The Quebec Federation of Workers (FTQ) denounces the filing of criminal charges against two of its activists, who briefly occupied the constituency office of Pierre Fitzgibbon last week, as part of the Common Front demonstrations. The Sûreté du Québec claims that “breakage” of equipment was noted on the scene after the events.
The blockade of the Terrebonne office would have lasted a total of around thirty minutes. The police were quickly called to the scene.
Thursday, more than a week after the events, union advisor Esteben Harguindeguy, responsible for mobilization at the FTQ for the public sector, one of the organizers of the event, was summoned by an inspector from the Major Crimes section Sûreté du Québec (SQ). He was formally charged with mischief and break and enter, both criminal charges.
To be released, he had to agree to respect certain conditions, including “not going to the county offices of members of the Coalition Avenir Québec”. The SQ confirms that a second person was also targeted by similar accusations.
“It’s astonishing,” comments Mr. Harguindeguy, who says he has organized at least twenty occupations of similar political offices in his career. This is the first time in my life that I have had accusations,” he assures.
“As soon as the action began, I myself went to see the police to give them my name and telephone number,” he said. We had a megaphone to tell people that they were free to [partir] and that it was a peaceful demonstration. »
Complaint at the SQ
Mathieu St-Amand, Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon’s communications director, confirms that a complaint was made by his staff to the SQ after the occupation, “according to the recommendations of the National Assembly”, to which the constituency offices fall. deputies. ” They [les syndiqués] returned by force. They may have pushed a little hard,” commented Mr. St-Amand, without giving further details.
PHOTO MARCO CAMPANOZZI, THE PRESS
The SQ claims that “breakage” was observed after the passage of the demonstrators. “They used a subterfuge to get inside,” adds spokesperson Benoît Richard.
The common union front, made up of the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the APTS, affirms that the Legault government has filed other similar complaints against activists following other demonstrations, notably after the occupation of the offices of Bernard Drainville.
Mr. Harguindeguy assures that the occupation of Mr. Fitzgibbon’s premises was not violent. The first demonstrators who arrived pretended they wanted to sign Coalition Avenir Québec membership cards to enter the building, said the union advisor. “I’m accused of breaking and entering, although I’m probably number 39e out of 40 demonstrators to have entered the offices. »
A strategy frequently used
The temporary occupation of political offices is a strategy very frequently used by unions and various pressure groups. Last October, around 800 common front union members occupied the head office of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as part of their pressure tactics. No person was charged on this occasion. More recently, the occupation of Justin Trudeau’s constituency office, in the Villeray borough, however, ended with the arrest of seven pro-Palestinian demonstrators for obstructing the work of the police.
The filing of criminal charges “depends a lot on the circumstances,” underlines criminal lawyer Arij Riahi, who has often represented demonstrators arrested in the context of demands. “The offense of mischief generally involves an aspect of vandalism or loss of enjoyment of the premises,” she underlines, which will have to be evaluated during a trial.
The ban on returning to offices of the Coalition Avenir Québec imposed on the FTQ union advisor does not seem abnormally broad to him. “Usually, when there is an accusation, one of the conditions of release is not to return to the scene of the alleged crime,” emphasizes the lawyer.
Without commenting directly on the case, the League of Rights and Freedoms (LDL) indicates that occupations of politicians’ offices are generally tolerated in the context of political demonstrations. “Direct actions are part of democracy and serve to draw public attention to issues when people have the impression of not being heard by politicians,” comments coordinator Laurence Guénette.
“When you are an elected official, you can expect certain acts of disruption. As long as people’s physical integrity is not put at risk, we must accept disruptions like this,” she believes.