Vengeance Is Mine, Sayeth the Ford

In almost biblical fashion, Premier Doug Ford has smote his enemy, aided and abetted by the OPP union.

Brad Blair, the OPP whistleblower who complained loudly and very publicly about the sweetheart deal engineered by Doug Ford to install his longtime pal, Ron Taverner, as the head of the police service, has paid a high price for his outrage: he has been fired.

“I want to advise you that Brad Blair is no longer a deputy commissioner with the Ontario Provincial Police effective immediately,” Interim Commissioner Gary Couture said in a memorandum to members of the force.

The dramatic move follows a complaint last week from Ontario Provincial Police Association president Rob Jamieson about the release of an email — contained in a Blair court filing on his bid to scupper the appointment of Ford friend Ron Taverner as OPP commissioner — on the premier’s concerns about unfamiliar faces on his security detail.

Jamieson wrote to Deputy Community Safety Minister Mario Di Tommaso, who was Taverner’s supervisor at Toronto police, last Thursday stating the release of the email likely resulted in bodyguard Sgt. Terry Murphy being “stood down” from Ford’s detail, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Star.

Anyone with a critical intelligence will ask, quite legitimately, whether this can be the reason for Blair's dismissal. For my money, Doug Ford appears to be a very vengeful man, intent from the beginning on payback against a very brave man for his very public exposure of the Premier's cronyism.

I don't think the story ends here, not by a long shot.

Another Route To Justice

Those that follow such things will know that proving police brutality is very difficult. Absent video evidence, the police narrative usually is that the one claiming to have been brutalized was in fact the perpetrator, and charges of assault on police almost invariably result.

Such was the situation that Toni Farrell faced when she was viciously assaulted by OPP Sgt. Russell Watson in 2013, a situation I wrote about in January. Russell's 'crime'? She tried to help police find the three men who had viciously assaulted a woman.

Happily, the charge that she assaulted Watson was tossed out by Ontario Court Justice George Beatty, who ruled that she was only being a Good Samaritan. The SIU chose not to investigate Watson, but relented when the story hit the media.

Knowing that if justice is to be achieved, she must pursue it herself, Farrell is suing Watson, the police force and the local police services board for close to $4 million.

Tonie Farrell, 48, “has sustained permanent and serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fractured leg, crushed knee, lost tooth, as well as bruising, spraining, straining and tearing of the muscles, tendons, ligaments and nerves throughout her body including her neck and back,” alleges the statement of claim, filed in Newmarket Superior Court in January.

The OPP “knew or ought to have known that Sgt. Watson had a history of using excessive or unwarranted force but failed to take appropriate steps to address the issue,” the statement alleges. “It continued to employ Sgt. Watson when it knew or ought to have known that Sgt. Watson was a danger to the public.”

Farrell's list of grievances is long:

Farrell is demanding $4 million in general, aggravated and punitive damages, and $100,000 in Charter of Rights and Freedoms damages. Her family members are each asking for $100,000 in damages.

The statement alleges Watson “is liable for the tort of battery,” saying he “owed a duty to the plaintiff . . . not to make harmful or offense (sic) physical contact with her in the absence of legal justification or authority.”

It also alleges that he wrongfully arrested Farrell, that he was “negligent in failing to carry out a reasonable investigation,” and was “actively involved” in the “malicious prosecution” of Farrell.

The statement of claim goes on to allege that Watson “caused and continued prosecution against the plaintiff in order to conceal or obfuscate his misconduct; he deliberately misstated the events in his notes in hopes of securing a conviction; he counseled fellow officers to misstate evidence to the court in order to secure a conviction.”

If anyone is able to break through that thick 'blue wall' the police regularly hide behind, I suspect it will be Toni Farrell.

Holding Police to Account

Late last month I wrote a piece for The Paper News examining the nearly impenetrable 'blue wall' that is an ever-present barrier to justice and accountability whenever the police abuse their authority, violate the public's rights, or otherwise brutalize them. One of the cases I wrote about was the disabling beating OPP Sgt. Russell Watson administered to Tonie Farrell, a 48-year-old Orillia ‘Good Samaritan’ whose only 'crime' was to try to help a woman who had been assaulted by three thugs.

The SIU (Special Investigations Unit) did its usual 'stellar' job. It found there were no reasonable grounds to charge the offending officer.

In today's edition of The Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights. I reproduce a few of them below:

Re: Good Samaritan brutally beaten by OPP officer, Dec. 30

Officer assaults citizen, causes serious, permanent injury. Officer charges citizen with assault and obstruction. SIU investigates officer but lays no charges. Judge dismisses charges against citizen, condemns officer’s actions.

Sadly, this case is not unique; it demonstrates the double standard that exists when the citizen victim of the assault is charged while the police perpetrator suffers no legal or disciplinary consequences. By setting the bar for charging police far too high, the SIU is failing its duty to protect Ontarians from the “bad apples” who perpetuate a culture of violence in police forces across the province.

How many more victims will it take before citizens take to the streets to demand accountability?

M. Goldstein, Mississauga

I was appalled to read about OPP Sgt. Russell Watson’s life-shattering assault on Tonie Farrell, and even more appalled to hear that he will face no consequences. This is another in a long line of incidents proving that our police are a law unto themselves.

If they are particularly stupid or their acts particularly egregious, judges may scold them, but the SIU will find there’s no grounds to lay a charge, and their superiors will not even discipline, much less dismiss them. Evidently Watson’s OPP superiors consider punching and kicking women to be all in a day’s work.

When police officers lie under oath, they are not charged with perjury. When they conspire to cover for each other and subvert the course of justice, they are not charged with conspiracy. That “blue wall of silence” seems to reach around the entire justice system.

If an individual’s safety is based on happening not to cross a police officer’s path at the wrong moment (or in the “wrong” skin), we’re in serious trouble. Governments at all levels must take steps to bring police under the rule of law. We cannot trust our justice system or our police if they can break the law with impunity.

Nina Littman-Sharp, Toronto

And about that curious provision in the law that allows the police to obstruct SIU investigations by refusing to turn over to them their investigation notes:

As I read this article, I became ever more appalled as Tonie Farrell was transformed from Good Samaritan to an abused victim to an accused defendant and then the SIU finding of no wrongdoing. Truly a disgrace.

The most infuriating and confusing aspect of this sorry tale is present in the following passage from the Dec. 30th article: “The SIU conducted a month-long investigation in 2013 and interviewed Watson, but he did not provide his notes, as is his legal right.”

This is a mind-boggling situation. I have never been a police officer nor faced violent danger in my employment. Nonetheless, I have never for one second considered the notes that I took with the pen and paper or computer (supplied by the employer and used during a paid workday) to be my property or facts that I could keep secret.

I worked as a quality assurance manager, and as such I performed investigations into quality issues, and as a member of the joint health and safety committee also conducted investigations on safety incidents. I cannot imagine a circumstance where my refusal to fully co-operate with my co-workers and management supervisors would not result in disciplinary action, which would appear on my HR records and, if there were repeat infractions, result in my dismissal.

My wife and close friends with whom I discussed this issue were similarly confused at learning that the rules appear to allow police officers to withhold information and not fully and completely assist and comply with investigations.

I wish to request the Star to prepare an article to explain to readers like myself the legal logic behind the ability (or “right”) of officers to withhold their field notes. This article should include a complete review of the pros and cons of this “right.” It would be very enlightening to learn of situations where the exercising of this “right” is clearly the correct course of action as well as the flip-side, such as the Farrell vs. Watson case and others like it.

Stan Taylor, Brampton

Police Intimidation Tactics: The Knock At The Door And The Telephone Call

The other day I wrote a post based on Thomas Walkom's column detailing the intimidation tactics being utilized by the Ontario Province Police againt those in the Kincardine area opposed to their land being the site of a proposed nuclear waste dump. Many of those planning to make their opposition known at hearings into the matter received knocks on the door from the police asking if they were planning any demonstrations. No groups in favour of the site received such visits.

In today's edition of The Star, Thomas Walkom reports that the OPP is now exporting its tactics to the United States, but instead of the knock on the door they are using the jarring ring of the telephone:

Toledo, Ohio resident Michael Leonardi says he received a phone call at home from the OPP’s provincial liaison team asking about his scheduled appearance before the federal review panel looking into plans to bury low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste along Ontario’s Lake Huron shoreline.

In particular, police wanted to know if any protests were planned, he said.

“The officer was very nice,” Leonardi, a member of the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, told me Sunday. “He said there was some possibility that organizations like Greenpeace might demonstrate and that police didn’t want any fatalities.”

And yes, Leonardi insists that the word used was “fatalities.”

As Walkom notes, it is not unusual for the police to be proactive when large groups are planning demonstrations, working with them to coordinate traffic stoppages, etc. What appears to be unprecedented is their contact of people merely planning to attend a federal hearing to express their opposition.

Says American Michael Leonardi:

... he has testified at Ontario nuclear hearings before. But this is the first time he’s been vetted by police ahead of time.

“I was just kind of surprised,” he said. “The guy was nice enough on his own. But I couldn’t help but think the call was meant to deter me from testifying.”

But of course, that is surely a mistaken impression. Our police trying to interfere with our Charter Rights? That could never happen in this country. Of course not.

"I Am The One Who Knocks"

For the past several years, my attention has been riveted on a show called Breaking Bad, without doubt one of the greatest television series ever produced, ranking right up there with The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, and The Wire. The tale of a chemistry teacher (played by the incredibly talented Bryan Cranston) who becomes a high-level meth producer and distributor after being diagnosed with lung cancer, the show has become increasingly dark over its five-year run, which is about to end with just two episodes remaining.

In a famous scene, shown below, the protagonist, Walter White, talks to his wife about the knock on the door, something we very frequently associate with either bad news or something deeply unsettling. Well, as reported by Thomas Walkom in today's Star, that knock on the door has come to Kincardine residents opposed to the plan to dump nuclear waste nearby. Who was knocking? The OPP "Provincial Liaison Team":

When Beverley Fernandez came to her front door one day last week, she found two Ontario Provincial Police constables patiently waiting.

Fernandez, who opposes plans to bury nuclear waste on the Lake Huron shoreline near her Kincardine-area home, was scheduled to testify at an environmental assessment hearing into the scheme.

The officers had tracked her down. Now, they told her, they were there to help. In particular, they wanted to help by knowing if her advocacy group, Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump, was planning any demonstrations.

They told her that plenty of plainclothed officers would be present at the hearings. They said they weren’t trying to stifle anyone’s free speech. And then, very politely, they left.

This performance was repeated with several dump-site critics but, curiously, none of the advocates of the plan except for Kincardine Mayor Larry Kraemer received such 'courtesy calls.'

Former provincial deputy environment minister Rod McLeod, who lives in the area, said he knows of at least six dump critics who were approached by police for a quiet chat.

The subliminal message, he said, is patently obvious: Behave yourself; we’ll be watching.

Who instigated these obvious attempts at intimidation? According to OPP Sgt. David Rektor, the liaison team took it upon themselves, as the OPP likes to have a “proactive approach” in situations where there might be “two ideas opposed to each other.”

Unfortunately, this version of 'the truth' does not square with that of the spokesman for Ontario Power Generation, Neal Kelly's. In an email, he said that the OPP’s “engagement” came at the request of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and “local municipalities.”

Perhaps the question of who instigated the 'visits' is ultimately of secondary importance. What is of paramount significance is the fact that the Ontario Provincial Police are attempting to intimidate and stifle the expression of an opinion that some do not like, clearly evidenced by the fact that none of the groups advocating for the nuclear dump site were visited.

Obviously, that Saturday knock on the door by Jehovah's Witnesses is not the only thing citizens of Ontario have to worry about.