McGuinty's Weak Apologies and Bill Blair's Misdirection

Having to watch two politicians, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, working hard at damage control today over Andre Marin's excoriating report and calls for their respective resignations, was not pleasant. Listening to their efforts to obscure their culpability in lying to the public regarding the so-called 'five-meter' law was even harder. Fortunately, our digital world allows us an electronic record that is indelible. Therefore, I am reproducing a blog post I wrote on June 29th that reflects the duplicitous nature of both the aforementioned gentlemen.

If you have the patience to read the entire post, please pay particular attention to Blair's explanation as to why he didn't reveal to the public the fact that there was no law that allowed his forces to arrest people coming within five meters of the perimeter fence. As well, note Premier McGuinty's comments that summit weekend about the necessity of having extreme measures in place, surely an allusion to the non-existent law, a fact he only revealed after the summit had left town.

Police Chiefs and Premiers

I have to confess that my nose is presently feeling quite abraded and raw, not surprising given its strenuous workout in today’s smell tests, beginning with the spectacle of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair displaying a cache of ‘weapons’ seized from protesters that turned out to be less than claimed. First, an astute CBC reporter asked about the cross bow that was given prominence. Hadn’t that, in fact, been seized from a car before the summit began and determined to have nothing to do with the G20? Well yes, the good chief sheepishly admitted that it shouldn’t have been there, as reported in The Globe and Mail:

A car search last Friday netted a cross bow and chain saw but they were not determined to be G20 related, and no charges were laid. When this was pointed out, Chief Blair acknowledged the items should not have been displayed but said “everything else” was seized from summit protesters.

However, police also included objects taken from a Whitby, Ont., man who was heading to a role playing fantasy game in Centennial Park Saturday morning. As was reported by the Globe on Saturday, Brian Barrett, 25, was stopped at Union Station for wearing chain mail and carrying a bag with an archery bow, shield and graphite swords. His jousting gear was seized by police, but was on display Tuesday, even though he was not charged and police told a Globe reporter it was a case of bad timing.

The critical thinker, of course, would have even more reason after this display to question the veracity of what he or she was being told. But then things got worse. Blair announced that there was no five-metre rule in place allowing police to search bags and demand identification from interlopers who had violated the police’s ‘comfort zone.’ His justification for this alleged lie: “I was trying to keep the criminals out.”

I say alleged lie, because this came only after an announcement from the Ministry of Community Safety made an announcement that “all the cabinet did was update the law that governs entry to such things as court houses to include specific areas inside the G20 fences — not outside.

A ministry spokeswoman says the change was about property, not police powers, and did not include any mention of a zone five metres outside the G20 security perimeter. “

However — and my nose was really starting to hurt by this point — we remember Dalton McGuinty’s statement of support for the police on Friday after word got out about the secret order-in-council suspending some of our Charter Rights:

Premier Dalton McGuinty denies it was an abuse of power for his government to secretly approve sweeping new powers for police.

“I just think it’s in keeping with the values and standards of Ontarians,” McGuinty told the Toronto Star on Friday amid a battery of complaints from opposition parties, city councillors, civil libertarians and regular Torontonians that the new rules were kept secret and, some say, may go too far.

The rules allow police to arrest and potentially jail anyone refusing to produce identification or be searched within 5 metres of the G20 security zone.

“Most Ontarians understand that there’s something extraordinary happening inside our province,” the Premier said. “We’ve tried to limit the intrusiveness to a specific secure zone as much as we can by working together with our police.”

Despite the fact that it was front page news on several of Ontario’s dailies, Premier McGuinty did nothing to disabuse the public about this seemingly inaccurate information, which leads me to conclude a number of limited possibilities:

He is so inept a Premier that, despite the alleged regulation having been passed secretly by his Cabinet, he knew none of the details;

Chief Blair was lying about these special powers, promulgated throughout the media and eliciting mass confusion and outrage. Were this so, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon McGuinty to immediately terminate the Chief, having gone far beyond anything General Stanley McCrystal did to warrant firing?

He was colluding with the police to continue to perpetrate this ‘falsehood,’ a possibility that would justify our asking how committed the Premier is to Charter Rights and basic democracy;

The regulation was as everyone understood it, but because of the widespread revulsion it inspired, the Liberal Government, realizing the potential political consequences to be so very costly, disavowed any relationship to the odious regulation, therefore requiring Bill Blair to ‘fall on his sword’ over this issue.

The fact that the position of Chief of Police is, de facto, a political one, would likely have convinced Blair that his future would be far better served by obeying his political masters than hewing to the path of integrity.

Further evidence of government and police lying to the public emerges as the McGuinty Government is now stating that no one was arrested under any extended laws, but only regular criminal laws. The critical thinking public will, of course, want to know why 31-year-old Dave Vasey was arrested when he ventured within the allegedly non-existent boundary, refusing to either show his i.d. or allow his bag to be searched, believing he was only enjoying his basic rights of citizenship. Told he would then have to leave, he refused, after which he was arrested under this ‘non-existent’ rule. What then, was the offense for which he was arrested?

These and other questions must be forcefully asked and re-asked in the days to come. To do anything less would be criminal.

The Ombudsman's Report on the G20

I just read the newspaper account of Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin's report on the 'secret security law' that was passed by the McGuinty Liberals before the G20 Summit in Toronto, a report that calls the law illegal and likely unconstitutional, and "almost certainly beyond the authority of the government to enact.”

While his report is described as scorching, condemning the law's lack of transparency and its anti-democratic nature, one glaring omission seems to be any criticism of the fact that both Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair and Premier McGuinty lied to the public. Neither did anything to correct the erroneous assertion both had made about the extent of the law, waiting until after the G20 was over before revealing that the law allowing authorities to search, question, and even arrest those who came within five metres of the perimeter fence did not, in fact, exist.

It is wholly inadequate for the provincial government to simply admit that it could have done a better job in communicating the truth. Such a stance reveals a deep contempt, not only for the citizens of Ontario, but also for their Charter Rights.

Nothing short of a full and complete inquiry into the provincially-sanctioned totalitarian tactics of the police is acceptable.

An Internet Scam Warning

I imagine that all Internet users at one time or another have experienced a browser popup claiming that they have won one of the many technological baubles that seem to dominate our culture, be it an IPad, Ipod, or whatever. Recently I decided to click on a claim that I had won an Ipad, just to see where it would take me. My advice is simple: resist the urge.

It initially seemed innocent enough, a rather challenging IQ test (the kind of test I generally resist taking, lest they confirm my worst cognitive fears). After taking it, I had to enter my cellphone number to receive the results. What followed were two more questions, on the cellphone, to which I did not respond.

We then went away for a week to Cuba, having left the cellphone behind since it doesn't work there. Upon my return, I was appalled to find that I had insufficient balance left on the prepaid to make a call. Upon investigating the balance online, I saw that I had received several more messages from the Internet company that had provided the IQ test, each with a charge of $2.

I called my cellphone provider to ask it to block the messages and to restore the funds to my account. While they did the latter with alacrity, they said that I was listed as subscribing to a service from skill2thrill.com, and provided me with a number to call to halt the emails. The number is 1-866-257-4586.

All is now restored and the messages have stopped, but what I most object to is the fact that there was nothing obvious that I saw on the site stating that by providing my cellphone number, I was in fact entering into a contract with skill2thrill.com

Personally, I would like to see some kind of CRTC regulation governing such misleading and unethical practices.

Just a word to the wise from someone who should have known better.

Tracy Bonds

I just finished watching video obtained by The Ottawa Citizen showing the manhandling of Tracy Bonds, the 27-year-old woman arrested in 2008 for 'public intoxication.' According to police, they stopped her for having an open bottle of alcohol, although that bottle has never been produced. After running her name through the computer and finding nothing, they told her to keep walking home. When Ms. Bonds, a black woman who perhaps suspected racial profiling, asked why she had been stopped in the first place, they arrested her for public intoxication.

The videotapes given to The Ottawa Citizen speak for themselves, showing her being physically abused by the booking officers at the station, and speak volumes about the way Canadians can be treated when they dare to question the powers that be.

While watching the videos, I couldn't help but think of the myriad instances of police abusing their powers during this past summer's G20 summit, and the fact that despite the plethora of evidence of police wrong-doing, the SIU recently concluded that there was no way to charge the offending officers, as they refused, as is their right, to speak to the SIU. In ways I don't understand, invoking their rights somehow has given them immunity from any prosecution.

Dalton McGuinty, while he stayed strangely silent and was, in my view, complicit in the G20 Charter rights violations, has ventured forth to comment on the Tracy Bonds case. Perhaps recognizing a political opportunity, he is on record as saying:

“I think I would ask . . . our police to remember (that) this is somebody’s daughter, this is somebody’s sister. For all they know this might have been somebody’s mother,” McGuinty said.

The Premier acknowledged that an incident like this “shakes our confidence” in police and added it is incumbent upon the provincial Attorney General’s office to review the case, including the conduct of the crown attorney in the case.

A shame he was hardly as forthright about the massive police wrongdoing at the Toronto Summit.

Michael Ignatief's Problems

The Globe and Mail's online edition (the only one I will henceforth have access to, given my termination of our subscription) today has an article by Bruce Anderson entitled 'Michael Ignatief faces daunting enthusiasm gap' offering a variety of reasons that the Liberal leader has failed to 'catch fire' with perspective voters. In my humble view, none of them fully explains his failure as leader.

As I have written before, I am convinced that Ignatief's failure to convey any semblance of integrity, given his repeated practice of ensuring an insufficient number of Liberals in the House of Commons when key votes occur, votes with the potential of bringing down the Harper Government, are at the core of the Liberal Party's problems. I am of the view that, even worse than contending with a government whose views and policies may run counter to one's core values, is contending with a political party that ultimately stands for nothing but the acquisition of power for its own sake.

Even though the electorate may at times be befuddled, apathetic, even misguided, I am certain that they can spot insincerity and hypocrisy very adeptly, qualities that the Liberal leader has displayed in abundance since his ascension to the leadership.

We've Finally Cut the Cord

It is with some sadness that I announce the termination of our subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper that we have subscribed to continuously since our return to Ontario in 1988. Prior to that, in the 70's my wife was a Globe reader.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, since we wanted to give every chance to the 'new and improved' Globe. Unfortunately, our vision of a good paper sharply diverges from John Stackhouse's, in that it has become obvious to us that the paper is trying to ensure its long-term viability by appealing to a younger and more politically conservative demographic. The most recent inkling of the latter came with the dismissal of long-time columnist Rick Salutin, who had a unique and original perspective on the people and events that make the news. With his dismissal came the elevation of Neil Reynolds, whose libertarian views seem tiresomely repetitive and predictable - he clearly lacks the wide-ranging intellect of Mr. Salutin.

In terms of the Arts and the Life section, the fact that most of the topics are of little interest to my wife and me seems to confirm the shift to a younger demographic. Personally, I think the Globe's strategy is a mistake, given that it is we baby boomers who have the most disposable income. It also ignores the fact that young people today tend to get most of their news from the Internet in general and social media in particular.

On a final note, I think we also recognize that as we get older, we inevitably have less and less influence on the world around us. That is, I suppose, the natural progression of things, and while I hardly begrudge younger generations the opportunity to exert their own influence on things, I wish, in the case of the new Globe and Mail, a better balance had been struck.

Changes at the Hamilton Market

One the one hand, I am reluctant to use this blog to address a local as opposed to a provincial or national issue. On the other hand, however, it is generally accepted that local government is the level that most directly affects citizens and should, at least in theory, be the most responsive to citizens' concerns. With that in mind, here is a piece I recently wrote on changes about to be implemented at the farmers' market in Hamilton, Ontario:


Much spirited discussion has taken place recently over the changes to be unveiled early in the new year at the Hamilton Market. Anna Bradford, the city’s director of culture, has been quoted in The Hamilton Spectator as wanting to 'change the dynamic' of the venerable institution in order to appeal to those seeking 'a trendy shopping experience', asserting that the marker needs to attract young families and hip urbanites in order to survive.

The consequence of that vision is the imminent ejection of many long-term stallholders because, owing to space constraints in this 'improved' facility, the number of stalls will be reduced from 172 to 146.

I find myself wondering if the bureaucrats setting this new direction have ever spent any time at the facility. If they had, I doubt that this rush to make it a more 'upscale', 'trendy' and 'hip' place to attract a new and improved clientele would hold much currency.

The notion of the market place spans thousands of years. The Greek agora, for example, was a place of assembly where people from various walks of life exchanged ideas and made purchases from a variety of stall holders, a community hub for a society that valued true democracy.

The Hamilton Market, an institution dating back to the 19th century, has, until now, held hard to that ideal. Thinking back to my own childhood, I remember an open-air facility where produce was in abundance but amenities were not. Little shelter was offered in inclement weather. A multitude of languages were spoken. And the people came.

It was a time when interactions with both the crowds and the vendors were key parts of the market experience. The destination functioned as a kind of social equalizer, a place where people from all walks of life and social stature, from the recent immigrant to the store merchant to the captain of industry, mingled within an environment where such distinctions were at least temporarily suspended. It was and up till now has been a world both dynamic and animated, much as I imagine the agora of long ago was.

Today, we come from outside the city every week for that experience, plus the opportunity to buy products that are not readily available elsewhere, from the fine apples of a local grower to the range of organic produce available at Dilly's, whose winter tomatoes rival those of summer but, unfortunately, will no longer be available because the vendor somehow failed to qualify for a place in the revamped facility.

In my view, most people who patronize markets are seeking neither an aesthetic nor an antiseptic experience. Nonetheless, I fear that is exactly what is in store for them thanks to the vision of bureaucrats that acknowledges neither the history of the Hamilton Market nor the special place it holds in the hearts of its long-time patrons. It will be everyone's loss.