Go Ad Free

Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, organizers of the 2022 Freedom Convoy, have received conditional sentences that include house arrest and community service, an outcome vastly different from the prosecution's request for 7-8 years of incarceration. 

While the avoidance of prison time is a relief to their supporters, the conditions imposed have been widely criticized as overly harsh and politically motivated.

Chris Barber's Sentence:

• 18-month conditional sentence: This includes a 3-month concurrent sentence for counseling disobedience of a court order.
• First 12 months: House arrest, with exceptions for employment, legal/medical/dental appointments, religious services (once a week for up to 5 hours), shopping for necessities, or with written permission from his supervisor.
• Remaining period: Curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.
• Additional: 100 hours of community service.

Tamara Lich's Sentence:

• 18-month conditional sentence: Reduced to 15.5 months due to time already spent in custody (49 days during COVID, which was noted as a particularly isolating experience).
• First 12 months: House arrest, with exceptions for court, medical emergencies and appointments, religious services, 5 hours a week for shopping, and attendance at her grandchild's birth.
• Remaining 3.5 months: Curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., except for medical emergencies.
• Additional: 100 hours of community service.

Criticism and Reactions:

The sentences have drawn strong reactions from various individuals and the public:

• "Insane List of Conditions": Ezra Levant and others have condemned the extensive conditions, especially the year-long house arrest, arguing that "terrorists out on bail" face fewer restrictions.
• "Gross, Sloppy, Whiny Judge": The judge is accused of being a "gross, sloppy, whiny judge carrying out errands for the political establishment."
• "Heavy-Handed Punishment": Despite avoiding prison, the conditional sentences are seen as "pretty heavy-handed" and an ongoing punishment for individuals who have already faced significant financial and emotional strain from the lengthy legal process.
• "Textbook Political Persecution": Many view these sentences as a clear example of political persecution, designed to "send a chilling effect to anyone who dares question the prevailing narrative or the government's reaction or action against its own citizens." The sentiment is "You better comply, or else."
• Disproportionate to Other Crimes: Comparisons are made to child predators, who some argue receive less severe sentences than Lich and Barber.
• Community Service Redundancy: The requirement for 100 hours of community service is seen as ironic, given the "hundreds of hours" they already spent on the road, which supporters consider "community service in itself."
• Public Outcry: Comments from the public indicate widespread anger, with some believing the sentences were too lenient (wishing for prison time) and others expressing outrage at the severity and cost of the prosecution.
• "Insult to Injury": The imposition of new, overreaching conditions after three years without them is seen as an "insult to injury," particularly given the judge's capacity to simply let them "continue on with the rest of their lives with no more conditions."
• Cost to Taxpayers: The prosecution of Lich and Barber is estimated to have cost "hundreds of millions of dollars," a sum deemed "inappropriate" for the resulting conditional sentences.
• "Good Riddance" to Critics: Supporters are defiant towards those who wished for harsher outcomes, celebrating that Lich and Barber are "coming home."
• Impact on Western Canada: The sentences are interpreted as a "continuing overreach by the federal government to make sure that no other Westerners get any bright ideas" about challenging the government.
• Erosion of Democracy: The process is seen by some as undermining constitutional rights and democratic principles, likening it to "textbook communist regime stuff."

In summary, while the absence of prison time is a relief, the conditional sentences are widely perceived as an overly punitive and politically motivated act by the government, intended to suppress dissent and punish those who challenged the establishment.