The hearings in the Montreal Police Brotherhood’s motion to quash the public inquiry called into the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis resumed on May 11th, 2010. The Justice for Anas Coalition organized a press conference on May 10th and called a rally on May 11th to serve as a reminder about the importance and necessity of a public inquiry into the causes and circumstances leading up to Anas’ killing at the hands of Montreal police officer Yannick Bernier on December 1st, 2005, in the neighborhood of Côte-des-Neiges.

Two IMPORTANT POINTS worth highlighting from the recent events include:

1. The Quebec Court of Appeal decision in the case of Michel Berniquez (killed during a police intervention in Montreal-North in 2003) stated quite unequivocally that the Montreal Police Brotherhood’s motion to cancel the public inquiry in that case was unfounded. This decision underscores the importance of having a public inquiry to understand the circumstances surrounding Anas’ death.

2. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the City of Montreal. On the one hand, Mayor Gérald Tremblay wishes that “all light be shed”, and, on the other hand, Mr Tremblay has given a mandate to city of Montreal lawyer, Pierre-Yves Boisvert, to argue in favor of the Brotherhood’s motion to quash the public inquiry into Anas’ death.

[[ For the press conference media advisory and press release, please visit: http://www.justicepouranas.org/en/news/20100510(pressrelease).php ]]

[[ For the rally callout, please visit: http://www.justicepouranas.org/en/calendar/ ]]

[[ To view or listen to Mayor Tremblay’s statement, please visit: http://www.justicepouranas.org/en/audio.php ]]

--> TO FIND OUT HOW TO GET INVOLVED: PUT PRESSURE ON MAYOR GÉRALD TREMBLAY ... GO TO THE "HOW TO GET INVOLVED" SECTION BELOW FOR MORE INFO

:::::: REPORT-BACK FROM THE HEARINGS : A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF ANAS BENNIS! ::::::::

The hearings in the Montreal Police Brotherhood’s motion to quash the public inquiry called into the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis resumed on May 11th. The presiding Superior Court judge, Claude Champagne, was supposed to hear arguments from the lawyer of the Quebec coroner-in-chief, Frédéric Maheux, and the Bennis family lawyer, Alain Arsenault, as to the important role a public inquiry can play in shedding light on the causes and circumstances that led to the death in the case of Anas Bennis, who was 25 years old when he was killed after being shot twice by Montreal police officer Yannick Bernier.

As a brief contextual reminder, the Quebec coroner-in-chief, Dr Louise Nolet, announced a public inquiry into the death of Anas on June 3, 2008. The Montreal Police Brotherhood responded shortly afterward by submitting a motion against the coroner-in-chief, as well as the coroner who was supposed to preside over the public inquiry, Catherine Rudel-Tessier. The motion’s goal is to quash the public inquiry; the Brotherhood’s legal team, with the active support of city of Montreal lawyer Pierre-Yves Boisvert, contends that the public inquiry would be useless.  Hearings finally began at Quebec Superior Court in June 2009.

Moreover, on May 5th, only a few days prior to the hearings resuming, the Quebec Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling: a public inquiry into the death of Michel Berniquez, killed during a police intervention in Montreal-North in 2003, should proceed. The public inquiry in this case was announced in 2004, but, again, the Brotherhood intervened by trying to quash the inquiry. It succeeded initially, with the Superior Court of Quebec deciding in its favor in 2008. However, that judgment was appealed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the decision on May 5th, thus paving the way for the public inquiry to proceed. Yves-Marie Morissette, the judge who wrote the decision on behalf of the three-judge panel at the Quebec Court of Appeal, was unequivocal in his criticisms of the Brotherhood’s motion: “To suggest [...] that all light has already been shed on what we can learn of the tragic events of June 28, 2003 [...], or to assert that a coroner’s public inquiry would discredit the judicial system and would cause prejudice to the police involved [...], seems to me not only exaggerated, but in the realm of verbal overstatement.”

On May 11th, during the Superior Court hearings in the Anas Bennis case, the lawyers of the Brotherhood and the city of Montreal (Pierre Dupras and Pierre-Yves Boisvert, respectively) initially tried to buy time by saying that they hadn’t had a chance to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, and therefore requested that the hearings be postponed. Justice Champagne refused to postpone the hearings, but allowed them until May 28th to submit their arguments pertaining to the Court of Appeal decision in writing. The lawyers representing the coroner’s office and the Bennis family will then have until June 4th to make their counter-arguments (in writing), if necessary.

Frédéric Maheux (lawyer representing the Quebec coroner-in-chief) and Alain Arsenault (the Bennis family lawyer) then went on to make their arguments on why a public inquiry was necessary to shed light on what happened surrounding the death of Anas Bennis. Mr Arsenault insisted on the numerous factual inconsistencies in the Quebec City police’s investigation of Anas’ death. He also lamented a certain “unhealthy solidarity” that exists between different policing bodies, which presumably allowed the Brotherhood’s lawyer to obtain documents that were deemed confidential and refused to the Bennis family and the public previously. These documents include the Quebec City police’s investigation report and the Crown prosecutor’s report (from November 2006) that stated that no criminal charges would be laid against the police officers; although censored, they are -- as of May 11th -- available to the public. Mr Arsenault also reiterated that public inquiries play an important to ensure the transparency and accountability of police officers. Justice Champagne will presumably render his judgment some time after June 4, 2010.

:::::: THE HYPOCRISY AND INCONSISTENCY OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL ::::::::

During a Montreal city council meeting in April, in the lead-up to the hearings resuming, Montreal mayor Gérald Tremblay replied to a question by asserting that he wishes that “all light be shed as soon as possible” on the circumstances surrounding the shooting death of Anas. This highlighted the hypocrisy and contradiction of the position held by the city of Montreal, whose mayor is supposedly supportive of the Bennis family’s search for truth and transparency while the city’s lawyer argues alongside the Brotherhood in court!

When Gérald Tremblay was asked to clarify his position during the last Montreal city council meeting on May 20th, he answered like a true politician. He stated that he saw no contradiction between the right of the family to know the truth and the right of a person (presumably, officer Bernier) to "be protected". It is quite obvious that a public inquiry may be the only avenue that can lead to the truth about the causes and circumstances that led to Anas' death. If the truth threatens the right of officer Bernier to "be protected", as stated by Mayor Tremblay, one wonders if the officer has something to hide. Police officers, just like citizens, have to be held accountable for their actions by testifying in a transparent investigation -- in this case, a public inquiry. This basic principle is recognized by Quebec law and has been reiterated in the recent Court of Appeal decision: "Police officers, like all citizens, have the duty to testify before a coroner when called to do so in an inquiry in situations when the circumstances of a death are unclear or violent."

Moreover, Gérald Tremblay made reference to the hearings of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse on racial profiling as a venue for dealing with Anas' case. This completely ludicrous statement -- as the mandate of the Commission is not to investigate police killings -- highlights the bad faith of the city of Montreal and its attempts at avoiding a public inquiry at all cost. By bringing up the CDPDJ hearings, though, mayor Tremblay seems to acknowledge that Anas' death was a case of racial profiling!

::::::WE DEMAND A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN THE DEATH OF ANAS BENNIS! ::::::::

As Montrealers, our message needs to come across clearly: there can be no substitute to the public inquiry -- it  must be allowed to proceed as ordered by the coroner-in-chief, and the city's attempts to block it must cease immediately. Accordingly, we must demand that Pierre-Yves Boisvert's mandate in this case be revoked.

::::::: HOW TO GET INVOLVED :::::::::

 >> Contact mayor Gérald Tremblay immediately to demand that he withdraw city of Montreal lawyer Pierre-Yves Boisvert’s mandate in supporting the Montreal Police Brotherhood’s motion to quash the public inquiry into Anas’ death (sample letter below). Please write us at just...@gmail.com to let us know you contacted the mayor.

Mayor Gérald Tremblay
Hôtel de Ville
275 Notre-Dame East
Montreal, Qc.
H2Y 1C6

mai...@ville.montreal.qc.ca & gera...@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Telephone: 514-872-3101 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              514-872-3101      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              514-872-3101      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: 514-872-4059

 >> Please stay in touch about news and upcoming events to support the Bennis family in their fight for truth and justice in the weeks to come.

In Solidarity,

Coalition Justice pour Anas
www.justicepouranas.org
just...@gmail.com
(514) 342-2111
------------------------------------

[[[ SAMPLE LETTER ]]]
 
Mr. Gérald Tremblay
Mayor, City of Montreal
 
Re: Public Inquiry into the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis
 
Mayor Tremblay:
 
I am writing you so that you may clarify your position regarding the necessity of a public inquiry into the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis. I am also writing to support the Justice for Anas Coalition's demand for a public inquiry in this case. Specifically, I demand that you immediately withdraw the mandate held by city lawyer Pierre-Yves Boisvert to support the motion filed by the Montreal Police Brotherhood aiming at canceling the public inquiry into the death of Anas.
 
The Justice for Anas Coalition, led by the Bennis family and supported by dozens of organizations – including activist groups, community organizations and political parties – has been working to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis, a young Canadian of Moroccan background who was killed by Montreal police officer Yannick Bernier on December 1st 2005, in Côte-des-Neiges.
 
As you know, a public inquiry was ordered in June 2008 by Quebec coroner-in-chief, Dr Louise Nolet. However, the inquiry remains on hold while the Quebec Superior Court hears a motion filed by the Montreal Police Brotherhood with the goal of quashing the inquiry.
 
During the Montreal City Council meeting in April, in response to a question pertaining to the necessity of a public inquiry into the death of Anas Bennis, you answered as follows: "It was a tragic incident, and the family continues to suffer until all light is shed on this incident. And so, I wish, like you, and like all the members of the city council, that all light be shed as soon as possible." 
 
Your wish that all light be shed on the circumstances surrounding the death of Anas Bennis is shared by thousands of Montrealers, dozens of community organizations, and more importantly, the Bennis family.
 
In light of your recent statement, it seems quite contradictory that the lawyer representing the city of Montreal, Pierre-Yves Boisvert, is actively supporting the motion filed by the Brotherhood, which aims at blocking the avenue that could actually “shed light” on the death of Anas Bennis. That is, a public inquiry.
 
The Montreal Police Brotherhood does not represent the citizens of Montreal. Its actions are dubious. Moreover, on May 5th, 2010, a Quebec Court of Appeal decision concerning a public inquiry in the death of Michel Berniquez -- a case with much in common, where the Police Brotherhood had intervened to try and stop an inquiry from proceeding -- was unequivocal in mandating that a public inquiry proceed. The decision by judge Yves-Marie Morissette is very clear in condemning the action of the Brotherhood: “To suggest [...] that all light has already been shed on what we can learn of the tragic events [...], or to assert that a coroner’s public inquiry would discredit the judicial system and would  cause prejudice to the police involved [...], seems to me not only exaggerated, but in the realm of verbal overstatement.”
 
In this context, the role played by Montreal city lawyer Pierre-Yves Boisvert is highly problematic. Meanwhile, the position of the city of Montreal as well as your own position on this matter seem incoherent.

When you were asked to clarify your position during the last Montreal city council meeting on May 20th, you stated that you saw no contradiction between the right of the family to know the truth and the right of a person (presumably, officer Bernier) to "be protected". It is quite obvious that a public inquiry may be the only avenue that can lead to the truth about the causes and circumstances that led to Anas' death. If the truth threatens officer Bernier's right to "be protected", as you implied, one can wonder if the officer has something to hide. Police officers, just like citizens, as you well know, have to be held accountable for their actions by testifying in a transparent investigation; in this case, a public inquiry. This basic principle is recognized by Quebec law and has been reiterated in the recent Court of Appeal decision: "Police officers, like all citizens, have the duty to testify before a coroner when called to do so in an inquiry in situations when the circumstances of a death are unclear or violent."

Moreoever, you mentioned the public hearings of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ) on racial profiling as a possible venue for dealing with Anas' case. This assertion is absolutely unfounded, as the mandate of the CDPDJ is not to investigate police killings. By bringing up the CDPDJ hearings, though, you seem to acknowledge that Anas' death was a case of racial profiling, a consideration that many people have evoked, and which would be clarified in the context of a public inquiry into the circumstances that led to the death of Anas.
 
As a Montrealer, I ask that you clearly state your position regarding the need for a public inquiry into the Montreal police shooting that resulted in the death of Anas Bennis. If you really wish that “all light be shed”, I demand that you immediately withdraw the mandate held by city lawyer Pierre-Yves Boisvert to support the motion filed by the Montreal Police Brotherhood aiming at canceling the public inquiry into the death of Anas Bennis.

Sincerely,