While the title of this post may seem a bit of a tautology, since the power of police on the streets is obvious, there are other arenas where they wield their influence in ways that may not be consistent with an open and democratic society.
For example, police are known to arrive at courtrooms en masse when one of their own is under judicial scrutiny. An egregious example occurred earlier this year when both a criminal lawyer and her client allege intimidation occurred during the trial of Raymond Costain on charges of impaired driving and assault to resist arrest; these charges followed Costain's severe beating by police in an episode captured on video:
Leora Shemesh, defence lawyer for Raymond Costain, tells a tale of what can only be described as collective police intimidation:
Shemesh said officers showed up en masse at court, surrounded her and Costain in an elevator, followed her to her car after a hearing and even took cellphone pictures of her in the courthouse.
The judge, Ford Clements, eventually tossed out the charges against Costain, but also experienced some truculence at the hands of the police"
When the camera incident was raised in court, it caused such an uproar it almost brought the case to a halt, she said.
The officer who took the picture was put on the witness stand and refused to show the judge his cellphone to prove he had not taken the picture. Shemesh said it so enraged the judge that he raised his voice with the officer before ordering him out of the courtroom, raising questions about whether the judge should recuse himself.
Yet police muscle extends far beyond the street and the courtroom. In response to Durham Police Detective Dennis Scott's attempt yesterday to intimidate Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin via Twitter, The Star's Rosie Dimanno has a column today that reveals something truly chilling about the 'long arm of the law." It is an arm that reaches into the very heart of our democracy, our government, revealed in the latter's reaction to Marin's proposal, in 2011, that the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) be taken out of the Police Services Act so it can operate as an entirely independent body:
“Take the SIU out of the PSA, with consequences for failure to co-operate. If you don’t co-operate with the SIU, you face prosecution — that simple.” This, of course, would not apply to subject officers, who would retain the right to silence shared by civilians.
In Marin's view, that would end the frequent roadblocks to investigations of the police, who frequently simply refuse to co-operate with any probes conducted by the SIU under its current legislative configuration.
The reaction of the Ontario government to this proposal? An internal Ministry of the Attorney General briefing note is telling:
“As you know, the decision was made at the time of the Report’s release that — largely due to vehement police opposition — we will not be considering the recommended legislative changes in the near term.
The note goes on:
“At some point, we may have to communicate that we will not be legislating, however that time is not now. Marin typically does not conduct any public communications regarding ‘report-backs’ — he usually gets his media hit off report releases and then moves on. We need not be overly concerned that he will criticize us on the basis of this letter.”
The motto of the Toronto Police Force, and many others, is To Serve and Protect. Perhaps it is time for civilians to ask to whom this motto is really meant to apply.
UPDATE: Many thanks to ThinkingManNeil for pointing out the following video entitled Cherry Beach, the reference, as explained here, being as follows:
The song is about local lore of how the Toronto police used Cherry Beach as a location to beat suspects. The police tried to have the song banned.[5] Hardcore punk band Career Suicide also references the slang phrase "Cherry Beach express" (referring to the supposed police practice) in their song "Cherry Beach".
Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Friday, August 9, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
And Speaking Of The Police
“Whenever allegations such as these are brought to our attention by way of a complaint, an internal investigation is launched. Community trust is important to us and we will continue to work towards maintaining the trust that the community has in Peel Regional Police.
- Staff Sergeant Dan Richardson, Peel Regional Police
While I am well-aware that there are two sides to every story, I can't help but think that the experience of this Hamilton family is consistent with a dismayingly familiar pattern: police abuse of authority, arrogance, and a measure of contempt for the public they 'serve'.
- Staff Sergeant Dan Richardson, Peel Regional Police
While I am well-aware that there are two sides to every story, I can't help but think that the experience of this Hamilton family is consistent with a dismayingly familiar pattern: police abuse of authority, arrogance, and a measure of contempt for the public they 'serve'.
The Police Are Such Sensitive Souls
Andre Marin, Ontario's Ombudsman, found this out after announcing he was planning to investigate the province’s direction to police on de-escalating conflict situations in light of the police killing of Sammy Yatim.
According to a report in The National Post, a Durham police detective, Dennis Scott, opened a Twitter account under a pseudonym so that he could call Marin a carded member of Al Qaida. With what I guess passes for original thought amongst the constabulary, Scott went on to call the ombudsman “a complete douche bag!” and had this suggestion: “Why don’t you stick your big French nose up your ass instead of business where it doesn’t belong.”
Toronto city councillor, who was critical of the police killing, was also the recipient of advice from Scott:
“You are a real expert, huh? Douchebag city councillor? Were you there? You need to keep your idiotic thoughts to yourself.”
Durham Police Deputy Chief Paul Martin tweeted that he is investigating these disturbing allegations.
I'm sure that will set everything to rights.
H/t trapdinawrpool
If Your Name Is Tim Hudak, This Can't Be Good
When you are leading a major provincial political party, it is never a good sign when the country's largest-circulating newpaper makes editorial sport of you:
Memo to Tim Hudak: Please stay as Ontario PC leader: Editorial
You lost an Ontario election in 2011 that you were to supposed to win; failed in two byelections last year; and dropped four out of five this month against a tired and scandal-prone government. But so what? You’re Tim Hudak, head of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, and winning isn’t everything.
Ignore the growing number of Tories worried they’ll never achieve power as long as you’re at the helm. Naysayers. They’re troubled by your persistent and well-documented failure to connect with Ontario voters. The electorate doesn’t seem to trust you.
Never mind. People of good judgment realize Ontario is best served by having a leader with your special touch continue to steer the PC party. Yes, Tory petitions are circulating calling for a leadership review, with the aim of dumping you. But cheer up. The good news is they are likely to fail. With any luck, Ontarians will have the option of not giving Tim Hudak their vote for a long time to come.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
From The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave
Somehow I don't think our 'friends' to the south have anything to teach us about civil society and democratic rights, although I can't help but think that much of this footage would gladden the dark chambers of the Harperite heart:
The Commercial NBC Refused To Air
According to Salon.com, this anti-Keystone pipeline ad was pulled at the last minute by NBC. I guess the CBC isn't the only network that has grown sheepish of late.
Legalization Of Marijuana - The Need For A Vigorous Debate -UPDATED
I believe the sterotype is that as we get older, our views become more entrenched and conservative. In my own life, I have found the opposite to be true.
When I was young, I was certainly to the right of centre in my social views. I was a supporter of capital punishment, and felt severe sentencing acted as a deterrent to crime. As I got older and more educated, I learned to think more critically, and thereby progresssed in my views. While I am still opposed to the gutting of sentences through easy parole and the fact that most incarceration means only serving one-third of the sentence, an affront to the notion that justice must be seen to be done, I also feel that prison terms should be served by far fewer than currently occupy our detention facilities. I guess, to use the demonizing categorization of the Haper regime, I have become soft on some 'crime'.
One of those crimes is incarceration for drug possession. Thanks to Bill C-10, the Harper omnibus crime bill, there is a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for growing as few as six marijuana plants, something that strikes many as overkill. At a time when many jurisdictions, including the United States, are pursuing legal reforms as they realize the growing costs of the increasingly futile 'war on drugs,' Canada's postion seems both regressive and anachronistic.
In any event, a vigorous and informed debate is clearly needed on the issue of drug legalization. In pursuit of that goal, I offer the following:
Retired police captain Peter Christ makes some compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs. While I don't agree with the legalization of all drugs, the perspective of a former law enforcement offical is surely useful:
In light of Justin Trudeau's recent announcement that he favours legalization of majijuana, the following are additional resources that add meaningfully to the discussion:
The Star had an interesting piece on what legalization of marijuana likely means in states like Colorado and Washington, which recently held referenda on the issue.
They also ran an editorial evaluating Justin Trudeau's proposal, suggesting he needs to more clearly define how it would be implemented.
You can check out the Globe's take here and here. You may be surprised at what 'the newspaper of record' has to say.
As well, The National Post looks at both sides of the pot debate here.
Finally, in this morning's Star, Rosie DiManno offers her withering assessment both of Trudeau and his advocacy.
May there be much constructive debate on this controversial issue.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting video in which Doctor Sanjay Gupta apologizes for his past opposition to medical marijuana use:
When I was young, I was certainly to the right of centre in my social views. I was a supporter of capital punishment, and felt severe sentencing acted as a deterrent to crime. As I got older and more educated, I learned to think more critically, and thereby progresssed in my views. While I am still opposed to the gutting of sentences through easy parole and the fact that most incarceration means only serving one-third of the sentence, an affront to the notion that justice must be seen to be done, I also feel that prison terms should be served by far fewer than currently occupy our detention facilities. I guess, to use the demonizing categorization of the Haper regime, I have become soft on some 'crime'.
One of those crimes is incarceration for drug possession. Thanks to Bill C-10, the Harper omnibus crime bill, there is a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for growing as few as six marijuana plants, something that strikes many as overkill. At a time when many jurisdictions, including the United States, are pursuing legal reforms as they realize the growing costs of the increasingly futile 'war on drugs,' Canada's postion seems both regressive and anachronistic.
In any event, a vigorous and informed debate is clearly needed on the issue of drug legalization. In pursuit of that goal, I offer the following:
Retired police captain Peter Christ makes some compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs. While I don't agree with the legalization of all drugs, the perspective of a former law enforcement offical is surely useful:
In light of Justin Trudeau's recent announcement that he favours legalization of majijuana, the following are additional resources that add meaningfully to the discussion:
The Star had an interesting piece on what legalization of marijuana likely means in states like Colorado and Washington, which recently held referenda on the issue.
They also ran an editorial evaluating Justin Trudeau's proposal, suggesting he needs to more clearly define how it would be implemented.
You can check out the Globe's take here and here. You may be surprised at what 'the newspaper of record' has to say.
As well, The National Post looks at both sides of the pot debate here.
Finally, in this morning's Star, Rosie DiManno offers her withering assessment both of Trudeau and his advocacy.
May there be much constructive debate on this controversial issue.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting video in which Doctor Sanjay Gupta apologizes for his past opposition to medical marijuana use:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)