Tuesday, February 12, 2013

The Charges Laid

So what are the charges Marty is facing?

First, a recap:
  1. A week before his incarceration on Thursday, Marty made very clear his intention to continue peaceably challenging the university's demand that he stay off campus, Marty finding such a demand contrary to his rights.
  2. After several arrests resulting in tickets for trespassing (a summary offence), including one occasion on which he was held for six hours, and another that included rough handling by city police, Marty offered terms of engagement that would de-escalate the character of these encounters: upon being requested to leave the campus, he would do so, and would stay away for the remainder of that day; and, police could send him a ticket, thereby reducing time and expense incurred by all parties: his own, campus security, and city police.
  3. The university responded to this offer by threatening to charge him with the "Criminal Code offence of mischief instead of an offence under the Petty Trespass Act" if he returns. (That's a direct quote, and note the phrase instead of.)
When Marty went before the judge the day after his arrest, he learned that he was facing three charges:
  1. Trespassing
  2. (Criminal) Mischief
  3. (Criminal) Forcible Entry
So, unlike recent well-known acts of protest, acts which resulted in delays or rerouting of highway traffic and which did not elicit any arrest, Marty is now facing criminal charges.

Now, I have to say that in regard to conventional non-criminal mischief, there's not a lot of people I've met that might reasonably be accused of it more -- in a court of public opinion, and on a thousand different occasions -- than Marty Green of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

But he was leafletting.

And Forcible Entry? Say, what? Did the university lawyers confer with the university physicists to establish that some minimal Newtons of force must have been applied to the campus door in pushing it open (at 10 a.m. on a normal class day)? But, wait! Aren't they electric doors? OK, well, then his actions resulted in a magnetic force.

It's still a force. And it was used for entry. Criminally.


  1. Why are you supporting this nut job? You can't seriously think he's in the right on any of this, can you?

  2. Forcible entry under the Canadian criminal code usually means that someone enters the property of another with "in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace." So basically, if he was on property to stir up trouble in any way (which he admits that he was), then he has broken this law. Forcible doesn't necessarily mean a physical force.

    Criminal mischief can include an action that "obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property." This also includes general disruption and disruption that is focused on an individual or individuals. This one is a little less clear cut, but the argument can easily be made that the changes in security detail at the university, and the disruptive episodes resulting in detainment meet this criteria.

    The fact that he was trespassing is self evident.

  3. Both posters make great points. Please stop posting skewed accounts full of ignorant self serving interpretations of the law.

  4. It's sad when a person who is trying to make himself out to be the victim/hero (or supporting a friend), but comes out as a nut instead.

    Marty and Niel both make Marty out to be the bad guy in all this. Marty is presented as abrasive and confrontational, causing the problems rather than responding to injustice, then making himself out to be a victim. This is self-apparent in his own writings, not the result of propaganda against him.

    This blog is not getting anyone (with a possible few exceptions who don't actually post about it) on Marty's side, It's helping him dig his own grave.

  5. I disagree, Marty is a hero in my humble opinion. Without people like Marty people like you would still be telling people like me to"SIT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS"


    1. I find that analogy to be in very poor taste. Not only is the idea of comparing this man to Rosa Parks inaccurate, it is also offensive. What he is doing is entirely self-serving and narrow-minded. Let's drop the righteous indignation (because, frankly, it's nauseating) and look at this for what it is - he was justifiably removed from a professional program for clear breaches of professional code of practice. All of this - the hearings, the trespassing, the litigation - has been reactionary, to inflict as much discomfort on the people who exercised their professional judgement as possible. It is petty, ignoble, and tiresome. To imply that this is, in any way, equatable to Rosa Parks' actions is deplorable.

      This is far less a meaningful protest as it is a combative reaction to having to abide by expectations that are not his own. Classroom teaching, as it is, is not a viable choice for this man right now. This senseless quest for a Pyrrhic victory should end.