Dear Justice Review Task Force Member,

I am deeply concerned over the continued use of civil injunctions (Eagleridge Bluffs, May 2006) by the Courts of British Columbia as a means of upholding the financial rights of private corporations in land disputes, while stifling public concern over the irreparable harm being done to the environment at the hand of our government.

BC is one of the few jurisdictions where injunctions are used routinely to control public protest over government sanctioned environmental destruction. This 'Made in BC' solution avoids democratic resolution through consultation and/or mediation, and avoids the use of Canadian law under the Criminal Code when dealing with unlawful activity. Mischief, obstruction, trespassing and the like are all enshrined in statutory law, yet BC courts continue to avoid using the Criminal Code, instead relying on ad hoc rulings of individual judges.

The Supreme Court of BC has recognized many times over that injunctions are powerful tools that should only be used as a last resort when other statutory remedies have failed. Why then does injunctive relief continue to be granted as a first line of defence against protesters when statutory measures have NOT been attempted and public safety is NOT threatened? And why does 'irreparable harm' only pertain to the potential financial loss of a corporation and not to the imminent destruction of irreplaceable ecosystems?

The use of injunctions deny protesters the basic rights every other citizen is afforded under Canadian Law--to defend their actions in court, to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in their defense, to be tried by a jury. A basic tenant of Canadian justice is that citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet when police videotape confessions prior to arrest under injunctions (documenting that each protester is knowingly violating a court order), the courts are provided with sufficient evidence as defined under contempt of court rules to convict. This procedure makes a mockery of the expensive trial process that follows and undermines the principles of fair and equitable treatment under the law.

While violations of court orders may be seen by the court as a direct attack on its authority, it is not the intention of protesters. Their issue is with government. The court, in placing its authority between citizens and government, transforms land disputes (and possible charges under the Criminal Code) into issues of compliance with court orders (and charges of contempt of court). This results in more severe sentencing relative to penalties under the Criminal Code as the judiciary responds to a perceived attack on the rule of law rather than to the protesters intent of holding their government accountable, even to the extent of violating statutory law.

Inflated sentencing was evident in all of the sentences handed down to Eagleridge Bluffs protesters by Justice Brenda Brown in early 2007, but of particular concern is the continued use of incarceration by BC courts to punish and/or deter protesters from defying court orders in future. In the case of Eagleridge Bluffs, two elderly women were sentenced to jail. One of the women, 71 year old native elder Harriet Nahanee, was held in a pre-trial facility for her entire sentence, became gravely ill and died shortly after being released from prison. The other, 79 year old environmental activist Betty Krawczyk, is currently serving a 10 month jail sentence for peacefully demonstrating against the destruction of a rare and unique area of BC.

Under no circumstances should courts in a democratic country be incarcerating protesters involved in peaceful non-violent protest. If British Columbia is intent on criminalizing public dissent, it must do so under the Criminal Code of Canada so that, at the very least, its citizens receive full protection under Canadian law.

As environmental issues grow in importance for British Columbians, the continued use of civil injunctions will needlessly place the court's authority in the crossfire between citizens and their government (or corporations acting on their behalf). It is the duty of the government, not the courts, to find an acceptable balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. I implore BC's Justice Review Task Force to review the manner in which BC's courts continue to intervene in BC land disputes. Changes are imperative if the public's respect for BC's judicial system is to be maintained.

Go to http://www.eagleridgebluffs.ca/initiatives/injunction.php to send the letter.