As I’ve mentioned on Western Standardpreviously, I’ve known Ontario MPP Randy Hillier for about 20 years. I’ve found myself in agreement with him on every important issue I can think of over that time. The pandemic was no exception. I admired his courage in publicly opposing Ontario’s official government narrative about lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccination mandates. I applauded his denunciation of the tyrannical federal policies that led to the Ottawa Freedom Convoy. .Therefore, when I received a message early Monday morning (March 28) saying that Randy was being charged with nine Criminal Code offences (see image below) and would be surrendering to the Ottawa police that day, I was alarmed. I knew he had been accumulating provincial charges for various No More Lockdowns protests he had organized and attended around the province, but sources have been telling me that many charges of this kind are being delayed and ultimately dropped by prosecutors who don’t want to face a well-thought-out Charter challenge..Criminal Code charges by the Ottawa police were a different kettle of fish.. thumbnail_Hillier-Criminal-Code-charges .My concern, of course, was Randy might face the kind of treatment that had been given to convoy organizer Tamara Lich, who spent two weeks in jail before finally receiving reasonable bail conditions..Randy retained Ottawa criminal lawyer David Anber, and a bail hearing was held via Zoom on Monday afternoon. Anber had already negotiated with Crown counsel Tim Wightman and they had hammered out an agreement under which Randy would be released on bail subject to 15 conditions he’d have to comply with..Counsel were able to agree on the wording of 14 of those conditions: standard bail terms such as posting a bond (in this case, $35,000), residing with his surety at a fixed address, not communicating with other people who have been charged with offences also arising out of the Freedom Convoy, and so on..However, they couldn’t agree on the wording of the fifteenth condition, namely what Randy would be permitted to say on social media pending trial about the issues he has been expounding on over the past two years.. thumbnail_Randy-Hillier-disputed-bail-conditions .I managed to get into the Zoom call and listened to the legal arguments. The Crown wanted to restrict Randy from posting anything “on social media of any type” regarding not only the Freedom Convoy, but also provincial policy on mask mandates, vaccination mandates, “or the Anti-vaccine cause [sic].” He also wanted to prevent Randy from attending or providing “any type of support (including financial support) to the freedom convoy or any anti mask/vaccine organization or causes [sic].”.Anber pointed out as an elected member of the legislature, it was actually Randy’s job to comment precisely on important issues like this before the legislature. He also argued that in a free and democratic society, it’s important to have competing voices saying different things about the issues..The Crown prosecutor then seemed to narrow down what he was asking for. It’s forbidden on Ontario court Zoom calls to make your own recordings of the proceedings, so I had to type furiously in an effort to catch what he was saying. He seemed to concede that the wording of the disputed bail condition would not prevent Randy from making his views heard in the mainstream media or in the legislature only on social media, which the Crown described as his primary tool of communication..This isn’t much comfort. For starters, how is social media defined nowadays? I no longer get paper copies of major daily newspapers delivered to my door. I read them online, and frequently participate in the online comment sections. Does the electronic interaction between a newspaper and its readers nudge the paper over the line into the social media category? Is clicking a “like” button part of “posting?” What about sharing someone else’s post? It’s not entirely clear what will be forbidden, and the stakes would be high if Randy were to be accused of violating his bail conditions..But more importantly, I can’t see the difference in “risk to the public” between the two types of media. If what Randy posts on social media is such a danger to the public peace and order, then why doesn’t the Crown object to his saying the same thing to, say, a reporter for The Globe and Mail or to fellow members of the legislature?.And vice-versa. If what he says to a Globe and Mail reporter is so lacking in risk to public peace and order that it’s perfectly OK for him to say it, what makes it dangerous if he says it on Telegram or Facebook?.Justice of the Peace Logue took only a 10-minute break before deciding in favour of the Crown, demonstrating she has apparently bought the government’s pandemic narrative hook, line and sinker. Although she paid lip service to the Charter, she gave short shrift to Randy’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly..Randy and his lawyer are contemplating whether or not to appeal..Meanwhile, there’s one other aspect of the bail hearing that struck me as grossly unfair due to its occurring via Zoom. When Randy was brought into the call at the end from his jail cell to be asked whether he accepted the conditions the judge had ordered, it was apparent that the police officer had just brought him to the phone for that purpose, and he hadn’t been allowed to listen to or watch the entire proceedings. Accused people can normally attend their bail hearings, which allows them to listen carefully to the allegations being made against them by the Crown, inform their lawyer of any important points he or she might need to know, and evaluate their own lawyer’s performance in the courtroom. Randy was denied the benefit of all of these..However, he is out of the “crowbar hotel” for now, and sidelined — at least temporarily — from the fight for liberty. .Karen Selick is a columnist for the Western Standard
As I’ve mentioned on Western Standardpreviously, I’ve known Ontario MPP Randy Hillier for about 20 years. I’ve found myself in agreement with him on every important issue I can think of over that time. The pandemic was no exception. I admired his courage in publicly opposing Ontario’s official government narrative about lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccination mandates. I applauded his denunciation of the tyrannical federal policies that led to the Ottawa Freedom Convoy. .Therefore, when I received a message early Monday morning (March 28) saying that Randy was being charged with nine Criminal Code offences (see image below) and would be surrendering to the Ottawa police that day, I was alarmed. I knew he had been accumulating provincial charges for various No More Lockdowns protests he had organized and attended around the province, but sources have been telling me that many charges of this kind are being delayed and ultimately dropped by prosecutors who don’t want to face a well-thought-out Charter challenge..Criminal Code charges by the Ottawa police were a different kettle of fish.. thumbnail_Hillier-Criminal-Code-charges .My concern, of course, was Randy might face the kind of treatment that had been given to convoy organizer Tamara Lich, who spent two weeks in jail before finally receiving reasonable bail conditions..Randy retained Ottawa criminal lawyer David Anber, and a bail hearing was held via Zoom on Monday afternoon. Anber had already negotiated with Crown counsel Tim Wightman and they had hammered out an agreement under which Randy would be released on bail subject to 15 conditions he’d have to comply with..Counsel were able to agree on the wording of 14 of those conditions: standard bail terms such as posting a bond (in this case, $35,000), residing with his surety at a fixed address, not communicating with other people who have been charged with offences also arising out of the Freedom Convoy, and so on..However, they couldn’t agree on the wording of the fifteenth condition, namely what Randy would be permitted to say on social media pending trial about the issues he has been expounding on over the past two years.. thumbnail_Randy-Hillier-disputed-bail-conditions .I managed to get into the Zoom call and listened to the legal arguments. The Crown wanted to restrict Randy from posting anything “on social media of any type” regarding not only the Freedom Convoy, but also provincial policy on mask mandates, vaccination mandates, “or the Anti-vaccine cause [sic].” He also wanted to prevent Randy from attending or providing “any type of support (including financial support) to the freedom convoy or any anti mask/vaccine organization or causes [sic].”.Anber pointed out as an elected member of the legislature, it was actually Randy’s job to comment precisely on important issues like this before the legislature. He also argued that in a free and democratic society, it’s important to have competing voices saying different things about the issues..The Crown prosecutor then seemed to narrow down what he was asking for. It’s forbidden on Ontario court Zoom calls to make your own recordings of the proceedings, so I had to type furiously in an effort to catch what he was saying. He seemed to concede that the wording of the disputed bail condition would not prevent Randy from making his views heard in the mainstream media or in the legislature only on social media, which the Crown described as his primary tool of communication..This isn’t much comfort. For starters, how is social media defined nowadays? I no longer get paper copies of major daily newspapers delivered to my door. I read them online, and frequently participate in the online comment sections. Does the electronic interaction between a newspaper and its readers nudge the paper over the line into the social media category? Is clicking a “like” button part of “posting?” What about sharing someone else’s post? It’s not entirely clear what will be forbidden, and the stakes would be high if Randy were to be accused of violating his bail conditions..But more importantly, I can’t see the difference in “risk to the public” between the two types of media. If what Randy posts on social media is such a danger to the public peace and order, then why doesn’t the Crown object to his saying the same thing to, say, a reporter for The Globe and Mail or to fellow members of the legislature?.And vice-versa. If what he says to a Globe and Mail reporter is so lacking in risk to public peace and order that it’s perfectly OK for him to say it, what makes it dangerous if he says it on Telegram or Facebook?.Justice of the Peace Logue took only a 10-minute break before deciding in favour of the Crown, demonstrating she has apparently bought the government’s pandemic narrative hook, line and sinker. Although she paid lip service to the Charter, she gave short shrift to Randy’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly..Randy and his lawyer are contemplating whether or not to appeal..Meanwhile, there’s one other aspect of the bail hearing that struck me as grossly unfair due to its occurring via Zoom. When Randy was brought into the call at the end from his jail cell to be asked whether he accepted the conditions the judge had ordered, it was apparent that the police officer had just brought him to the phone for that purpose, and he hadn’t been allowed to listen to or watch the entire proceedings. Accused people can normally attend their bail hearings, which allows them to listen carefully to the allegations being made against them by the Crown, inform their lawyer of any important points he or she might need to know, and evaluate their own lawyer’s performance in the courtroom. Randy was denied the benefit of all of these..However, he is out of the “crowbar hotel” for now, and sidelined — at least temporarily — from the fight for liberty. .Karen Selick is a columnist for the Western Standard
