Gaveling Graffiti: Choice of Canvas a Potential Problem for Banksy
Gaveling Graffiti: Choice of Canvas a Potential Problem for Banksy
As reported by multiple media sources, a mural appeared on an outside wall of the Royal Courts of London, depicting what appeared to be a judge gaveling a protester.
As reported by AP News, the artist “Banksy” purportedly posted a photo of the work on Instagram, captioned “Royal Courts of Justice. London”.
Pasted below into this post is a screenshot of a photo of the reported Banksy mural, included as part of an AP News story titled “New Banksy Mural of a Judge Beating a Protester to be removed from Outside London Court” written by Lydia Doyle. I have also included the link where the original copyrighted material can be located.
https://apnews.com/article/banksy-mural-london-royal-courts-justice-c08b2cef093ea6a0520302eacfbd871f
The purpose of relating my post to the Banksy mural is to discuss the law of mischief in Canada and to ponder the defence of identification in the artist’s case. Of course, I will also add my two-cents criticizing the artist's choice of canvas.
Although the street art on the sidewall of the Courthouse in London, England certainly did not occur in a Canadian jurisdiction, it nevertheless serves as a useful medium to discuss the criminal offence of mischief contrary to section 430(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. I will also reference the defence of identification.
Mischief
Section 430(1)(a) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
- 430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
- (a)destroys or damages property.
There are a few key elements to proving mischief.
To begin with, the prosecution must prove that property was damaged or destroyed. The prosecutor must also identify the person(s) who allegedly damaged or destroyed the property and the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had no colour of right to damage or destroy the property.
On that latter point, this Calgary criminal lawyer has witnessed many cases where police charge mischief in relation to property that the accused had every right to destroy or damage. For example, I recently read a case where an accused broke his own door during an argument, and the police charged him with mischief. In this case – and in these circumstances -- the accused most certainly had a colour of right to damage or destroy his own property; after all, the door was the accused’s property to damage.
The problem for the artist Banksy is that the London Law Courts building is public property, not his (or her) exclusive canvas for creating art. While we might certainly appreciate the quality of the artist's mural and potentially even sympathize with the probable political message communicated through that mural, the simple fact is, since it does not appear that the artist had permission to deface the building, by Canadian criminal law standards, the artist committed the criminal offence of mischief to property.
Whether the authorities can prove who the artist actually was is a different issue.
Street Art
I appreciate that the purpose of “Graffiti” is often to deface a public space. While the purpose of graffiti varies, my understanding is that it is often a form of the artist’s self-expression designed to communicate protest, ideas, rebellion or to mark territory.
Of course, not all graffiti is illegal – for much of it is street art authorized by the party who owns the canvas. For example, in Calgary, there is a street art gallery where viewers can tour to various locations and neighborhood throughout the city for street art viewing. Much of this street art (appearing as graffiti) adds both colour and character to the urban landscape.
In my home, the Calgary artist Wil Yee (WuFu) painted -- with my consent – a street art inspired mural on my interior garage door.
Pretty cool eh'?
For anybody who is interested, WuFu (aka, Wil Yee – Illustrator of Sorts) is a brilliant artist who can be found inking at Bushido Tattoo located on 17th Avenue in Calgary, Alberta.
Mr. Yee is also a former courtroom sketch artist and illustrator who has painted many murals in Calgary and throughout Alberta:
http://www.wufu.ca/HTML/homepage_art.html
Choice of Canvas and the right to protest
What differentiates the work of street artists such as Mr. Yee from mischievous graffitiers is that the former have been authorized to use the third-party canvas for their work. Where true art (and even some graffiti) can add a vibrancy to the urban landscape, some graffiti definitely communicates a different message, leaving a far less desirable feel and tone to the place impacted by the defacing. By way of example, a landscape littered with street gang colours is not the same as one vibrating with peaceful street artwork.
While this Calgary criminal lawyer certainly endorses peaceful protest at places appropriate for protest (such as at the seat of Government), it doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate that defacing a 143-year old Victorian gothic revival style building with historical significance might be viewed with concern or even hostility by certain parties. Whoever the artist is who muraled the court building in London would be foolish to think that there would not be a response.
According to AP News, a group called “Defend our Juries” – who had as I understand, organized a Pro-Palestine Action, commented that the mural depicted the brutality unleashed by the government ban on protest. Though this may be the case, the choice of canvas was nothing short of ill-conceived.
According to a statement released by Defend our Juries: “When the law is used as a tool to crush civil liberties, it does not extinguish dissent, it strengthens it”.
It is one thing to endorse peaceful protest and dissent, but defacing public spaces – especially those with historical significance – to my mind demonstrates a callousness and rudeness to our community that goes beyond peaceful protest. Of course, this is just my opinion.
To make my point a bit clearer, if Banksy honoured us with a beautiful mural on the side of a building for which he or she was authorized to place it, I would not support defacing Banksy's art anymore than I support defacing an historical Victorian building.
As reported by AP News, “Banksy’ work often comments on political issues, with many of his pieces criticizing government policy on migration and war”.
If the purpose of the mural was to target court action, this type of Banksy work definitely fits the definition of graffiti – for the art is clearly an expression of the artist’s political discontent. The artist’s choice of canvas certainly appears to be targeted towards the courts.
The problem for Banksy (or the artist) is that the choice of canvas now places the artist(s) firmly in justice crosshairs.
To my mind, the choice of canvas (an historical building) also demonstrates a certain lack of respect for the urban landscape into which the mural was inserted. The urban landscape or the architectural medium is not the same as the Court or the judges targeted by the Banksy message.
Please do not take my statement to mean that that I think the art lacks quality, expression or meaning. Also, please do not take me to be saying that the artist should not use art to target the Court or to communicate a message of protest or discontent.
To be clear, I am person who appreciates historical architecture (Calgary not having enough of it) and therefore, my view is that the artist did not merely disrespect the court (which is fine), it is that the artist disrespected the art of the beautiful and historical architecture which just happens to be a courthouse. It’s one thing to paint on a concrete medium (such as a jersey barrier), it’s another to deface a century old buildings that itself gives life and character to the City in which the building exists. Notwithstanding that we may disagree with our politicians or the Courts, does not mean that we should disrespect the landscape where we live; for the places that compose our landscape (including courthouses) are part of our history and culture.
Ironically, to my mind, Banksy (or the artist who painted this mural) disrespected the beautiful art, longevity and historical culture enshrined by the architecture itself. Extra extra, England is a place that has historically supported and honoured peaceful protest.
The very fact that Banksy (or the artist) was painting in a place that historically authorizes peaceful protest (the Country of England) means that Banksy (or the artist) and other protesters have an obligation to direct their protest in a respectful manner that pays homage to the civilization that endorses the right to protest. Defacing a 143-year old piece of architecture was not necessary and not respectful.
I suppose the artist's intent was to be entirely disrespectful. That's a bit on the chin considering the artists lack of respectful protest is in a Country that generally respects the right to protest.
To my mind, peaceful protest does not include intentionally damaging public property.
While I support protest in certain spaces (such as at the seat of government ) and completely appreciate that protesting in these specific spaces (such as around the Parliament building) can result in natural interferences, I am of the view that protesting in general public spaces not connected with the seat of government, in a manner that interferes with an ordinary citizen's right to work, to travel and exist in the community in which they live, is not peaceful protest.
Keep in mind, there are many countries in which protest is met by something much harsher than a court decision that one disagrees with. There are places on this planet were peaceful protest is simply not tolerated at all.
Identification
As reported by the Independent,
Banksy could finally see his identity revealed after police launched an investigation into his latest artwork at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The best defence for the artist might be “identification”. In short, does the prosecution have sufficient evidence to prove that it was Banksy who painted the mural?
As written by the Independent:
The street artist has managed to keep his identity a secret since his emergence in the mid-Nineties, which has been the source of speculation across the world.
Banksy apparently confirmed the work was his on Instagram, captioning the pictures of the mural “Royal Courts of Justice. London.”
I am left to wonder whether police will be able to prove that the specific person known as “Banksy” – whoever that may be – painted the mural or even authored the post on Instagram. I don't read the Instagram post as reported by AP News as the artist Banksy even admitting to having painted the mural. That Banksy posted a photo with a caption doesn't mean that Banksy was responsible for the art. It could be that Banksy was merely walking-by, took a picture and added a caption to an Instagram post. I suspect not, but by itself, the post and caption reported by AP News is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
Doubtless, there was mischief (or damage) done to public property; however, the question is, can law enforcement prove the identity of the accused. Since the artist known as Banksy has purportedly done such a good job concealing his or her identity for decades, I anticipate that police in London might run into some serious problems identifying him (or her) as the culprit in this case.
Regardless of the outcome, while this Calgary criminal lawyer does not appreciate the artist’s choice of canvas, he certainly respects the message and the quality of the artist’s work.
David Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
www.calgary-law.ca