Sorry about the blog hiatus, but for the past two days, I have been in Courtroom 105 at Davis Court in Brampton watching the best reality show in town.
At the close of proceedings yesterday, Mr. Justice James J. Keaney, defence attorney Clayton Ruby and crown counsel Jennifer Goulin exchanged comments about how much they had enjoyed the experience. Such pleasantries are often obligatory and perfunctory, but in this case, they seemed entirely genuine.
Would have been even more pleasurable if there hadn’t been such critical principles at stake.
It was, of course, the case of the pothole poet, Antonio Batista, who is charged with the very serious offence of uttering a death threat against Ward 9 Councillor Pat Saito.
The defence cast the piece as a comedy, with the big bad state bringing its full weight to bear on a 75-year-old immigrant with prostate cancer, who was so frustrated with the slow response of his councillor to his various communications that he sat down and wrote a satirical poem in the fine tradition of Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope, writers the defendant had never heard of.
In fact, as we learned from his own mouth, Mr. Batista only learned what satire was when his famed criminal lawyer told him that would be the foundation of his defence.
Ruby’s star witness was esteemed Professor Emeritus Dennis Duffy who has a long and distinguished history as both a student and professor at U of T since 1961. His testimony — which will only be put on the record if the judge agrees to admit it when he passes sentence in late July — was that Batista’s free verse called Parked Cars and Potholes in the City of Mississauga may have been rudimentary and unsophisticated but was in the long and honourable tradition of hurling brickbats at our leaders. That goes back to the days when Aristophanes first told the world what an airhead Socrates was.
Asked if Batista’s literary allusion to a giant pothole that would make a nice welcome mat for Saito’s body should be taken as a serious threat, Duffy replied, “I wouldn’t think so.” It’s almost like political cartooning where you take one person’s feature and exaggerate it to ridiculous lengths, the professor said.
Duffy said absence of satire is a sure sign of oligarchical tyranny and noted that tongue-in-cheek dissenters who posted criticism of the Stalinist regime literally risked their lives to do so.
“Would you agree with me that Ward 9 in Mississauga is not in the Soviet Union?” asked crown lawyer Goulin in a question during cross-examination that had a certain satirical intent of its own.
The trial was like watching a tough, magical football game where both teams play their best and the outcome comes down to the last second.
A video of the interview that Peel Regional Police Detective John Mans of 11 division did with Batista when he was arrested Feb. 2, 2006 was a microcosm of the trial itself. At one point Mans asks a very evasive Batista the same question that Mr. Justice Keaney must answer: is the man who wrote this poem just somebody who was frustrated and wanted to take a verbal shot at Saito or did he really want to hurt her?
Ruby’s case rested firmly on his excellent closing argument, in which he invoked the Charter and cited cases where acquittals have been granted for words that threaten death much more directly.
“Governments are accountable through elections and not the courts,” he said, quoting from an earlier judgment. “Litigation is a form of force and government must not silence its critics by force. We have to be careful to protect a citizen’s right to criticize in public.”
Goulin more than held her own against her famous counterpart, concentrating on the burden of proof required: that a “reasonable person” would find Batista’s remarks to be a threat. Resident Neil Lawrence — designated the “reasonable person” of the case by the crown, certainly found them so. When he read the poem Batista had posted on a community mail box, he immediately notified Saito’s office because of his alarm.
In arguing against admitting Duffy’s testimony, Goulin said, “if we need an expert to understand that (the poem) was satire, then the reasonable person test fails.”
In her cross-examination of the defendant, Goulin was able to establish some important points. While Batista wrote, phoned and chased Saito and her staff for answers, he didn’t follow up in the same vociferous way to his unanswered letter to Mayor Hazel McCallion on many of the same issues. He testified that was because the mayor is 86-years-old and a very busy lady.
Batista did not know the name of the councillor who now represents him in Ward 10 either. In response to several of Goulin’s questions, he launched into a harangue about how Saito had failed to provide drinking fountains and washrooms in local parks, as they have in Toronto. His personal animosity to Saito was more than evident.
Most effectively though, Goulin simply read the offending words from the poem, which state that “We are going to dig a pothole about six feet and 3 feet wide and 5 feet deep to hide her body and God will take care of Her Soul, but we cannot forgive her for doing nothing. She can keep running at a good pace but We will make sure that She is in HEAVEN and out of the race. So please GOD take care of this SOUL for ever and EVER.”
Any reasonable person who read those words would have understood that they threatened death and would have been fearful, Goulin argued. Elected officials have the same right to be free of intimidation as anyone else.
Unfortunately for Batista, who has been in poor health, the judge’s decision was delayed for two months. The stress on him and his wife was clearly evident during the trial.
Even if he is convicted, it is highly unlikely that the crown will ask for jail time for Batista, and Saito has said that is the last thing that she wants.
Ruby has already indicated that if he does not get the acquittal he expects, he will appeal the ruling.
Comments (4)
di•ode :a device, as a two-element electron tube or a semiconductor, through which current can pass freely “ in only one direction”
If Clayton Ruby had focused around the original “Modus Operandi” as the reported in Peel Region’s 2005 Impact studies by Caryl Arundel (PPAG minutes December 2005) Peel Region “shuts off” existing “water foundations” because "Homeless People" hang out them after eviction notices are served as clarified in the Deb Mathews report after the disappearance of T-4 slips and ROE’s takes place.
It’s called “The one pay cheque away from eviction syndrome” however “ the region does not mandate responsibility to collect and maintain documents”? signed CG:na July 16 2004 File No.122-01
Posted by Abbe | June 2, 2007 10:50 AM
Posted on June 2, 2007 10:50
Partly because I’m too lazy to look it up for myself and partly because I am curious to know how many other members of the public, like me, are ignorant of some of the basic details of how Mr. Batista came to be charged with a crime.
I know that he wrote a silly satirical poem with a city councillor’s picture on it.
I know that a local resident saw that posted poem with that photo and was alarmed by it.
I do not know if that local resident knows Mr. Batista personally. I don’t know if he is the one who identified Mr. Batista or if he actually saw Mr. Batista put the signs up around town. Did he or does he have a grudge or other personality conflict with Mr. Batista?
I know that the concerned resident called the above mentioned city councillor and spread his alarm to her; who then in turn became fearful. She became so fearful in fact that the police were called.
I know that the word ‘fearful’ was used but I am also wondering if ‘annoyed’, ‘angered’ or ‘pissed-off’ to the point of wanting to ‘send a message’ to the accused perpetrator-of putting- pen-to-paper might also have come into play.
I know that the councillor had lost three months worth of her email. I don’t know which three months were lost. I don’t know if those three months were before, during or after the time frame in which Mr. Batista was attempting communications with her and her office.
If the three months worth of email was lost and even if it was recovered at a later time; how was the connection made between the poem and Mr. Batista?
Was Mr. Batista the only person who in three months time had made inquiries about potholes and water fountains?
Did Mr. Batista sign his literary artwork? If so would that be a sign of a reasonable wannabe assassin intent on the expedited demise of his foe; or perhaps a frustrated cry for attention from a tired and sick old gentleman?
If it was so quick and easy to make a connection between Mr. Batista’s poem and his emails; why was it so difficult to respond to his concerns in the first place while at the same time using the lost emails as explanation for not getting back to him in a timely fashion?
Obviously I am missing something here.
Posted by Stephen Wahl | June 1, 2007 7:55 AM
Posted on June 1, 2007 07:55
What would Jesus do?
I don’t know what Jesus would do in a situation like this. I have too much respect for Him and His teachings to bother Him by asking such a ludicrous question.
I know what I would do though. In fact there a couple of ways I would react to such a ‘threat’ if Mr. Batista were to turn his wrath on me and launch one of his deadly poems in my direction.
After I got through laughing my head off (maybe that is how plans to kill me, decapitation by hilarity) I would probably feel a little embarrassed for my long and tardy response to his concerns.
Then I would give him a call and say, “Now that you got my attention how can I help?”
I might also try to ascertain whether or not he really meant what he said about putting me in a big hole; which I already know the answer to but it would give him a way to say sorry or otherwise apologize without losing face.
Maybe I’m being too nice or naive, some may even say unreasonable, but that is what I would do.
The above scenario is based on my still idealistic belief in the overall goodness in most people; even the angry satirists.
Things could go wrong though. My niceties and apologies might not work with some of those dangerous and organized gangs of active seniors.
What would I do if someone like Mr. Batista declined my apology and my offer to help him in any way that I could and should?
Well first off if he still wanted to dig a big hole to put me in I would offer to bring some picks and shovels, take to him any place of his choosing and let him dig to his little heart attacks content. If that didn’t shut him up then as a last rude resort I would simply tell him he had his chance and blew it, now screw off.
But take him to court? Charge him with uttering death threats? You got to be kidding.
If you can’t take the heat then get out of politics.
Posted by Stephen Wahl | May 30, 2007 11:15 PM
Posted on May 30, 2007 23:15
ACCCCCKKKK!! JOHN!!
Your Blog entry contained:
"long and honourable tradition of hurling brickbats at our leaders"
ACCCCCK!
We weren't the only people there, John. What if someone at that trial now reads your message and says, "Hey, there was no mention of "hurling brickbats" anywhere during the trial, let alone that "hurling brickbats" was a "long and honourable tradition."
That person could easily interpret your words as inciting your readers to GOOGLE "brickbats" "how to".
Now you and I both know that'd never be your intent but --
Hmmmm... I'm embarrassed that I've never head of "brickbats". Best to hit the dictionary.
WOW!!! COOL COOL COOL! That's Primo Irony, John.
Here I was thinking "brickbats" were just bricks because seriously, who'd go through the trouble of actually making a brick bat.
You know, like remember on the video when Police interrogation tells Batista he needed to be sure this wasn't a death threat.
And Mr. Batista responds incredulously, "WHO digs a pothole?!"
Cracked me up because that's I was thinking at that very same second --"Who digs a pothole to murder someone? Most people are either too lazy to dig potholes or are addicted to cars and prefer drive-byes. (Did I spell that right, John?)
Moving Forward and to Mr. Ruby's point.
There'd be people who'd read "hurling brickbats" as literal. I thought it meant a brick --like the material that makes up what you hit when you deal with City Halls.
But to my total delight, there is a second meaning of "brickbat". Again. Kudos.
Loved your Blog today even more than I usually do. And thanks so much for "brickbats".
One entry found for brickbat.
Main Entry: brick·bat
Pronunciation: 'brik-"bat
Function: noun
Etymology: brick + bat (lump, fragment)
1 : a fragment of a hard material (as a brick ); especially : one used as a missile
and second:
You're not out of woods on Definition Two --that's the Irony. You can get in trouble for "uncomplimentary remarks" too.
Signed,
The (I love, is there any place you'd rather be? Lucky you live in) Mississauga Muse
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | May 30, 2007 9:51 PM
Posted on May 30, 2007 21:51