The 'offer no apologies and accept no responsibility' head of the Toronto Police Services, Chief Bill Blair, has another facet of failed leadership to answer for. According to a report in The Toronto Star, a U of T student has documented at least eight occasions Toronto police have violated rules in place since 2006 requiring them to wear name tags.
According to the story,Vikram Mulligan says he was so troubled by police failing to identify themselves at last summer’s G20 summit he began photographing officers without proper name tags.
At a time when the Toronto force inspire more fear and loathing than admiration, this is hardly the moment for them to become de facto 'secret police.'
The rogue police behaviour the article describes is yet one more troubling indication that the lack of strong leadership and ability to inspire discipline is continuing to have widespread repercussions.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Once More, The SIU Cannot Fulfill Its Mandate
In what I can only construe as inept or complicit leadership at the top, the Toronto Police Service, thanks to massive obstructionism amongst the rank and file, has once again thwarted the SIU in fulfilling its mandate to properly and effectively investigate police wrongdoing.
As reported in The Globe and Mail:
Three officers investigated in a high-profile case of alleged police brutality at last year's G20 summit will not be charged after several peers, including supervisors, did not or could not say whether the officers had been involved in beating Adam Nobody, the province's police watchdog said Monday.
In my opinion, that lead tells us all we need to know about how much the Toronto Police co-operated with the SIU in its investigation. That after all this time only one officer, Babak Andalib-Goortani, has been charged, despite the fact that Adam Nobody was attacked by a phalanx of cops, means that the corrupt concealment of the truth by Toronto's 'finest' has been ongoing, and the person most responsible for facilitating that culture in the context of the G20, Police Chief Bill Blair, has much to answer for.
Despite his unwillingness to acknowledge any responsibility for his officers' actions or their subsequent concealment and obstructionism, Chief Bill Blair needs to resign as the first step in beginning to heal the massive breach in public trust that arose from the G20 police actions. To do anything less is to put career above the public good.
As reported in The Globe and Mail:
Three officers investigated in a high-profile case of alleged police brutality at last year's G20 summit will not be charged after several peers, including supervisors, did not or could not say whether the officers had been involved in beating Adam Nobody, the province's police watchdog said Monday.
In my opinion, that lead tells us all we need to know about how much the Toronto Police co-operated with the SIU in its investigation. That after all this time only one officer, Babak Andalib-Goortani, has been charged, despite the fact that Adam Nobody was attacked by a phalanx of cops, means that the corrupt concealment of the truth by Toronto's 'finest' has been ongoing, and the person most responsible for facilitating that culture in the context of the G20, Police Chief Bill Blair, has much to answer for.
Despite his unwillingness to acknowledge any responsibility for his officers' actions or their subsequent concealment and obstructionism, Chief Bill Blair needs to resign as the first step in beginning to heal the massive breach in public trust that arose from the G20 police actions. To do anything less is to put career above the public good.
Monday, July 18, 2011
A Late Afternoon Thought On The Murdoch Scandal
I just read a post by The Disaffected Lib discussing the mounting number of resignations resulting from the Rupert Murdoch scandal. Both the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan London Police (Scotland Yard) have resigned because of the disrepute they have brought to the organization through their actions and omissions.
Its a funny thing about the British, isn't it? I remember years ago when they were involved in the Falklands War, Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary, resigned because he hadn't anticipated the conflict.
Meanwhile, in Canada, whenever something goes awry, a politician or public official may say he or she 'accepts full responsibility,' she retains her job, and everyone moves on as if nothing happened. Or to bring it even closer to home, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who apparently apologizes for nothing and accepts responsibility for nothing, continues in his position despite the atrocities committed by the police under his control during last June's G20 summit.
Only in Canada, you say?
Its a funny thing about the British, isn't it? I remember years ago when they were involved in the Falklands War, Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary, resigned because he hadn't anticipated the conflict.
Meanwhile, in Canada, whenever something goes awry, a politician or public official may say he or she 'accepts full responsibility,' she retains her job, and everyone moves on as if nothing happened. Or to bring it even closer to home, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who apparently apologizes for nothing and accepts responsibility for nothing, continues in his position despite the atrocities committed by the police under his control during last June's G20 summit.
Only in Canada, you say?
An Ethical Dilemma - One Posible Answer
Yesterday I posed a hypothetical ethical dilemma sent to me by my son; briefly, it outlined a situation where a friend would be attacked by a bear, his injuries not known, but they could range from life-threatening to superficial. The only way to save him (her) from that fate was to accept a fate of your own, which was to live the rest of your life in rain. Here is the answer that I sent him:
This is the sort of vexing question that seems to have no right or wrong answer. In considering the seemingly selfless option of saving your friend from an uncertain fate, you must also consider the consequences of that act of altruism against the misery that you will inflict, not only on yourself, but on those around you. For example, if you were married, would it be fair to consign your partner, who presumably had no say in your choice, to a lifetime of rain? Indeed, wouldn't that lifetime of rain also have an effect on everyone around you, perhaps sending them into deep depression, disability or even death through suicide?
When you think about it, the dilemma involves all of your neighbours, friends, and fellow citizens. Because of the related nature of the world, none of the choices we make are truly made in isolation, so the premise of the original question is flawed. Is it more altruistic to save your friend, or is it more altruistic to consider the possible repercussions of your act on a much wider range of people?
Reminds me of the saying that no good deeds go unpunished.
I will return to this in my next post as to why recognizing this inter-relatedness is vital if there is to be any hope for humanity's future.
This is the sort of vexing question that seems to have no right or wrong answer. In considering the seemingly selfless option of saving your friend from an uncertain fate, you must also consider the consequences of that act of altruism against the misery that you will inflict, not only on yourself, but on those around you. For example, if you were married, would it be fair to consign your partner, who presumably had no say in your choice, to a lifetime of rain? Indeed, wouldn't that lifetime of rain also have an effect on everyone around you, perhaps sending them into deep depression, disability or even death through suicide?
When you think about it, the dilemma involves all of your neighbours, friends, and fellow citizens. Because of the related nature of the world, none of the choices we make are truly made in isolation, so the premise of the original question is flawed. Is it more altruistic to save your friend, or is it more altruistic to consider the possible repercussions of your act on a much wider range of people?
Reminds me of the saying that no good deeds go unpunished.
I will return to this in my next post as to why recognizing this inter-relatedness is vital if there is to be any hope for humanity's future.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
An Ethical Dilemma
Although the following might seem rather tangential to what I usually discuss on this blog, an email recently sent to me by my son is, I think, highly relevant for a number of reasons, which I will discuss tomorrow.
Here is the ethical dilemma:
Think of someone who is your friend (do not select your best friend, but make sure the person is someone you would classify as "considerably more then an acquaintance"). This friend is going to be attacked by a grizzly bear. Now this person will survive the attack; that is guaranteed. There is a 100 percent chance that your friend will live. However, the extent of his injuries is unknown; he might receive nothing but a few superficial scratches, but he also might lose a limb (or multiple limbs). He might recover completely in twenty-four hours with nothing but a great story, or he might spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Somehow you have the ability to stop this attack from happening. You can magically save your friend from the bear. But his (or her) salvation will come at a peculiar price: if you choose to stop the bear, it will always rain. For the rest of your life, wherever you go, it will be raining. Sometimes it will pour and sometimes it will drizzle-but it will never not be raining. But it won't rain over the totality of the earth, nor will the hydrological cycle de disrupted; these storm clouds will be isolated, and they will focus entirely on your specific where-abouts. You will also never see the sun again. Do you stop the bear, accepting the lifetime of rain?
He sent me the response given by a friend of his, and closed the missive with the following:
Dad, what would your response be?
I sent him a response, but won't post it until tomorrow in case anyone would like to weigh in on this scenario.
Here is the ethical dilemma:
Think of someone who is your friend (do not select your best friend, but make sure the person is someone you would classify as "considerably more then an acquaintance"). This friend is going to be attacked by a grizzly bear. Now this person will survive the attack; that is guaranteed. There is a 100 percent chance that your friend will live. However, the extent of his injuries is unknown; he might receive nothing but a few superficial scratches, but he also might lose a limb (or multiple limbs). He might recover completely in twenty-four hours with nothing but a great story, or he might spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Somehow you have the ability to stop this attack from happening. You can magically save your friend from the bear. But his (or her) salvation will come at a peculiar price: if you choose to stop the bear, it will always rain. For the rest of your life, wherever you go, it will be raining. Sometimes it will pour and sometimes it will drizzle-but it will never not be raining. But it won't rain over the totality of the earth, nor will the hydrological cycle de disrupted; these storm clouds will be isolated, and they will focus entirely on your specific where-abouts. You will also never see the sun again. Do you stop the bear, accepting the lifetime of rain?
He sent me the response given by a friend of his, and closed the missive with the following:
Dad, what would your response be?
I sent him a response, but won't post it until tomorrow in case anyone would like to weigh in on this scenario.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Ever-Increasing Importance Of Alternative Media
After reading Rick Salutin's column yesterday about the very real limitations of Canadian journalism even when juxtaposed against the scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire, I had the opportunity to read a story from rabble.ca that confirms the need for the independent voices working in alternative media. Entitled CUPW: A cautionary tale of union-busting, with a little help from the media, the article underscores the frequently lazy journalism practised in MSM while amply demonstrating how the conservative forces in our country use it to propagate and perpetuate its message.
The following excerpt provides a brief overview of a few of the fictions about Canada Post promulgated by those eager to whet the newly-awakened appetite for union-busting rife in North America:
...as the strike loomed, Canada Post announced that it had calculated the union's demands would cost $1.4 billion. When the union demanded an explanation of this eye-popping figure, management refused. But the figure appeared in many media stories.
Another widely used figure was a 17 per cent drop in mail volumes that supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2010. This number received massive media coverage and was cited to support the myth of financial crisis....Prior to the strike/lockout, the union was informed that admail and parcels were rebounding. Between 2006 and 2009, letter volumes decreased by 7 per cent, not 17 per cent. But the fake 17 per cent is still being bandied about by the media, despite union requests that this misleading figure be corrected. Nobody who reported the 17 per cent, including reputable academics and columnists, ever bothered to publicly correct their misleading statements, despite being contacted.
I hope you will take a few minutes to read the entire article. The more information we have from all sources, the more effectively we can think for ourselves - a much preferable option, in my view, than the Pavlovian slobbering the conservative agenda is designed to elicit.
The following excerpt provides a brief overview of a few of the fictions about Canada Post promulgated by those eager to whet the newly-awakened appetite for union-busting rife in North America:
...as the strike loomed, Canada Post announced that it had calculated the union's demands would cost $1.4 billion. When the union demanded an explanation of this eye-popping figure, management refused. But the figure appeared in many media stories.
Another widely used figure was a 17 per cent drop in mail volumes that supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2010. This number received massive media coverage and was cited to support the myth of financial crisis....Prior to the strike/lockout, the union was informed that admail and parcels were rebounding. Between 2006 and 2009, letter volumes decreased by 7 per cent, not 17 per cent. But the fake 17 per cent is still being bandied about by the media, despite union requests that this misleading figure be corrected. Nobody who reported the 17 per cent, including reputable academics and columnists, ever bothered to publicly correct their misleading statements, despite being contacted.
I hope you will take a few minutes to read the entire article. The more information we have from all sources, the more effectively we can think for ourselves - a much preferable option, in my view, than the Pavlovian slobbering the conservative agenda is designed to elicit.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Rick Salutin on Rupert Murdoch
For those exulting in the ongoing misfortunes of Rupert Murdoch (and I readily and enthusiastically admit to being one of them), Rick Salutin has a thoughtful column in today's Star warning us that we really have little room for self-righteousness when it comes to the state of journalism in Canada.
Offering a brief historical overview of the craft, Salutin calls into question the traditional notion of journalism as a noble calling. Considering the decline in news quality we have witnessed over the past several years, especially in CBC television news, I think the columnist is once more spot on.
Offering a brief historical overview of the craft, Salutin calls into question the traditional notion of journalism as a noble calling. Considering the decline in news quality we have witnessed over the past several years, especially in CBC television news, I think the columnist is once more spot on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)