Montreal’s Jaggi Singh, one of dozens of community organizers arrested even before last summer’s G20 protests began, has launched a constitutional challenge against his bail conditions.
Although most of his co-accused have had similar restrictions imposed on their actions and movements, Singh, a noted anti-globalization and social justice activist, is the first to take the constitutional route.
He is to appear Wednesday in Ontario Superior Court, with the support of PEN Canada which is intervening in his case, citing that Singh’s right to freedom of expression has been violated.
“The conditions are being used in a very exaggerated punitive way to simply make the process of being charged the actual punishment,’’ said Singh, who faces charges of conspiracy to commit mischief and conspiracy to assault and obstruct police.
Aside from $85,000 in bail, Singh’s conditions for release include staying away from organizing or participating in any demonstrations, not associating with any of his co-accused, house arrest, the inability to use any wireless device and not possessing a passport.
“I do a monthly (community) radio show and I have a condition that prevents me from using a wireless device: Am I using a wireless device?’’ Singh said on the phone from Montreal. “The transmitter on top of Mount Royal is the ultimate wireless device. Am I allowed to use a laptop with wireless Internet?’’
Among his many concerns, he said, is that the conditions are subject to arbitrary interpretation, as co-accused Alex Hundert discovered in September when he was arrested for participating in a university panel discussion.
As for the right to freedom of expression, PEN said: “Preventing someone from participating in a public demonstration does nothing to ensure the safety of a single Canadian. On the contrary, the practice of censorship harms the rights of all Canadians and is repugnant to any society that values its right to freedom of expression.”
“There is a constitutional right to a reasonable bail,’’ said Singh’s lawyer, Peter Rosenthal. “We’re saying that the bail conditions were entirely unreasonable.
“That in our view clearly violates freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to lawful assembly. There’s no possible justification for any such condition in our view.”
