A pipeline protester’s argument that an act of civil disobedience he committed was necessary to prevent a greater evil has “no air of reality,” a B.C. judge ruled Thursday.
The novel “defence of necessity” had previously been tried by anti-abortion and anti-logging protesters, typically without success. But in the United States, a recent court ruling in Massachusetts breathed new life into the defence when a group of climate protesters was cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
Thursday’s decision in B.C. Supreme Court centred on Tom Sandborn, a veteran social justice, labour and environmental activist, who is one of about 180 protesters arrested in recent weeks for blocking the gates at Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion project in Burnaby, B.C. He was charged with criminal contempt of court after he allegedly violated a court-ordered injunction designed to keep protesters at bay.
This week, Sandborn asked for permission from Judge Kenneth Affleck that he be allowed to argue at his upcoming trial that the blockade was necessary because it served a greater good. Allowing the transport of “vile, filthy, polluting bitumen” from Alberta to B.C. and to Asian markets, he argued, violated First Nations treaty rights and endangered the environment and public safety.
Douglas Quan – National Post – May 10, 2018.
Want More Investigative Content?
