Students from social justice groups across the GTA held a rally and march on Tuesday, June 3, in support of 14 activists who were making a court appearance that day. The 14, most of whom are U of T students, face criminal charges stemming from a March 20 sit-in at Simcoe Hall. The march from campus culminated with a rally on the steps of Old City Hall, where the accused students were in a courtroom to receive information about the specific charges and evidence the prosecution intends to pursue. Police escorted the 70-odd protestors.

The University of Toronto and Toronto Police allege that the students, self-styled as the “Fight Fees 14,” forcibly confined senior administrators and staff to their offices when they and others stormed into Simcoe Hall demanding an immediate meeting with U of T president David Naylor. The 14 and their supporters say the charges are trumped up and should be dropped.

Present at the rally was professor Paul Hamel of the Faculty of Medicine, who says that he attended in support of the 14 and the defence of dissent on campus. “I think the charges that were brought against the students are meant as a threat to dissent on the campus,” he said. “I would like the university to drop them […] It’s not likely that we’re to hear something to the effect that that’s an intimidation tactic, but that’s what they should be shown to be.”

Professor Amir Hassanpour, from the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, agreed. “The administration has not dealt with the students in an appropriate manner. I think all these charges should be dropped,” he said.

From outside Old City Hall where the hearing was held, students, organizers and politicians delivered fiery protest, denouncing university positions on fees for higher education, police presence on campus, ethically unsound investments, and other issues. UTSU president Sandy Hudson rallied the crowd when she denounced the Governing Council’s claims that students are “members” of the university, and that the GC has the best interests of post-secondary education at heart.

“If we were members of the university, we would have the right to shape our education,” she said. “If [the GC] were there to actually, actually support education, why is it that when students are challenging the forms of education that they are getting, they are kicked out of school?”

Hudson was referring to the 13 U of T students facing separate Code of Student Conduct proceedings in connection with the sit-in. The code itself instructs the university to seek mediation and an informal resolution whenever possible, failing which the students could be brought before a tribunal with the power to expel them.

The rally was held jointly by the Committee for Just Education, whose members include some faculty and many participants and supporters of the March 20 sit-in, and by U of T’s undergraduate student unions and local activist groups. CJE organizer Aminah Hanif repeated the committee’s demand for equal Governing Council voting power for students, staff, and administrators. Currently, of the 50 governors on the council, eight are student representatives and two are staff.

Also speaking to the crowd outside was Jen Hassum, chair of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, and Rosario Marchese, MPP for Trinity-Spadina and NDP education critic. “Drop the charges, and get the student leaders and student activists who are inside the courts back on the campus, organizing,” Hassum called from the podium.

Inside the courthouse, the mood was more subdued and tense as the 14 waited outside the courtroom with their lawyer, close friends, and family. When their turn came, the accused nearly filled the front of the small courtroom. They were introduced one by one going down the line, occasioning a wisecrack and some legal banter. The lawyer for the 14, Mike Leitold, introduced co-accused Noaman Ali, a U of T graduate and union activist, as “the gentleman on the left—the extreme left.” The judge seemed to find this amusing. The students will return to court on July 3.

The disclosure hearing was brief, as it consisted mostly of the accused receiving the evidence with which the Crown plans to make its case. After the hearing, Leitold was unwilling to comment on the evidence itself, beyond remarking that little has been provided so far.

“No substantial disclosure has been provided yet,” Leitold said.