|
Kimberly
Rogers Womyn's Brigade
Court Report and Conclusion
1. Background
2. Charges and sentence
3. Statements in court
4. Info from the particulars
5. Another person charged
6. In conclusion: Who defines violence?
1.
BACKGROUND:
On April 25,
02, BC Liberal MLA Jeff Bray’s office was occupied by ten womyn
from the Kimberly Rogers Womyn’s Brigade (part of the Victoria
Anti-Poverty Coalition).
Full story
http://www3.telus.net/bcwomen/Womyns_Brigade_Statement_April_02.html
We were protesting
the brutal cuts to welfare and for all people whose lives are
threatened by the economic violence perpetrated by the BC Government.
We named ourselves after a woman in Ontario who died last year
as a result of Ontario welfare cuts. There will be an inquest
into her death this October.
http://dawn.thot.net/Kimberly_Rogers/
(Justice with Dignity Campaign & Committee to Remember
Kimberly Rogers)
http://www.campbellcomment.com/rkr
http://www.siteseer.ca/vault/06-05-2001.htm
Our one demand
was for a Guaranteed Liveable Income -- as all people must be
able to live in good health with dignity regardless of whether
they can compete in a market place designed to treat human life
as a commodity. (A separate emailed article on the subject of
Guaranteed Income will be sent in the next week)
We held the
office for 5 hours until the riot squad battered in the door and
arrested us and several people who were in a support rally outside.
2. CHARGES AND SENTENCE
The Kimberly Rogers Womyn’s Brigade appeared in court on
July 17 in front of Judge Higinbotham. The crown prosecutor was
Bob Jones. Our lawyer was Bob Moore Stewart.
In front of
a packed court room, the 10 womyn in the brigade all plead guilty
to the charge of mischief - obstruct use/enjoyment of property,
contrary to Section 430 (1) (c) of the Criminal Code.
We were cleared
of all accusations of assault and of any damage to Jeff Bray’s
office. The crown prosecutor verified this in his presentation
to the judge. We received conditional discharges and were sentenced
with 6 months probation with 40 hours of community service.
Three people
arrested outside Bray’s office pled guilty to obstruction. All
received the same 6 months probation with 40 hours of community
service.
3. STATEMENTS IN COURT
Our lawyer,
Bob Moore Stewart described our protest as a principled non-violent
demonstration against the redistribution of income from the poor
to the rich. He reiterated that we had done no damage and had
not interfered with files nor touched the food or drink.
After he concluded,
six out of ten of the womyn from the brigade made statements explaining
our motivations for the occupation.
We spoke of
the cuts to welfare and the impacts of the governments’ attack
on people living in poverty. We explained how we named ourselves
after Kimberly Rogers who died last August under house arrest
during a heat wave in Sudbury, Ontario for the "crime" of collecting
welfare while receiving a student loan (she was eight-months pregnant).
Others explained that we occupied the office to demand a guaranteed
income.
Here are quotes
from some statements.
"I
plead guilty to mischief not to absolve myself from ‘guilt’
but to stand by my actions. We, the Kimberly Rogers Womyn’s
Brigade walked into that office with purpose: To defend all
people whose lives are threatened by the economic violence perpetrated
by the government of this province. Before we even reached the
door we all agreed that we would touch no one, damage no property
and leave without resisting. We adhered to each of these principles
conscientiously. So how can the province, the minion of an illegitimate
state call us criminal?
"The
liberals are executing a premeditated plan to destroy the meagre
safety net this province once had. And all in the name of "economics"
(profit for a well-armed elite). I am sure you are aware of
the endless list of purposeful abuses , cuts to welfare not
only what the state terms "job ready" but also to single parents
and the disabled; cuts of essential social programs like womyn’s
rape relief; job layoffs in every sector, dismantling of union’s
power to protect workers; closures of schools and hospitals…
"People
are dead and will continue to suffer and die because of these
plans. Unless we the people do something definitive to stop
them. The occupation was my definitive act, done in a ‘defense
of necessity’. The action of this government is indicative of
the greater conquest of people for the profit of a well-armed
elite. No oppressed group of people goes down without a fight.
The indigenous people of this and other colonialized lands didn’t,
the Jews of the resistance of WWII didn’t, nor will those who
live in poverty today. The right to life is non-negotiable.
It cannot be voted away in a biased election."
___________________
"The deadly effects on poor people
from bills 26 and 27, and other policies like them, are not
new… This province was built on the theft of land and resources
of the indigenous peoples by the white colonial government by
employing genocidal practices and using them to destroy first
peoples' sovereignty and jurisdiction over their land… The first
nations are now the poorest of peoples with the highest suicide
rate living in extreme poverty while BC remains 95% unceded
land. During this time of very hurtful cuts to everything, this
government still found millions of dollars to spend on a racist
referendum, proving that the colonisation and deep-seated racism
which built this province still runs rampant. It would seem
that economic prosperity can only take place on the backs of
the poor, immigrants, first nations and working people…
"The
Liberals, are committing myriad crimes against all groups of
people, save the few privileged rich they protect, by robbing
people of their basic needs to live a decent and healthy life
and thus are stealing the dignity and livelihood of the people
they claim to represent. Where is the justice for this party?"
___________________
"To simultaneously cut jobs while insisting
people find jobs or face starvation, is irrational, immoral
and unethical. The government is sentencing people to starvation
and homelessness for the crime of being unemployed. We were
compelled to defend those who are most vulnerable in our society."
___________________
After our statements, the judge said he felt the occupation violated
one of the pillars of our democratic structures, as an MLA is
a legally elected representative. However, he was impressed with
our sincerity and that we had been careful not to affect the rights
of others and had conducted ourselves to cause minimal damage.
He indicated he would not have given a conditional discharge had
their been destruction of property or lack of respect for confidential
information. It was also a factor that none of us had criminal
records.
He said that
we were highly motivated, responsible people who had made sacrifices
and that we were all contributing members of society engaged in
the life of the community and that a criminal record (which you
don’t get with a conditional discharge) would be damaging to our
futures. He also removed our ban from going to the legislature
grounds and from MLA offices "in the interests of democratic rights"
if we had to go there for legitimate business. At that point court
was over. We are all now completing our community hours for various
groups in Victoria.
4. INFORMATION THE POLICE SUBMITTED
TO CROWN COUNCIL (THE PARTICULARS):
On June 27 we finally received our particulars -- a pile of papers
2 inches thick with reports from the police with their incident
synopsis.
Through out
this documentation there was no mention of any property damage
other than the police describing how they used a "hooligan bar"
to pry open the back door and that they knocked over piled up
furniture when they entered. This of course is the opposite of
what was said in the media which stated that we "trashed" Bray’s
office and "smashed" things.
There was
also the account of what Bray’s staff told the police: that they
had been assaulted by a stocky male and that there were "20" protesters.
Very vivid imaginations indeed, given that there were no men in
the office and there were only 10 of us (initially there was an
assault charge but that was dropped).
In total there
were 16 people arrested and charged that day. The 10 womyn inside
the office; the 4 people (three youth) who sat in front of the
police van (charged with obstruction); and two others in the outside
rally charged with obstruction.
Earlier in
the day, two womyn were arrested outside the front of the office
but were released without being charged on the promise that they
did not return to the protest. One of those was our communications
person; the other person we were unfamiliar with.
The riot squad
("crowd management team") were called only 20 minutes after the
occupation began.
In one incident
synopsis concern was noted over a box of apples. "Numerous people
took apples, but some appeared to be taking apples and storing
them, possibly to be used as projectiles." The police also had
some difficulty determining our cell phone number, first calling
a student at a local elementary school, then a male "currently
driving in California."
In regards
to the unbelievably aggressive pepper-spraying of the four people
sitting in front of the police van: "there was the attempt to
create enough discomfort that these suspects would cease to be
actively resistant" and there was "no apparent effect at that
time" but "these suspects had some discomfort once their masks
were removed during arrest."
All of the
people sitting in front of the van were small in size and stature.
They could have easily lifted them out of the way. Two of them
were actually arrested after they got up and began walking away.
The police
described their level of force used to take us out of the office
as consisting only of "prying the interlocked arms of the protesters
from each other and using a mild arm bar to gain compliance."
They in fact
burst into the room with the "bean bag gunner" (described as lethal
in one part of a report) aiming his weapon right at our faces.
Then they almost pushed us through a window. As we attempted to
slowly walk out of the office as a group with our arms linked,
they began pushing us back into the window in their efforts to
break us apart. In addition, the police were extremely rough with
the first three womyn "peeled" from the group who were thrown
to the ground during their arrests. One of them sustained bruises
all over her body and carpet burns on her face.
___________________
5. ANOTHER PERSON CHARGED
On July 22,
shortly after our court sentencing, a person who was in the crowd
outside Bray’s office was charged with two totally unfounded counts
of assaulting the police. We will let people know when support
is needed in court.
___________________
6. IN CONCLUSION: Who defines
violence?
Certain things
became evident from the occupation of Jeff Bray’s office. One
is that no matter how careful you are in the course of your action:
the police and those in power will eagerly tell tall tales to
a cooperative corporate media to discredit you to justify their
use of force.
The second
thing that emerged was how bizarrely fixated people were on whether
Jeff Bray’s files or furniture had been damaged. We had in fact
all agreed to do no damage and to use no force during our action.
However the level of anger and outrage at the thought that we
*might* have broken or damaged any of Brays’ possessions is very
illuminating of society’s hypocritical values.
One wonders
what is the moral basis for this fixation on furniture and why,
on the other hand, is there NO fixation on the damage inflicted
on human beings by deliberate government policies?
Do people
not realize that taking food away from children is violent? That
when children do not have proper nutrients, their health is negatively
impacted for life? That rendering people homeless and hungry for
the ‘crime’ of being unemployed is violent? That living in poverty
causes health problems that leads to losing years off your life?
That having no dental care and abscessed teeth can kill you? That
ignoring half the world’s population -- mostly women and children
-- who live on almost nothing, is violent? Wasting vast quantities
of natural resources on useless junk and luxuries for the few
is violent. That choosing to do nothing in the face of known violence,
is violence itself?
Where is the
breathless outrage over this violence? Why the apoplectic rage
against the thought that Bray’s cherry wood furniture suite had
been violated?
Where is the
steam-coming-out-the-ears outrage over homelessness in a country
whose climate can kill? Why so often the resounding HO HUM, don’t
bore me with the facts about "the poor" - they will always be
with us. People seem to have an endless capacity to tolerate the
suffering of others. Compare that to the eye-ball bulging rage
when protesters damage any ‘property’. Those of us who are enraged
about poverty are thought of as nuts, or too radical, or unrealistic.
Many people
agonize over wanting to be good, to not be like the oppressors,
to not ever do any damage to anything. What is not given the same
consideration however, is the violence of doing nothing. Doing
nothing, while great harm is happening to others, is violent.
To not defend those who are most vulnerable, is violent. To walk
on by, to be too busy, to look the other way, to not want to know,
is all violence.
It is clear
that 'violence' has been carefully defined by the ruling elite.
Property is sacrosanct as it represents the ruling elites means
to life and power. And for the most part we have bought into this
definition. It serves to obscure the unbelievably huge damage
inflicted upon people and the environment that our profit based,
job based, slavery based SYSTEM has caused. It is no wonder there
is endless representations in the news and entertainment industry
of violence by individuals or freak accidents. However, the tragedy
and damage caused by any one murderous maniac is minuscule when
compared to the legislated damage inflicted by the state and the
corporations they serve.
It takes collective
action to stop a bully and it takes collective inaction to condone
and thus encourage and increase the bully’s power. Not being ‘political’
and not acting means leaving those who don’t have a choice, those
who are the most vulnerable, to bear the brunt of the neo-liberal
attack. When those on the front lines are so weakened they are
virtually eliminated, as was Kimberly Rogers, who will be next?
There are
many impoverished people with fragile physical and mental health
who are too fearful to act. But why should they put themselves
on the line when they have so little means to defend themselves?
However, if they see people standing up in solidarity with them,
then they too will be inspired to find their own courage.
___________________
August 4, 2002
Victoria Anti-Poverty Coalition
apov@acts.bc.ca
Box 8441, Victoria BC, V8W 3S1
250-388-9181
Go To Top
Back
to DAWN Ontario homepage
This
page was updated August 7th, 2002
|
