Thursday, September 23, 2010

Betty Krawczyk's Sept 22 hearing

See update to post below.

I am so not a lawyer but if you have any questions about yesterday's hearing, leave them under that post and I'll try to answer them as best I can and then maybe people with a better grasp of law will come along and fix them up.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for this, Alison.
You say that Betty is attempting to address the criminalization of dissent but then you also say this sentence appeal does not allow for this to happen.

Alison said...

Right. The judge, one of three, warned Betty at the outset that this hearing had "no jurisdiction to rehear her conviction". Betty mostly stuck to this restriction, citing cases which supported her argument that she should have not received more than 6 months, but on several occasions she also veered off into the larger theme of the use of civil courts to undermine Charter rights :

"Law evolves. The law is not gonna fall over because people protest. Everything in the Charter is there to address regulations for civil disobedience. My actions are indeed "open, continuous, and flagrant." When I was born, in 1928, I was not even considered a person under the law. The law evolves."

What was needed today was a lot of press coverage of these important matters and it just didn't happen.

Note : Jodie Emery, a big supporter of Betty, was there in the front row even though she obviously had other pressing personal matters on her mind.

Anonymous said...

The term you were trying to remember the other day was "accumulated convictions".

and 2 of the 3 judges listening to Betty's appeal would not be persons today, let alone lawyers that grow up to be judges if a lot of women had not stood up to the law, marched together in protest and dissent, gone to the British Parliament to get the laws changed.


Alison said...

kd! Thanks, that was indeed it, and an excellent point as well.

Brilliant to see you. I know you're massively busy but keep me posted, will you?

Blog Archive