By A. Rabideau

On October 17, I sat before a jury of my peers and explained why, six months earlier, I helped shut down I-5 in Springfield. I identified this road blockade as an act of civil disobedience responding to a Palestinian call for action. The act was coordinated with over 80 cities around the world and executed on April 15, Tax Day (“A15”), to disrupt the “status quo” that enables the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.

Throughout my trial, we emphasized the power of civil disobedience, drawing comparisons between this action and the 1965 civil rights march on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, which taught us that blocking the circulation and therefore interrupting local economies was necessary to successfully combat segregation. .

Asked for his own opinion on civil disobedience during jury selection, one juror even evoked the words of John Lewis, emphasizing the need for “good trouble” in a system where behaving well is often not enough to gain recognition. rights.

My jury listened attentively as I explained my horror at witnessing a genocide financed by my work and my taxes, and my hope that this action could help end the genocide when so many other strategies have failed. After two hours of deliberation, my jury returned a guilty verdict, grimacing apologetically.

Afterward, one juror even approached me for a hug, telling me that all the jurors had supported me and felt terrible about convicting me, but felt they had no business. other choice.

To my jurors — if you are here and reading this, know that I expected much more from you, not just for me, but for the repercussions of your decision. You showed me that you understood the importance of this moment in history, and yet you failed to rise to the occasion.

The power to convict or acquit me was entirely in your hands, and you succumbed to the prosecutor’s pressure and convinced yourself that upholding the exact letter of the law was the “right” thing to do.

There is a long history in this country of jurors taking advantage of their unique position and refusing to uphold laws that violate their conscience and understanding of justice.

In the historical context of fugitive slave laws and alcohol prohibition, juries refused to convict people at rates so high that these laws became unenforceable, and local law enforcement could no longer justify the hassle and loss of resources associated with arresting and charging people who were continually acquitted by authorities. their peers. In this way, jurors can exercise judgment not only on their peers, but also on the laws that govern them. I thought my jury might also view the disorderly conduct law used against my “good trouble” as punitive and unnecessary.

In his closing remarks, attorney Ryan Leal implored my jury to ignore my character, my cause, and the broader context of my protest, uphold “law and order,” and find me guilty. He asked the jury to consider a next time, in which the Proud Boys or the KKK blocked I-5. He said it was only right that we should all be treated the same under the law.

Leal’s provocation of “fairness” is hypocritical and frankly sickening. We know that the law is not applied in the same way to everyone and that it does not keep us all safe, even if we respect it without reservation.

How has this great institution of American law and order protected the families of my friends living in Palestine and Lebanon? Where are the accusations of genocide, torture and war crimes for our federal government? Where is the jury that will ask President Joe Biden to explain his repeated support for an Israeli government that has stolen land, systematically demolished hospitals, routinely murdered children and is on track to eradicate an entire people?

How can Eugene justify devoting his resources to 30 hours in jail, two days of trial and 18 months of probation for a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct against someone who was blocking a road for less than three minutes before being taken away handcuffed? Make no mistake, this government has no interest in “fairness”. His priority is to maintain the status quo to protect his financial and political interests, which sometimes involves intimidating jurors into upholding that status quo.

Finally, to my jurors, if you agree with my cause and my actions, as I feel you do, I implore you to next time consider your power, stand firm in your beliefs, and refuse to uphold the status quo . » while the genocide rages.

A. Rabideau has lived in Eugène for three years and works as a crisis counselor. They were arrested on April 15 along with 59 other community members. For more information on the ongoing campaign to drop charges against the remaining protesters, please see Instagram.com/a15eugene.

Related