Police State

Ok, in the Ottawa case the appropriate remedy was taken - the charges were stayed and thrown out. It is likely that those officers may now face charges under the police act or perhaps face a lawsuit. This is the correct response to a situation that is obviously wrong and horrendous. What other remedy would you like? Only one legal proceeding can go ahead at a time. No it shouldn't of happened but yes even in the most civilized country these happen occasionally.

Secondly, the G20 case: You can't compel people to speak to the SIU just as you can't be compelled to speak to police. This is basic rights and sorry but your rights are not different just because you wear a uniform to work. And yes, self-defence can be used when an officer attacks you - resisting unlawful arrest is allowed, it's in the Charter. As for self-identifying, yes some may be criminals, but again, you can't apply a different legal standard to them it is not only impractical, its wrong. You can't be compelled to speak out against yourself in a court or anywhere else. Fine someone should be responsible for this, and likely the answer is a political one, but this is obviously not the correct route. You can't respond to rights violations with rights violations and you also can't tar entire police forces for the actions of a few.

Who gave orders? I don't know, we may never not. Nobody may have given orders. Why don't we talk about the protesters who allowed violent thugs into their ranks? It happened on both sides. Why don't we talk about Harper's stupid decision to put this in downtown TO with only a few months notice? You want a political answer, there it is.

Um, no Stephen, they aren't the same thing. Protesters are civilians, independent and responsible to no one but themselves for their actions. Police officers are employed by the public, and responsible to us for their actions.

In a chain of command someone is always responsible, usually those above for those below. If hiding identities was sanctioned, who gave that approval? If attacking and beating non-violent protesters was ordered, who gave that order? And if neither of these orders were ever given, why didn't the senior cops on the ground control the situation?

The police are abusing their power in this country. There's no denying that anymore. I find your willingness to let this go disturbing to say the least.

Police officers are not superhuman, nor are they either above or below the law. They are individual citizens and entitled to the same rights as everyone else, full stop.

Yes they are responsible to us through the government and police boards, but again this is a political issue and not one for the SIU. If there is a problem, there are two solutions: 1) force a public inquiry or 2) vote the government out (that government being the conservatives in Ottawa). I'm not convinced that the communication was good on that weekend, too many police forces, and well it was just a mess. I'm not sure if anyone gave orders or if anyone knew what was happening. Again a political problem, not a problem of individual charges or the SIU.

The majority of cops did their jobs as they were asked to do it.

I think it's a jump to go from a few cops abusing their powers to all police in this country abusing their power. I'm not letting individual abuses go unanswered, I just think that the methods people are advocating are wrong, and just as abusive as the people they are upset with. Legal procedures are there for a reason and people should become informed before spouting off. The twitter conversations i had last night confirmed this to me, as everyone tried over and over to twist my words and arguments. Twitter is a TERRIBLE way to debate an issue.

BTW I'm not talking to the RCMP issues. It is obvious that there are issues within the RCMP and I hope that those problems get fixed. However I am unwilling to tar the other forces nor am I willing to tar every police officer in this country. Nor was I willing to tar the entire military with problems after Somalia. That isn't to say that solutions aren't needed, but target your vitoral at the appropriate target - the political masters. There was a reason the G20 was held here in Toronto - it didn't put any Harper seats at risk.

You keep insisting that this is strictly a political issue, as if the solution here is to simply eject Harper from office. What of the police board? The chief? The CO's on the ground? The other officers who can be identified and choose not to speak up or defend the Public Good? This problem has been around a long time, it's systemic.

You have to accept that the state of policing in this country is one that fosters irresponsible and dangerous behaviour. As employees of the public, should not the system be called to account? What do you suggest as a remedy to this situation? The current system isn't working.

Holding the CO's the chief, the police board etc to account are all political issues as this all requires either political action or public inquiry. These people are responsible to us through the politicians thus it is a political issue.

As for officers who chose not to speak up, well what do you suggest we do? We can't compel them to speak, this would be another rights violation and equally wrong. If you can't identify people you can't charge them. The only way to figure this out is to go up the rank, and the only way to investigate up there is through actions of the politicians in charge to insist on investigations. The truth is that all of this is in the best interests of the government in Ottawa so again the only possible solution is to boot them.

This is how democracy works. We elect people who we hold accountable at election time or through intense political action. How else would you do it? Recall is a joke. Just pick the correct targets, and the cop on the beat is NOT the correct target, the political masters who refuse to enforce accountability are.

With respect, this is how "democracy" isn't working. Incompetence and brutality are being practised at one level and somehow we're expected it all to be fixed by tinkering with the leadership ten levels of responsibility up. Would you suggest that I call for Harper's resignation when any government employee commits a crime?

As for the other officers who didn't defend the public at the G20 and continue that irresponsibility even now by not identifying the criminals, they should be fired for dereliction of duty and subpoenaed for a formal inquiry where they can be questioned under oath regarding the actions of their fellow officers.

This is a list of "shoulds", a compilation of what a free society should be able expect from its police service. It won't happen, and that's what we're all so angry about. Employees of the state are getting away with murder and assault and at every turn we're being told to accept it and wait for an election.

Some statements will be made out of anger or ignorance, but frankly I think that that's more constructive than passively pretending that nothing is wrong and that our democracy is working. It isn't.

i'm not pretending that nothing is wrong, not one big. I don't prescribe to conspiracy theories though. Furthermore, in order to subponea (man I hate spelling that word) or fire anyone you need to know who they are. You CANNOT go on a witch hunt with this, you simply can't. You need to charge someone to subponea or have an inquiry. Also you can't fire someone without a process, and not talking (which is your right) is NOT a fireable offence. Again the solution is a formal inquiry and only Harper may call that, so again this is your target.

When a government employee commits a crime the police are expected to investigate. If the police don't do an adequate job then yes it is up to the politicians. There is nobody else in between. That is where the responsibility lies.

Nobody had gotten away with murder. The Vancouver incident was not intentional and a private citizen would also NOT face a murder charge. Assaults need to be proven even by police and you need to have an accused before you can go to trial.

If you want a closer politician look to McGuinty, but really that's as low as it gets. Perhaps Miller, but really this is an issue for the police act and that falls with provincial POLITICIANS, or perhaps the OPP. But honestly this is WHY we have the SIU and independent civilian body. Honestly this is MUCH better than other provinces who use police to investigate police.

You want justice all in inquiry. You want in inquiry pressure McGuinty and Harper. That is the only way. Everything else seems to be to be above board. You CANNOT compel people to talk full stop, whether or not they are police officers. You cannot fire people for exercising their rights.

Regarding the subponeas and firings, I was referring to the identifiable officers who witnessed the criminal acts and did nothing. They should be fired for their inaction and subpoenaed to an inquiry where they can be compelled to testify... like any other citizen.

Despite what you're implying, I'm not advocating for the suspension of civil rights of any of these officers. I'm simply asking that a proper investigation be done. If a cop had been assaulted, you can be sure that the investigation wouldn't stop when the accused refused to answer. The efforts so far have been half-assed and strictly to give the impression of action when nothing is being done.

People are angry, and rightly so. You and I may disagree as to the proper direction of that anger, but lets not allow this to devolve into a policy debate. Action is needed here to save what little is left of our democracy. You work the election of something other than black or white cats, and the rest of us will go after the cops.

If you can identify someone who witnessed something then you can sobpoena them for evidence, of course and it should be done. But you need some sort of proceeding first, a trial or a inquiry.

i think that the SIU has done what it can, there isn't some conspiracy there. I also don't think that our democracy is at risk. Mistakes have been made for centuries but today they are much easier to magnify.

The cops are not at fault (as a whole), the politicians are. An inquiry is the only answer, but that will not result in criminal charges - evidence presented at inquiries may not be used in criminal charges. Things need to proceed in an order, and I do think that that is happening.

Don't get the black/white cat comment....

I think you have to differentiate between police abuse of powers, even when they are extensive, and anything resembling a police state, or even any erosion of democracy.

Police abuses have happened since forces of 'law and order' have existed. There's a reason why the phrase 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' is in Latin: people have worried about the issue for that long.

Ironically, the unwillingness of politicians to take on police abuses and instigate watchdog organisations with teeth is partly a side-effect of our democratic process. The widespread support for a 'tough' (which is usually a synonym for 'unsupervised') approach to law and order means that any politician who questions police action risks being labelled as a friend of criminals and losing office. I don't think that's remotely the same as saying that government and parliament are subject to the power of the police. For regrettable but perfectly democratic reasons, we have leaders who have little stomach for criticising the police.

The events at the G8 were disgraceful, in my opinion. I've also had personal contact with someone in the last two years who has suffered from what I consider significant police abuses of their power, undergoing unjustifiable arrest and what amounted to deliberate humiliation in police cells. Meanwhile, for the first time in my life, I have got to know about five police officers over the last couple of years, in the OPP and the RCMP. All the evidence I've seen suggests they good, decent, intelligent people who share a pretty similar view of the world to me.

Where does that leave me? Thinking that certain people within the police can and do abuse their power. That there should be better oversight. That most police do a good job - and the sorts of job we never see taking place and don't give much credit for. If there is 'anger brewing', then the place to exhibit it is at the ballot box.

We do, by and large, get something approximating the governments we deserve. Much as I dislike the Harper government, I can also accept that it represents something akin to a reflection of the popular will - despite all the faults of first past the post and minority governments. Is Canada broadly a small-c conservative place? Yes. Do most people have little interest in radically reducing police powers? Yes. In both cases, my own opinion is at odds with the popular will, but that's democracy. The only way to change that is by education - campaigning and supporting causes and arguing the case for change in a way that persuades people of the justice of your arguments.

Quote by Margaret Meed: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. It is the only thing that ever has."