quinn, was concerned about his brother's bleak employment prospects (we were told his brother Pat is the likely-to-be-dismissed head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, booted from the hockey playoffs in the first round just two days earlier.)
Or maybe it was just a case of general malaise because when it comes to holding military manufacturers accountable to the community and international law, concepts like openness, transparency, and democracy take a back seat to the market "opportunities" offered up in the slaughter of Afghani or Iraqi citizens. Especially when those market opportunities are developed and manufactured from behind the safe fortress of private property which courts value so highly.
For Wescam, Sept. 11, 2001 and the subsequent escalation of war and repression have been a boon, with the expectation that billions will flow into their coffers to provide military equipment to a broad range of human rights violators (the U.S., Egypt, Colombia) as well as surveillance and control technology to those who would shut down borders to refugees and those who would repress political demonstrations.
Wescam is well known for the targetting system of the Predator, the unmanned aerial vehicle which was called one of the "superstars" of the recent atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, the Cobra attack helicopter, and the C-130 (the last used to especially deadly effect in Afghanistan), among many others.
Friday, July 21, 2000
JUSTICE DEPARTS
JP EXCUSES HERSELF FROM PROTEST CASE
Postpones trial of five who occupied MPP's office
Friday, July 21, 2000 The Hamilton Spectator/A9
By JOHN BURMAN The Hamilton Spectator
STONEY CREEK
A Hamilton Justice of the Peace has excused herself from the trespassing trial of five social activists following their bid to be heard in provincial offences court yesterday.
She also sent a police officer after a spectator who swore out loud when she adjourned the case to November.
Justice Wendy Casey said she was removing herself from the case in order to eliminate any perception of unfairness.
Casey remanded the case until Nov. 27 after members of Hamilton Action for Social Change told her they were prepared to admit the facts against them in order to explain why they occupied Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark's office April 3 in a non-violent protest against Ontario welfare laws.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields and Scott Neigh of the Hamilton Group and Matthew Behrens of Toronto Action for Social Change were charged with failing to leave a premise after they occupied Clark's King Street East office in Stoney Creek for 90 minutes. Police carried one of the protesters from the office.
The group is opposed to the provincial government's policy of zero tolerance on welfare fraud, which went into effect April 1 and denies benefits to anyone convicted of welfare fraud.
"We will agree with the facts of the case," Fields [sic] told the court. "It is a very simple case. We are willing to concede we were there and explain."
Casey told the five accused that would amount to a guilty plea. When she questioned their understanding of such an act, Fields started to leave and was called back.
A moment later, a spectator jumped up and shouted, then stormed out of the courtroom. A police officer brought him back.
Members of the group told Casey they understood the implications of agreeing to the Crown's facts in the case.
Some of the accused are quite familiar with public protests and their consequences.
Perhaps the most colourful is Behrens. He's been known to dress up as the Easter Bunny or Santa's Elf No. 2. He has taken canned food from the shelves of a downtown Toronto Loblaw's store and dumped it in the store's food bank bin to protest the company's political donations to Premier Mike Harris's Tories. He also participated in an attempt to perform a citizen's arrest on former United States secretary of state Henry Kissenger when he was in Toronto in May of last year.
Fields, Kay and Loucks were involved with the 1999 Father's Day Coalition for Peace protest at the Hamilton Airshow. Fields has in the past sought election as Hamilton mayor and as an MPP in the Hamilton West riding. He, along with Behrens and Kay, was also involved in a sit-in at Heritage Minister Sheila Copps' Hamilton office in February 1998.
As soon as she set the Nov. 27 date for trial, Casey excused herself from the trial and told the court clerk to make sure her wishes were noted on that day's trial list.
Once the trial date was settled, Casey called Andrew Sedgley to the front of the bench and asked him what he was doing shouting epithets at the court. Sedgley--who apparently is not a member of Action for Social Change in either Hamilton or Toronto, told the court he made an immature response and apologized. Casey accepted his apology.
Scott Neigh, spokesperson for Hamilton Action for Social Change, said in an interview outside the court that the group is a loose-knit organization with about 15 regular members. But it has had between 50 and 60 people out to participate in various demonstrations. Neigh, a freelance writer and broadcaster, said the membership consists of a mix of people who believe in social justice. Most members are between 20 and 50 years old. Neigh also said the group is not affiliated with Toronto Action for Social Change "but we have been known to cooperate in the past." After the sit-in at Clark's Stoney Creek office, Wey Robinson, a member of Hamilton Action for Social Change, said the group wished to protest Ontario welfare policies because of a lifetime benefit ban on anyone who's been convicted of welfare fraud "is immoral and unjust."
The group believes that there aren't enough welfare recipients who commit fraud to justify such a draconian policy, and that it will cost more money to care for people forced off welfare.
The group believes the policy violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will hurt children, even though the government says portions of benefits which would have been paid to support the children of banned recipients will continue.
LOFTY POLITICAL DEFENCE FELL FLAT
Hamilton Spectator, December 7, 2000.
Five social activists who occupied the constituency office of Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark last spring to protest changes in provincial welfare regulations were all fined $300 Monday in provincial offences court.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields, Scott Neigh and Matthew Behrens were found guilty of trespassing by justice of the peace Donald Stevely.
In a trial that saw one JP excuse herself from hearing the case, they all admitted the trespass but challenged whether it constituted a punishable offence. Conducting their own defence they cited everything from the Nuremberg trials to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification for their actions, arguing a democratic society should tolerate, not penalize, such actions.
In the end Stevely was buying none of it. "You are not making any protest that will be heard," he told the five men, "you're just blowing in the wind and causing a problem."
In his submission on sentencing, Behrens told the court "just because the law's the law, doesn't mean that sometimes there can't be citizen intervention to uphold higher international laws and international standards. We'll probably be seeing a lot of you again in this court because we can't simply be deterred by a fine or the threat of punishment."
In imposing the $300 fine, Stevely asked each if they required time to pay, four said they didn't intend to pay--Kay said he would go to jail before paying the fine. The fifth, Fields, asked for 10 years.
Stevely ignored their remarks and made no mention of the consequences of not paying the fine.
Chances of any of them going to jail are slim. Generally, unpaid fines for provincial offences other than the Highway Traffic Act, are turned over [to] a collection agency after 30 days.
The men were charged last April after police were called to Clark's King Street East office to disperse a group protesting the government's "zero tolerance policy on welfare fraud. Court was told they were arrested only after they refused to leave the office. Two had to be carried out by police.
In their defence, they argued they were merely citizens obliged to obey international law.
Stevely, although generally lenient in allowing political overtones to colour the defence, rejected it all. "This is about trespassing and leaving a premise," he said. "Pure and simple."
Postpones trial of five who occupied MPP's office
Friday, July 21, 2000 The Hamilton Spectator/A9
By JOHN BURMAN The Hamilton Spectator
STONEY CREEK
A Hamilton Justice of the Peace has excused herself from the trespassing trial of five social activists following their bid to be heard in provincial offences court yesterday.
She also sent a police officer after a spectator who swore out loud when she adjourned the case to November.
Justice Wendy Casey said she was removing herself from the case in order to eliminate any perception of unfairness.
Casey remanded the case until Nov. 27 after members of Hamilton Action for Social Change told her they were prepared to admit the facts against them in order to explain why they occupied Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark's office April 3 in a non-violent protest against Ontario welfare laws.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields and Scott Neigh of the Hamilton Group and Matthew Behrens of Toronto Action for Social Change were charged with failing to leave a premise after they occupied Clark's King Street East office in Stoney Creek for 90 minutes. Police carried one of the protesters from the office.
The group is opposed to the provincial government's policy of zero tolerance on welfare fraud, which went into effect April 1 and denies benefits to anyone convicted of welfare fraud.
"We will agree with the facts of the case," Fields [sic] told the court. "It is a very simple case. We are willing to concede we were there and explain."
Casey told the five accused that would amount to a guilty plea. When she questioned their understanding of such an act, Fields started to leave and was called back.
A moment later, a spectator jumped up and shouted, then stormed out of the courtroom. A police officer brought him back.
Members of the group told Casey they understood the implications of agreeing to the Crown's facts in the case.
Some of the accused are quite familiar with public protests and their consequences.
Perhaps the most colourful is Behrens. He's been known to dress up as the Easter Bunny or Santa's Elf No. 2. He has taken canned food from the shelves of a downtown Toronto Loblaw's store and dumped it in the store's food bank bin to protest the company's political donations to Premier Mike Harris's Tories. He also participated in an attempt to perform a citizen's arrest on former United States secretary of state Henry Kissenger when he was in Toronto in May of last year.
Fields, Kay and Loucks were involved with the 1999 Father's Day Coalition for Peace protest at the Hamilton Airshow. Fields has in the past sought election as Hamilton mayor and as an MPP in the Hamilton West riding. He, along with Behrens and Kay, was also involved in a sit-in at Heritage Minister Sheila Copps' Hamilton office in February 1998.
As soon as she set the Nov. 27 date for trial, Casey excused herself from the trial and told the court clerk to make sure her wishes were noted on that day's trial list.
Once the trial date was settled, Casey called Andrew Sedgley to the front of the bench and asked him what he was doing shouting epithets at the court. Sedgley--who apparently is not a member of Action for Social Change in either Hamilton or Toronto, told the court he made an immature response and apologized. Casey accepted his apology.
Scott Neigh, spokesperson for Hamilton Action for Social Change, said in an interview outside the court that the group is a loose-knit organization with about 15 regular members. But it has had between 50 and 60 people out to participate in various demonstrations. Neigh, a freelance writer and broadcaster, said the membership consists of a mix of people who believe in social justice. Most members are between 20 and 50 years old. Neigh also said the group is not affiliated with Toronto Action for Social Change "but we have been known to cooperate in the past." After the sit-in at Clark's Stoney Creek office, Wey Robinson, a member of Hamilton Action for Social Change, said the group wished to protest Ontario welfare policies because of a lifetime benefit ban on anyone who's been convicted of welfare fraud "is immoral and unjust."
The group believes that there aren't enough welfare recipients who commit fraud to justify such a draconian policy, and that it will cost more money to care for people forced off welfare.
The group believes the policy violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will hurt children, even though the government says portions of benefits which would have been paid to support the children of banned recipients will continue.
LOFTY POLITICAL DEFENCE FELL FLAT
Hamilton Spectator, December 7, 2000.
Five social activists who occupied the constituency office of Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark last spring to protest changes in provincial welfare regulations were all fined $300 Monday in provincial offences court.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields, Scott Neigh and Matthew Behrens were found guilty of trespassing by justice of the peace Donald Stevely.
In a trial that saw one JP excuse herself from hearing the case, they all admitted the trespass but challenged whether it constituted a punishable offence. Conducting their own defence they cited everything from the Nuremberg trials to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification for their actions, arguing a democratic society should tolerate, not penalize, such actions.
In the end Stevely was buying none of it. "You are not making any protest that will be heard," he told the five men, "you're just blowing in the wind and causing a problem."
In his submission on sentencing, Behrens told the court "just because the law's the law, doesn't mean that sometimes there can't be citizen intervention to uphold higher international laws and international standards. We'll probably be seeing a lot of you again in this court because we can't simply be deterred by a fine or the threat of punishment."
In imposing the $300 fine, Stevely asked each if they required time to pay, four said they didn't intend to pay--Kay said he would go to jail before paying the fine. The fifth, Fields, asked for 10 years.
Stevely ignored their remarks and made no mention of the consequences of not paying the fine.
Chances of any of them going to jail are slim. Generally, unpaid fines for provincial offences other than the Highway Traffic Act, are turned over [to] a collection agency after 30 days.
The men were charged last April after police were called to Clark's King Street East office to disperse a group protesting the government's "zero tolerance policy on welfare fraud. Court was told they were arrested only after they refused to leave the office. Two had to be carried out by police.
In their defence, they argued they were merely citizens obliged to obey international law.
Stevely, although generally lenient in allowing political overtones to colour the defence, rejected it all. "This is about trespassing and leaving a premise," he said. "Pure and simple."
Monday, April 3, 2000
FIVE 0
ACTIVISTS OCCUPY MPP'S OFFICE OVER ZERO TOLERANCE
44 King Street East, Stoney Creek
Monday, April 3, 2000
Minutes ago, members of Hamilton Action for Social Change began non-violently sitting-in at the office of Brad Clark, MPP.
We are asking that:
1) The zero tolerance policy for welfare fraud be rescinded immediately;
2) Welfare rates be restored to their pre-1995 levels;
3) The government terminate its relationship with Andersen Consulting;
and; 4) Because the oppression faced by poor people includes the abysmal conditions at the lower end of the labour market, that the minimum wage be increased.
As concerned citizens, we attempted to initiate dialogue with Clark, the only government member in Hamilton-Wentworth. Our attempts met with silence. Given this reluctance to discuss our concerns, the urgency of the issue, and the very real suffering caused by this government's welfare policies, we feel that we have no choice but to non-violently occupy Clark's office.
We object to zero tolerance because:
1) It is unnecessary. According to the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, no one in this area has ever been convicted a second time for defrauding Ontario Works. In fact, the overall rate of fraud is miniscule: in 1999, out of a local caseload of 14,000 people, there were only 41 convictions.
2) It will cost more money than it will save. People in need who are denied benefits stand a good chance of ending up on the streets, in the emergency shelter system, and in the food bank system. Per person, these are much more expensive alternatives than Ontario Works.
3) It violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 22 and 25.1.
4) It targets children. The government says that the portion of payments designated for the children of people denied benefits under this law will still be paid, but it is ridiculous to say that children will be unaffected. Landlords are not going to evict parents and let children stay.
5) It is happening in a general context of a war against the poor. It is designed to intimidate, when we should be helping.
Zero tolerance is demagoguery in action. At heart this issue is about the suffering of human beings, and it is being manipulated by this government to serve political ends.
5 CHARGED AT STONEY CREEK SIT-IN
Protesters at MPP's office object to policy on welfare fraud
Hamilton Spectator, Tuesday April 4, 2000 [page A2]
By Nick Lewis Special to the Spectator
Five members of the Hamilton Action for Social Change were arrested yesterday after staging a non-violent sit-in at the Stoney Creek office of MPP Brad Clark.
The members were arrested for trespassing an hour and a half after walking into the lobby.
The group opposed the provincial government's zero-tolerance on welfare fraud policy which took effect April 1.
"It is a lifetime ban on anyone who's had any welfare fraud, and we think that's immoral and unjust," said Wey Robinson, one of the members.
Prior to the new policy, recipients charged for welfare fraud received a three-month suspension of benefits on the first offence and a six-month suspension on subsequent charges. The new policy states any fraud will result in an immediate and absolute ban of privileges.
"The ban is unnecessary," Robinson said. "No one in this region has ever been convicted a second time for defrauding Ontario Works. And last year only 41 people out of 14,000 were charged for fraud."
Until two weeks ago the community services and public health committee for Hamilton-Wentworth had considered continuing social assistance to those charged with fraud after the new law took effect, But they recanted their offer and instead asked the province to reconsider the policy.
The protesting group had other concerns as well. It asked that welfare amounts be increased to its pre-Harris government rates. In 1995, when Mike Harris became premier, he slashed welfare payments by 21.5 per cent.
Protesters also asked that the amount for minimum wage be increased and that the government terminate its relationship with Anderson Consulting, an accounting firm that charged the Tories $55 million to find $66 million in welfare savings.
Clark said he tried to arrange a meeting with the group prior to the sit-in but was refused.
"I'm not sure what their point is," he said, adding he thought it was a publicity stunt.
"All the legislation is saying is if you commit fraud then one of the repercussions may be a lifetime ban. If you have a problem with it, don't commit fraud.
"I don't agree with their other concerns either. Ontario's welfare rates are the highest in the country, Anderson Consulting has helped us find savings, and we don't need a higher minimum wage."
JP EXCUSES HERSELF FROM PROTEST CASE
Postpones trial of five who occupied MPP's office
Friday, July 21, 2000 The Hamilton Spectator/A9
By JOHN BURMAN The Hamilton Spectator
STONEY CREEK
A Hamilton Justice of the Peace has excused herself from the trespassing trial of five social activists following their bid to be heard in provincial offences court yesterday.
She also sent a police officer after a spectator who swore out loud when she adjourned the case to November.
Justice Wendy Casey said she was removing herself from the case in order to eliminate any perception of unfairness.
Casey remanded the case until Nov. 27 after members of Hamilton Action for Social Change told her they were prepared to admit the facts against them in order to explain why they occupied Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark's office April 3 in a non-violent protest against Ontario welfare laws.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields and Scott Neigh of the Hamilton Group and Matthew Behrens of Toronto Action for Social Change were charged with failing to leave a premise after they occupied Clark's King Street East office in Stoney Creek for 90 minutes. Police carried one of the protesters from the office.
The group is opposed to the provincial government's policy of zero tolerance on welfare fraud, which went into effect April 1 and denies benefits to anyone convicted of welfare fraud.
"We will agree with the facts of the case," Fields [sic] told the court. "It is a very simple case. We are willing to concede we were there and explain."
Casey told the five accused that would amount to a guilty plea. When she questioned their understanding of such an act, Fields started to leave and was called back.
A moment later, a spectator jumped up and shouted, then stormed out of the courtroom. A police officer brought him back.
Members of the group told Casey they understood the implications of agreeing to the Crown's facts in the case.
Some of the accused are quite familiar with public protests and their consequences.
Perhaps the most colourful is Behrens. He's been known to dress up as the Easter Bunny or Santa's Elf No. 2. He has taken canned food from the shelves of a downtown Toronto Loblaw's store and dumped it in the store's food bank bin to protest the company's political donations to Premier Mike Harris's Tories. He also participated in an attempt to perform a citizen's arrest on former United States secretary of state Henry Kissenger when he was in Toronto in May of last year.
Fields, Kay and Loucks were involved with the 1999 Father's Day Coalition for Peace protest at the Hamilton Airshow. Fields has in the past sought election as Hamilton mayor and as an MPP in the Hamilton West riding. He, along with Behrens and Kay, was also involved in a sit-in at Heritage Minister Sheila Copps' Hamilton office in February 1998.
As soon as she set the Nov. 27 date for trial, Casey excused herself from the trial and told the court clerk to make sure her wishes were noted on that day's trial list.
Once the trial date was settled, Casey called Andrew Sedgley to the front of the bench and asked him what he was doing shouting epithets at the court. Sedgley--who apparently is not a member of Action for Social Change in either Hamilton or Toronto, told the court he made an immature response and apologized. Casey accepted his apology.
Scott Neigh, spokesperson for Hamilton Action for Social Change, said in an interview outside the court that the group is a loose-knit organization with about 15 regular members. But it has had between 50 and 60 people out to participate in various demonstrations. Neigh, a freelance writer and broadcaster, said the membership consists of a mix of people who believe in social justice. Most members are between 20 and 50 years old. Neigh also said the group is not affiliated with Toronto Action for Social Change "but we have been known to cooperate in the past." After the sit-in at Clark's Stoney Creek office, Wey Robinson, a member of Hamilton Action for Social Change, said the group wished to protest Ontario welfare policies because of a lifetime benefit ban on anyone who's been convicted of welfare fraud "is immoral and unjust."
The group believes that there aren't enough welfare recipients who commit fraud to justify such a draconian policy, and that it will cost more money to care for people forced off welfare.
The group believes the policy violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will hurt children, even though the government says portions of benefits which would have been paid to support the children of banned recipients will continue.
LOFTY POLITICAL DEFENCE FELL FLAT
Hamilton Spectator, December 7, 2000.
Five social activists who occupied the constituency office of Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark last spring to protest changes in provincial welfare regulations were all fined $300 Monday in provincial offences court.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields, Scott Neigh and Matthew Behrens were found guilty of trespassing by justice of the peace Donald Stevely.
In a trial that saw one JP excuse herself from hearing the case, they all admitted the trespass but challenged whether it constituted a punishable offence. Conducting their own defence they cited everything from the Nuremberg trials to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification for their actions, arguing a democratic society should tolerate, not penalize, such actions.
In the end Stevely was buying none of it. "You are not making any protest that will be heard," he told the five men, "you're just blowing in the wind and causing a problem."
In his submission on sentencing, Behrens told the court "just because the law's the law, doesn't mean that sometimes there can't be citizen intervention to uphold higher international laws and international standards. We'll probably be seeing a lot of you again in this court because we can't simply be deterred by a fine or the threat of punishment."
In imposing the $300 fine, Stevely asked each if they required time to pay, four said they didn't intend to pay--Kay said he would go to jail before paying the fine. The fifth, Fields, asked for 10 years.
Stevely ignored their remarks and made no mention of the consequences of not paying the fine.
Chances of any of them going to jail are slim. Generally, unpaid fines for provincial offences other than the Highway Traffic Act, are turned over [to] a collection agency after 30 days.
The men were charged last April after police were called to Clark's King Street East office to disperse a group protesting the government's "zero tolerance policy on welfare fraud. Court was told they were arrested only after they refused to leave the office. Two had to be carried out by police.
In their defence, they argued they were merely citizens obliged to obey international law.
Stevely, although generally lenient in allowing political overtones to colour the defence, rejected it all. "This is about trespassing and leaving a premise," he said. "Pure and simple."
44 King Street East, Stoney Creek
Monday, April 3, 2000
Minutes ago, members of Hamilton Action for Social Change began non-violently sitting-in at the office of Brad Clark, MPP.
We are asking that:
1) The zero tolerance policy for welfare fraud be rescinded immediately;
2) Welfare rates be restored to their pre-1995 levels;
3) The government terminate its relationship with Andersen Consulting;
and; 4) Because the oppression faced by poor people includes the abysmal conditions at the lower end of the labour market, that the minimum wage be increased.
As concerned citizens, we attempted to initiate dialogue with Clark, the only government member in Hamilton-Wentworth. Our attempts met with silence. Given this reluctance to discuss our concerns, the urgency of the issue, and the very real suffering caused by this government's welfare policies, we feel that we have no choice but to non-violently occupy Clark's office.
We object to zero tolerance because:
1) It is unnecessary. According to the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, no one in this area has ever been convicted a second time for defrauding Ontario Works. In fact, the overall rate of fraud is miniscule: in 1999, out of a local caseload of 14,000 people, there were only 41 convictions.
2) It will cost more money than it will save. People in need who are denied benefits stand a good chance of ending up on the streets, in the emergency shelter system, and in the food bank system. Per person, these are much more expensive alternatives than Ontario Works.
3) It violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 22 and 25.1.
4) It targets children. The government says that the portion of payments designated for the children of people denied benefits under this law will still be paid, but it is ridiculous to say that children will be unaffected. Landlords are not going to evict parents and let children stay.
5) It is happening in a general context of a war against the poor. It is designed to intimidate, when we should be helping.
Zero tolerance is demagoguery in action. At heart this issue is about the suffering of human beings, and it is being manipulated by this government to serve political ends.
5 CHARGED AT STONEY CREEK SIT-IN
Protesters at MPP's office object to policy on welfare fraud
Hamilton Spectator, Tuesday April 4, 2000 [page A2]
By Nick Lewis Special to the Spectator
Five members of the Hamilton Action for Social Change were arrested yesterday after staging a non-violent sit-in at the Stoney Creek office of MPP Brad Clark.
The members were arrested for trespassing an hour and a half after walking into the lobby.
The group opposed the provincial government's zero-tolerance on welfare fraud policy which took effect April 1.
"It is a lifetime ban on anyone who's had any welfare fraud, and we think that's immoral and unjust," said Wey Robinson, one of the members.
Prior to the new policy, recipients charged for welfare fraud received a three-month suspension of benefits on the first offence and a six-month suspension on subsequent charges. The new policy states any fraud will result in an immediate and absolute ban of privileges.
"The ban is unnecessary," Robinson said. "No one in this region has ever been convicted a second time for defrauding Ontario Works. And last year only 41 people out of 14,000 were charged for fraud."
Until two weeks ago the community services and public health committee for Hamilton-Wentworth had considered continuing social assistance to those charged with fraud after the new law took effect, But they recanted their offer and instead asked the province to reconsider the policy.
The protesting group had other concerns as well. It asked that welfare amounts be increased to its pre-Harris government rates. In 1995, when Mike Harris became premier, he slashed welfare payments by 21.5 per cent.
Protesters also asked that the amount for minimum wage be increased and that the government terminate its relationship with Anderson Consulting, an accounting firm that charged the Tories $55 million to find $66 million in welfare savings.
Clark said he tried to arrange a meeting with the group prior to the sit-in but was refused.
"I'm not sure what their point is," he said, adding he thought it was a publicity stunt.
"All the legislation is saying is if you commit fraud then one of the repercussions may be a lifetime ban. If you have a problem with it, don't commit fraud.
"I don't agree with their other concerns either. Ontario's welfare rates are the highest in the country, Anderson Consulting has helped us find savings, and we don't need a higher minimum wage."
JP EXCUSES HERSELF FROM PROTEST CASE
Postpones trial of five who occupied MPP's office
Friday, July 21, 2000 The Hamilton Spectator/A9
By JOHN BURMAN The Hamilton Spectator
STONEY CREEK
A Hamilton Justice of the Peace has excused herself from the trespassing trial of five social activists following their bid to be heard in provincial offences court yesterday.
She also sent a police officer after a spectator who swore out loud when she adjourned the case to November.
Justice Wendy Casey said she was removing herself from the case in order to eliminate any perception of unfairness.
Casey remanded the case until Nov. 27 after members of Hamilton Action for Social Change told her they were prepared to admit the facts against them in order to explain why they occupied Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark's office April 3 in a non-violent protest against Ontario welfare laws.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields and Scott Neigh of the Hamilton Group and Matthew Behrens of Toronto Action for Social Change were charged with failing to leave a premise after they occupied Clark's King Street East office in Stoney Creek for 90 minutes. Police carried one of the protesters from the office.
The group is opposed to the provincial government's policy of zero tolerance on welfare fraud, which went into effect April 1 and denies benefits to anyone convicted of welfare fraud.
"We will agree with the facts of the case," Fields [sic] told the court. "It is a very simple case. We are willing to concede we were there and explain."
Casey told the five accused that would amount to a guilty plea. When she questioned their understanding of such an act, Fields started to leave and was called back.
A moment later, a spectator jumped up and shouted, then stormed out of the courtroom. A police officer brought him back.
Members of the group told Casey they understood the implications of agreeing to the Crown's facts in the case.
Some of the accused are quite familiar with public protests and their consequences.
Perhaps the most colourful is Behrens. He's been known to dress up as the Easter Bunny or Santa's Elf No. 2. He has taken canned food from the shelves of a downtown Toronto Loblaw's store and dumped it in the store's food bank bin to protest the company's political donations to Premier Mike Harris's Tories. He also participated in an attempt to perform a citizen's arrest on former United States secretary of state Henry Kissenger when he was in Toronto in May of last year.
Fields, Kay and Loucks were involved with the 1999 Father's Day Coalition for Peace protest at the Hamilton Airshow. Fields has in the past sought election as Hamilton mayor and as an MPP in the Hamilton West riding. He, along with Behrens and Kay, was also involved in a sit-in at Heritage Minister Sheila Copps' Hamilton office in February 1998.
As soon as she set the Nov. 27 date for trial, Casey excused herself from the trial and told the court clerk to make sure her wishes were noted on that day's trial list.
Once the trial date was settled, Casey called Andrew Sedgley to the front of the bench and asked him what he was doing shouting epithets at the court. Sedgley--who apparently is not a member of Action for Social Change in either Hamilton or Toronto, told the court he made an immature response and apologized. Casey accepted his apology.
Scott Neigh, spokesperson for Hamilton Action for Social Change, said in an interview outside the court that the group is a loose-knit organization with about 15 regular members. But it has had between 50 and 60 people out to participate in various demonstrations. Neigh, a freelance writer and broadcaster, said the membership consists of a mix of people who believe in social justice. Most members are between 20 and 50 years old. Neigh also said the group is not affiliated with Toronto Action for Social Change "but we have been known to cooperate in the past." After the sit-in at Clark's Stoney Creek office, Wey Robinson, a member of Hamilton Action for Social Change, said the group wished to protest Ontario welfare policies because of a lifetime benefit ban on anyone who's been convicted of welfare fraud "is immoral and unjust."
The group believes that there aren't enough welfare recipients who commit fraud to justify such a draconian policy, and that it will cost more money to care for people forced off welfare.
The group believes the policy violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will hurt children, even though the government says portions of benefits which would have been paid to support the children of banned recipients will continue.
LOFTY POLITICAL DEFENCE FELL FLAT
Hamilton Spectator, December 7, 2000.
Five social activists who occupied the constituency office of Stoney Creek MPP Brad Clark last spring to protest changes in provincial welfare regulations were all fined $300 Monday in provincial offences court.
Andrew Loucks, Randy Kay, Wendell Fields, Scott Neigh and Matthew Behrens were found guilty of trespassing by justice of the peace Donald Stevely.
In a trial that saw one JP excuse herself from hearing the case, they all admitted the trespass but challenged whether it constituted a punishable offence. Conducting their own defence they cited everything from the Nuremberg trials to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification for their actions, arguing a democratic society should tolerate, not penalize, such actions.
In the end Stevely was buying none of it. "You are not making any protest that will be heard," he told the five men, "you're just blowing in the wind and causing a problem."
In his submission on sentencing, Behrens told the court "just because the law's the law, doesn't mean that sometimes there can't be citizen intervention to uphold higher international laws and international standards. We'll probably be seeing a lot of you again in this court because we can't simply be deterred by a fine or the threat of punishment."
In imposing the $300 fine, Stevely asked each if they required time to pay, four said they didn't intend to pay--Kay said he would go to jail before paying the fine. The fifth, Fields, asked for 10 years.
Stevely ignored their remarks and made no mention of the consequences of not paying the fine.
Chances of any of them going to jail are slim. Generally, unpaid fines for provincial offences other than the Highway Traffic Act, are turned over [to] a collection agency after 30 days.
The men were charged last April after police were called to Clark's King Street East office to disperse a group protesting the government's "zero tolerance policy on welfare fraud. Court was told they were arrested only after they refused to leave the office. Two had to be carried out by police.
In their defence, they argued they were merely citizens obliged to obey international law.
Stevely, although generally lenient in allowing political overtones to colour the defence, rejected it all. "This is about trespassing and leaving a premise," he said. "Pure and simple."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)