I am pleased that you covered the recent Carter-Mungall hearings so comprehensively especially since other local media have been indifferent. As one who attended both days of hearings I am able to say that your coverage was relatively complete and unbiased, but I am concerned that the headline “Suffredine defends Carter’s actions” above the continued story betrays a misunderstanding about this case.
Mr. Carter’s actions are not on trial in this case and Mr. Suffredine is not defending them. What is being adjudicated is the question of whether these actions are such that the complainant (Ms. Mungall) “fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner” as it says in the Criminal Code. Or to put it another way: Are a few vitriolic voicemails and emails and a one minute silent vigil involving a sign that the complainant mis-read, sufficient cause to subject a citizen to arrest and incarceration until he agrees to conditions that suspend his civil liberties and make him liable, in the event of a breach, to arrest and further incarceration of up to 12 months duration?
In my opinion this is not reasonable, and in fact, I harbour a deep suspicion that the failure of Ms. Mungall and her cohort to appreciate metaphor and context in the voicemails and emails and to recall the wording of the sign is disingenuous at best and that the only thing that she is afraid of is criticism, or more specifically, of being embarrassed at another public meeting.
Bill Levey
Bealby Point