Crimes of Mild Inconvenience

Lich and Barber's sentencing reveals Canada's courts in moral freefall

This past week we drove up to Ottawa to attend the sentencing hearing for Tamarah Lich and Chris Barber. On hindsight, it seems fitting that the longest mischief trial in world history would be consummated by the longest sentencing hearing in world history. Even if I can’t affirm this as technically true, listening to three hours of monophonic rationale for a trial that shouldn’t even exist, in a room roughly the temperature of a bagel oven, certainly made it existentially true.

The room was packed — mostly with supporters, but also a smattering of lost souls (identifiable by the permanent, dirt-eating grins) who, presumably, attended in hopes of witnessing a juicy prison sentence.

Throughout the trial, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, a small woman with a large distaste for diesel fumes, made it clear that although Lich and Barber were first-time offenders, they were offenders nonetheless. By this, I can only assume she meant her monthly “Boomers for Gaza” bookclub was personally offended by them.

Inconvenience

Perkins went on at length about the trauma Ottawa residents experienced at the hands of vicious occupiers. What trauma you ask? The trauma of inconvenience. Horns. Fumes. Signs. Flags. Single lanes. Beards. Bouncy castles. Free hotdogs. She even brought up certain inflammatory statements — such as “don’t give into fear”— that proved especially triggering to a city known for giving into fear.

After following this sham trial for years, and then listening to the judge on Tuesday, what has become increasingly clear to me is that no one has any interest in actual evidence. The Freedom Convoy Trials are a pure and simple witch hunt; an expensive prop, designed to justify revenge on those who, in Ezra Levant’s word, “dare to protest on the holy ground of Ottawa.”

Although the judge repeatedly stated her desire to avoid producing a chilling effect on free speech and the right to assembly, it is impossible to interpret this trial any other way. For all their talk of encouraging freedom and diversity, it is clear the Canadian government wants exactly the opposite. Those who disagree should familiarize themselves with tabled bills C-2, C-8, and C-9 — all determined efforts to maximize government surveillance while suppressing any whiff of grassroots dissent.

Proportionality

Another word the judge used repeatedly was “proportionality.” That the punishment should fit the crime, in other words. As a general principle, well and good. The problem, in this case, is that millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent not in crime prevention, but in crime invention. The convoy did not block roads. The convoy did not encourage violence or vandalism. The convoy, on a scale of protests, did nothing but blow rainbows at people for three weeks. They shoveled sidewalks. They fed the homeless. They single-handedly kept surrounding restaurants and food vendors afloat.

At most what we’re dealing with here is the “crime” of inconvenience. It isn’t one, but let’s for the moment grant Ms. Perkins’ premise and pretend it is. Let’s grant the deleterious effects of diesel fumes and the phantom honks that will no-doubt haunt Ottawa residents for the rest of their lives. Let’s put all that on one side of the scale.

On the other side, let’s put on the 100,000 businesses that tanked due to covid restrictions. Let’s put on the tens of thousands of employees who lost their jobs for refusing to participate in 100% ineffective vaccines that have since resulted in tens of thousands of vaccine injuries. Let’s put on the seniors and sick who died alone in hospitals and retirement homes and all those that were denied pre-cancer screenings. Let’s put on the arrested pastors, business owners, and citizens. Let’s put on the constant stream of lies from both elected and unelected officials. Let’s put on the unjustified use of the emergency act, and the trampled and tear-gassed protestors.

In the interest of proportionality, let’s stack alllllll this up against — three weeks of peaceful protest. Could anyone in their right mind, not blinded by ideology, conclude that the truckers are the real villains here? It’s as if a pyromaniac were to burn down a row of houses and the homeowners who started shouting for help were found guilty of mischief. The problem isn’t the homeowners. The problem is the nutjob firebug and his merry band of patrons.

I can’t tell you how long the judge prattled on about “proportionality” when, literally, I have never listened to anyone more oblivious to the principle of proportionality in my life.

A poignant and telling moment came post sentencing when Chris asked the judge if he would be allowed to go and shovel his parents driveway. Here is your villain, Canada. Here are the kinds of people we punish. A man who stands with his hands folded meekly in front of him, after being dragged through the courts like a dog, and his response is to ask if he is allowed to help his parents. Oh, he can? And Tamara can visit her grandchildren? How gracious of you. Really, you’re too kind.

Tamara is, rightly, seeking to appeal both her conviction and her sentencing. Is this, as I’ve read in several places, an expression of ungratefulness? Shouldn’t she just be happy that she doesn’t have to go to jail? No. The fact remains that Tamara and Chris did nothing wrong. Their conduct was blameless, in a situation fraught with volatility. To accept guilt, to offer remorse, when you did nothing wrong, isn’t just unnecessary. It’s blatantly wrong. It’s to tell a lie. I would understand if Tamara opted out of any more process because she is sick of judicial forays with a morally bereft justice system. But I am glad she isn’t.

Because this isn’t just about her. It is about permitting an evil precedent. It is about upholding the need for honest and due process not just for Tamara, but for every Canadian who is ever arrested unlawfully. To allow the courts to arbitrarily assign guilt and sentences is to allow tyranny, and to open the door to yet more, on less basis, in the future.

Proverbs 17:15 is clear that “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” Sadly, we have become accustomed to both in Canada. A government and its pet judges exonerate and award their overreach as heroic, life-saving, and necessary. These same powers condemn and harass those citizens who sacrifice their lives and livelihoods for the objective good of others.

It is not simply unjust. It is an abomination.