By Geraldine Power

The Coutts Boys, Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert (of the original Coutts Four), were found guilty by a jury in August 2024 and now face six-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted on charges of mischief over $5,000 and possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose. Being acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiracy to murder police, they hoped their sentence would be time served (940 days) since their arrest on February 14, 2022, in Coutts, Alberta, during the border blockade protests against government COVID mandates. However, they will spend at least two more years behind bars.

Many believe that such a severe sentence indicates that Justice David Labrenz did not discount elements of the conspiracy charges, undermining the jury’s verdict of not guilty of the conspiracy. The jury did not seem swayed by the testimony of the three female RCMP undercover officers regarding their conversations with the men around the possible conspiracy. There were no wires worn and no recordings of “said” conversations. The view of the judge, on the other hand, was that rather than being “co-conspirators,” as alleged, he saw them as acting independently and individually on the same plan.

Labrenz stated that he believed the men had armed themselves, intending a shootout with the police, and also “attempted to smuggle more guns.” However, in reality, the men had NO GUNS with them at the site of the protest. The guns seized were found in a trailer owned by Carbert, parked on the property of a Coutts resident, with permission. From this, the judge concluded that their activities presented a “credible threat to police and the public.” These words bear a striking similarity to the words used by Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, when referring to the “situation” at Coutts, describing it as dangerous criminal activity that, “could have been deadly for citizens, protesters, and officers.”

Justification for the Emergencies Act?

Remember, it was this “situation” at Coutts and the arrest of these men, that became the catalyst for the Trudeau government to invoke the Emergencies Act, imposing Martial Law across the country and bringing an end to the Freedom Convoy.

During sentencing, Labrenz attempted to address this, stating, “I am not sentencing the offenders for uncharged terrorism offences or the conspiracy to commit murder charges. If they were convicted of these offences, they would have been sentenced to a penitentiary for double digits.” Why mention this? The judge also considered (case law) the case of Artur Pawlowski (sentenced for preaching a sermon at Coutts) and James Sowery (accused of trying to run down a police officer with his truck at a protest). While found guilty, their cases are currently under appeal. Nevertheless, Labrenz said he was delivering a “deterrent sentence, to signal, not just to the defendants, but to everyone else, that putting police officers and the public in jeopardy would not be tolerated.” So, the judge who told the jury not to consider arguments put forward by Olienick’s lawyer about political motivations on the part of the Crown, the police, and the government with respect to the trial, is now talking about political motivations on the part of the defendants and the protest as a whole. Paradox?

In sentencing, the judge talked about moral blameworthiness—the higher the degree of moral culpability, the longer the sentence. So, those causing harm intentionally should be punished more severely than those causing harm unintentionally. And according to the judge, “They knew what they were doing was illegal, but they did not care because they believed they had a worthy cause.” He seemed to conclude that the men intentionally “planned” to cause harm, even though they did not physically harm anyone. The only “harm,” it would seem, was their participation in a protest that blocked the border. Even then, Labrenz claimed “They were prepared to do more than blocking (the highway), both armed themselves for the purpose of use against police.” He reiterated his consideration of the gravity of blocking an international highway (causing economic harm) with political motivations to force a change in government policy. However, many who participated in the border blockade protest at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor—arguably a more critical border regarding economic damage—have since had their mischief charges dropped or reduced, with some paying restitution in cash donations to charities.

Unfair punishment?

Let’s compare the case of Antifa member, David Zegarac, who, in February of 2022, rammed his Jeep into four Freedom Convoy protesters in Winnipeg and left the scene of the accident. He received NO TIME AT ALL, only two years of house arrest after pleading guilty to “two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and one count of failing to stop at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm.” So, he DID intentionally harm someone; all four were injured, one was sent to hospital. Zegarac was also granted bail until his trial, unlike Carbert and Olienick. While out on bail, in October of 2022, Zegarac was charged with possession of child pornography, luring a child under 18, selling child pornography, and resisting a police officer. The outcome of these charges is unknown.

The Crown was initially seeking a NINE-YEAR sentence for Olienick and Carbert on the charges of mischief and weapons possession. They were finally sentenced to six-and-a-half years, which is preposterous when we compare this with recent sentences handed down for far worse crimes.

The six-and-a-half years behind bars is the SAME sentence given to a Windsor man (name withheld to protect the surviving child) in 2021 for violently attacking his two infant sons, one of whom died of brain injuries, while the other managed to survive with “only” facial injuries. This case is clear in terms of intentionally causing harm, as are the following. They are probably the most heinous crimes imaginable—crimes harming and killing children.

Sherman Whitford was sentenced to eight years for beating a 16-month-old baby to death while her mother was out. Her autopsy revealed a shattered skeleton with three skull fractures.

Two foster parents received a sentence of ten years in June of 2023, for the serial beating (often with a two-by-four), torture (restrained with zip ties and forced to eat their own vomit and faeces), and starvation of an 11-year-old boy (who ultimately died) and his 8-year-old sister. They even videotaped their actions. These monsters plead guilty to aggravated assault and manslaughter.

The vicious beating of a 6-month old baby girl (Tanayah) landed Tyriq Kootenay a sentence of nine-and-a-half years—only six months more than the sentence sought for the Coutts Boys. Tanayah sustained numerous blunt force injuries, contusions and abrasions to her face, head, neck and torso, a fractured skull, and broken arms and ribs. During sentencing, the judge said it was difficult to imagine a more egregious circumstance in which a human being could die.

These horrific crimes are described here only to emphasize the question—in the Coutts Two case—does the punishment fit the crime?

So, in the case of Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert, what crime is really being punished? In outlining his reasons for the length of the sentence, many comments made by Judge Labrenz implied he still considered the men guilty of some form of “conspiracy” to kill police and were a “credible threat to police and the public.” Interestingly, the jury finding both men not guilty of the “conspiracy to murder police” diminishes this threat, thus removing a key element of the Trudeau government’s reason for invoking the Emergencies Act. However, the judge seemed to overlook this! He continued to use phrases such as: “murder police,” “intent to harm,” and “moral culpability” during the sentencing, inferring that the men were prepared to do more than block the highway.

To tie this all together, in a previous article by The Intrepid Viking on this topic, Roxanne talks about the motives of the Liberal Government for invoking the Emergencies Act to crush the Freedom Convoy. It seems that the removal of any key element would topple the entire house of cards. Indeed, it appears that one such element was exposing the “conspiracy to kill police” charge against the Coutts Boys as a false flag intentionally meant to give the Trudeau government the reason it needed to invoke the Act. A jury removed that card in August, but it would appear that Judge Labrenz just put it back. How ironic! The judge warned the defence lawyers and jury to keep politics out of the case, yet there are many factors that point to the obvious conclusion that politics were NOT kept out of the sentencing.

Fundraising continues for the Coutts Boys (legal bills and appeals). If you are in Canada, you can send donations via Interac email transfer directly to

helptony@protonmail.com

helpchriscarbert@gmail.com

Outside of Canada, you can donate to

givesendgo.com/trudeauspoliticalprisoners

Based on the article: “Coutts Two Sentencing – A Question of Crime and Punishment/Does the punishment fit the crime – or does it fit the politics?” written by Roxanne Halverson, The Intrepid Viking. (roxannehalverson.substack.com)