Deny, Deny. Deny

In the strange parallel world inhabited by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, that seems to be the rule governing administrative oversight. When confronted with an authoritative and damning report on the behaviour of your officers, both frontline and senior, attempt to deal with its implications by refusing to apologize for the abrogation of Charter rights that took place under your command, defiantly assert that the rights of citizens were protected that weekend, maintain that 'most police carried out their duties in a professional manner,' and, when really pushed, admit that there are things that “could have been done better”

The apparent inviolable rule of this parallel world is to never, under any circumstances, accept personal responsibility for what happened under your command.

Fortunately, to set things right, both worlds have a Toronto Star which, in today's hard-hitting editorial, suggests that if Blair continues inhabiting that strange world where DENY, DENY, DENY is the ruling ethos, he should step down.

Senior Toronto Officers Facing Charges

The Star reports the following:

About five high-ranking Toronto police officers were informed last week they will face misconduct charges for their actions during the G20 summit, the Star has learned.

The CBC is reporting 28 front line officers have been charged with misconduct — including unlawful arrest and excessive force.

Regarding the G20 police abuse of Charter rights, the still-truculent Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair yesterday:

“Generally, I think the rights of our citizens were protected that weekend,” Blair said, except, he added, “in individual circumstances.”

“I am quite prepared to hold people accountable,” he said. “If there is misconduct, we’ll deal with that.”

Unfortunately, he is still excluding himself from culpability in that misconduct.

Accentuating The Positive

Perhaps he is a student of Norman Vincent Peale. Perhaps he believes that when you are handed lemons, you make lemonade. Perhaps he prefers to see the glass as half-full, not half-empty. Or perhaps he is just a politician intent on covering his professional rear end.

Whatever he is, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is NOT going to accept the responsibility he bears for the policing and Charter Rights disaster that Toronto became in June of 2010 under his command during the G20 Summit.

Chief Blair's immediate public reaction to the excoriating report from The Office of the Independent Police Review Director was to comment that the report observes that 'most police carried out their duties in a professional manner.' When asked by CTV reporter Colin DeMelo whether he would consider resigning, the Chief looked at him and curtly replied, "No."

In any event, today's Star has extensive coverage of the report and a recap of the myriad wrongdoings of the constabulary under Blair. You can access that coverage here.

One final observation from me: Whether evaluating our federal or provincial politicians or police chiefs, much can be inferred about their character when they put their own careers above both personal integrity and the public good. We see it all the time, but just because it has become the norm hardly justifies their choice of expediency over principle.

Stating The Obvious

While this report from The Office of the Independent Police Review may afford some satisfaction for confirming the obvious, the fact that there were no consequences to the Toronto police or their chief, Bill Blair, for being key parts of this orchestrated violation of our Charter Rights renders it pretty much meaningless.

Death By Download?

Although a cliche, it is nonetheless true that knowledge is power, which probably explains why Canada is currently under the yoke of the most secretive and undemocratic federal government it has ever known.

The latest restriction on access to information is reflected in the Harper termination of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, a move which Tim Harper, in his Star column today, attributes to Conservative political ideology.

The group never strayed from its mandate, which was to study both the economic side and the environmental side of climate change, but never one at the exclusion of another. Apparently, however, as the Harper regime eliminates a variety of environmental regulations to fulfill its commitment to turn over the country wholly to the free enterprise 'masters of the universe', the Rountable's reports proved to be too popular a source of information for interested citizens.

As Tim Harper reports, Twin reports entitled Achieving 2050 were downloaded 51,605 times. A report on water sustainability was downloaded 33,565 times, another one entitled Climate Prosperity was downloaded 25,592 times and was linked from national and international media websites.

The NRTEE website gets more than 500,000 hits each year.

It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Coupled with all of the other measures implemented by this regime to limit access to information, it is a safe bet to say that the current Prime Minister agrees.

Mulcair's Dutch Disease Comments: A More Rational Assessment

Despite the near-hysterical reaction of certain CBC broadcasters to the comments made last week by Thomas Mulcair about how tarsands developments are inflating the value of the Canadian dollar, thereby weakening our manufacturing sector, there are those who are able to more objectively assess his comments. One of them is Lawrence Martin.

In his column today entitled Ottawa’s industrial policy divides Canada against itself, Martin observes that we made progress in the decades before 2000 in moving away from an economy based on resource extraction. Using figures from Jim Stanford's research, he reveals that well over half of Canada’s exports consisted of an increasingly sophisticated portfolio of value-added products in areas such as automotive assembly, telecommunications, aerospace technology and more.

However, as of July 2011, unprocessed and semi-processed resource exports accounted for two-thirds of Canada’s total exports, the highest in decades,” Mr. Stanford wrote. “Compare that to 1999, when finished goods made up almost 60 per cent of our exports.”

So while the Conservatives and their apologists at the CBC (aka Peter Mansbridge and Rex Murphy) can wax apoplectic about the 'divisiveness' of this national leader's comments, Lawrence Martin ends his piece thus:

But let the debate roar on. The country needs a new industrial strategy, one based on more than corporate tax cuts, free-trade agreements and rampant resource exploitation.

What Do Bumper Stickers Reveal About Us? Part 1

Although I have never affixed a sticker to my car bumper, I am fascinated by those who do. When I was young, it was very common to see bumpers proudly proclaiming travel to lands both near and far, I Drove The Alcan Highway and Rushmore Aerial Tramway being just two examples. Then, over time there was a movement toward signs that raised awareness for causes or beliefs, such as Think Pink (breast cancer) and Honk If You Love Jesus (evangelical promotion)

However, the sticker that most intrigues and disquiets me is one I see with some regularity: If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free To Stand In Front of Them.

I saw it again just the other day, and my immediate desire, not acted upon, was to approach the driver to ask how he interpreted it. The first part may seem clear enough, the expectation that we will support the troops, but exactly what does supporting our troops mean in the minds of those who purvey this sticker?

Is it the equivalent of the tired absolutist phrase, America, Love It Or Leave It? If so, it is demanding that all citizens adopt an unquestioning, unthinking, uncritical acceptance of all things military including, one would have to assume, actions and policies that may violate personal values and norms, for example the euphemistic collateral damage that sometimes occurs in battle and is usually explained away by government and military command as 'a regrettable but unintentional event.'

Broadening the consideration, does a failure to support the troops include asking whether the loss of young soldiers' lives in a place like Afghanistan is worth it? Indeed, does a healthy debate about such matters constitute a betrayal of the sacrifice that they have made? That certainly seemed to be the mentality that earned Jack Layton the sobriquet 'Taliban Jack' for questioning the Harper regime about its military strategy in Afghanistan a few years back.

Moving to the second part of the sticker, Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them, I assume, although I stand to be corrected, that we are being told raising any kinds of questions about the military is tantamount to treason and therefore warrants execution.

You perhaps begin to see that there are wider implications to this mentality, which I will address in Part 2 of this post.