The Shotgun Blog
« Serious question | Main | "Canada back cops" over G20 »
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The police are losing the PR battle
Kady O'Malley is reporting on a sudden change in agenda for the Federal Public Safety committee.
As per an SO 106(4) request filed earlier today, the chair is now obliged to convene a special meeting of the committee within the next five days "in order to examine all issues surrounding security at the G8 and G20 summits, including but not limited to, the conduct of security personnel, violations of civil liberties, violence and property destruction and the decisions that led to these problems."
It would seem that the scales are now tipping, and we're starting to see some politicians starting to take these stories about police abuse and civil liberty violations seriously.
Very good news.
Posted by Mike Brock on July 7, 2010 in G20 | Permalink
Comments
Why is it better for a parliamentary committee to evaluate competing claims than for a court of law to do so?
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-07 10:29:14 AM
Anonymouse.
It's not. But it's a start. Hopefully this will lead to a judicial inquiry, and eventually to the court system. But I'll take what I can get right now.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-07 10:31:56 AM
Not good enough. ALL Ontarians must pay for the crimes of their leaders. I say close down all hospitals, schools and airports for 5 years. You bigots must atone for your crimes. You people elected and re-elected these people, it is YOUR fault.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-07-07 10:34:45 AM
What did I tell you, Mike?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 10:38:42 AM
I file this in the "smoke & mirror" category for the time being. This right now is lip service, akin to a company to tell you that they "take it seriously" when you tell them you found a dead rat in your canned dinner.
Canadian's by and large are complacent and unless someone can proof to the masses just how wrong the cops were nothing big will happen.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 10:40:57 AM
It's not a start, it's an end.
"[I]ncriminating evidence provided to a parliamentary committee may not be used directly in subsequent criminal proceedings"
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=152&art=1030
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-07 10:45:23 AM
Snowrunner, are you suggesting that those who disagree with the actions of the police shouldn't have to prove those actions were wrong?
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-07 10:49:55 AM
Anonymouse, I'm not sure whether that section means that someone who offers testimony at a parliamentary hearing is barred from offering the same testimony at other proceedings. It may simply mean that the original testimony is inadmissible and that the witness must testify again. Also, the section leaves unanswered whether such evidence could be introduced in non-criminal civil proceedings, which are likely to make up the bulk of any court cases.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 11:08:24 AM
Anyone wanting the facts to come to light and even a modicum of justice should be very concerned that politicians are getting involved rather than the courts. Politicians at lower levels were already part of the problem it seems. Keep in mind that chiefs of police are actually politicians and not policemen, to say nothing of the mayor and premier. The scent of good political hay is too great a temptation for politicians to resist and the victim will be the truth.
Anonymouse, I suspect you already know the answer to your question to Snowrunner. Snowrunner has already written that it is wrong to equate property damage with violence.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-07 11:11:35 AM
"Snowrunner, are you suggesting that those who disagree with the actions of the police shouldn't have to prove those actions were wrong?"
We haven't even gotten to the point yet where it is about proof. Right now the argument is we don't need any inquiry because the cops did "their best".
What I would like to see is a legally binding, public inquiry followed by charges being laid (where appropriate) and then having the accusations being proven in court.
I would also like to see "license plates" on all riot cops from here on in and the immediate availability for police footage to the public for review.
If the cops have nothing to hide, then more transparency must be appreciated by them.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 11:58:26 AM
I have yet to read anybody suggesting that there's no need for an inquiry. Maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-07 12:03:23 PM
"I have yet to read anybody suggesting that there's no need for an inquiry. Maybe that's just me."
You may want to re-read statements by Blair, McGuinty et. al. The latter one IS the one who would need to call a legally binding one and so far he refuses.
Hence, what's going on now is smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 1:40:37 PM
I would also like to see "license plates" on all riot cops from here on in and the immediate availability for police footage to the public for review.
I have no objection, provided we also do the same to the protesters. Protesting without ID recognizable from a distance to result in immediate arrest.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 1:45:41 PM
And just NOW you people figure out that your city sucks?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-07-07 1:55:08 PM
"I have no objection, provided we also do the same to the protesters. Protesting without ID recognizable from a distance to result in immediate arrest."
Ah, you're so freedom loving. Supporting the executive of the State at every turn and spitting on people who stand up for what they believe in (regardless if you agree with or not).
What a patriot Shane, it's too bad you're living in the wrong country at the wrong time, there was an eight year period in German history you would have fit in perfectly.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 10:37:40 PM
Ah, you're so freedom loving. Supporting the executive of the State at every turn and spitting on people who stand up for what they believe in (regardless if you agree with or not).
Getting personal is the mark of the amateur, Snowrunner. Either debunk the point on its own merits, or concede it--also on its own merits. Hiding behind the cloak of anonymity is what a thug does, and it doesn't look any better coming from a terrorist than it does from a cop. Worse, actually.
What a patriot Shane, it's too bad you're living in the wrong country at the wrong time, there was an eight year period in German history you would have fit in perfectly.
Breaking Godwin's Law does not help your argument, Snowrunner. Since you apparently have nothing more of value to add to this discussion, what say we save many recriminating words and just crown me the winner now?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-08 7:46:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.