A Canadian court is preparing to announce the sentence of Splitting the Sky, an activist who tried to make a citizen’s arrest of former US President George W. Bush in Canada for crimes against humanity.
Splitting the Sky, also known as John Boncore, was arrested in 2009 when attempted to arrest Bush at the Telus Convention Centre in Calgary, Canada. Bush was there to give a speech. The accusations include obstruction of justice and may be elevated to criminal charges, according to Michel Chossudovsky , the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada.
Splitting the Sky attempted the arrest based on Canadian law, evoking the crimes against humanity and war crimes legislation passed in Canada in 2000. The attempted arrest was for alleged war crimes that George W. Bush arguably committed by going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“This is an important case for Canada, but it’s an important case for the whole world, because it really is the test as to who is the criminal. I think what he [Splitting the Sky] is saying is that George W. Bush is the criminal and I have as a citizen I have the right to arrest him if my government or my law enforcement officers, and he invoked the law enforcement officials when this happened and they didn’t,” said Chossudovsky.
Splitting the Sky has refused a plea barging to plead guilty in exchange for having all charges dropped. He is pleading not-guilty and is confident in his supporters and strong legal team.
“This is a legal test and yet there is virtually no media coverage in Canada, or the United States or anywhere else on this important court case. Here is a man who is challenging George W. Bush and it is called Splitting the Sky vs. George W. Bush,” said Chossudovsky.
Many ask whether or not the case is still relevant, given that George W. Bush is no longer in office and no longer in charge of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
“That does not mean that the crimes he has committed can simply be whitewashed, those war crimes have been committed,” said Chossudovsky.
Chossudovsky also argued that the case is relevant based on principle. It may set legal precedent for future cases concerning potential violations of human rights and war crimes by other world leaders.