by Denise Cordova and Nicole Oliver
The dedicated community organizer, Julian Ichim from Kitchener-Waterloo, appeared in court on September 30 facing charges held against him for blogging about his personal experiences with an undercover police officer in the year that lead up to the Toronto G20 protests. Arguments were put forward that the charges should be dismissed because the Crown is over-prosecuting the case.
Julian Ichim is a 33-year-old former University of Waterloo student. He has been a community activist and organizer for over a decade, positively changing the communities he has worked with. He started one of the first youth-run youth drop-in centers in Kitchener, assisted in creating youth harm reduction programs, coordinated addictions programs and anti-poverty initiatives, helped run free food programs, among an exhaustive list of initiatives.
But his strong political and social conscience has come at a high price.
In light of the G20 Summit in Toronto from June 26-27, 2010 many activist groups prepared to take that opportunity to protest under the banner of various causes, including fighting poverty and capitalism. So for a year and a half prior to the Summit, undercover police infiltrated protest groups planning G20 demonstrations. In Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph, two undercover officers, started spending time with activists and Ichim unwittingly became friends with one of the undercover officers. That is, until he was arrested on June 26, 2010 hours before the G20 Summit even began. He was charged with conspiracy to commit mischief. Ichim never received the police synopsis (police version of what happened and why he was charged) nor was he told where or when he allegedly counseled or conspired to commit indictable offenses. These charges were later dropped.
Ichim was not able to speak publicly about his brutal arrest on June 26, being persecuted for his Marxist political ideology, nor about his feelings after having been deceived by the officer who he considered to be a personal friend. Neither was he able to speak about the most difficult part of it all, having lost his mother to cancer during this process. So he decided to start his own blog in November 2011 in an attempt to tell his story, about the G20 among many other things.
One month later, he was criminalized just for speaking out. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) asked Julian to remove one of his posts where he referred to the undercover police officer. The cop identity was never reveled. But standing by his principles and his belief in freedom of speech, he refused to remove his post and was therefore charged by the police with three counts of disobeying a court order.
According to Ichim “the purpose of the motion for today was to challenge the Crown’s chosen path; to proceed with indictment. There were other options available, yet the Crown chose not to use those options.”
The charges Ichim faced could result in up to two years in prison, which argues Ichim “is clearly a case of over prosecution due to the fact that I took a political stand”.
The Judge for the trial, Justice Michael Quigley ruled the Crown could not proceed by indictment based on legal principles, although he refused to acknowledge the political grounds at the core of Ichim’s defense.
“It is important Mr. Ichim specifically understand that there is absolutely no finding being made here of improper motive or improper conduct by the Crown,” said Quigley.
Despite the judge’s words, Ichim, a long-time activist with dozens of arrests under his belt, said the decision is an important victory in fighting charges he claims are politically motivated.
Ichim has told BASICSNEWS.CA that he believes the charges were pursued so as to intimidate other protestors.
Still pending are claims in a $4-million lawsuit that Ichim is making against the undercover officer, the province and the Toronto police force.
Comments
How I can reach by email mr.Ichim Iulian.I am Ichim alexandru his cousin.
i want him to write a reference to my book on materialism
Today in court, the charges against Julian Ichim were dropped. The judge ruled in favour of the motion put forward to quash the indictment on the grounds of over prosecution. What is meant by the ruling of over prosecution in this case is that because the Crown choose to proceed by indictment (an offence requiring a jury trial) as opposed to summarily (matters to be tried by a judge alone) the Crown had overstepped in doing so.