portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements oregon & cascadia

forest defense

Report on the Last Court Appearance of the 2 Jailed Canadian Activists, Betty & Jen

i nfo. from:
 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/sc/Judges/Scjudges.htm
The hearing was presided over by: The Honourable Patrick D. Dohm Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
a.. Appointed Supreme Court Justice May 15, 1980
b.. Appointed Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court February 7,1995


The Attorney General's office was represented by Simon Richards, for the crown.

Counsel for Betty and Jen was A. Cameron Ward.

The judge started by saying that the presence of Betty and Jen was not
required inthe courtroom.Then he requested Richards (crown) to summarize the case.

Then Mr. Ward spoke. He said his clients had been injail 51 days and over, that their trial was not for another six weeks and that continued
incarceration was completely unacceptable. He was requesting their release on a promise to appear.

Dohm said that he might be able to bring the trial date up to the 11th of August. Dohm asked if B & J were willing to sign the undertaking that Mr.
Justice Pitfield had worded in the July 8 appearance.

Mr. Ward replied that he had not had a chance to ask his clients about that.

Dohm said that if they don't sign the undertaking they'll be staying in jail and that the proceeding was dismissed until 2:00 PM that same day so
that counsel might consult with clients.

The court reconvened at 2:00 PM. Mr. Ward stated that Betty Krawczyk and Jen Bradley refused to sign the undertaking and that he had been instructed
to enter a guilty plea for Jen Bradley and indicated her desire to proceed with sentencing.

Mr. Justice Dohm said he would proceed with Betty's case first. He stated that the courts make a great effort to avoid having protesting cases
come under the criminal law. Then he looked at Cameron Ward and said, "but of course I must be preaching to the converted."

Cameron seemed to be speechless at that point. A few minutes later Mr. Ward found a respectful way to inform the judge that he felt that protesting
cases should be handled under the criminal code and handling them by way of injunction and the resulting contempt of court proceedings was
discriminatory and punitive of free expression and that he intended to challenge those procedures under the charter.

Then Mr. Jusitce Dohm asked if everyone was happy with the trial date as the 11th of August. Richards (fro crown) stated that he had been handling
the case for so long and felt he should stay on it and that the was away on holiday until the 29th of August. He also stated that Mr Jusitce
Pitfield had instructed him he would have to produce all of his testimonies as affidavits and this would take some time.

There was a great deal of back and forth at the end of which, it was agreed that Betty's trial would begin on the 8th of September, 2003.

The sheriffs were asked to bring Jen into the courtroom.

Cameron Ward said that his client, Jen Bradley had never intended to challenge the jurisdiction of the court but that she felt her struggle
was political and was with the government's forest policies and large corporations and that as a member of the public she was protesting the
use of her publicly owned forests (paraphrased).

Mr. Ward stated that Jen had already served 51 days and that time servedwould be more than the acceptable sentence for a first offence. He also
stated that no probation was necessary and drew attention to several precedents including the Clayoquot trials where the greatest sentence
for a first offence was 39 days.

Richards spoke next saying the prosecution agreeable to time served but
felt that there would be a 2 year probationary period with a long list of retractions including not being within 200 meters of active logging.

Cameron then told that court that Jen had a statement that she wished to make to her own sentencing.

Mr. Justice Dohm said for Jen to go ahead with her statement.

The first thing Jen said to the court was that she reiterated what her counsel has already said, that she had never intended to disrespect the
court's authority.

SPEECH TO SENTENCING SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Jen Bradley 29 JULY 03

I would like to apologize to the court for my unfamiliarity with court proceedings. I thank you, sir, and the other Justices I have stood
before, for the patience shown and guidance given since my arrest for alleged civil contempt on May 8, 2003, when, I blockaded the clear-cutting of trees in the old growth forest of the Walbran.

My counsel, Mr. Ward, has informed me of this opportunity to speak to my own sentencing. Permit me to acknowledge my thankfulness for the greatness of our nation, Canada, especially in the area of rule of law. By the honourable Bill Graham, Canada's foreign minister, I am told that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the envy of many peoples in the process of nation building.

As we speak, my most influential mentor, Nobel Laureate, Daw Aung Suu Kyi languishes illegally imprisoned by a brutal dictatorship somewhere
inside Burma. I know that it is the hope for rule of law for Burma's people, that keeps her going. I understand, clearly, how important this civility
is, especially for women, this rule of law that creates such a precious peace among us all, here in our diverse Canada.

Since my arrest I have come to a broader understanding, I now believe, that the Supreme Court of British Columbia is NOT the ideal forum for the
legal challenge I feel morally compelled to make against the illegal destruction of our irreplaceable rainforests and our invaluable, life-giving
watersheds. For this reason, to assist the convenience of the court in bringing the present matter to rapid closure, I have entered, through my counsel,
Mr.Ward, a guilty plea to the charge of criminal contempt of court. In regards to my sentence I place myself upon the mercy, the sense of equity and
justice of this court.

I ask the courts forbearance to explain why a woman of 48 years, a mother of three and grandmother of the same, who has lived 48 years without the
slightest brush with the law, save to benefit from its protection, why am I now standing before you for sentencing?

Sir, I have been in prison a total of 51 days since my arrest on May 8, 2003. My singular purpose has been to arouse the conscience of the
community over the injustice of arrest by injunction of environmentalists and human rights activists such as my colleague, Betty, and myself.
And, sir, I believe that we are, in our actions, expressing the highest respect for the law of our beloved Canada. When Mr. Justice Pitfield reworded the
Hayes injunction to direct arrest of violators under the criminal code I perceived this as a much welcome remedy to a very unfair status quo.

In November 2002 the United Nations declared drinking water a human right. By 2025, 22 short years from now, the U.N. estimates 2/3 of the world's
population will be living in water stressed conditions. In geography class I was taught that Canada has 3/4 of the world's fresh water. I submit
to this court today, that all the powers of denial cannot change the truth, if we cut down all the ancient rainforests, permanently debilitate the
watersheds and allow the transfer of stewardship of the land to corporate interests then we deserve what comes next.

Only one question remains: will it be NEMINE CONTRADICENTE (with no one dissenting?).

I thank the court for its patient indulgence.

After her statement Dohm gave his sentence, time served and one year of probation, reducing the conditions of the probation as keeping the
peace, being of good behaviour and not participating in illegal logging protests.

After Jen signed the probation agreement, she received her copy and was released from custody. Betty was returned to Burnaby Correctional
Centre for Women where she awaits further court appearances and her trial set for September 8, 2003.
more info 02.Aug.2003 12:52

reposting

Betty & Jen are still in jail!
by Janine Thursday July 17, 2003 at 01:49 PM
 peaceandjustice@acts.bc.ca

Betty & Jen aren't the only women charged as criminals for their efforts to save the wilderness - there are two stories here, one about four native women arrested similarly.

This came from Stephen Bradley, Jen's husband.
 valjean@shaw.ca

*******************************************

Betty and Jen are so thankful for all the messages of support. It means a lot to them.

THE HEARING --

The hearing on Tuesday the 9th of July was preceeded by a rally called for 9am. It didn't really get going until after 9:30. Marya came from Victoria with the banner. Kate and Doran came from Duncan. A dozen or more Vancouver supporters gathered. lots of radio reporters were there and a couple of TV cameras.

The hearing was ruled over by Mr. Justice Ian H. Pitfield. Cameron Ward represented Betty and Jen. Simon Richards represented the Crown Provincial. Pitfield had demanded that the crown come prepared to make a decision regarding whether or not to charge for the May 8th arrest. (The June 24th arrest will be tried separately). Richards stated that the crown will press charges on both cases.

Ward stated that he had not had meaningful time to talk to his clients and asked for an adjournment. Richards agreed and the judge allowed 15 min.

There were about 30 supporters in the audience, including Women in the Woodsers Mary, Kate and Doran. Also Andrea Reimer of the Vancouver Green Party, Joe Foy of the Vancouver WCWC, and Judy Koltai from the Cassandra Project in Victoria. Jen's son Dan and granddaughter Maggie and cousin Vanessa were there as well as several other family and friends. Son-in-law Matt who put up 300 posters in Vancouver with his brother Sam. Several media representatives were there taking notes.

Court returned to session and Ward stated that he had not seen a copy of the crown submission until this morning. He stated that the document does not clearly state that the crown intends to prosecute. He called it a "nullity". He stated that Betty had been held for 19 days without a charge (Jen for 14) on the May 8th arrest. And both had been held for 14 days on the June 24th arrest, all of which would be illegal under the criminal code. He said that crown land forest roads are public roads and public has the right to use. Public forests are public property. Use of injunction accompanied with contempt of court charges is an anachronism, a carry-over from the tactics that were used to suppress the struggle to form labour unions early in the 20th century. The process is abusive. He quoted Justice Mac Ewan on May 28th, 2003 referring to the procedure as "officially induced abuse of process."

Ward said that in Law 101 we learn about the separation of duties in the justice system. Police arrest, crown prosecutes, defense defends, and the judge rules impartially. However in this case, Betty was in jail for 33 days and Jen for 28 days with no charge of breaking any law. The Attorney General instructs the police not to arrest, forcing the logging company to seek a court injunction, leading to contempt of court charges. The court is forced into the position of authorizing the arrest, charging and its impartiality is manifestly destroyed.

Ward called far a stay of proceedings without his clients being held in jail.

If the trial was to go ahead, the following applications will be made:
1. An order that the Attorney General of British Columbia be added as a party to the proceedings, either as a complainant or as an intervenor.
2. An application under Rowbotham that the AG provide funding so that the clients can retain legal counsel.
3. An application to stay or dismiss the proceedings as it constitutes an abuse of the court's process (under the MacEwan ruling)
4. Application to stay or dismiss the allegations based on breaches of of Betty and Jen's rigjhts and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sections 7,8, and perhaps 2, 10, 11, 12)
5. Application that the trial be conducted by a judge sitting with a jury. He stated that Mac Blo and Simpson was no longer applicable. He pointed out that Betty may well face a sentence of over 5 years.
6. Possible applications for further and better disclosure.

Ward stated that if the trial should proceed, we should have an adjournment for at least 8 weeks to prepare for applications and agree on an order of the applications and the likely time required for the case. It is unfair and contrary to the charter and inappropriate for the accussed to remain in custody prior to the trial.

Richards said he was just aware of the applications today and needs time to prepare proper submissions. Re: application #5 he stated that Betty appealed and was released on time served (4 mo.). He said the crown was willing to review the custody.

Pitfield stated that the focus is on members of the public willing to utterly disregard lawfully issued court orders, not appealled and not set aside. Application for a stay is dismissed. Necessity that citizens understand court orders not to be lightly disregarded. He agreed the use of injunctions was a matter of concern with the public as well as with the courts. He stated that the use of contempt of court had been upheld by the Court of Appeal (this is the mega-precedent for these guys).

Pitfield said the situation appears to pit the court against a citizen. But this is not the case. The court is upholding the right to use property in a lawful manner. (A young woman said quietly, "you mean corporate property"). And the rights of others to use property in a lawful manner. And the requirement to respect the law and the courts. Citizens should use civil and lawful means when they disagree with policies.

Pitfield said the Rowbotham application coule be heard before the trial and all the others could be heard during the trial. (He later realized that the Application #1 would also have to be heard before the trial.) (Jen tells me that both will be heard on Aubust 12th and the trial itself will begin in the third week of September).

Pitfield said that the application for a jury trial will be denied as there is no substance to the request.

Pitfield said the court is not taking sides. It is preserving respect for law. "I will control this court's process and no one else." He demanded the crown to have the AG serve on Betty and Jen a notice of motion that they are charged with contempt of court (thus admitting Ward's claim that the crown's submission was a "nullity") and to serve with it affadavits of crown witnesses. Crown witnesses will not be permitted to tender evidence except by those affadavits. Proponents of the affadavits to be cross-examined by the defence. Betty and Jen may address Justice Beams injunction and allegations of breach pure and simple. "This will not be turned into a circus." 2 days should be plenty of time, maybe a little more for all the applications.

Pitfield referred to the "inherent jurisdiction of the court" to justify his right to alter the wording of the injunction at will. (This shows the chaos of the whole contempt of court proceedings which have no basis in legislation or constitution and where each justice does what they please). He amended the injunction to remove the names of Betty and Jen although pointing out that it still covered them. He inserted wording to emphasize that they would remain liable for prosecution for any offense under the criminal code of Canada or BC.

He then said he would state his reasons. He said civil disobedience is not civil it is criminal conduct. (Whew! Biased or what?) He said that the court was not biased but was demanding that people respect democratic decisions and use lawful means to change them.

This was too much Bull Shit for one young woman who stood up and said "This is not a democracy. It is Corporate Rule. And you are serving them. I cannot stand to see you destroy my children's future, the forests, our water supply." or words to that effect. She was attending court with two young girls.

Pitfield ordered her removed and held in custody. The Sherrifs began to remove her and she said, "You can't take me without my children" and they continued to remove her anyway. Vanessa got up and brought the girls along. I went out also to see how she would be treated as did half of the audience. There was a great deal of shouting. Finally the girls were re-united with their mother who was held just outside. Finally she was given a warning and allowed back in for the remainder of the trial.

Meanwhile I missed the part where Pitfield tried to intimidate Betty and Jen by saying that if they were charged under the criminal code, they should be charged with "intimidation". (Yeah, like those women really scared the hell out of the logging trucks, didn't they?)

There was some haggling about the undertaking. Betty rose to speak and said that to promise not to protect the forest would be like abandonning her children and whe couldn't do it. The judge said that they would have to promise to appear, but would not have to promise to obey the conditions of their release, only that they had read and understood them and the consequences of a breach. There was a great deal of slapstick about the exact boundaries of the restricted area. In the final version Jen could have been charged for appearing at her credit union in Langford, and possibly even for living in her home. None of these goofs had a clue about Island geography.

But we all left the court thinking that Betty and Jen would be presented with something that they could sign and that they would sign it and be freed. Marya and I waited and waited. We made certain that Bety and Jen had been fed lunch. Around 3:30 the clerksaid that she had got the transcript of the judges words finally and was typing it and they should be freed very soon. She said that the wording was that they had read and understood the restriction, not that they would promise to abide by them. Shortly after she finished typing it, someone pulled a dirty trick and presented Betty and Jen with a false document that contained the promise to abide by the restrictions. So they refused and went back to jail. I finally at 5:45 forced the receptionist to call someone and find out what had happened. Then I found out and Marya and I went back to the Island.

Betty and Jen were told that they would have to come back to court today (Thursday) and that Cameron Ward would help them to negotiatie something that they could sign. By this time they had decided not to play these games and not to sign anything. They still had to go back to court. They were awakened at 5 am and were in the courthouse cells until 3:30 pm when they finally had a chance to tell the judge their decision. They had nothing to eat from 530am until 1 pm when Jen complained about being faint.

The women prisoners are routinely fed less well that the men. As they learn from the paddy wagon trips where food is a major item of conversation. The women's prison seems to be falling into dissarray from Campbell's Vandals and their cuts. Betty has her mattress on the floor of the cell that Jen is in, due to overcrowding. The breakfast food has gotten markedly worse lately. It took them a week to approve me to visit, even though they had just approved me a couple of weeks before. Papers and effects that I brought to Jen on Saturday she has still not received, even thouigh they were told that the papers were relevant to her defence. Now there is talk of closing down the open living unit, and having maybe three prisoners to a cell that should have only one, and several staff will be laid off. The whole facility is slated to be cut off in one year and moved to the Dewdney boonies.

Please continue to support Betty and Jen with you letters and e-mail notes. But please use your imaginations and do a lot more than that. Betty and Jen are not special or even specially courageous, they are just ordinary fearful epople like you and me, who have a clear view of what is happening in the world and of what they have to do about it. If we try to make them into specialists who can act on our behalf then we are undermining the principles of an empowered population that they are fighting for.

Sincerely, Stephen Bradley
 valjean@shaw.ca


MORE VICTORIES FOR WOMEN IN THE WOODS

Jen wanted me to send out a brief message highlighting the important victory that occurred at the 8th July hearing. Justice Pitfield reworded the injunction and also the undertakings in such a way a to instruct the RCMP or whatever relevant police to arrest under the criminal code if there are further civil disobedience actions. This is a major breakthrough. Persons engaging in civil disobedience will still be arrested, but under the criminal code and all the rules and protections it contains. Arrestees will have the right to explain their motivation, which is currently excluded from criminal contempt proceedings. The whole injunction and contempt of court procedure was invented by the Norman Vikings in the 12th century in their corporate take-over of the British Isles. It has no place in the "justice" system of a "democratic" society.

Let's not demonize any of the players here. They may well be serving a corrupt system, but they are also human beings like us who want to go home at night and sleep with a reasonably good conscience. They are just very good at lying to themselves, as are we all. That is why Truth Speaking is such a disturbing Act of Magic. The old Class War scenario is still being acted out by the rulers, but the divergence of interests that fuelled it is no longer a reality. Our interests are all the same now. We will all suffer or thrive together. There is no safe place for the exploiter to build their castle. We need to see every human being as a potential ally (if only they start to realize their own self-interest in common with the species and the planet).

NEW INTERACTIVE SITE FOR WOMEN IN THE WOODS MEMBERS

There is now a new interactive list-serve for Women in the Woods. As I understand it, if you are a woman and you want to be a Woman in the Woods, go to the website:  http://www3.telus.net/Womeninthewoods/intro.htm Click on "Vision" and read the Manifesto or Mission Statement and see if you are in essential agreement with the purposes of the organisation. If so, contact Women in the Woods and ask to be added to the list. If you are on the new listserve and don't want to receive duplicate messages via this list, please reply back to whoever is operating this non-interactive list and let them know. At the moment it is me, Stephen Bradley, on behalf of Jen, at  valjean@shaw.ca

VOLUNTEERS DESPERATELY NEEDED

Most Women in the Woods are coming and going to forest actions, classes, vacations, etc. There is a need for several people to be able to step into any position for a brief spell. Like operating the e- lists. Persons are needed who are willing to phone a few persons who do not have e-mail and keep them abreast of events. Etc., etc. I talk to almost everyone I meet. If we can find our won voice, it is free advertising.

Hello All,

I spoke to Jen tonight (Wednesday 9th July, 2003). It soon became apparant
that a whole series of dirty tricks and illegal procedures had been
perpetrated on her and Jen, frustrating the apparant purpose of the judge
and the "crown" prosecutor, that they be presented with an undertaking which
they could in good conscience sign. The good news about all this is that it
shows that the Criminals who masquerade as a government and their corporate
rulers are writhing in confusion and getting desperate. It is lose / lose
for them whether they go easy or hard on Betty and Jen. Their pure light of
truth is withering to the tissue of lies that keeps the people in
unnecessary subjection.

These gangs of robbers are getting very afraid as they see their end coming.
Plunder destroys the creative capacity of the community that is the victim,
so the plunderers move on to the next one. Now the whole world is being
plundered and there is nowhere to go. The destruction of the planet is
devastating many corporate industries. For instance the insurance industry
being devastated by the accelerating parade of weather disasters caused by
global warming. The only way to maintain their money addiction is to
squeeze the earth and her peoples even harder which brings the game toward
its end even quicker.

The whole house of cards is coming down fast and hard. The point of people
like Betty and Jen is to claim Power to the People NOW. Yes, Corporate Rule
will end soon anyway. But if we sit on the couch waiting for it to happen,
the Old Growth forests will be gone, the inevitable massive human disasters
will be even worse than necessary, and the people will not be prepared to
exercize democratic power and we slip into ever more local and dismal
war-lordism.

Please forgive me for preaching to the supposedly converted. I think very
few of us are willing to take a clear look at reality. None of us or our
families are immune to the ongoing history of the planet. We either make
that history or it will make our lives for us in a posssibly brutal fashion.

The people always rule. The most brutal dictatorship will fall to the
concerted will of the people. We can claim our power any time we want.
Look how two grandmothers send fear into the ranks of the "powerful". Why
don't we have 2000 grandmothers doing that. Why are so many like a chicken
hypnotised by the cobra, dumbly awaiting their fate?

Public opinion no longer means anything to pro-corporate governments. We
should have learned that from Mulroney. He left office as the most hated
man in Canada, with a big smile on his face. He was immediately on the
board of directors of at least 5 major USA corporations, laughing all the
way to the bank. Campbell is of the very same ilk. He wants to win the
next election, but his pay back does not depend on it. Huge demonstrations
mean nothing to him. They go home the same day. Only peaceful civil
disobedience frightens the corporate rulers. Other tactics may help educate
the people, but if they do not lead to peaceful civil disobedience then they
will have no effect on the new-style corporate "democracy".

Lets remember that Hitler attained office by a democratic process. The
people who murdered the disabled, Communists, Gypsies, Jews, etc. were
obeying the law! Many of them were executed after the war for obeying the
law. IT IS A CRIME TO OBEY A LAW WHICH VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
Adequate clean food, shelter, clean water, clean air, education, health
care, the means to live a dignified life: These are fundamental human
rights and have been declared so by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which was drafted to make sure that the Hitler atrocities would NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN. This document has been signed as a treaty by almost every
country on the planet, and disobeyed by all. One of the key agreements was
that school children would be taught the contents of the Universal
Declaration. How many of you learned that in school?

You know, "democracy" does not make evil ok. If the majority elect a
fascist and the majority want to commit genocide, it is still a crime to
acquiesce in that. In fact, the majority of British Columbians do NOT want
to see all the rest of the unprotected Old Growth forests destroyed as
rapidly as possible. This is of no interest to our government which can in
no way be described as democratic. Our system is not working. It is badly
broken. The answer is not to throw it out for some sort of anarchy which
will degenerate into thuggery similar to what we already have. The
PRINCIPLE OF PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is to reclaim our institutions, to
call them back to their legitimate role. That is why Betty and Jen are
willing to accept a punishment for breaking the law the same as a
non-political person who blocked a road (but not more). They are showing
the utmost respecct for the court by attempting to use it to cry out for
justice. The contempt of court is shown by biased judges.

Many people are afraid to get arrested because of their career plans. Get
real! The old gravy train offered by the system will not be there for
anyone in the very near future. The bad old ways are up against the wall.
They have nothing more to offer. People with principled criminal records
will be at the top of the hiring list in the very near future.

There are many other ways to support. How many phone calls did you make
last week to support Betty and Jen? To media, to civil liberty and
environmental organisations? Don't leave anything to experts, there aren't
any.

Betty and Jen are so thankful for all the messages of support. It means a
lot to them.


Stephen Bradley

MAIL TO THE PRISON

Their mailing addresses are:

Betty Krawczyk
(CS# 037 939 24)
c/o BCCW
7900 Fraser Park Drive
Burnaby, BC V5J 5H1
Canada

and

Jen Bradley
(CS# 057 454 68)
c/o BCCW
7900 Fraser Park Drive
Burnaby, BC V5J 5H1
Canada


From: "Status of Women Action Group" < swag@pacificcoast.net>
Victoria Status of Women Action Group (SWAG)
 swag@pacificcoast.net
250-383-7322 (ph) 250-388-0100 (fax)
Box 8484, Victoria BC, V8W 3S1

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~


10. BETTY & JEN TIMES FOUR

Women Found Guilty


June 20, 2002

Four Secwepemc women, including a 75 year old Elder, were found
guilty of intimidation when they blocked a road leading into what is
known as the Sun Peaks Ski Resort on December 28, 2001.

Judge Dohm ruled that the Secwepemc believed they had an asserted
moral right but did not believe they had a legal right to conduct
this action.

The Secwepemc defended their actions by bringing up the legal rights
they have always known they had since the first occupation of their
territories. The Judge based his decision on his EuroCanadian views
held by the Canadian judicial system that we have no legal rights,
despite many precedent setting court decisions.


We hold the ultimate legal and moral right: no signed treaties, no
sale of our lands, and no extinguishment of our lands.

The Government of Canada and British Columbia continue to use the
criminal court system and RCMP to alienate us from our inherent land
and cultural rights (hunting, fishing) and absolutely refuses to
acknowledge these rights.

We vow to continue our actions in any way we see fit to assert our
Secwepemc Title and Rights to our unceded Secwepemc territories.

We call on all indigenous peoples of Turtle Island to stand up for
their rights and fundamental freedoms and help us do so.

For more inform:
Janice Billy  jrbilly@mail.ocis.net 250-679-3295
Arthur Manuel  artmanuel@earthlink.net 250-319-0688


From: "Sunshine" < sunshine@macn.bc.ca>


Hooray! 03.Aug.2003 20:17

Eva

Hooray! Wonderful speech, Jen. I hope you're in the outside world and reading this. I learned of Barbara from my friends in Vancouver, BC a few years ago and was deeply inspired as an activist by the film footage I saw of her. The words of truth which flowed from her mouth as if channelled directly from the heavens were eloquent and didn't stop as she was read her rights. It brings tears to my eyes each time I tell the story. I will attempt to come up from Portland for Barbara's hearing.

Peace.