Coutts Three Await Their Fate as Trial Wraps Up.
Trudeau government's continued persecution by prosecution of Freedom Convoy participants
The men now known as the “Coutts Three” — Alex Van Herk, George Janzen and Marco Van Huigenbos — will be learning their fate in the coming weeks as their trial wraps up. The Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson has closed his case while the defence lawyers for the trio, who have pleaded not guilty to charges of mischief over $5000, have elected not to present any further evidence or call any witnesses. Justice Keith Yamachi will give his charge to the jury on April 16th. How long it will take for the jury to deliberate and return a verdict is anybody’s guess.
The charges against the men stem from their participation in the border blockade protest against COVID restrictions and mandates that occurred in Coutts, Alberta in February of 2022. The protest was in support of the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, which took place at the same time. These men were designated ‘leaders’ of simply by virtue of the fact they were the members of the protest who chose to interact with the RCMP liaison officers at the protest site.
Or buy me a coffee with Ko-fi
At their trial the Crown prosecutor Johnston contended that he would present evidence proves that Van Huigenbos, Van Herk and Janzen ‘spearheaded’ — in other words were the driving force behind the protest that tied up cross-border traffic between Alberta and Montana for two weeks. In his opening statement Johnson made it clear that the case was not about COVID 19 or free speech, but simply that people cannot decide on their own to shut down a major transportation portal. The witnesses that he called to ‘prove’ his argument included the former Coutts mayor Jim Willet and a number of RCMP officers. Yet, in many cases the testimony provided by these witnesses — particularly under cross-examination — did not seem to bear out the Crown’s allegations of the men ‘spearheading’ the protest.
Sgt. Greg Tulloch at Smugglers Saloon.
RCMP Sgt. Greg Tulloch, who worked as a police liaison officer during the protest, acknowledged, under cross examination by Janzen’s defence counsel Alan Honner, that he had not observed anything to indicate that either Van Huigenbos or Janzen had directed any closure or blockade at the Coutts-Sweetgrass border crossing. In fact, he had rather observed both men helping to persuade protesters to open lanes. Tulloch also said it was evident that Coutts protest consisted of various factions and groups, which again calls into question the Crown’s contention that these three men somehow ‘spearheaded’ a multi-faceted group of people.
RCMP Staff Sgt. Mark Wielgosz at Smugglers Saloon.
As well, RCMP Staff Sgt. Mark Wielgosz, who was also a police liaison officer, in his testimony, maintained that there was intense disagreement among the Coutts protesters as to whether to proceed with the demonstration or end it. Video evidence submitted by both the Crown and the defence teams captured these disagreements among demonstrators at Smugglers Saloon, where protesters often gathered to discuss elements of the protest. During cross-examination Wielgosz also said that there was no discernable leadership in the protest, saying he couldn’t identify leaders.
In several of the videos, Van Herk, one of the accused men, was seen speaking, and relaying his impressions and understanding of the demonstrator’s wishes and intentions to the police liaison officers. Staff Sgt. Wilgosz testified that he had, in fact, liaised with Van Herk in efforts to communicate with the protest as a whole. To make a point at what constituted leaders versus messengers or liaisons, Van Herk’s defence counsel, Michael Johnston, asked the officer if his role as a messenger/liaison officer for the RCMP amounted to him becoming a ‘leader’ of the RCMP. In that regard Wielgosz agreed that relaying messages to the protesters, in his capacity as a police liaison officer, did not make him a leader.
Van Huigenbos having discussions with Sgt. Tulloch during the protest.
Van Huigenbos’s lawyer Ryan Durran also pursued this line of questioning regarding the concept of ‘leader versus messenger.’ During his cross examination of Sgt. Tulloch, he asked whether his client was really a leader, or if, like Tulloch himself, he was simply a messenger. “Have you ever heard the phrase, ‘Don’t shoot the messenger?’ I’m going to suggest that’s really what Marco was here. He was a messenger, a communicator, a spokesperson for the group – not a leader.” Tulloch’s response was interesting in that he said, he wasn’t sure that in the beginning – meaning the beginning of the protest – that Van Huigenbos orchestrated anything or that he caused all of this to start up, but he grew into the role of leader when there was nobody else to do it. So this could mean that Van Huigenbos was simply filling a vacuum that needed to be filled? How could he be spearheading something Tulloch said he wasn’t sure Van Huigenbos had started? Based on these testimonies it would seem that most of the interactions these men had with the protesters and the police seem to depict them more as concilliators and negotiators, doing their best to keep the peace and keep relationships with the police open and friendly.
It is clear that Van Huigenbos, as a town councillor for Fort Macleod, Alberta, was more comfortable than most, speaking in front of crowds. As well, his experience as a councillor likely made him a natural for the role of negotiator and concilliator with police liaisons, and as a spokesperson speaking to media on behalf of the protesters. So, all that can be said is that Van Huigenbos did take on the role as spokesperson for a protest movement that Crown witnesses admitted did not have any clear leadership. And as anyone who is familiar with the public relations and communications fields, can attest to, being a spokesperson for a group does not always mean that person is their leader. So, how taking on that role and perhaps, becoming the face of that protest, along with Janzen and Van Herk, somehow makes these men guilty of mischief over $5000, which is connected to the road closures at the border seems a bit of a stretch, let’s hope the jury sees it that way. Sgt. Tulloch, told the court that he had not observed anything to indicate that either Van Huigenbos or Janzen had directed any closure or blockade at the Coutts-Sweetgrass border crossing and that, in fact, they were trying to persuade protesters to open lanes.
Now the trial couldn’t wrap up without some drama and that came in the form of the final RCMP witness for the Crown, RCMP Superintendent Gordon Corbett, a 27 year veteran of the Force. Corbett was brought in from Manitoba, to serve as the Critical Incident Commander for their operation. As the Incident Commander (IC), Corbett was responsible for maintaining control and providing effective leadership in coordinating resources during response operation. Working from an operational Command Post he would have been more remote from the protest site and had no interaction at all with the three defendants.
Corbett told the court that he felt the public safety risk had increased during the last week of the protest, when new information surfaced about the presence of firearms on the site. He said this was a threat to public safety as well as a threat to police. Just as an aside to this statement, stories recently appeared in the media that police on site at Coutts were never told any such threat existed. Corbett did say that the three accused were not associated with the presence of those weapons.
Corbett then became emotional when discussing two different events that occurred at the protest site. The first one, where he actually started weeping was recalling what he described as a fearful moment when a female RCMP member — who usually does desk duty — was posted at a check point on the protest site felt she was being intimidated when a large tractor with an attached blade drove near her. He seemingly wept as he described her fearful communications about the situation over the police radio. The second instance, took place on February 13, when a large farm tractor and a semi truck, apparently attempted to ram a police vehicle. These, of course, are incidents the police allege and which protesters claimed did not occur as described. In Corbett’s mind these were signs of escalation. There was, however, no mention or inference made as to whether any of the three accused ‘leaders’ had prompted or directed these incidents.
Many who were in the courtroom to witness this display by Corbett found it insincere and disingenuous. As a senior commissioned RCMP officer, with thirty years of policing experience under his belt, surely he’d encountered many instances over the course of his career far more dire and traumatic than the ones he described, that might bring a tough cop to tears. A horrific car accident with no survivors, a murdered child, an abused child, or a badly beaten woman. As well Incident Commanders are trained to remain calm and collected when directing responses to critical incidents and emergencies so on would think a police officer of a senior rank with that type of training would have better control of his emotions while giving testimony in a court room.
As mentioned earlier, Crown prosecutor Johnston had tried to make it clear that from his perspective, that the trial was not about COVID or free speech, but about an illegal road blockade. Van Huigenbos, Van Herk and Janzen, however, all have a very different perspective and were hopeful that over the course of the trial their lawyers would be able to demonstrate that perspective to jury by reminding them why the protests started in the first place. Reminding them of the authoritarian government overreach and the coercive restrictions, mandates and lock downs it imposed on citizens, not thinking or caring for the suffering or the consequences it caused for many.
Van Herk’s counsel, Michael Johnson was able to bring some of this to light in terms of what brought otherwise law-abiding Albertans out to that highway at Coutts, in the middle of a very cold winter, in the first place. It was the COVID restrictions. It was the lock downs, it was the church closures, it was the vaccine mandates. It was restrictions that did not allow families to see dying parents and grandparents in hospitals and nursing homes.
It was school closures and forcing young children to shun their playmates and wear masks and practice social distancing. It was the relentlessness of the lock downs that isolated people, and drove many of the most marginal and vulnerable members of society into poverty, back into addiction, or suicide. It was the constant attack of people's personal freedoms, which included freedom of speech, because many who spoke out against the mandates were silenced or ostracized, or called racists and bigots, by our Prime Minister no less. For many it was a very dark time and the Coutts protest together with the Freedom Convoy was the first sign of hope many had seen in two long years.
With all of the evidence in, all that is left are closing arguments and the judge’s charge to the jury. So, these men’s futures, and that of their families now lies in the hands of twelve fellow citizens. I hope those citizens will really wonder what value there would be in finding them guilty and sending them to prison. These are all dedicated family men.
They are husbands, fathers, and farmers and contributing members of societies. What value would it be to any of their children or their wives to have them go to prison, for doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional right to protest the government. Marco Van Huigenbos has four young children, would they be better off without a father? The other two man have large families who depend on them. Will their families be better off with them in prison? The question is will this country be better off with any of these men in prison, No, it will be worse off, because if this is what our courts are able to do to these ordinary citizens for simply speaking out against the actions of their government through a form of civil disobedience, then the courts and the government can to it to any one of us. And that is real crime here because that means we are no longer living in a democracy.
And they are doing it. Here are a few examples of how Canada’s justice system has treated those who were charged for their participation in the Freedom Convoy and the Coutts protest.
An important trial related to the Coutts (AB) Blockade. 'Persecution' is an appropriate word.
Thank you for all your work in reporting this as it has unfolded.