Judge rules RCMP remarks racist, but B.C. pipeline protesters' convictions will stand
Justice Michael Tammen said in a ruling delivered in Smithers, B.C., on Tuesday that his findings of state misconduct don't warrant a stay of proceedings against the women, but they and another protester will get a reduction in their sentences for criminal contempt as an "appropriate" remedy.
Tammen said audio recordings captured police laughing and comparing the women protesters to "orcs" from The Lord of the Rings.
He said the racist comments breached the Charter rights of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chief Sleydo' Molly Wickham and Shaylynn Sampson who were arrested by the RCMP on Wet'suwet'en territory near Houston, B.C.
Coastal Gas Link got an injunction to continue its pipeline construction, and police moved in on blockaders in November 2021, making numerous arrests.
Wickham, Sampson and a man who also participated in the blockade, Corey Jocko, were convicted of criminal contempt for breaking the injunction in January 2024, but they applied to have the case stayed alleging "systemic misconduct by the police during the injunction enforcement."
They claimed the misconduct was an abuse of process, and wanted the charges tossed over alleged breaches of their Charter rights due to racist comments by police, excessive force and warrantless entry of two structures used by protesters during the blockade.
Tammen said Slaydo and journalist Amber Bracken had recording devices on them that were seized by police during their arrests, but the devices kept recording after being placed in police vehicles.
The devices captured conversations between police officers that referred to Slaydo and Sampson "in highly offensive and clearly racist terms," Tammen said.
The judge said both women had red hand prints painted on their faces, "a symbol of respect and solidarity" with missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
He said officers were recorded comparing the women to "orcs," and laughing about the comparisons.
The judge agreed with the defence that the police officers' "comments were grossly offensive, racist and dehumanizing," and amounted to a breach of their Charter rights.
"Those comments undermine the integrity of the judicial process," Tammen said.
The judge found that there was no evidence that racist attitudes were "encouraged or condoned" by police leadership, two of whom were "genuinely shocked and disgusted by the comments made by their fellow officers."
Tammen also rejected claims that police used excessive force or employed "unnecessary resources" to dismantle the blockade because they didn't know exactly what they were up against.
"The police were unaware of the number of protesters they might encounter," Tammen said. "They were not engaged in a simple peaceful demonstration akin to a sit-in, but rather wanton destruction of property, including vehicles and infrastructure. Police did not know if the protesters were armed nor if they were violent."
Tammen said that criminal contempt carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, but those convicted typically receive short sentences.
"The offending conduct here was serious. It involved the calculated, prolonged and well organized attack on a court order," he said. "The actions of the accused were a clear attack on the rule of law."
"Criminal contempt by its very nature poses a threat to the rule of law, without which there would be anarchy."
The case will be back in court on April 3 to fix a date for sentencing.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 18, 2025.
Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to jail Beto O'Rourke, claiming the former Democratic congressman violated a court order by fundraising to support the dozens of state Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state amid its redistricting battle. The attorney general's request builds on a previous order, granted by a Texas county judge earlier this month, barring O'Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, from raising money to help fund the Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state more than a week ago. Paxton claimed in his filing to the Tarrant County court on Aug. 12 that O'Rourke violated the fundraising block by soliciting donations through the Democrats' ActBlue platform. "He's about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said in a statement released alongside the filing. "It's time to lock him up." Paxton's move is the latest in growing escalations between Democrats and Republicans in the Lone Star state, as the standoff over GOP attempts to redraw congressional boundaries in Texas. The redistricting attempt could add another five Republican seats to Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and is seen as blatant gerrymandering efforts by Democrats. In response, Democrats decamped the state en masse, many taking refuge in blue-led states like Illinois and New York, to prevent the vote from taking place in Austin, Texas, where the Republicans' firm majority would all but guarantee the revised maps pass. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have fled while Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to oust them from office over their absence, arguing they abandoned their seats. Texas redistricting: Which states have threatened to redraw their own maps in response to Texas GOP plans? In the first sentence of the court filing, Paxton quoted the former congressman at an Aug. 9 Fort Worth event saying: "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules," claiming O'Rourke was "disparaging' the previous court order. In response, O'Rourke posted the full clip of his speech at the event to X, saying that Paxton took his words out of context in the filing. In the full recorded video of the speech, O'Rourke is speaking about the Democrats' attempts to put forward their own revised maps in states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois, telling the crowd that blue states should redistrict now and "not wait for Texas to move first." "You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules,'" O'Rourke says immediately after speaking about the Democrats' redistricting efforts. "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules, we are going to win. Whatever it takes, we are going to take this to them in every way that we can." O'Rourke said in his post on X on Aug. 12 that the attorney general's office lied in its filing. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office," he said. "Taking the fight directly to this corrupt, lying thug." Along with jail time, the attorney general is also requesting O'Rourke be held in contempt and fined $500. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Good government group backtracks amid redistricting fight, won't oppose efforts ‘counterbalancing' Texas
In the statement, Common Cause said it will not endorse partisan gerrymandering in any case, but is deciding now to not condemn actions taken by states like California given the context of Trump's efforts to 'lock in unaccountable power and silence voters.' 'In this grave moment, we understand why some states, including California, are considering counterbalancing measures in response,' the statement said. 'We will not endorse partisan gerrymandering even when its motive is to offset more extreme gerrymandering by a different party.' 'But a blanket condemnation in this moment would amount to a call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian efforts to undermine fair representation and people-powered democracy,' the statement continued. As recently as last week, Common Cause's website featured a pop-up fundraising appeal equating Texas Republicans' redistricting push to Newsom, who they said is 'attempting to copy the GOP's playbook to boost his profile.' And a July 24 edition of Common Cause's 'Watchdog' newsletter said Newsom and other Democrats who 'claimed Democrats should fire back, gerrymandering in states they can' are 'wrong' and that 'all of it is anti-democratic.' A spokesperson for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Common Cause is a decades-old watchdog group that has advocated for good governance reform like independent redistricting and campaign finance limits. It was on the losing side of the 2019 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause, where the organization sued in an effort to block a gerrymandered North Carolina congressional map. A conservative majority of justices ruled that federal courts could not police partisan gerrymandering. California has yet to officially propose any new lines, but new maps could yield Democrats five additional friendly districts in the state. If approved, California's new maps could offset the nationwide push by Trump and Republican allies to draw new maps in states beyond Texas. The Texas map could yield as many as five red seats, and the White House has spoken to Republicans in Indiana, Florida and Missouri as part of their push. Common Cause said any partisan mid-cycle redistricting proposal must meet a set of criteria to ensure they are as fair as possible to avoid their condemnation. New redistricting efforts must be 'proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states,' approved by voters, and expire once the 2030 census takes effect. The group said it will condemn any proposals that dilutes voting power for non-white voters, and is calling on leaders to endorse independent redistricting and other voting rights measures first passed by House Democrats after the 2018 midterms and then unsuccessfully brought back up again during the Biden administration.
