On Saturday I posted about the latest arrest of activist Alex Hundert and noted that the charge on which this arrest was based wasn't clear. The Bulletin, an independent monthly newspaper published in Toronto, has an article up at their website this morning written by the accused's brother, Jonah Hundert, that includes this:
He has been charged with attempting to intimidate a member of the judicial system. According to Jonah Hundert, Alex's brother "From what I know, two Crown attorneys are alleging that Alex tried to supposedly intimidate them during a court appearance last week. Anyone that was there knows that this is an unfounded allegation.
If you follow the trail of links you'll find that the offence would have occurred on Wednesay the 20th and the arrest took place on the morning of Saturday the 23rd, three days later. The story also notes that this new charge means Hundert will be in custody for at least another month.
The police and the Crown attorney's office have been trying all along to keep Hundert in custody. Initially they wanted him denied bail and when that didn't work they stretched the definition of "public demonstration" so they could get him back into court to make his bail conditions even more onerous than they were originally. Now they want to claim that he "intimidated" Crown attorneys at a public hearing and no one noticed until three days later? Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court at the time? I suppose they can always drop this charge when it has served its purpose which is to keep him behind bars. They've done it with a lot of the other charges that originally resulted from the G20 weekend.
The stench from this is becoming overpowering.
Note: Cross-posted at #onpoli.