Environmental activists with Collectif Antigone are invoking a “necessity defence” in court, arguing that their 2022 occupation of a Montreal oil terminal was essential to highlight the risks of rising oil production during a climate crisis and the potential contamination of local drinking water.
The 10 activists, charged with mischief and breaking and entering, stated in a release that their direct action was “necessary to defend life.”
“All the means we have used to make our concerns heard by governments have yielded nothing,” said Michèle Lavoie, one of the co-accused. “We believe that the judge can play a role in the fight against the climate crisis which has reached a point of no return.”
“This is an existential fight of unprecedented magnitude.”
Members of Collectif Antigone admitted to the act but pleaded not guilty to the charges related to their 24-hour occupation of a Valero oil terminal in Montreal East in October 2022. They held the protest to raise awareness of the dangers of climate change and the threat to local waterways posed by a potential leak from the Enbridge 9B pipeline. Last week, the protestors had five days to make their case before the Montreal Municipal Court.
Their legal strategy relies on presenting a “necessity defence,” which requires that they show the twin dangers of the pipeline posed imminent danger to them, that there was no reasonable legal alternative, and the relationship between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided is proportional.
“The criterion of imminence is very interesting, because we can question [how to apply it] to climate change, especially when we know that the Supreme Court has already qualified climate change as an existential threat to humanity,” criminal and environmental lawyer Merlin Voghel, who is not participating in the trial, told La Presse.
While the oil terminal occupation was not legal, the activists say they have already tried various legal alternatives like peaceful protests, strikes, participation in student movements, conference presentations, writing and publication of letters and articles, and pursuing candidacy for elections.
“They had reached the point where they thought it was the only way to have an effect,” said Barbara Bedont, a lawyer representing the activists.
“Morally, they had no other choice but to break the law.”
A spokesperson told The Energy Mix the trial has been extended to conclude after a full day on December 13. There is no fixed timeline for a verdict, though the judge will not issue one immediately.
