It has probably not escaped your attention that language, especially language coming from outside the arena of politics, has become debased. Every question is met with an anodyne, political answer that adeptly, if not transparently, evades anything resembling a truthful response. It is one that models what our politicians are eminently skilled at. The following is one such example.
The Durham police, already being investigated for corruption, finds itself embroiled in yet another instance of the law's subversion:
Chris Kirkpatrick, deputy chief of the Durham police, was allegedly driving his unmarked vehicle through a school zone in June when he was stopped for speeding.
The next day, Kirkpatrick was stopped again, this time for allegedly travelling more than 50 km/h over the speed limit — an offence that, according to the Highway Traffic Act, should lead to a charge of stunt driving, a license suspension and the immediate impounding of the driver’s vehicle.
Both times he was let off, according to an internal complaint made by a Durham cop and shared with the Star.
What is interesting about this case is the 'followup' after the Durham police chief referred this corruption to its police services board, which then had the Peel police investigate. The problem is that after Peel filed its report with the Durham board, there was no public report, just ....... silence, followed by the usual political use of language.
The mayor of Ajax, Shaun Collier, is the chair of the civilian board, but refused to answer any questions about the report.
Collier did not respond to followup questions sent earlier this month by email, including why the board, a civilian body intended to represent the public’s interests, had not made public the findings of the Peel police investigation.
In August, the police board sent the Star a general statement, attributed to Collier, that did not address the specific allegations against Kirkpatrick, but said all allegations against police are investigated “with the firm objective of ensuring accountability.” [All emphases mine]
The statement continues: “All members of the DRPS are expected to be exemplary in their behaviour, and this is especially true of leaders of the organization. If misconduct does occur, regardless of the member’s rank, appropriate action will be taken.”
Such obfuscation has not gone unnoticed:
The police board’s refusal to make public the investigation into Kirkpatrick illustrates the “significant gaps in our police accountability framework,” said Danardo Jones, a law professor at the University of Windsor.
One of the main purposes of a civilian police board is to promote accountability and transparency within the police service, Jones said, so a police board operating with “this veil of secrecy … is obviously problematic.”
Instances of contempt for the public, and concealment of wrongdoing amongst the guardians of public safety,, are never pretty to bear witness to. Equally troubling is the use of language that does nothing to illuminate the truth but instead betrays deep disdain for the people they, in theory, serve.
