On Thursday, March 6, twelve jury members took their seats and began to hear the Crown's evidence against Stefan Pilipa, John Clarke and Gaetan Heroux on charges that present them as architects of a 'planned riot' at the Ontario Legislature on June 15, 2000. As such, the authorities seek to send them to prison for terms of up to five years.

This will be a new development when it comes to state persecution of social activism in Canada. To find a comparable attempt to jail 'leaders' of a political protest on these kinds of charges, it would be necessary to go back to Valleyfield, Quebec in 1946 and the imprisonment of textile workers' organizer, Kent Rowley. Indeed, the charge of 'counselling to participate in a riot' is without precedent in Canada.

The trial was preceded by seven weeks of arguments and deliberations on various pre-trial motions that will continue to be subject to a total publication ban (including on internet communication) that will remain in effect until the jury retires to consider its verdict.

The jury that has been selected may well seek to be as fair minded and objective as they can but the Ontario Government's restrictive fiscal policies cast a long shadow even over the process of selecting a 'jury of their peers' for three organizers of the homeless and poor. Jurors are paid only at a rate of $40 a day after the 11th day of service. Where employers will not cover lost wages during jury duty, this allowance would barely cover extra transportation and child care costs, let alone be anything like adequate compensation. People on Employment Insurance or Ontario Works would not be able to serve either. Sitting on a jury would render them 'not available for work' and would lead to loss of benefits. What exists, therefore, is a situation where the unemployed and working poor are effectively unable to sit on juries. Yet, these are or course the very people who face the bulk of criminal charges and, when they do, they can expect the allegations against them to be considered by people whose income level (and life experience) is very different from their own.

So, on Thursday, March 6, Vincent Paris, from the Crown Attorney's office gave his opening remarks to the Jury. He outlined the essential elements of his case that a riot had been planned, that John Clarke had counselled it and that Gaetan Heroux and Stefan Pilipa had participated in it in a leading capacity. He also called his first witness, Detective Sergeant Stubbings, who was with Police Intelligence at the time of the demonstration. Stubbings offered his comments while, Paris played a couple of hours of video footage of the scene that day.

It is clear that the Crown's case will rest on the notion that OCAP planned a confrontation on June 15 and the events of that day flowed from our attempt to violently force entry into the Legislature. For our part, we will present our plan for a militant action that would pressure the Tory Government into accepting a delegation effected by homelessness and responding to its grievances. We will also show that the confrontation that was generated that day flowed from Tory intransigence and a police force that was either reckless and incompetent or willfully provocative.

Court will resume on March 17 at which time our cross examination of Det.Sgt. Stubbings will begin.