Charles Banned – Or is he?
Mysteries continue to shroud the ban of Charles Leblanc from the Legislature of New Brunswick in 2006.
On June 19, 2006, shortly after his arrest at the Atlantica
Conference, Charles received papers indicating that he was banned from the
legislature indefinitely. Various
reasons were given, none of them specific.
The
CBC news report of June 20, 2006 states:
A New Brunswick blogger and political activist has been permanently
barred from entering any buildings or stepping on any property within the
provincial legislature district in Fredericton.
Charles LeBlanc, a prolific blogger who writes about poverty and the
province's political and corporate power brokers on his website, was issued the
barring notice on June 19.
The notice, posted on LeBlanc's blog, accuses him of demonstrating
"unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts, which has
included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff,
members of the Security Detail and members of the public."
The notice includes a map of the district, with lines drawn around the
streets where LeBlanc is prohibited from walking.
If LeBlanc refuses to stay away, the notice says he will be charged with
assault under the Criminal Code of Canada. The notice is signed by the
legislature's Sergeant-at-Arms Dan Bussières.
Bussières says fewer than half a dozen other individuals have also been
barred from the legislature grounds.
David Peterson served as clerk of the New Brunswick legislature between
1978 and 1993, and says nobody was ever banned during his time on the job. He
said MLAs resisted his attempts to tighten security at the house because they
didn't want to limit access from the public.
"We had people practically push the doors off the hinges and they've
never done anything like that," Peterson said.
The notice does not give LeBlanc any right of appeal, or offer any venue
to argue whether the ban is appropriate.
Peterson, now a lawyer in private practice, said the threat of an assault
charge is strange. "I would love to
be the defence lawyer for somebody who is just passively sitting on the front
steps of the legislature [and is charged with assault]. It seems a fair
stretch."
The legislature's administration committee approved the ban, including
Liberal house leader Kelly Lamrock, who says his office must protect its staff
from harassment.
"There are cases where security decisions are made for the
well-being of members or the staff people," Lamrock said. "And there
is an employer's responsibility to protect employees. Those have to be balanced
with the very, very, very high duty to keep parliament open and accessible to
everyone."
But Liberal MLA Abel LeBlanc says banning the blogger just doesn't make
sense. "I disagree with Charlie being barred from the legislature. I
disagree. Everybody has the right to come to the legislature. Their favourite
saying, the Tories, is that 'It's the people's house.' Well, he's a person and
he should have the right."
LeBlanc has gained notoriety in recent weeks for attempting to join New
Brunswick's legislature press gallery and getting arrested at a trade
conference in Saint John.
The barring notice comes just days after the arrest, which happened as
LeBlanc began photographing a group of protesters as they stormed into a
meeting of business leaders in Saint John.
LeBlanc spent four hours in jail, and says police deleted all the photos
from his digital camera. He is due in court next month to face a charge of
obstructing justice.
...
Mr. LeBlanc said he’s disappointed
at the order and he’s not sure what he’ll do next.
“I am the man on the street and I
confront politicians on a number of issues. Maybe, some of the politicians-we
don’t know who they are- said ‘Enough is enough. We have to get rid of him.’”
Mr. LeBlanc, a critic of the
Conservative government, spends hours every day at the legislature snapping
photos of the media, politicians, civil servants and even corporate business
executives who drop by the legislature to visit.
...
The Legislative Administrative
Committee, made up of Conservative and Liberal MLAs, made the decision to ban
Mr. LeBlanc from the property two weeks ago.
The group held the meeting in private.
...
Speaker Michael (Tanker) Malley,
who chairs the committee, declined interviews about the subject Tuesday but
read a brief statement.
“The individual concerned was
warned a number of times and given ample opportunities to refrain from
harassing personnel and guests, this and to no avail,” Mr. Malley said. “As an
employer, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick is committed to providing a
work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and
dignity.”
The order is final and it doesn’t
appear Mr. LeBlanc has any rights to appeal.
...
“I learned last year I was labelled
as a security risk and I don’t really know the reason besides he told me I was
harassing people, harassing the public when they were going in and I asked him
who I was harassing but he never said,” he said.
He denies he has harassed anyone,
but admits he does take pictures and talk to provincial MLAs about various
issues.
...
Liberal house leader Kelly Lamrock,
who is a member of the committee that banned Mr. LeBlanc, said he supported the
proposal when it came forward.
The proposal had been brought to
the committee before, but MLAs rejected barring Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Lamrock said.
In his most recent case, the
committee felt it had no choice, he said.
But not all provincial MLAs agree
with the order. Two members of the Liberal caucus, Southwest Miramichi MLA Rick
Brewer and Saint John Lancaster MLA Abel LeBlanc said they feel the order is an
extreme reaction.
“Specifically barring someone from
the legislature is totally, totally wrong as far as I am concerned. I am here.
I got elected by the people and you know he’s a person. If he comes here and
asks me for anything, I do it for him,” said Abel LeBlanc.
He credits the anti-poverty
activist for bringing issues to his attention, like individuals being denied
social assistance or having a hard time finding housing.
“Charlie LeBlanc has been an
outstanding guy as far as I am concerned. He’s the voice of a lot of people
that are listening to him.”
Charles wrote his account of how the banning came about in a
blog
entry of June 20, 2006. He claims he
knew the rules legislature and followed them.
It is clear that he had a difficult relationship with House Sergeant- at-Arms
Dan Bussières for the three years leading up to that point. Charles states he never received a signed
copy of the “Barring Notice”, leading to a question if the ban was ever formally
passed.
A copy
of the document that was presented to him by Dan Bussières on June 20, 2006
states:
You have demonstrated unacceptable
behaviour within the legislative precincts which has included harassment and
disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security
Details, and members of the public.
I hereby give you notice that you
are no longer allowed on the sidewalks, paths, flowerbeds, lawns of the
Legislative Assembly Building, the Departmental Building and the Old Education
Building of Parliament Square located between King and Queen Streets, St. John
Street and Secretary Lane as well as Edgecombe House, 736 King Street, Jewett
House, 96 Secretary Lane in the City of Fredericton.
This barring notice shall stay in
effect for an indefinite period.
The Legislative Assembly goes to
great lengths to ensure the right of members of the public to be heard and to
peacefully protest and to articulate points of view. However, the Legislative Assembly has a
responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for members, staff and
visitors to the legislative precincts without disruption or interference. If you choose to disregard the directives and
authority of House officials, I will have no alternative but to but to seek
your removal by the police authorities from Parliament Square grounds. Your refusal to comply forthwith may be
deemed to be an assault, contrary to and in violation of Subsection 41 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Prelude to the Ban
In the three years leading up to the ban, Charles spent a
lot of time at the legislature. In
September, 2005, he was offered a job by a contractor repairing a ceiling at
the legislature. No sooner had Charles
begun the job when he was let go because Dan Bussières labelled him a security
risk. It was the first time Charles had
learned that he was a security risk.
He
filed a complaint with the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.
The
Human Rights complaint was dismissed in August, 2006 on the ground that the
commission had no jurisdiction over the action of the legislature due to
parliamentary privilege. Materials filed
with the Commission in responding to the complaint provide details of the
alleged security risk posed by Charles.
Loredana Catalli Sonier, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, swore the
following in an affidavit:
26. On
March 22, 2005, due to ongoing security risks posed by the complainant herein,
Charles LeBlanc, the Legislative Administration Committee reviewed the matter
of visitor access given to Mr. LeBlanc to the Legislative Assembly
Building. The Committee directed the
Sergeant-at-Arms and me to continue to closely monitor Mr. LeBlanc and to
report back to the Committee, if necessary.
27. The
complainant, Charles LeBlanc, has protested on the grounds of the Legislative
Assembly since the summer of 2003 when he set up a tent in front of the
Legislature Building. On December 4,
2003, he was served notice by the Sergeant-at-Arms to voluntarily remove his
tend for health and security reasons, but refused to comply.
28. On
December 12, 2003, an opposition Member of the Legislative Assembly tabled in
the Legislature a petition signed by concerned citizens who maintained that
Ritalin was over-prescribed in New Brunswick.
The petition was organized by Mr. LeBlanc and at that point he had
occupied the grounds of the legislature for 180 days to bring attention to the
concerns of children suffering from attention deficit disorders. He vacated the grounds after the petition was
tabled in the House, but since that time Mr. LeBlanc has maintained a constant
presence at the Legislative Assembly.
29. Mr.
LeBlanc frequently loiters within the lobby of the main Assembly building and
can be found on or near the grounds of the Assembly on an almost daily basis.
30. Mr.
Bussières
has advised me, and I believe, that Mr. LeBlanc has demonstrated much
disrespect for the security staff at the Legislative Assembly. He has posted on his website the names and
pictures of the security staff [
See
Exhibit “D” attached]. Mr. LeBlanc
has posted pictures on his website of security measures being implemented at
the Legislature [
Exhibit
“E” attached <
also
see here>]. This has included
taking pictures of security cameras and drawing attention to their placement in
and around the Legislative buildings [
Exhibit
“F” attached].
31. Mr.
LeBlanc has shown disregard for numerous policies in place at the
Legislature. For instance, although it
is prohibited, he has taken at least one picture in the Gallery and posted it
on his website [
Exhibit
“G” attached]. Although it is
prohibited, he has taken pictures in the Legislative Chambers and posted them
on his website [
Exhibit
“H” attached <
also
see here>]. He has posted
photographs of Members of the Legislative Assembly and their personal vehicles
while parked at the Legislature, including their licence plate numbers [
Exhibit “I”
attached<
also see here><
also see here>].
32. Mr.
Bussières has advised me, and I believe, that on numerous occasions, Mr.
LeBlanc has been unnecessarily loud and rude, disrupting staff and interrupting
guests during their visits to the Assembly.
He has frequently been critical of Legislature staff and has at times
interfered in their day to day duties, interrupting them and interjecting
himself into private conversations.
33. Mr.
Bussières has advised me, and I believe, that Mr. LeBlanc approaches Members of
the Legislative Assembly as they go about their daily work, confronting them as
they enter or leave the main building or their adjacent offices. He has often loitered within the building
itself while the House is in session and approaches Members, staff and other
individuals.
34. On
March 12, 2005, an article entitled “
The
Question is not if the Legislature will be attack (sic) but when???”
appeared on Mr. LeBlanc’s website. A
copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit “J”. Mr. Bussières brought the article to my
attention on March 14, 2005, and at that time told me that in his opinion while
Mr. LeBlanc posed no threat, he does pose a security risk when he broadcasts
Legislature operational details and comments on security related issues to an
unknown audience on his website. On
March 14, 2005, I agreed with Mr. Bussières assessment of Mr. LeBlanc as a
security risk insofar as the Legislative Precinct is concerned and such concern
by Mr. Bussières and me continues to this day [Mr. Bussières has confirmed this
to me].
In the Legislative Assembly’s response to Charles’ Human Rights
complaint, Fredericton Lawyer Donald J. Stevenson argued successfully that the
Legislature has an inherent right to control its processes free from review by
other adjudicative bodies. Because of
this parliamentary privilege, the Human Rights Commission could not rule on the
complaint itself.
Mr. Stevenson quoted case law at length to establish important
principles behind the privilege:
The legislative body needs this legal
protection or immunity to perform its function and to defend and vindicate its
authority and dignity. The Members of
the legislative body enjoy these rights and immunities because the legislature
cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services of its Members.
(Maingot, Joseph. Parliamentary
Privilege in Canada. 2d ed. (House of Commons and McGill-Queens
University Press, 1997) at 12)
No Court or other tribunal will interfere with a properly
constituted decision of the Legislature to exclude a member of the public from
its proceedings, but with unfettered privilege comes responsibility. The Legislature is composed of its members, whose
sanction is the requirement periodically to consult the electors of the
province. Proceedings that are carried
out in secret, with no documented process, no specific grounds alleged that the
excluded “stranger” poses a threat to the security or operation of the
Legislature, no opportunity to reply and no appeal, are exempt from democratic
oversight, undermining the foundation of the privilege itself.
The Ongoing Saga
Five years after the
Legislature ban, the issue was publicly revived in the wake of incidents
between Charles and the Fredericton police during the summer of 2011 which led
to his arrest for protesting outside the Fredericton Police Station with a bull
horn. Loredana Catalli Sonier volunteered
further information on the reasons for the ban.
CBC Terry Seguin: Charles Leblanc has portrayed himself as an
activist and advocate of free speech.
Last Friday he pleaded not guilty to a charge of causing a disturbance
for protesting with a bullhorn in front of the Fredericton Police Station. Leblanc says a ticket he received for riding
his bike on the sidewalk is the result of a five year feud with staff at the
New Brunswick Legislature. Leblanc was
banned from the Legislature in 2006.
Late Friday afternoon, the Clerk of the Legislature took the unusual
step of revealing new details of the reason for that ban. Here’s what Loredana Catalli Sonier had to
say.
Loredana Catalli Sonier: We
had a number of complaints leading up to the filing of written complaints to me
regarding the actions of Charles Leblanc while he was in the building. We had observed certain incidents and the
Sergeant-at-Arms met with Charles Leblanc and gave him every opportunity to
correct his behaviour. He did not
correct this behaviour and this culminated in the filing of written complaints. In fact there was one from a member of the
press gallery as well as security personnel and some from the Corp of
Commissionaires. LAC (Legislative
Administration Committee), the committee that actually is the employer took
these complaints very seriously and they followed the harassment policy where
they’re obligated to ensure that the workplace is free of harassment. I mean, employees need to go about their work
and be treated with dignity and respect and this was not happening. I mean there was harassment, I mean we
observed and LAC took the matter very seriously and they proceeded and issued a
barring notice on June 6, 2006. There
were six complaints. The behaviour was
he would hurl insults, personal insults, to the people in question. If he left the building he would throw a
badge at them, the security badge that you receive, he would stick the camera
in their face, he had tape recorders on him, if he would go on a break he would
chase them and approach them and stick the camera very close to their face and
just basically say you’re a public figure and you have no right to
privacy. It was along those lines and it
caused among some of the personnel, one member of the security detail actually
resigned , stated that as the reason for resigning because he could no longer
take that kind of abuse. So LAC took that
very seriously and since then there have been two requests to have him
reinstated, one as early as this year, and what we basically have taken the
position that he has not demonstrated that he’s changed his behaviour. In fact he will not obey any orders from the
Corp of Commissionaires or security. He
has been allowed on the grounds even though the barring notice excluded him
from the grounds but in the last incident he was up on a top step at the front
door and he was asked to leave and he just pushed aside a commissionaire and so
he just refused to obey his order.
Someone demonstrates a lack of respect for authority it’s pretty hard
for a committee to reinstate a right to come back into the building under those
circumstances. The Committee did not bar
Mr. Leblanc from the Precincts because of anything he said on his blog. It was purely the actions of the individual
while in the legislative building.
CBC Terry Seguin: Charles Leblanc is not going quietly. Earlier this week, we played some tape of the
Clerk of the New Brunswick Legislature explaining why the blogger activist was
banned from the building in 2006.
Loredana Catalli Sonier said the ban has nothing to do with what Leblanc
writes on his blog. She said it was
because of complaints about Leblanc’s behaviour from six people who work in and
around the legislature. After we aired
the Clerk’s comments, Leblanc asked for the right to respond. He sat down with our provincial affairs
reporter, Jacques Poitras.
Charles Leblanc: I’m not the
same Charles Leblanc that I used to be.
I used to go there to read the newspapers in the library, to check my
email in the computer. I was always
there, there’s no question about it. Was
I a pain in the butt? Sure, I’m not
going to deny it. And then in 2005 I got
a job myself. A contractor hired me and
I worked for four hours, I was going to have a job inside the legislature, in
the room, ten bucks an hour, put down the ceiling. Next thing you know the contractor told me
that he had to let you go, because he said they don’t like you in there. So, I had a chance to make a living for six
months and Dan Bussières said I didn’t pass security clearance. I mean, I was in a tent for six months, they
knew who I was. So that’s where the
trouble really began when they stopped me from making a living. Now, after that started, Dan Bussières, and
I’ve been told by four different individuals, and I would talk to somebody
inside the leg, Dan Bussières would arrive and say is that man harassing
you? Who Charles? No.
Then he went around and said, if you put a harassment charge against
Charles, Charles will never find out.
Sign these papers, we’ll present it to the LAC Committee and I promise
that Charles will never know that you put a harassment charge. Now, what is harassment? You can say hello to a person and it could be
harassment. The Clerk said that I was
taking pictures, that I had my camera in people’s faces. That is an outright lie. Number one, I couldn’t bring my camera inside
the Leg, and I took some pictures outside.
But I never had a video
then. I only started this video two
years after the ban. So, the camera
thing? I don’t think so. This is foolishness. This is overboard because it’s getting
personal. And by upset, do I make fun of
Dan in my blog? Yes I do. Does Dan get upset at stuff that’s on my
blog? Yes he does. The Clerk went to the CBC and told that
Charles Leblanc, that I was such a rude disgusting person. Well, maybe I still am, but that was six
years ago. Why didn’t they say anything
six years ago?
CBC Jacques Poitras: What
about she said you make personal insults to people’s faces, you would throw the
security pass when you were leaving at the Commissionaires?
Charles Leblanc: There was a
problem, everybody had a problem with a certain guy, and I had problems with
him. When I was working there for four
hours he was making fun of me . There was a personality conflict between me
and this guy. I left and I just throw my
pass on the desk, and I didn’t hand it to him face to face. He really really really gave me a hard time,
and it was personal.
CBC Jacques Poitras: The
clerk also said that you on the steps recently shoved or pushed a
Commissionaire?
Charles Leblanc: Well, that
is a complete lie. They have about 10 or
15 cameras outside of the Leg. Let’s be
honest, Jacques. If i would push a
Commissionaire do you think we would be having this conversation? Dan Bussières, that episode, came out and
accused me of pushing the Commissionaire.
I said, I never push nobody. As a
matter of fact, Dan Bussières pushed me and I got it on video, and the police
are investigating this complaint that I made against Dan Bussières now. I mean, this is getting totally totally out
of hand. This is hurting a lot of
people. All over foolishness. I think it’s just a battle of Titans and
nobody wants to get hit.
CBC Jacques Poitras: Have
you considered at all, since your experience in jail and in Court, whether to
moderate your approach or change your style at all?
Charles Leblanc: Well, you
know Jacques, let’s face facts. I don’t
need to protest with a blow horn outside.
I have a very popular blog. I
have seven, eight thousand people a day.
High class people, powerful people, they read my blog. There’s no question about it. Should I change my approach? I have ADHD Jacques, I’m hyper. I can’t change that. I mean, I wish my priest could perform an
exorcism on me, or remove the Scottish blood out of my system, that’s another
thing, because I’m so stubborn. I’m half
Scottish, my mother’s from Glasgow Scotland.
I’m not going to use that as an excuse but can I change my ways? Well, maybe not with a blow horn, just stay in
my blog and hopefully calmer heads will prevail and we can settle this and move
on.
CBC Terry Seguin: Mr.
Leblanc also disputes the Clerk’s statement that the ban had nothing to do with
the content of his blog. He says one
employee at the Legislature was upset by a vague and indirect reference he made
on his blog to her personal circumstances without identifying her. Leblanc says he’s been told that contributed
to the ban something the Clerk has denied.
We’ve chosen not to air that part of Leblanc’s interview to avoid
identifying that employee.
Democratic Deficit and a Growing Credibility Gap
Ms Sonier’s puzzling, belated effort on September 19, 2011
to shore up the Legislative Assembly’s undemocratic action in banning Charles
from its precincts illustrates the challenge facing governments
everywhere. Vague, generalized
assertions as a means of justifying an action or a policy are no match for the graphic
truth depicted by the everyman blogger and tweeter through his own private
media empire.
“Control the message and you control the truth” (aka the big lie) is getting hard to
carry off. Ms Sonier’s assertions elicited
an immediate response from Charles. A case
of “he said, she said”, but Charles came out as far more credible.
Ms Sonier added nothing new to the debate over Charles’ banning.
Charles did. He refuted each assertion in detail. His assertions are backed by the minute, graphic
detail that is captured daily on his blog.
No matter who is pulling the strings in the ongoing persecution
of Charles Leblanc, this is a battle between titans over who controls the message.
