L3/Wescam - profits from weapons: L3 is the 12th largest weapons manufacture in the world!
- From the 403, exit at Waterdown Road and head north to North Service Road,
then east on North Service to Wescam, which is very near King Road.
- From Plains Road (York Blvd in Hamilton), turn left on King Road and
follow it over the 403 to King Road. Turn right and you're there.
- Bus service from Hamilton leaves Jackson Square regularly, taking York
Blvd, which turns into Plains Road. It's $2.35, but transfers from the HSR
on Burlington Transit work, and vice versa. Get off at King Road in
Burlington and walk north on King. At a brisk pace it takes about 15
minutes to reach North Service Road and Wescam.
Some of the latest news from Wescam says they want the deliverers of death
to be "customers for life." Wescam is setting up repair and service
facilities in Britain, elsewhere in Europe and in Asia in order to woo
ministries of war around the world into buying their stuff.
Click here for more from Wescam's web site
Wescam is a designer and manufacturer of "wireless visual information
systems." In plain-speak, they make high tech cameras that perform
surveillance and targetting tasks for militaries around the world. They
have television broadcast contracts too, but by their own admission, three
quarters of their business is in "government systems," a euphemism for
Colombian and Canadian navy boats, US Marines attack helicopters, and US
missile-carrying unmanned aerial vehicles. The "payload" Wescam provides
these attack machines makes military domination and repression easier for
those who want to pay for it. Wescam's products have very likely been, and
very likely are being used in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Colombia and god
knows where else.
Wescam is headquartered at 649 North Service Road West in Burlington,
although officially they are "L-3 Wescam" after being swallowed up by the
giant New York based military communications firm L-3 Communications.
Wescam owns smaller production plants in Don Mills, California, Maryland and
Florida.
On December 10, 2002 (International Human Rights Day), a protest and attempt
to gain more information on exactly what they make, exactly where their
stuff goes, and exactly what it's used for was organized. Wescam barred
everyone from the property that day. Halton police arrested 3 people for
entering the property. All were found innocent of the charge of trespass in
an April trial. Wescam has yet to respond to repeated efforts to gain more
information and engage in dialogue.
"Wescam Three" Acquitted
Anti-War Protesters Cleared of Trespass Charges but Sternly Lectured on the
Pre-Eminence of Private Property by Restaurateur turned Justice of the Peace
These people [military manufacturer Wescam] run a business. I don't know
what it is and I don't care what it is." - Burlington Crown Attorney Tom
Davies
April 24, Burlington, ON - Following a strange day in court, three people
charged with trespassing at a peace demonstration last year were acquitted
of the charges in Halton Provincial Court today.
Andrew Loucks and David Jefferess of Hamilton and Matthew Behrens
of Toronto had been part of a group of 20 people who gathered at the site
of Burlington, Ontario military manufacturer Wescam last December 10,
International Human Rights Day, to seek a meeting with the head of the
company. They were charged with trespassing.
But the road to acquittal was a rocky one, as an air of acrimony
greeted them upon their arrival in court.
Perhaps it was the fact that the justice of the peace, the Harris
government appointee Barry Quinn, was concerned about his brother's bleak
employment prospects (we were told his brother Pat is the
likely-to-be-dismissed head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, booted from
the hockey playoffs in the first round just two days earlier.)
Or maybe it was just a case of general malaise because when it
comes to holding military manufacturers accountable to the community and
international law, concepts like openness, transparency, and democracy take
a back seat to the market "opportunities" offered up in the slaughter of
Afghani or Iraqi citizens. Especially when those market opportunities are
developed and manufactured from behind the safe fortress of private
property which courts value so highly.
For Wescam, Sept. 11, 2001 and the subsequent escalation of war and
repression have been a boon, with the expectation that billions will flow
into their coffers to provide military equipment to a broad range of human
rights violators (the U.S., Egypt, Colombia) as well as surveillance and
control technology to those who would shut down borders to refugees and
those who would repress political demonstrations.
Wescam is well known for the targetting system of the Predator, the
unmanned aerial vehicle which was called one of the "superstars" of the
recent atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, the Cobra attack
helicopter, and the C-130 (the last used to especially deadly effect in
Afghanistan), among many others.
Wescam was recently bought by massive military conglomerate L-3
Communications, a top-10 Pentagon contractor which portrays itself as the
"home depot" of the military trade and one of whose executives is now
colonial head of Iraq: General Jay Garner.
As the trial gets under way, it appears this court is perhaps not
used to having demonstrators in the dock. JP Quinn appears ready to jump
from behind his desk and throttle one of the defendants who, when asked how
he pleads to the charge, replies, "I plead for an end to the profiting from
war," JP Quinn looks daggers at him and asks again, "How do you plead?" The
answer is returned, "For an end to those who would profit from war."
"This is a court of law, and a certain decorum needs to be
followed," Quinn lectures us. "We already seem to be getting off on the
wrong foot."
Crown attorney Davies calls his police witness but, after going
through the normal particulars (how long have you been on the force, were
you there on the day in question), asks the officer no further questions,.
Perhaps Davies thinks the case is wrapped up because the three defendants
have already told him, and the court, that they do not dispute that they on
Wescam property, and that they were arrested and hauled away. How, Davies
must wonder, can he lose?
We try to enter into evidence a copy of a video of the
demonstration. The Crown has consented, but within moments of the tape
beginning, when Andrew Loucks is seen explaining to police the purpose of
the demonstration, JP Quinn loses his cool, and says there can be no audio
played, because it is "irrelevant."
We argue that the audio dialogue between police and protesters is
essential, speaking as it does to our refusal to leave the promises on that
day. "Politics are not being carried on in this court," says Quinn, in a
political statement. "This court is not going to be involved in whether
there is a war in Iraq. This court will hear about the here and now only."
We explain that the war in Iraq is part of the here and now, but
he's not buying it. Quinn says we can show the video, but only those parts
that relate to the charge of trespassing. We explain it ALL relates to the
charge, explaining why it is we were on the property and refused to leave.
He compromises, and says we can show it, but will have to edit out any
reference to politics. We say this is not possible, as it would take hours
in an editing room to find the words "trspass" or "leave," and that the ten
minutes it would have required to show the video have been surpassed by 15
minutes of discussing the issue. Quinn gets up in a huff, commands us to
work it out, and tells us that he'll be back later.
The Crown seems bemused. He has not objected to this video at all,
just the JP. We screen a few clips to see if the Crown would object. "I
have no problem with it," he says, "but he [Quinn] won't allow it."
His temper under slightly more control, Quinn comes back into the
court and announces we may show the video in its entirety, but only later.
In the meantime, he says, "if you want to speak to why you didn't leave,
you can do that, but only in your own words." We explain that our own words
are on the video but, not wanting to be in court forever, we move on.
The only other Crown witness is Bruce Latimer, Wescam Vice
President of Corporate Development and former Chief Security Officer.
Latimer explains, when asked, that he contacted police prior to the
demonstration because company employees, and their children, became aware
of the demo while at McMaster University. He then says he did extensive
research on us and was concerned that on our website we were allegedly
"counselling violence, civil disobedience, disruption of our operations,
preparations for chemical agents, getting people ready to be involved with
police activity."
Violence? Where, we ask him, did he see this? He can't quite
recall, for he hasn't brought any proof of this outrageous claim. So in
fact it is a vague recollection. "No, it is MY recollection," he says
coldly. He does acknowledge that the company did receive our letters and
pleas for a meeting, and says he is not aware of any response. When asked
why there is no response, the JP says it is not relevant. When asked
whether he thought the demonstration made sense--that we would gather in
public after two sets of letters and phone calls proved fruitless --
Latimer says, "It doesn't make sense to me."
We ask him, as former head of security, whether people are normally
arrested for approaching the front door. He says no. We ask him what Wescam
makes, but the JP refuses to allow the question.
Ironically, people have gathered frequently, unannounced, at Wescam
to flyer employees, put leaflets on cars, and go to the front reception
area to request information on the company, all without arrests. Indeed,
Burlington resident Gail Lorimer tirelessly stands at the entrance to
Wescam for the past month from 5-6 pm every weekday with a peace placard.
It just seems when you provide Wescam with the courtesy of knowing that we
are going to show up, they call out ten police cruisers (one for every two
demonstrators in attendance December 10).
Andrew Loucks leads off the defence, explaining how he did research
to determine that Wescam was producing weaponry that was to be used against
the people of Iraq. He has worked on the issue of Iraq, ending sanctions
and the daily bombardment which escalated a month ago into outright
invasion and occupation, for some five years, "so perhaps the court can
understand the need I have to speak here about this." He refers to numerous
documents, from medical authorities to U.N. documents on humanitarian
disasters in Iraq to documents on the use of depleted uranium ammunition,
as part of the urgent need for the Dec. 10 demo.
At this point, the Crown stands and objects. "We know why they were
there, but whether it's a noble cause or not is not for us to decide."
Quinn chimes in too, with "this court is not a forum to continue a
demonstration" (he obviously hasn't read the part on our website where we
discuss courtroom strategies and how in our view courts are indeed the
place to continue the demonstration!)
At this point, Loucks approaches the bench and explains that we
have trespass case law showing that the urgent reasons for being in a place
and refusing to move need to be part of the defence testimony. Quinn looks
bemused, as if to say, "YOU have case law?" Loucks presents him with the
case of individuals arrested for occupying consulates of nations which do
war training over Innu lands. The court is silent while Quinn reads the
document. He appears to be shaken, and surprisingly says Andrew can
continue with his testimony.
It is a rare moment, when our relentless persistence, our refusal
to knuckle under to Quinn's abrasive manner and repeated verbal jousts of
"irrelevance", seem to have had an effect on him. Perhaps he is seeing that
honest attempts at communication, difficult though they be to accept at
first, might actually be better than the alternative.
The Crown objects, but Quinn rules that the evidence can be
admitted, and a stream of documents, from the letters Loucks wrote to the
website printouts from Wescam and the company's annual report, make it into
the exhibits.
"I saw a direct link from something that was being made in my
community to something horrible planned for another community," Loucks says.
David Jefferess takes the stand and explains that, as a peace
educator, "I know one of the problems leading to war is lack of dialogue,
of communication, and understanding," and yet here we have a classic case
of a company ignoring invitations to dialogue, choosing instead to have us
arrested. Jefferess also says he finds Latimer's testimony about
counselling violence "deeply offensive," noting he and the group are
committed to nonviolence and that, if Wescam had only responded with their
concerns to us, we would have made our intentions clear, "if only they had
allowed us to communicate with them."
Loucks and Behrens present a summation based on necessity and
freedom of expression, and the role the courts can play in either
finalizing the criminalization of dissent begun with the police arresting
us at demonstrations, or declaring that such activities fall well within
the limits of tolerance in a democratic society and refusing to impose
legal sanctions."
Quinn is again unprepared for individuals putting case law before
him. When the commonly used freedom of expression case "Commonwealth" is
offered up, he is incredulous. "What IS this?" the restaurant owner turned
appointed justice asks.
The Crown is furious. It hasn't been the cakewalk he'd expected.
"There are certain ways people can demonstrate," he says, but this was not
one of them. "This company has the right to prevent people from coming on
to their property, people can't just go on without permission." Davies says
we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, that Wescam employees have a
right not to be "molested" (unclear where this concept came from), and that
you just can't interfere with private property. In essence, he provided a
defense for any child pornographer, cat mutilator, or weaponsmaker to keep
people concerned about ending such horrors away from the sites of such evil
work.
In declaraing he doesn't know or care what Wescam makes, Davies
sums up the problem with the daily indifference that makes such atrocities
as the ongoing war against the people of Iraq and other countries possible.
The court has seen a bit of that reality, however reluctantly, but
in the end, a troubled Quinn will ignore the arguments about necessity and
freedom of expression, wiggling his way out through a technicality. He
declares us not guilty, because the crown has failed to prove the facts of
the case. But on three separate occasions during his rambling decision, he
says "private property is someone's domain, if they don't want you there,
you shouldn't be there."
It is a warning to those who would again try to ascertain the
extent of Wescam's involvement in war crimes, and those who would take
subsequernt action.
But the repeated warning has no effect. As Quinn finishes, we tell
him that we'll likely see him again, and head out to get some fresh air and
discuss plans for Friday May 9, when from 3:00-6:15 pm, there will be a
public gathering to mourn the loss of life due to Wescam's military
production and sales, followed by a discussion on the next steps in the
campaign.
(report from Matthew Behrens of Homes not Bombs
Because Canada should build homes, not blow them up)
Background article on protest at WESCAM on International Human Rights
Day, 2002 Hamilton Independent Media Centre [NOTE: Hamilton IMC reports are no longer available due to issues beyond our control]
WESCAM'S Web site
Wescam protesters acquitted
Three men arrested for trespassing following an anti-war demonstration in December at Wescam
were acquitted last week following a one-day trial in Burlington court.
Andrew Loucks, David Jefferess and Matthew Behrens were part of a 25-person protest Dec.10,
2002 at the local high-tech company located at 649 North Service Rd.
Loucks said the group was there to request a meeting with Wescam officials to discuss the belief
the company’s technology might contribute to what was then an impending war in Iraq.
Following a brief protest the men were arrested by Halton police and charged with trespassing.
They were acquitted last week before Justice of the Peace Barry Quinn.
Loucks, who is from Hamilton, said the trio is happy with the acquittal and plans to continue
protesting.
“We’re definitely going to continue, people have been continuing in Burlington,” he said. “There
are a couple of folks who are there pretty much every night just raising the issue to folks who
happen to drive by.”
Jefferess is also from Hamilton, while Behrens lives in Toronto.
Wescam – one of the city’s best-known companies – designs and manufactures high-tech camera
equipment.
Bruce Latimer, Wescam’s vice-president of corporate development said the company accepts the
court’s decision.
“I think Mr. Justice Quinn provided a well-reasoned decision based on the evidence that was
placed before him,” he said.
In response to the protest in December, Latimer told the Post details about the company, its
products and clients are available online at www.wescam.com and noted while the company
produces high-tech camera equipment for military uses, it also makes cameras for other purposes.
“We run the full gamut from sporting events...to search and rescue operations,” he said.
Latimer also noted Wescam has a long history of service in the Golden Horseshoe area.
“We have been a proud member of the Hamilton/Burlington community for 25 years,” he said.
“The tragic events of Sept. 11 have highlighted what we do but it hasn’t changed the business.”
– By Robb Swybrous, Post Staff.
Peace Promoters Convicted of Trespass but Sentence Suspended in Burlington,
Ontario, Thursday, July 27, 2006. Read the Homes Not Bombs 