Um ... racists, Nazis, fascists, thugs, bullies, scientific illiterates ... I could go on.
AFTERSNARK: I am convinced that all of the recent glad-handing and thumbs-upping from Lich is not going to play well with the court, especially if she tries to play the "I'm so remorseful" card.
17 comments:
I’ve been enjoying the string of convictions and surprisingly heavy sentences handed down to the January 6 perps on the US, and especially their shocked reactions, all variations on the theme “Wait, what? You mean, this is actually for REAL now?”
Let’s hope that Ms. Lich is given sufficient to quietly reflect on the fact that the law doesn’t really give a shit about Facebook likes, Twitter retweets, Instagram hits, or slobbering worship from the Ezraphiles.
As noted in a previous comment stream, and I agree with the analysis: Greenspon is going to target the “moral rightness” of her actions as a major part of the defence. The remorse card isn’t going to play here.
She’s damned lucky that she’s facing the relatively minor charges of “mischief” - which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.
MgS: It seems that an argument from "moral rightness" needs to be able to show an arguably moral component that is clearly connected to your actions. But what would that be here?
Is one arguing that protesting vaccine mandates (whose purpose it is to keep people from dying from a deadly virus) is morally defensible?
More to the point, a lot of that protest was aimed at vaccine restrictions that were imposed by the U.S. on Canadian truckers entering the U.S., so it's not at all clear how morality plays into this -- the Canadian government had nothing to do with those restrictions.
How would that argument go in this context?
MgS: Also, a lot of the vaccine mandates were *provincial*, so it's unclear how one can defend the occupation of Ottawa as morally right, given the issue of doing all this in the wrong jurisdiction.
CC: When I posited "moral rightness" as a probable Lich defence, I wasn't suggesting the argument was correct, or even that it made sense. It doesn't. I was pointing out that the patriot-criminals, from Trump on down, seem in their strategies to be bypassing the actual law, talking over the heads of judges, and pitching meritless but passionate appeals to their clamorous supporters. You're right, there's no logic to it: but they're playing this as political theatre, not as an exercise in law.
Which is a terrible plan, because the courts will blink and say: "That's nice. Now can we please return to the matter at hand? Did you in fact do this?"
Regarding "moral rightness", it seems that the instant that defense is proposed, the Crown should insist that that means the defendant(s) are pleading guilty, they're just trying to *justify* their acts. I don't see how you can plead not guilty to the crimes, while in the same breath insisting that you were morally justified in committing them.
@CC:
I’m going to speculate wildly here (as in I have no inside information as to the defence strategy in this case) - but I am going to base this analysis on the defence often used in cases involving religious people discriminating against 2SLGBTQ people:
The “moral rightness of action” argument is likely going to revolve around the concept of “sincerely held belief”. In other words, the person was action from a basis of a set of understandable beliefs (whether correct or not), and therefore that reduces the degree to which one can assign criminal intent (e.g. the legal concept of “mens rea” - the guilty mind).
Objectively, do I think that’s a valid justification for what happened? Hell no.
But the job of the defence is to convince the court that their client isn’t criminally responsible, even if they “did the deed” (which is pretty clear here - I don’t think there’s any dispute around what happened, and the action of the individuals. Therefore, the argument before the court is whether those actions a) met the bar for criminality, and b) whether or not the individuals met the bar for mens rea.
MgS: You make a good point, but the part that intrigues me is that need to show "sincere belief". In the case of discrimination against LGB..., one can argue that they are a devout Christian and are therefore *required* to treat gayness as an abomination. But how would that kind of argument play out in this case?
The convoy's stated aim was to have COVID-19 mandates cancelled so all those truckers could get back to work. But the truckers' biggest roadblock was the *U.S.* restrictions on unvaccinated truckers entering that country. How would any of those Freedom Convoy yobs testify that they had a sincere belief that harassing the Canadian federal government would somehow get the Americans to drop their restrictions?
I think any testimony claiming "sincere belief" would crumble quickly under decent questioning. Any attempt to argue "sincere belief" would have to produce a *basis* for that belief, and I think that's where this strategy crashes and burns.
@CC: My guess would be that the claim of “sincere belief” would rest upon a few claims:
1). Doubts / Fears that the vaccines for COVID-19 were either damaging or “experimental”
2). A “misguided” belief that the border vaccine mandates were somehow preventing “good Canadians” from working
3). That the provinces were acting on the direction of the Federal Government WRT pandemic response, and therefore that sufficient pressure on Ottawa could be persuade the government to “call off its dogs”.
All of this is objectively bullshit, of course. But a few minutes spent reviewing the cesspool of conspiracy theories that is Telegram, as well as various TikTok sources, could be used to show how a person could be persuaded that such was true, and therefore that their actions were the result of being misguided / misinformed rather than ill-intent.
Again, I’m speculating wildly here - but just trying to guess how a defence attorney might try to weaken the case for criminal intent.
I don't think any of the leaders showed remorse at the POEC hearings, though Lich and others had lots of self-pity.
ValJ
MgS: Just to be clear, I agree with your analysis, but I'm wondering how much you can count on "sincere belief" as a defense. I would think that you still have to present at least a plausible basis for that sincere belief, and not just, "I read it at Rebel News."
And even a sincere belief should not get you off the hook; otherwise, people would be saying, "Yes, I murdered those abortion providers, but I sincerely believe they were killing the innocent unborn."
In any event, I'm going to watch how this plays out.
What would you know about things that "play well with the court"? The only time you've ever prevailed in court is when the other party didn't even show up!
Might want to think these posts out a little carefully, chum.
Go away, Patrick.
@CC: I’m guessing that it’s a matter of degrees. There isn’t a whole lot of question about _what_ happened here, nor is there seemingly a whole lot of grey around who did what actions. So, that leaves the defence with the job of “sowing doubt”.
Will that be effective? Who knows - not being a judge or a lawyer, I can only guess here. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Judges have been known in the past to let people off, or hand down vastly lighter sentences, if on the balance they have been persuaded that the harm done was “unintentional”, or the result of “well-meaning, but misguided” intentions. I would imagine here that the courts will be mindful of the experiences of those who lived through weeks of occupation.
Without knowing the full scope of evidence in play here, Greenspon may be playing to minimize the sentence they receive, not to get them off entirely.
I'm dying to see if she pleads special consideration under Gladue. Wouldn't that just frost Ezra's nuts?
Tamara Lich is not the hero we needed.
You forgot to list arsonists. The fellow who allegedly started some fires in Quebec turns out to be a conspiracy believer with a criminal record.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2023-09-07/un-residant-de-chibougamau-arrete-en-lien-avec-les-incendies-de-foret.php
https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2023/09/07/chibougamau--un-homme-a-lorigine-des-feux-de-foret-arrete
And if this is his Instagram, he's a convoy supporter and possibly a participant, I dunno (see posts at bottom)
https://www.instagram.com/brad_pare/
I have to say I've been expecting some of the factual arsonists would turn out to be conspiracy theorists.
ValJ
Post a Comment