December 8, 2007
For those who have been following this series, December fifth has come and gone. Karen Harrison is out of jail on conditions that will make it more difficult for the cops to arrest her for 'breach of probation'. No doubt they will still try.
Those who are not yet familiar with the Karen Harrison case should catch up by going to the links below.
It is hard to write in an organised way about something which is so complex, is ongoing, and in which the main character is somewhat difficult to get complete information out of. It is probably worth a small book.
We can now begin raising money for a fund to aid Karen in pursuing appeals and civil suits in this matter, which alone will make her obsessed stalkers back off. Their aim in demanding these absurd release conditions has been to keep their target immobilised and incapable of raising money or public support. A foundation needs to be established for the defence of what are surely many other victims of this secret police system.
obstacles to justice
The trial on the Behrens matter took a long time. Karen was convicted in October and was to come back in November for sentencing. She was finally sentenced on December 5th.
Karen was once again ill served by her lawyer. At least Donald Powell is not a devious 'dump truck'. He would be a good lawyer if you were flat out guilty of something and needed a negotiator of lenient sentences. His approach does not work well when dealing with political prosecutions of those who have done no wrong.
Karen Harrison is not the best witness in her own defence. Her habit of trying to be calm and detached, and to consider every word before she speaks,may be useful as a Buddhist minister. She comes across as cold and evasive in the witness box.
She has trouble with getting to the point of things, and with telling a story from beginning, to middle, to end. She keeps lapsing into mini sermons on why the behaviour of her tormentors is morally wrong.
Worse, she has the tendancy of people who were not accepted by their parents, of becoming flustered when aggressively questioned, going into 'but what is wrong with me' mode, and being trapped into justifying her existence.
conviction
These problems probably got her convicted when an acquittal might have been possible. The judge Newton is more reasonable than previous judges, despite being obviously under some political pressure. Karen Harrison might have done better to have defended herself, as we shall see.
The elements of the charge of 'criminal harassment' are that a threat of harm must be communicated, and the threat has to be credible. The prosecution was based on statements from Matthew Behrens that he felt threatened by Karen, and on a recording of telephone calls she made to him; almost identical methods as in the Meslin case.
The recording was a 'cut and paste'. The calls were not in chronological order, and had been 'edited' in places, to make Karen appear crazy. Some calls were Karen asking Behren's help with a project. Some were one side of an exchange in which Karen responded angrily to something Behrens was saying to her which was not given. And several were anguished pleadings with Behrens to leave her and her Buddhist temple alone, painful to hear.
When Karen's lawyer asked the 'crown', Linda Freedman, where the threat was in this tape, the judge let her ignore him. Powell did not step up to it.
Matthew Behrens is about twice Karen Harrison's size. But Karen is a Buddhist, and Buddhists believe in 'Karma', which means retribution by all Buddhists for any insult to any Buddhist. Karen brought in the senior monk at her Buddhist temple to confirm Karen's membership in a real-world temple and to explain the Buddhist concept of Karma.
The human rights commission should have much to say about Freedman's idea of Buddhism and 'Karma'. Freedman was also absent of logic; this Buddhist temple did not exist, the little old monk was some sort of impostor, and this proved Karen's 'mental illness'. At the same time the existence of a Buddhist temple full of fanatical believers willing to impose 'Karma' on poor Matthew, was the 'threat'.
For some reason, Powell had not wanted the old monk there at all. And he failed to object strongly when Freedman tried to order Karen to take off her Buddhist minister's robe.
One would think that even the most lame brained judge would give a resounding 'not guilty' despite all the problems with the defence. Madam Justice Newton pronounced reverend Karen Harrison guilty and invited everyone back in a month to hear what sentence she would think up in the meantime. But she assured us she was not thinking of putting Karen back in jail, because she 'had a difficult time there' before. Karen was not reassured.
bad relations
Karen's sister, who had held her bail before and still thought she owned her sister, started the "are you sure you are all right?" and "you are still going to take responsibility for your actions, aren't you?" abuse again. Karen flipped and told her whole family in the court room that when this was all over she never wanted to see any of them again.
But she is still seeing more of them than she wants. Two weeks later she ran out of groceries because her business partner had stiffed her. She had to ask her parents for some money. They barged into her basement suite without knocking, scaring the other residents of the house. They brought her no money, but some stale food they knew she could not eat for medical as well as religious reasons.
the sentence
The sentencing hearing on November 5th was almost as complicated as the trial. Freedman refused to concede anything, and kept pushing for further jail time and demanded Karen Harrison begin taking anti-psychotic drugs. Karen has said she will die before she takes them.
Something began to click in judge Newton's head. She started standing up to Freedman, who only became more angry and aggressive. The judge asked Karen what she had to say about the sentence. Karen repeated that she was not guilty, and said what she had wanted to say at the start of the trial; that she was prepared at any time to sit down with Behrens and an impartial mediator and 'resolve' this.
This had a stunning effect on the judge. The judge was more stunned by the effect this had on Behrens, who leaped to his feet rejecting this and shouting that nothing was being done to make Karen stop saying "bad things" about him, or to "stop that web site".
That a judge would convict someone on such weak evidence, then give such a mild sentence, and then suggest that the defendant appeal the sentence, is puzzling. It suggests that the judge is not truly independent.
But there are still so many loose ends to tie up that a part five of the Karen Harrison case is needed.
tr
cite www.qaz.ca/racoon.html