“I’ve done murder trials, other far more serious criminal cases. The amount of energy and resources being put into this, ... we’re going to have the Freedom Convoy trial lasting longer than the Freedom Convoy itself.” — Lawrence Greenspon, attorney for Tamara Lich, in an Epoch Times interview
In the arena of justice, it is far too easy to exaggerate when we see injustice occurring, and we might be prone to resorting to hyperbole when we assess innocent people to be the victims of unjust charges and a ravenous, perhaps politically motivated, justice system.But it is difficult to attend the trial of Freedom Convoy personalities Tamara Lich and Chris Barber and not marvel at how all of this has come to pass.
The trial has become little more than a show trial. In the interest of justice, it should be declared a mistrial.
I call them Freedom Convoy “personalities” because the Crown has so far been unable to produce a shred of evidence that they were actually ringleaders of this vast, organic protest. As a prosecution witness demonstrated in his testimony this week, it is well-nigh impossible to prove that Lich and Barber could possibly have led, managed, and executed the demonstration against COVID-19 mandates and then counselled that mass of people to disobey the instructions of police and defy the authorities.
As Lich’s lawyer Greenspon noted in the quote above, this trial has gone on for an inordinate length of time given that the pair awaiting justice were charged with the sort of offences that might result from a drunken family quarrel.
They are charged with mischief, counselling others to commit mischief, intimidation, and obstructing police as leaders of the Freedom Convoy that polarized residents of Ottawa in early 2022 and arguably resulted in the roll-back of COVID mandates.
But in that same American Though Leaders interview, Greenspon noted that the Crown has been stupefyingly unsuccessful in demonstrating any of these charges.
“Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are charged with mischief and other related charges, the idea being that they counselled or encouraged truckers to come to Ottawa, stay in Ottawa, and to commit various unlawful acts,“ he said. ”But so far, the evidence hasn’t supported that Crown theory at all.”
The trial has been a clanging gong show at times, with the prosecution presenting witnesses who did not appear to even know what they were in court to talk about. At other times the prosecution played videos that they seemingly didn’t review before playing them in court. I remember one instance of a segment that was interrupted by the blaring ring of a cellphone, rendering everything said inaudible.
And the hundreds of videos that the prosecution presented as evidence against Lich and Barber again and again demonstrate the exact opposite of what the Crown is desperate to prove: conclusive evidence of either of these protesters telling other protesters to disregard the instructions of police or to disrupt the lives of Ottawa residents.
Consistently, both Lich and Barber can be heard on these social media videos telling anyone who is watching or listening to do otherwise: to obey the police, not disturb residents, and protest peacefully at all times.
Yet the Crown continues to present a judicial floorshow that should have been shut down weeks ago.
Why?
The term “lawfare” has recently entered the vernacular to describe judicial warfare against people in order to wear them down emotionally, spiritually, and, most of all, financially.
This has certainly been the case with Lich and Barber, neither of whom have access to a large private fortune but are reliant upon whatever resources they can muster.
You may be aware of those celebrated show trials in Soviet Russia where dissidents in the regime—or actually any real or perceived enemies of dictator Joseph Stalin—were hauled before “peoples’ courts” and charged with treason, counter-revolutionary activities, or “wrecking,” which meant sabotage against the regime or industrial infrastructure.
Of course, everyone on trial confessed and they provided elaborate, tear-laden confessions of just how guilty they were and how sorry they felt for transgressing the orthodoxy of Soviet Russia. These pleas of guilt were always induced by torture and the threat that if they didn’t confess their families would suffer as well. Some even came to believe in their own guilt and were genuinely remorseful for doubting the divinity of Big Brother Stalin.
So, if we’re talking show trials, the prosecution of Lich and Barber is not one. But if we’re talking about how the state can discourage people from protesting, then this is indeed a show trial.
The Freedom Convoy trial has become a frightening example of how the justice system can throw any charge at all against legitimate peaceful protesters, put them in jail when it opts to release rapists and violent criminals on bail, and put them on trial for weeks or months until their financial resources are exhausted and they wonder whether the protest that sparked all of this misery was really worth it.
And that’s what this is all about: silencing protest that confounds the narrative. The Freedom Convoy demanded an end to authoritarian COVID-19 mandates that were embraced by all levels of government and all of the mainstream media. That the protesters helped roll back those mandates didn’t make the establishment any happier.
They had to be punished.
Even if Lich and Barber are fully vindicated by a court of law, as I believe they should be, their lives have been violated by an angry system that doesn’t believe in peaceful protest if that protest is contrary to the values and agenda of the federal government and, at the time, all provincial and municipal governments.
This was and is about protest chill. This endless trial is focused on making Lich, Barber, and everyone think twice about questioning the dictates of government.
But they shouldn’t think twice about what they did, and neither should others. Their protest was a gift to Canadian democracy and an example of why all of us must remain committed to freedom no matter how brutally or inordinately the state pushes back.
