Canadian Judges Use Bail and Parole Conditions to Gag Dissent
Increasingly, Canadian judges are using bail and parole conditions to gag dissenters. It's either "shut up" or you stay in jail. [Umm, isn't that what we criticize places like Burma for?] Anglo-Saxon justice is being perverted. A person charged with a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means, with a limited number of exceptions, they should have their freedom unless and until they are tried and convicted because they are presumed innocent. This is critical. Bail -- usually a money pledge or surety and some conditions -- should only be imposed to assure attendance at a trial or to prevent further grievous harm to the public.
Originally, political prisoner Brad Love was sentenced, in 2003, to 18 months for writing non-violent, non-threatening letters, critical of immigration and deemed to be "hate" to some 20 politicians. Some 20 of the thin-skinned elected big mouths duly reported his letters to the thought police.
His original parole condition was that he not write letters to those 20 politicians. On getting out of prison, he wrote to other politicians. This landed him back in jail for some 25 days. After nearly six months further in prison for writing a series of lettes to the Etobicoke Guardian -- the "free press" ratted hm out as their employees allegedly were upset by the number of his letters -- Mr. Love was hit was a parole condition that would have made the Burmese generals blush. He was not to "communicate" by writing or e-mail to ANYONE, without their prior permission. This coming February 24 and 25, his lawyer will be arguing a Charter challenge against this gag order.
However, Mr. Love is not the only victim of Canada's dissent gagging judges. Consider:
* From 1983 to 2002, when the Supreme Court vindicated him and ruled Canada's "false news" law unconstitutional, political prisoner Ernst Zundel was forbidden by a bail condition from commenting on the "holocaust" -- which is the West's new secular state religion. You can mock Christianity, s****** at Islam, but if you express a public question or doubt about the so-called "holocaust" you can go to jail in many Western countries. Note, Mr. Zundel hadn't been convicted for what he'd said. The charges were merely accusations but he was gagged for what he MIGHT say nonetheless.
* Gary McHale, from 2006-2010, has organized protests against the discriminatory, anti-White policing by the Ontario Provincial Police in Caledonia. There radical Indians have occupied a disputed piece of land being built into a subdivision and defied repeated court orders. The OPP has refused to enforce these orders, has favoured Indian protesters, brought them donuts and coffee, and even threatened to arrest a counter protester for marching down the highway carrying a Canadian flag -- "provocative." On the other hand, the OPP, while failing to protect White homeowners from repeated vandalism by natives, mercilessly stops and harasses Caledonians demanding identification and demanding to know where they're going and where they've been.
ChrIstie Blatchford of the Globe and Mail (November 27, 2010) reports: "In a flood of internal e-mails to the officers who worked for him (these later were made public as a result of Mr. McHale's various disclosure requests in court) and in his public statements, [Julian Fantino] the then-commisssioner went to remarkable lengths to characterize Mr. McHale and his supporters. to borrow from one of the e-mails Mr. Fantino had sent, as 'interlopers who put their own personal agendas' ahead of the purportedly grand peace at the negotiating table. It was an astonishing use of the resources of the state against a private citizen who had done nothing but exercise the very freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. And it culminated in two extraordinary events. The first was Mr. McHale's arrest on a charge of 'counselling mischief not committed,' which virtually no one had ever heard of but which was used nonetheless to impose sweeping travel restrictions upon him for more than two years (and keeping him out of Caledonia in other words.) This charge was ultimately stayed by the Crown." Thus, while, in the end the Crown did not proceed, a compliant judge effectively banned Mr. McHale from travelling to Caledonia and leading protests.
* Jaggi Singh is not our cup of tea. He's a far leftist radical and professional protester. However, bail conditions slapped on him seem to fit this same "gag 'em now, try 'em later" judicial pattern. The Montreal Gazette (November 22, 2010) editorialized: "During the G20 summit meeting in Toronto last summer, police arrested dozens of organizers and activists before the protestrs began. One of them, Montrealer Jaggi Singh, has filed a constitutional challenge against the bail conditions imposed on him following his pre-emptive arrest. Inappropriately restrictive conditions have been imposed on Singh, and other protesters selected as 'masterminds' by police. Singh, though not found guilty of anything, may not use a wireless device or possess a passport and, for good measure, he is under house arrest. How absurd. How sinister."
Singh could be hobbled for at least two years. "Singh faces a trial -- possibly in mid-2012 -- on charges of conspiracy to commit mischief and conspiracy to assault and obstruct police. ... He was released into a form of house arrest July 12, on $25,000 bail. 'I can't live at my own residence,' he said. 'I have to live at the residence of one of my sureties' His bail conditions also bar him from organizing or participating in any demonstrations; associating with any co-accused; using any wireless device; or possessing a passport.. ... Singh said: 'They make it punitive to actually be charged. ... They make the conditions themselves the punishment -- instread of finding someone guilty at trial and then punishing them." (Montreal Gazette, November 18, 2010)