Recently, the McGuinty-led Liberal government of Ontario has proposed extending to two years from one the training of new teachers. The logic seems to be that the additional training will make for better teachers AND reduce the number of unemployed new graduates.
While I can't really address the efficacy of such a proposal in turning out better-qualified teachers, my own memory of teacher training being that it was only during the practicum that I learned anything useful, I can address its second purpose with considerable confidence.
As a retired teacher who has long opposed teachers doing supply and contract work post-retirement, one part of the solution to unemployment amongst new graduates is to ban this practice, something neither the teacher federations nor the government have shown any appetite for. It has always seemed manifestly unjust and selfish to me for retired colleagues to be denying new grads the opportunity to gain some experience and make some contacts within the crucible of supply and contract work.
However, the proposed lengthening of teacher training to two years from one as a solution to teacher unemployment is only a way of avoiding political risks. Several years ago, in anticipation of a teacher shortage that never materialized, the Ontario government significantly increased the number of university spots to train teachers. Rather than now reducing that number to realistic levels, (which would also reduce education faculties' revenues,) the McGuinty government has once more opted to play politics instead of showing real leadership.
And speaking of politics, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, of which I am a former member, by immediately and reflexively supporting this two-year initiative, has demonstrated that it is more interested in supporting the objectives of the Liberal government than it is in representing the interests of its members.
Showing posts with label mcguinty government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mcguinty government. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Ontario To Allow Mixed Martial Arts
My son just sent me a link to a story that says the Ontario McGuinty Government has changed its mind and will allow MMA fighting beginning next year. According to Consumer Services Minister Sophia Aggelonitis, regulating MMA is the best way to keep the fighters safe.
Hmm... not to mention the revenue the government will accrue from it and the online gambling it is about to get into as well.
Oh well, bloodsports and gambling may be two effective ways to assuage people should they grow vexed over their increasingly high utility and gasoline bills thanks to the HST, despite the fact that the latter will be applied to these latest questionable and diversionary McGuinty policy decisions.
Hmm... not to mention the revenue the government will accrue from it and the online gambling it is about to get into as well.
Oh well, bloodsports and gambling may be two effective ways to assuage people should they grow vexed over their increasingly high utility and gasoline bills thanks to the HST, despite the fact that the latter will be applied to these latest questionable and diversionary McGuinty policy decisions.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Morally and Financially Bankrupt Provincial Government
Some days, it is almost more than I can do to muster even a modicum of faith in our political system. Confronted as we are on an almost daily basis with evidence of corruption, betrayal of the public trust, and reminders that we, the voters, count only at election time, it is difficult to affix any credibility to the utterances of our 'representatives'. Currently, my ire is particularly directed at the Ontario Provincial Liberals, led by Dalton McGuinty.
My acute disaffection with the Premier began in late June, during the G20 summit. It was only after the summit was over that the Premier revealed that the so-called five-meter fence law allowing police to demand that people show their identities and the contents of their knapsacks did not actually exist. This, despite the fact that Bill Blair, the Toronto Police Chief, was trumpeting its importance since the day before the Summit actually began, and Dalton McGuinty was enthusiastically agreeing with him in the press that such extraordinary measures were necessary to provide an adequate level of security for the delegates.
After it was all over, McGuinty simply said that they “could have done a better job in communication” and facilely dismissed the idea of a public inquiry, despite the fact that he had obviously colluded with the police to deprive citizens of their Charter Rights guaranteeing freedom of movement and association.
My disaffection with him has deepened given the events that transpired over the weekend regarding the site for the Pan Am stadium in Hamilton, which I have already written about.
And now comes the announcement that the Provincial Government is going to move into the lucrative field of on-line gambling, whereby they hope to realize a minimum of $400 million dollars annually, choosing to ignore, despite whatever public-relations gestures that will be forthcoming, the gambling addiction of many Ontarians and willfully exploiting that weakness to enrich government coffers.
So now, in a province that is almost financially bankrupt, we have seen, in at least three different ways, its declaration of moral bankruptcy.
One can only hope that voters will take notice and remember during the next election campaign.
My acute disaffection with the Premier began in late June, during the G20 summit. It was only after the summit was over that the Premier revealed that the so-called five-meter fence law allowing police to demand that people show their identities and the contents of their knapsacks did not actually exist. This, despite the fact that Bill Blair, the Toronto Police Chief, was trumpeting its importance since the day before the Summit actually began, and Dalton McGuinty was enthusiastically agreeing with him in the press that such extraordinary measures were necessary to provide an adequate level of security for the delegates.
After it was all over, McGuinty simply said that they “could have done a better job in communication” and facilely dismissed the idea of a public inquiry, despite the fact that he had obviously colluded with the police to deprive citizens of their Charter Rights guaranteeing freedom of movement and association.
My disaffection with him has deepened given the events that transpired over the weekend regarding the site for the Pan Am stadium in Hamilton, which I have already written about.
And now comes the announcement that the Provincial Government is going to move into the lucrative field of on-line gambling, whereby they hope to realize a minimum of $400 million dollars annually, choosing to ignore, despite whatever public-relations gestures that will be forthcoming, the gambling addiction of many Ontarians and willfully exploiting that weakness to enrich government coffers.
So now, in a province that is almost financially bankrupt, we have seen, in at least three different ways, its declaration of moral bankruptcy.
One can only hope that voters will take notice and remember during the next election campaign.
Monday, July 19, 2010
More Disturbing Video of Police Violation of Charter Rights
As most people probably know, on June 26 in Toronto, the police attacked and arrested many protesters at Queen's Park, the site designated as an official G20 protest zone. Although the following video is largely unedited, watching only a few minutes of it provides ample evidence of the need for a full public inquiry, something Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty continues to insist is unnecessary. The evidence on the video represents just one more reason he has lost my vote.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
More on G20 Charter Violations
Today, several cities are planning rallies calling for any independent inquiry into police and government behaviour during the G20 Summit. Take a look at this video for yet another reason this is worth caring about.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
How Long Can McGuinty and Harper Ignore the People?
Given the fact that the Toronto Police Board and the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman are each going to launch probes, however narrow, into the violation of Charter Rights at the G20 Summit, the following story about an impending mass rally today at Queen's Park demanding a public inquiry into the fiasco leads one to wonder how long Messieurs McGuinty and Harper can ignore the legitimate concerns of the people. The key, it seems to me, is to keep the issue in the spotlight as long as possible.
Thousands expected at G20 public inquiry rally
Demonstration at the Ontario Legislature to protest police crackdown during the summit
Toronto — The Canadian Press Published on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:33AM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:38AM EDT
Two weeks after police cracked down on G20 demonstrations in Toronto, protesters will march again.
Thousands are expected to gather at the Ontario Legislature this afternoon to demand an independent public inquiry into security costs and police actions during the G20 summit.
Provincial New Democrat Party leader Andrea Horwath is expected to speak at the rally, which begins at 1 p.m.
Demonstrators are expected to march through the downtown core.
Almost 1,000 people were arrested during the summit weekend, after a group of vandals broke away from protesters, smashing windows and burning police cars.
Demonstrations are also expected in Halifax, Kingston and Montreal.
Thousands expected at G20 public inquiry rally
Demonstration at the Ontario Legislature to protest police crackdown during the summit
Toronto — The Canadian Press Published on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:33AM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:38AM EDT
Two weeks after police cracked down on G20 demonstrations in Toronto, protesters will march again.
Thousands are expected to gather at the Ontario Legislature this afternoon to demand an independent public inquiry into security costs and police actions during the G20 summit.
Provincial New Democrat Party leader Andrea Horwath is expected to speak at the rally, which begins at 1 p.m.
Demonstrators are expected to march through the downtown core.
Almost 1,000 people were arrested during the summit weekend, after a group of vandals broke away from protesters, smashing windows and burning police cars.
Demonstrations are also expected in Halifax, Kingston and Montreal.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Some Heartening News
The Globe and Mail reports that the Office of the Ombudsman, led by Andre Marin, is launching an investigation into the 'secret powers' granted to police for the G20 Summit. A tenacious and thorough individual, we can only hope that Marin is able to get to the bottom of the McGuinty Government's role in the entire shameful episode:
Ontario ombudsman to investigate secret G20 law
Probe to look at origin and communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed ahead of June summit
Karen Howlett
Toronto — Globe and Mail Update Published on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 10:45AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 11:39AM EDT
Ombudsman André Marin announced on Friday that his office is launching an investigation into sweeping new powers for police secretly approved by the McGuinty government.
The controversial rules allowed police to question and potentially arrest anyone near the security zone for the G20 summit in Toronto who refused to produce identification or be searched.
Mr. Marin said his office will probe the origin and subsequent communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed by the province prior to the June 26-27 G20 summit.
His office has received 22 complaints relating to the G20, including several alleging that a lack of transparency and public communication about the regulation led to an atmosphere of secrecy and confusion and contributed to violations of civil liberties.
“The complaints we’ve received so far raise serious concerns about this regulation and the way it was communicated, and I think there is a very strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened and how that affected the rest of the events of the G20 weekend,” Mr. Marin said in a news release.
In his first comments to the media this week about the regulation, Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged that his government could have done a better job to clear up confusion surrounding it.
His government has come under criticism from civil liberties experts and opposition members for failing to tell people that their rights had changed.
New Democratic Party justice critic has said: “This law was not only passed in secret, it was kept secret.”
The law was approved June 2 through an order-in-council, with no debate in the legislature. The regulatory amendment was quietly posted June 16 on the government's e-laws website. It came to light only after a York University student was held for five hours on June 25 for refusing to show identification near the security fence.
Mr. Marin said his office expects to complete its investigation within 90 days.
He is inviting anyone who has a complaint or relevant information to call 1-800-263-1830 during business hours or complete an online complaint form at www.ombudsman.on.ca .
Ontario ombudsman to investigate secret G20 law
Probe to look at origin and communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed ahead of June summit
Karen Howlett
Toronto — Globe and Mail Update Published on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 10:45AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 11:39AM EDT
Ombudsman André Marin announced on Friday that his office is launching an investigation into sweeping new powers for police secretly approved by the McGuinty government.
The controversial rules allowed police to question and potentially arrest anyone near the security zone for the G20 summit in Toronto who refused to produce identification or be searched.
Mr. Marin said his office will probe the origin and subsequent communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed by the province prior to the June 26-27 G20 summit.
His office has received 22 complaints relating to the G20, including several alleging that a lack of transparency and public communication about the regulation led to an atmosphere of secrecy and confusion and contributed to violations of civil liberties.
“The complaints we’ve received so far raise serious concerns about this regulation and the way it was communicated, and I think there is a very strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened and how that affected the rest of the events of the G20 weekend,” Mr. Marin said in a news release.
In his first comments to the media this week about the regulation, Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged that his government could have done a better job to clear up confusion surrounding it.
His government has come under criticism from civil liberties experts and opposition members for failing to tell people that their rights had changed.
New Democratic Party justice critic has said: “This law was not only passed in secret, it was kept secret.”
The law was approved June 2 through an order-in-council, with no debate in the legislature. The regulatory amendment was quietly posted June 16 on the government's e-laws website. It came to light only after a York University student was held for five hours on June 25 for refusing to show identification near the security fence.
Mr. Marin said his office expects to complete its investigation within 90 days.
He is inviting anyone who has a complaint or relevant information to call 1-800-263-1830 during business hours or complete an online complaint form at www.ombudsman.on.ca .
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Adam Radwanski is Still Working the G20 Charter Rights' Violation File
It is reassuring to know that The Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski is continuing to pursue the very troubling questions that remain regarding the violation of Charter Rights during the G20 Summit in Toronto. Below I am reproducing one of his online columns that demonstrate his ongoing concern about these issues and why they matter. I have put in bold a few of his more salient points:
Why the 'five metres' mattered
Although it got a more positive response than I'd expected, a few people have asked me why I spent so much time last week covering the "five-metre" law that didn't really exist. After all, it wasn't what was used in most of the dubious arrests during the G20, which happened much further away from the security perimeter.
In her Saturday column, Christie Blatchford more or less summed up that line of thinking (though I have no idea if it was even remotely directed at me):
...in Toronto Star lingo, since “the sweeping powers” granted the police via the “secret” law saw them, according to Toronto Chief Bill Blair, arrest exactly one (1) person under the temporary regulation to the Public Works Protection Act, isn’t the angst-ridden, hyperbolic debate rendered, as someone brighter than me remarked recently, nothing but an intellectual exercise?
It would quite one thing if the 1,000 folks who were detained on G20 weekend were detained under the temporary regulation. The discussion would be meaningful.
But when it’s all said and done, it will turn out that most of those detained were arrested for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace, which is an arrest authority, not a criminal charge.
In my view, it’s a vile authority too, generally speaking easily misused by police, and it may have been misused here as well.
But the point is, it wasn’t under the new secret sweeping power, which was only partly secret and not very sweeping. It was under long-established common-law police authorities, such as arresting people for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace that has yet to take place, that most people were picked up.
You want to be angry about something, be angry about that.
Minor quibbles aside (it seems likely to me that at least two people were arrested under the new law), this seems as good an opportunity as any to explain why holding the province to account over the Public Works Protection Act is more than just an "intellectual exercise."
Admittedly, it happens to be the post-G20 angle I'm best-positioned to cover. Provincial politics is my beat, and this - unlike most of the other things that happened both inside and outside the perimeter - is where Dalton McGuinty's government played a role, and deserves to be held to account. That's especially important because, as I explained toward the end of one of my columns last week, the Liberals' lax handling of the police file has not been restricted to the G20.
But beyond that, it seems to me that the abdication of provincial responsibility in announcing and interpreting the temporary law speaks to a broader phenomenon: the choice of governments, through both their actions and inactions, to give police gratuitous leeway in securing these kinds of international summits.
I wrote about this in the week leading up to the summit, and my former colleagues on the editorial board followed up on it last week. I'll spare you a full rehash of those arguments, and leave it at this: When given a chance early last decade to set out parameters for what police can and can't do to ensure the security of events like the G20, the federal government instead wrote legislation that basically told the police to do whatever they want.
So the message from governments to police, even before the saga over the provincial regulation, was that politicians preferred a no-questions-asked approach to security. Then McGuinty's Liberals took it to new extremes - leaving it to the police to announce a temporary law that could lead to arrests, then failing to publicly correct them when they misinterpreted and misrepresented that law.
As it happened, the province got lucky. If more of the action had been closer to the perimeter, the consequences would have been much greater.
But to some degree, the Liberals' blind faith in the police - including the Premier's unqualified support for Chief Bill Blair in the middle of the controversy - had to reinforce the sense that they had free rein to do as they saw fit, whatever part of downtown Toronto they happened to be in.
Was it the most important story out of the G20? Almost certainly not. But these things didn't all happen in isolation. And if there's any hope that our governments will take more responsibility for the liberties/security balance before the next big international event rolls around, it's necessary to underscore how little responsibility they took this time.
Why the 'five metres' mattered
Although it got a more positive response than I'd expected, a few people have asked me why I spent so much time last week covering the "five-metre" law that didn't really exist. After all, it wasn't what was used in most of the dubious arrests during the G20, which happened much further away from the security perimeter.
In her Saturday column, Christie Blatchford more or less summed up that line of thinking (though I have no idea if it was even remotely directed at me):
...in Toronto Star lingo, since “the sweeping powers” granted the police via the “secret” law saw them, according to Toronto Chief Bill Blair, arrest exactly one (1) person under the temporary regulation to the Public Works Protection Act, isn’t the angst-ridden, hyperbolic debate rendered, as someone brighter than me remarked recently, nothing but an intellectual exercise?
It would quite one thing if the 1,000 folks who were detained on G20 weekend were detained under the temporary regulation. The discussion would be meaningful.
But when it’s all said and done, it will turn out that most of those detained were arrested for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace, which is an arrest authority, not a criminal charge.
In my view, it’s a vile authority too, generally speaking easily misused by police, and it may have been misused here as well.
But the point is, it wasn’t under the new secret sweeping power, which was only partly secret and not very sweeping. It was under long-established common-law police authorities, such as arresting people for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace that has yet to take place, that most people were picked up.
You want to be angry about something, be angry about that.
Minor quibbles aside (it seems likely to me that at least two people were arrested under the new law), this seems as good an opportunity as any to explain why holding the province to account over the Public Works Protection Act is more than just an "intellectual exercise."
Admittedly, it happens to be the post-G20 angle I'm best-positioned to cover. Provincial politics is my beat, and this - unlike most of the other things that happened both inside and outside the perimeter - is where Dalton McGuinty's government played a role, and deserves to be held to account. That's especially important because, as I explained toward the end of one of my columns last week, the Liberals' lax handling of the police file has not been restricted to the G20.
But beyond that, it seems to me that the abdication of provincial responsibility in announcing and interpreting the temporary law speaks to a broader phenomenon: the choice of governments, through both their actions and inactions, to give police gratuitous leeway in securing these kinds of international summits.
I wrote about this in the week leading up to the summit, and my former colleagues on the editorial board followed up on it last week. I'll spare you a full rehash of those arguments, and leave it at this: When given a chance early last decade to set out parameters for what police can and can't do to ensure the security of events like the G20, the federal government instead wrote legislation that basically told the police to do whatever they want.
So the message from governments to police, even before the saga over the provincial regulation, was that politicians preferred a no-questions-asked approach to security. Then McGuinty's Liberals took it to new extremes - leaving it to the police to announce a temporary law that could lead to arrests, then failing to publicly correct them when they misinterpreted and misrepresented that law.
As it happened, the province got lucky. If more of the action had been closer to the perimeter, the consequences would have been much greater.
But to some degree, the Liberals' blind faith in the police - including the Premier's unqualified support for Chief Bill Blair in the middle of the controversy - had to reinforce the sense that they had free rein to do as they saw fit, whatever part of downtown Toronto they happened to be in.
Was it the most important story out of the G20? Almost certainly not. But these things didn't all happen in isolation. And if there's any hope that our governments will take more responsibility for the liberties/security balance before the next big international event rolls around, it's necessary to underscore how little responsibility they took this time.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A Brief Explanation
Although anyone who happens to read my blog on a regular basis might be wondering if I have somehow lost my balance in that all recent posts have revolved around either news stories, my own commentary or that of others regarding the violation of Charter Rights during the G20, I feel the need to offer a small explanation and justification.
First, I have an almost lifelong interest in politics, especially local, provincial, and national. The entire G20 Summit, whether we are talking about the gathering of heads of state or the actions on the street, were political in nature, in that they affect us on both a micro and macro level.
Secondly, the abuse of authority is something that has preoccupied me since my days as both an elementary and secondary student within the Catholic school system, years during which I and many others were both psychologically and physically abused by nuns, priests, and lay teachers. But that topic deserves its own series of posts, which I may get to one of these days.
The third reason for my seeming obsession with the G20 fiasco is that how we define ourselves as Canadians is in no small part contingent upon the freedoms that we enjoy and far too often take for granted. While all of them are essential rights of citizenship, several of them were curtailed and, I would submit, unconstitutionally violated during the G20 in Toronto: freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.
One of the things I find especially troubling is the fact that many people, while enjoying their freedom of expression, have weighed in on these violations as if their inappropriateness is dependent upon whether or not we agree with the protesters. Several have said that peaceful protesters should have stayed away, that law-abiding citizens move when a police officer tell them to move, etc. Such comments seem to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of civil rights. Whether or not we agree with a cause has nothing to do with permitting the expression of that cause, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the law.
And that to me is the crux of the matter: there is ample evidence emerging that countless people committing no crimes were swept up in often violent mass arrests. This fact is not something to be facilely dismissed by anyone, whether you are a Premier, a police chief, a journalist or a private citizen, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. To do so is to further diminish those rights, leaving them open to the possibility of even worse abuse in the future.
So as long as questions remain and answers are withheld, I will be writing about this topic frequently. As well, I shall continue to reproduce stories from newspapers that I think are relevant, largely because most of those stories tend to be archived after seven days and thus no longer readily available.
Enough said for now.
First, I have an almost lifelong interest in politics, especially local, provincial, and national. The entire G20 Summit, whether we are talking about the gathering of heads of state or the actions on the street, were political in nature, in that they affect us on both a micro and macro level.
Secondly, the abuse of authority is something that has preoccupied me since my days as both an elementary and secondary student within the Catholic school system, years during which I and many others were both psychologically and physically abused by nuns, priests, and lay teachers. But that topic deserves its own series of posts, which I may get to one of these days.
The third reason for my seeming obsession with the G20 fiasco is that how we define ourselves as Canadians is in no small part contingent upon the freedoms that we enjoy and far too often take for granted. While all of them are essential rights of citizenship, several of them were curtailed and, I would submit, unconstitutionally violated during the G20 in Toronto: freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.
One of the things I find especially troubling is the fact that many people, while enjoying their freedom of expression, have weighed in on these violations as if their inappropriateness is dependent upon whether or not we agree with the protesters. Several have said that peaceful protesters should have stayed away, that law-abiding citizens move when a police officer tell them to move, etc. Such comments seem to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of civil rights. Whether or not we agree with a cause has nothing to do with permitting the expression of that cause, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the law.
And that to me is the crux of the matter: there is ample evidence emerging that countless people committing no crimes were swept up in often violent mass arrests. This fact is not something to be facilely dismissed by anyone, whether you are a Premier, a police chief, a journalist or a private citizen, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. To do so is to further diminish those rights, leaving them open to the possibility of even worse abuse in the future.
So as long as questions remain and answers are withheld, I will be writing about this topic frequently. As well, I shall continue to reproduce stories from newspapers that I think are relevant, largely because most of those stories tend to be archived after seven days and thus no longer readily available.
Enough said for now.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
A Shocking Story From the G20
I just found a shocking story of a 57-year-old Thorold amputee who suffered incredible abuse at the hands of police while sitting at Queens Park on June 26th with his daughter and two other young people.
Click here to read about it.
Click here to read about it.
Public Pressure is Paying Off
Public pressure seems to be getting some results, judging by the decision of the Toronto Police Services Board to call for an independent inquiry into police abuse of authority during the G20 Summit in Toronto. This marks a reversal from last week, when the head of the board said no inquiry was needed, echoing the sentiments of both Police Chief Bill Blair and Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Here is the story from today's Globe and Mail:
Independent review of Toronto Police G20 conduct moves ahead
Turnabout comes just days after chair denied the need for civilian probe; Will look at ‘oversight, governance and policy’ on summit security
Anna Mehler Paperny
Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 9:58AM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 10:03AM EDT
In an about-face, Toronto police are moving to establish an independent civilian review of police conduct during the G20.
Alok Mukherjee, chair of the civilian body that oversees the police, put the motion forward just days after he said he sees no need for an external review despite strident calls to the contrary.
The review, which would scrutinize issues related to police “oversight, governance and policy” during and leading up to the summit weekend, when police arrested more than 1,000 people – only 263 of whom were charged with anything other than breach of peace.
Both police chief Bill Blair and Toronto Mayor David Miller defended police actions last week; in an interview with The Globe, Mr. Mukherjee said last week there was no need for an independent review after the force announced it was conducting its own inspection.
But he added that police may have made a mistake by failing to tell the public they'd misinterpreted added powers given police by the province.
Tuesday's move is a “prompt response” to reactions to G20 policing, Mr. Mukherjee told the police services board.
“This is a fairly complex issue we're trying to deal with,” he said. “It was a federal event and it presents some interesting issues of oversight and governance. This is just the first step in that process.”
Here is the story from today's Globe and Mail:
Independent review of Toronto Police G20 conduct moves ahead
Turnabout comes just days after chair denied the need for civilian probe; Will look at ‘oversight, governance and policy’ on summit security
Anna Mehler Paperny
Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 9:58AM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 10:03AM EDT
In an about-face, Toronto police are moving to establish an independent civilian review of police conduct during the G20.
Alok Mukherjee, chair of the civilian body that oversees the police, put the motion forward just days after he said he sees no need for an external review despite strident calls to the contrary.
The review, which would scrutinize issues related to police “oversight, governance and policy” during and leading up to the summit weekend, when police arrested more than 1,000 people – only 263 of whom were charged with anything other than breach of peace.
Both police chief Bill Blair and Toronto Mayor David Miller defended police actions last week; in an interview with The Globe, Mr. Mukherjee said last week there was no need for an independent review after the force announced it was conducting its own inspection.
But he added that police may have made a mistake by failing to tell the public they'd misinterpreted added powers given police by the province.
Tuesday's move is a “prompt response” to reactions to G20 policing, Mr. Mukherjee told the police services board.
“This is a fairly complex issue we're trying to deal with,” he said. “It was a federal event and it presents some interesting issues of oversight and governance. This is just the first step in that process.”
Monday, July 5, 2010
What Rights were Abused During the G8 In Huntsville?
Very little has been written about any problems during the G8 Summit in Hunts ville, partly, I suspect, because access into the town was very tightly controlled by the authorities, and the town of Huntsville, part of Federal Industry and Trade Minister Tony Clement's riding, benefited from substantial taxpayer dollar infusions to spruce up the town, including extensive renovations to its hockey rink and a $53,000 cabana.
However, as reported on CHCH TV, one of the property owners in the area offered some insight into the tactics used to gain legal permission to be on people's private property. During an interview, the man (whose name I do not recall) told the reporter that the police were going from home to home having people sign a waiver granting this permission. In a tactic reminiscent of the ancient Roman fire brigades that would not put out fires unless the property owners paid them, the man was told by the officer that if he didn't sign the waiver, in the event of trouble, the police would “not be able to offer him any protection.”
Besides being extortionate, that coercive tactic was an obvious lie, since, unless there has been a drastic change in the law, police do not need a homeowner's permission to enter the property if a crime is being committed.
Yet another example of police abuse of authority, and yet another reason that Dalton McGuinty's refusal to call an inquiry makes the Premier complicit in this abuse.
However, as reported on CHCH TV, one of the property owners in the area offered some insight into the tactics used to gain legal permission to be on people's private property. During an interview, the man (whose name I do not recall) told the reporter that the police were going from home to home having people sign a waiver granting this permission. In a tactic reminiscent of the ancient Roman fire brigades that would not put out fires unless the property owners paid them, the man was told by the officer that if he didn't sign the waiver, in the event of trouble, the police would “not be able to offer him any protection.”
Besides being extortionate, that coercive tactic was an obvious lie, since, unless there has been a drastic change in the law, police do not need a homeowner's permission to enter the property if a crime is being committed.
Yet another example of police abuse of authority, and yet another reason that Dalton McGuinty's refusal to call an inquiry makes the Premier complicit in this abuse.
Video Evidence of Police G20 Transgressions
While much of the videos of the Toronto G20 Summit depict acts by vandals or police moving in to arrest peaceful protesters, the following is different, in that it clearly shows violations of Charter Rights, and with absolutely no provocation. I suspect the York Region officers depicted therein will be disciplined by their superiors, not for their actions, but for the fact that they allowed the entire shameful episode to be captured on video. You be the judge:
">
">
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Yet Another Damning Assessment of G20 Police Abuse
The Globe's Tabeitha Southey has a personal account of her experience and observations on the street during last weekend's G20, an account that once again underscore's the inadequacy of Dalton McGuinty's response to calls for an inquiry into the whole ugly episode. I have bolded certain parts of the account:
Of a million G20 stories in this taken city, this was mine
If anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual
Tabatha Southey
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:05PM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:09PM EDT
I observed a confrontation between police and protesters last Saturday evening from both sides of the police line.
The protesters (vastly outnumbered by the riot police, a frequent sight that weekend) were on Queen Street West in Toronto, chanting, “Peaceful protest!” Many people were merely observing or passing by.
I didn't see any sign that property was being destroyed. And if anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual. Hipster cottage weekend or something, I guess.
People seemed mostly to want the right to be on the street and while I haven't particularly wanted to hang out on Queen Street West since 1992, as soon as a police officer told me that I couldn't, I wanted to do just that.
An officer threatened to arrest me for standing on the street (I was with a journalist and a photographer who lives in the building that we were in front of), but after two days of the G20 in Toronto, I was almost as inured to that threat as I was to the random searches I saw going on, everywhere, blocks away from the designated high-security zone.
Earlier that day, well before the much-publicized destruction on Yonge Street, I'd been threatened with arrest for “obstructing” a search by trying to take a picture (at a respectful distance) of two young men being searched.
An officer there had tried to grab my cellphone. Other officers had crowded around. They boisterously mocked the psychiatric patients coming out of the mental-health hospital behind me.
When I eventually, after a heated exchange, asked the officer for a badge number, he walked toward me repeatedly, sticking his chest out so that, if I didn't step back quickly, I'd be hit. As he did this, he yelled, “You want my badge number? You want my badge number? You want my badge number?”
I was scared. I didn't get the badge number. It's a tiny story beside many much more alarming ones, but these stories have filled this town up.
I spoke to the two shaken men afterward. They said they had been randomly searched. The police had confiscated from their backpacks a black T-shirt (which genuinely seemed to confuse them, apparently unaware of the Black Bloc clique of rioters), their tent poles and a package of tea, while repeatedly threatening to arrest them and accusing them of being members of groups the names of which they couldn't remember.
They had been struck by the fact that the officers were gratuitously rude to passersby, noting the mocking of the psychiatric patients as well. “It's like they really wanted a fight,” one said.
That had been my sense. I'll admit that my well-developed civic pride and years of watching Toronto police frequently show not merely restraint but compassion, with some truly patience-testing people, made me reflexively, if unfairly, wonder whether these officers were from out of town.
Later, at the checkout of a Mexican grocery store in the Kensington Market area, I heard the woman at the counter say that several days before, she had been stopped, asked for ID and searched.
None of this seemed helpful to me. Unless its purpose was to set a tone. Like the hundreds of riot police I saw charging toward a mostly peaceful protest at Queen's Park later that day, banging their shields, it escalated the tension – as did, I believe, those riot police, many mounted, I saw Saturday night on Queen Street, retreating from unarmed protesters with their weapons drawn.
Toward the end of that standoff, word went through the crowd that the “sound cannon” was being brought in, but instead the police simply left, to cheers, for no apparent reason.
A colourful ending to this story would be that a block of Queen Street then descended into anarchistic rule, from which it may never recover. But that's not what happened.
My friends and I may never forget how terrified we were as we stood there, after the police left, watching that angry mob try to figure out where to jump on the streetcar, maybe grab a cab. We saw first-hand the panic that always sets in when someone in Toronto says, “Yeah, me too. But where should we eat?”
Those kinds of standoffs can last for hours in this town. Usually, only the deployment of the “okay, seriously, the kitchen is closing soon, so we have to make a decision” cannon can resolve them.
I'm certain that we need a public (not police) inquiry to determine why we didn't have more of that kind of standoff last weekend.
Of a million G20 stories in this taken city, this was mine
If anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual
Tabatha Southey
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:05PM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:09PM EDT
I observed a confrontation between police and protesters last Saturday evening from both sides of the police line.
The protesters (vastly outnumbered by the riot police, a frequent sight that weekend) were on Queen Street West in Toronto, chanting, “Peaceful protest!” Many people were merely observing or passing by.
I didn't see any sign that property was being destroyed. And if anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual. Hipster cottage weekend or something, I guess.
People seemed mostly to want the right to be on the street and while I haven't particularly wanted to hang out on Queen Street West since 1992, as soon as a police officer told me that I couldn't, I wanted to do just that.
An officer threatened to arrest me for standing on the street (I was with a journalist and a photographer who lives in the building that we were in front of), but after two days of the G20 in Toronto, I was almost as inured to that threat as I was to the random searches I saw going on, everywhere, blocks away from the designated high-security zone.
Earlier that day, well before the much-publicized destruction on Yonge Street, I'd been threatened with arrest for “obstructing” a search by trying to take a picture (at a respectful distance) of two young men being searched.
An officer there had tried to grab my cellphone. Other officers had crowded around. They boisterously mocked the psychiatric patients coming out of the mental-health hospital behind me.
When I eventually, after a heated exchange, asked the officer for a badge number, he walked toward me repeatedly, sticking his chest out so that, if I didn't step back quickly, I'd be hit. As he did this, he yelled, “You want my badge number? You want my badge number? You want my badge number?”
I was scared. I didn't get the badge number. It's a tiny story beside many much more alarming ones, but these stories have filled this town up.
I spoke to the two shaken men afterward. They said they had been randomly searched. The police had confiscated from their backpacks a black T-shirt (which genuinely seemed to confuse them, apparently unaware of the Black Bloc clique of rioters), their tent poles and a package of tea, while repeatedly threatening to arrest them and accusing them of being members of groups the names of which they couldn't remember.
They had been struck by the fact that the officers were gratuitously rude to passersby, noting the mocking of the psychiatric patients as well. “It's like they really wanted a fight,” one said.
That had been my sense. I'll admit that my well-developed civic pride and years of watching Toronto police frequently show not merely restraint but compassion, with some truly patience-testing people, made me reflexively, if unfairly, wonder whether these officers were from out of town.
Later, at the checkout of a Mexican grocery store in the Kensington Market area, I heard the woman at the counter say that several days before, she had been stopped, asked for ID and searched.
None of this seemed helpful to me. Unless its purpose was to set a tone. Like the hundreds of riot police I saw charging toward a mostly peaceful protest at Queen's Park later that day, banging their shields, it escalated the tension – as did, I believe, those riot police, many mounted, I saw Saturday night on Queen Street, retreating from unarmed protesters with their weapons drawn.
Toward the end of that standoff, word went through the crowd that the “sound cannon” was being brought in, but instead the police simply left, to cheers, for no apparent reason.
A colourful ending to this story would be that a block of Queen Street then descended into anarchistic rule, from which it may never recover. But that's not what happened.
My friends and I may never forget how terrified we were as we stood there, after the police left, watching that angry mob try to figure out where to jump on the streetcar, maybe grab a cab. We saw first-hand the panic that always sets in when someone in Toronto says, “Yeah, me too. But where should we eat?”
Those kinds of standoffs can last for hours in this town. Usually, only the deployment of the “okay, seriously, the kitchen is closing soon, so we have to make a decision” cannon can resolve them.
I'm certain that we need a public (not police) inquiry to determine why we didn't have more of that kind of standoff last weekend.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Thomas Walkom's View of the G20 Violation of Charter Rights
I'm pleased to see the press continuing to examine the abuses of authority that took place last week in Toronto, especially given Premier McGuinty's facile dismissal of the seriousness of the Charter Rights violations. I have highlighted in bold certain parts of Walkom's column that I think warrant particular attention:
Walkom: The G20 summit’s grim lessons for civil liberties
By Thomas Walkom National Affairs Columnist
Two things stand out from the street riots and subsequent police actions that swept downtown Toronto last weekend.
The first is the state blatantly abused its powers. Summits legitimately require security; but in this one, governments went over the top.
The federal government transformed the city’s downtown into a no-go zone. The provincial government secretly passed new regulations to give police extraordinary search and seizure powers and then, when citizens found out, pretended that it hadn’t. The police used their authority to prevent breaches of the peace as an excuse to jail citizens who were committing no crimes.
The second is that most people don’t care. Polls show that more than 70 per cent of Torontonians approve of these abuses.
For that we can thank the small group of rioters who burned police cars and smashed store windows last Saturday. The logic behind those actions (and yes there is a logic) flows from the theory that capitalism is based on violence, albeit violence that is usually veiled. By provoking the state, this intrinsic violence will be revealed, thereby radicalizing the population against both capitalism and the state.
The problem with this theory, as the Red Brigades and other left-wing terrorists found in the 1970s, is that such provocations drive the general population to authoritarianism, not revolution.
Faced with a choice between order and civil liberties, people almost invariably choose order. Think the Nazis in 1930s Germany; think the PATRIOT Act in post 9/11 America.
In last weekend’s brouhaha, governments and the so-called anarchists fed on and supported one another. By threatening to disrupt the summit, the anarchists ensured that the fence would be built. By building the fence, the government ensured that the anarchists would try to attack it. Each side kept upping the ante until the events of last weekend became almost inevitable.
In the end, the violence that always lies behind state authority did show itself to those who had assumed they were immune.
Andrew MacIsaac, a 24-year-old lawyer observing the demonstrations for the Law Union, was swept up by police early Sunday morning and held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for almost 20 hours. He tells a now-familiar story.
MacIsaac says he and others in the peaceful protest were arrested under the broad authority of police to detain those they think might be about to engage in a breach of the peace.
He was not permitted to contact a lawyer; he was kept handcuffed in a cage with others. He was given two cheese sandwiches over the period and three styrofoam cups of water. The open portable toilet in his cage had no toilet paper (MacIsaac tore off part of his shirt sleeve to help a fellow inmate); he was never formally notified of the charges—if any—levied against him.
In police state terms, this is relatively minor. MacIsaac wasn’t chained in stress positions, as he might have been at Guantanamo Bay. Nor was he flayed with rubber cables, as he might have been in Egypt.
But what’s interesting is that some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms. He was kept deliberately disoriented; usually, he didn’t know what time it was. He was kept uncomfortable; the combination of bound wrists and concrete floor made it impossible for him to sleep. His sense of self-worth was undermined by an array of minor indignities such as the lack of toilet paper.
In particular, he was kept isolated from the outside world. Requests to call a lawyer were never formally denied, just put off to some undefined and never-reached point in the future.
At one point, an official in plain-clothes told him that the federal government had declared martial law.
When he was released, MacIsaac phoned his mother (it was her birthday). Then, in what may be a fitting epitaph for the entire Toronto G20 Summit disaster, he describes what he did next.
“I took a cab home and I wept.”
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.
Walkom: The G20 summit’s grim lessons for civil liberties
By Thomas Walkom National Affairs Columnist
Two things stand out from the street riots and subsequent police actions that swept downtown Toronto last weekend.
The first is the state blatantly abused its powers. Summits legitimately require security; but in this one, governments went over the top.
The federal government transformed the city’s downtown into a no-go zone. The provincial government secretly passed new regulations to give police extraordinary search and seizure powers and then, when citizens found out, pretended that it hadn’t. The police used their authority to prevent breaches of the peace as an excuse to jail citizens who were committing no crimes.
The second is that most people don’t care. Polls show that more than 70 per cent of Torontonians approve of these abuses.
For that we can thank the small group of rioters who burned police cars and smashed store windows last Saturday. The logic behind those actions (and yes there is a logic) flows from the theory that capitalism is based on violence, albeit violence that is usually veiled. By provoking the state, this intrinsic violence will be revealed, thereby radicalizing the population against both capitalism and the state.
The problem with this theory, as the Red Brigades and other left-wing terrorists found in the 1970s, is that such provocations drive the general population to authoritarianism, not revolution.
Faced with a choice between order and civil liberties, people almost invariably choose order. Think the Nazis in 1930s Germany; think the PATRIOT Act in post 9/11 America.
In last weekend’s brouhaha, governments and the so-called anarchists fed on and supported one another. By threatening to disrupt the summit, the anarchists ensured that the fence would be built. By building the fence, the government ensured that the anarchists would try to attack it. Each side kept upping the ante until the events of last weekend became almost inevitable.
In the end, the violence that always lies behind state authority did show itself to those who had assumed they were immune.
Andrew MacIsaac, a 24-year-old lawyer observing the demonstrations for the Law Union, was swept up by police early Sunday morning and held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for almost 20 hours. He tells a now-familiar story.
MacIsaac says he and others in the peaceful protest were arrested under the broad authority of police to detain those they think might be about to engage in a breach of the peace.
He was not permitted to contact a lawyer; he was kept handcuffed in a cage with others. He was given two cheese sandwiches over the period and three styrofoam cups of water. The open portable toilet in his cage had no toilet paper (MacIsaac tore off part of his shirt sleeve to help a fellow inmate); he was never formally notified of the charges—if any—levied against him.
In police state terms, this is relatively minor. MacIsaac wasn’t chained in stress positions, as he might have been at Guantanamo Bay. Nor was he flayed with rubber cables, as he might have been in Egypt.
But what’s interesting is that some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms. He was kept deliberately disoriented; usually, he didn’t know what time it was. He was kept uncomfortable; the combination of bound wrists and concrete floor made it impossible for him to sleep. His sense of self-worth was undermined by an array of minor indignities such as the lack of toilet paper.
In particular, he was kept isolated from the outside world. Requests to call a lawyer were never formally denied, just put off to some undefined and never-reached point in the future.
At one point, an official in plain-clothes told him that the federal government had declared martial law.
When he was released, MacIsaac phoned his mother (it was her birthday). Then, in what may be a fitting epitaph for the entire Toronto G20 Summit disaster, he describes what he did next.
“I took a cab home and I wept.”
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.
A Mother's Lament
There is a fine letter in today's Hamilton Spectator which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. Eloquently expressed, the writer addresses the abuses of authority that transpired in Toronto last weekend, but hers is a very personal, as well as philosophical, expression of concern over our basic rights.
Mourning Canadian democracy
July 03, 2010
Roberta McQuade
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Jul 3, 2010)
Re: G20 summit and policing
The fallout from the debacle of the G20 will felt by all Canadians for some time to come. Today, I mourn the loss of my innocence, in believing I live in a democracy. I did not celebrate Canada Day. That morning at dawn, I removed all my Canada Day flags and decorations from my property.
By virtue of my profession, I travel the world. I have seen first-hand the police actions in third world countries directed at those who would "dare to speak out" and have their voices heard.
To think I would see the "trampling" of our collective rights and the right to "free speech" being discarded is devastating to me as a once proud Canadian. The actions of police in arresting and charging those who were peacefully exercising their rights is something I would expect to witness anywhere else but Canada.
The words "the true north strong and free" of our national anthem are now a mockery.
My youngest daughter was a victim of this suspension of our rights. She was arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and obstruct police. This young woman headed the largest ever contingent of university students to post-Katrina New Orleans, on a Habitat build, this young woman slept in -30C temps outdoors to highlight the plight of the homeless, this young woman volunteers with a soup kitchen. This young woman is a dedicated pacifist who would not even kill a bug.
And this young woman is the daughter of a policeman who was on G20 duty. The police officer who beat her with his/her baton would not have known that. Not everyone was an "anarchist" and armed. Some like my daughter were just there to suport their causes in a peaceful, lawful manner.
I for one will be asking the hard questions of my MPP and MP. And I will voice my outrage and "punish" those who allowed this travesty to happen by my vote in the next elections.
Nothing less than a public inquiry is in order. Canada's reputation for freedom and democracy has suffered a black eye in the court of public opinion, not only here at home, but worldwide.
Mourning Canadian democracy
July 03, 2010
Roberta McQuade
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Jul 3, 2010)
Re: G20 summit and policing
The fallout from the debacle of the G20 will felt by all Canadians for some time to come. Today, I mourn the loss of my innocence, in believing I live in a democracy. I did not celebrate Canada Day. That morning at dawn, I removed all my Canada Day flags and decorations from my property.
By virtue of my profession, I travel the world. I have seen first-hand the police actions in third world countries directed at those who would "dare to speak out" and have their voices heard.
To think I would see the "trampling" of our collective rights and the right to "free speech" being discarded is devastating to me as a once proud Canadian. The actions of police in arresting and charging those who were peacefully exercising their rights is something I would expect to witness anywhere else but Canada.
The words "the true north strong and free" of our national anthem are now a mockery.
My youngest daughter was a victim of this suspension of our rights. She was arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and obstruct police. This young woman headed the largest ever contingent of university students to post-Katrina New Orleans, on a Habitat build, this young woman slept in -30C temps outdoors to highlight the plight of the homeless, this young woman volunteers with a soup kitchen. This young woman is a dedicated pacifist who would not even kill a bug.
And this young woman is the daughter of a policeman who was on G20 duty. The police officer who beat her with his/her baton would not have known that. Not everyone was an "anarchist" and armed. Some like my daughter were just there to suport their causes in a peaceful, lawful manner.
I for one will be asking the hard questions of my MPP and MP. And I will voice my outrage and "punish" those who allowed this travesty to happen by my vote in the next elections.
Nothing less than a public inquiry is in order. Canada's reputation for freedom and democracy has suffered a black eye in the court of public opinion, not only here at home, but worldwide.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Premier Comes Out of Hiding
Well, Premier McGuinty has finally emerged from hiding, likely having seen the Angus Reid poll revealing that “73 per cent of Torontonians and two-thirds of Canadians believe police treatment of protesters was justified during the G20 summit. “
His confidence thus bolstered that there will be minimal political fallout from last weekend's Charter Rights' violations by the Toronto Police, and his Government's failure to correct the fallacies about 'non-existent' powers, McGuinty's performance (seven days in the making!) suggested a man somewhat truculent and completely unapologetic for the incredibly serious abuses of ordinary citizens' rights last week. Adamant in his refusal to call an inquiry, McGuinty said that those who felt their rights had been 'abridged' (I love that euphemism) have adequate avenues for redress. Sadly, this is yet another instance of the Premier's failure of leadership in that his 'solution' does nothing to shed light on the systemic failure that led to the aforementioned 'abridgement' of Charter Rights. Until the reasons for that failure are known, Canadians dare not rest easy.
BTW, my nose is still raw.
His confidence thus bolstered that there will be minimal political fallout from last weekend's Charter Rights' violations by the Toronto Police, and his Government's failure to correct the fallacies about 'non-existent' powers, McGuinty's performance (seven days in the making!) suggested a man somewhat truculent and completely unapologetic for the incredibly serious abuses of ordinary citizens' rights last week. Adamant in his refusal to call an inquiry, McGuinty said that those who felt their rights had been 'abridged' (I love that euphemism) have adequate avenues for redress. Sadly, this is yet another instance of the Premier's failure of leadership in that his 'solution' does nothing to shed light on the systemic failure that led to the aforementioned 'abridgement' of Charter Rights. Until the reasons for that failure are known, Canadians dare not rest easy.
BTW, my nose is still raw.
Adam Radwanski - Part 2
I was pleased to see that the Globe's Adam Radwanski is continuing to ask the questions that need to be asked about the abuse of power and the trammeling of our Chart Rights at last weekend's G20 Summit. Below I am reproducing the note I sent him this morning commending his efforts thus far, followed by today's column:
Dear Mr. Radwanski,
Just a short note to thank you for your ongoing analysis of the actions of the police and the McGuinty Government during Toronto's G20 Summit. While it is undoubtedly the hope of both Chief Blair and Premiere McGuinty that this issue will soon fade from Canadians' consciousness, journalistic efforts such as yours will go a long way toward ensuring this doesn't happen. You and the Globe are to be commended for your continued examination of last weekend's very troubling curtailment of Charter Rights, police and government deception, and betrayal of public trust.
Keep up the excellent work.
A timeline on the G20 five-metre rule that didn’t exist
How the law on the summit security fence was misinterpreted is shrouded in confusion
Adam Radwanski
From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 7:36PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 10:44PM EDT
The story around a G20 security regulation quietly passed by the Ontario government has continually changed.
Both the province and Toronto police now acknowledge there was no rule that people merely passing by the summit’s security fence were required to submit to searches and identification checks, and could be arrested if they failed to comply. But how the law was misinterpreted by police, and why the public was allowed to believe until the summit’s conclusion that it was still being enforced, remains shrouded in confusion.
What follows is a timeline of the secret law that wasn’t, taking into account the recent revelation that police were finally told by the province – after at least a couple of arrests – that they were wrongly interpreting the regulation they themselves had asked for.
June 2: On the request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, Dalton McGuinty's cabinet approves a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act. Its aim is to ensure that police are legally authorized to search and demand identification of anyone attempting to enter the security perimeter in downtown Toronto during the G20 summit. There is no announcement.
June 16: The regulation is quietly posted on the government's e-Laws website, but passes unnoticed. (It's not slated to be published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.)
June 22: When explicitly asked by The Globe and Mail which laws provide for the security measures taken during the G20, two spokespeople for the Integrated G20 Security Unit – including at least one member of the Toronto police – fail to mention the Public Works Protection Act.
June 24: The regulation first comes to light, as at least two activists are arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Neither appears to have been trying to enter the perimeter. In both cases, police cite a rule that extends their identification and search powers to five metres outside the security fence.
June 25: It's widely reported that, under the provincial regulation, individuals passing by up to five metres outside the security fence can be arrested by police if they fail to show identification or consent to a search. (The regulation, on first glance, appears to confirm this power.)
June 25: At a news conference, Chief Blair says, “The five-metre zone around the fence is for the protection of the security barrier.”
June 25: In an interview, Mr. McGuinty seems to confirm a major change to the law by referring to “something extraordinary happening inside our province,” while affirming his faith in Chief Blair.
June 25: Police realize they'd misinterpreted the regulation, and the “five metres” actually refers to an area inside the fence. (It’s later reported that it was the province that informed them – see below.)
June 26-27: Despite continued media coverage of the “five-metre” rule, no attempt is made by either the province or the police to make clear that it doesn't exist. As a result, Torontonians and visitors remain under the impression that they can be arrested just for passing by the security fence without identification.
June 27: To counter complaints that Ontarians weren't made aware of the new law, the government directs reporters to an advertisement taken out by Toronto police in some newspapers prior to the summit. The ad, titled “What you need to know about the G20 Summit,” makes no mention of the Public Works Protection Act, any recent provincial decisions, or a five-metre rule.
June 28: When contacted, the Premier’s Office discusses the five-metre rule without indicating that it didn't actually exist.
June 29: Chief Blair acknowledges that the five-metre rule never existed, but hints that he didn't correct the record because he “was trying to keep the criminals out.”
June 29: When asked by The Globe and Mail whether any action was taken by the government to get police to stop wrongly enforcing the regulation, a provincial spokesperson responds: “The application of the regulation over the weekend was operational in nature, and we do not interfere in police operational decisions.” The spokesperson also insists “the language of the regulation is very clear.”
June 29: Another government official acknowledges that the regulation was “confusing,” but says that – despite contradictory video evidence – the government does not believe there were any arrests under the non-existent rule.
June 30: The Police Services Board tells The Globe and Mail that, in fact, it was the province that informed police on June 25 – following the arrests – that the regulation was being wrongly interpreted.
That, at least, is the version of events as it currently stands. Given the number of times that the official accounts have shifted over the past week, it may well change again before long.
Dear Mr. Radwanski,
Just a short note to thank you for your ongoing analysis of the actions of the police and the McGuinty Government during Toronto's G20 Summit. While it is undoubtedly the hope of both Chief Blair and Premiere McGuinty that this issue will soon fade from Canadians' consciousness, journalistic efforts such as yours will go a long way toward ensuring this doesn't happen. You and the Globe are to be commended for your continued examination of last weekend's very troubling curtailment of Charter Rights, police and government deception, and betrayal of public trust.
Keep up the excellent work.
A timeline on the G20 five-metre rule that didn’t exist
How the law on the summit security fence was misinterpreted is shrouded in confusion
Adam Radwanski
From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 7:36PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 10:44PM EDT
The story around a G20 security regulation quietly passed by the Ontario government has continually changed.
Both the province and Toronto police now acknowledge there was no rule that people merely passing by the summit’s security fence were required to submit to searches and identification checks, and could be arrested if they failed to comply. But how the law was misinterpreted by police, and why the public was allowed to believe until the summit’s conclusion that it was still being enforced, remains shrouded in confusion.
What follows is a timeline of the secret law that wasn’t, taking into account the recent revelation that police were finally told by the province – after at least a couple of arrests – that they were wrongly interpreting the regulation they themselves had asked for.
June 2: On the request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, Dalton McGuinty's cabinet approves a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act. Its aim is to ensure that police are legally authorized to search and demand identification of anyone attempting to enter the security perimeter in downtown Toronto during the G20 summit. There is no announcement.
June 16: The regulation is quietly posted on the government's e-Laws website, but passes unnoticed. (It's not slated to be published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.)
June 22: When explicitly asked by The Globe and Mail which laws provide for the security measures taken during the G20, two spokespeople for the Integrated G20 Security Unit – including at least one member of the Toronto police – fail to mention the Public Works Protection Act.
June 24: The regulation first comes to light, as at least two activists are arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Neither appears to have been trying to enter the perimeter. In both cases, police cite a rule that extends their identification and search powers to five metres outside the security fence.
June 25: It's widely reported that, under the provincial regulation, individuals passing by up to five metres outside the security fence can be arrested by police if they fail to show identification or consent to a search. (The regulation, on first glance, appears to confirm this power.)
June 25: At a news conference, Chief Blair says, “The five-metre zone around the fence is for the protection of the security barrier.”
June 25: In an interview, Mr. McGuinty seems to confirm a major change to the law by referring to “something extraordinary happening inside our province,” while affirming his faith in Chief Blair.
June 25: Police realize they'd misinterpreted the regulation, and the “five metres” actually refers to an area inside the fence. (It’s later reported that it was the province that informed them – see below.)
June 26-27: Despite continued media coverage of the “five-metre” rule, no attempt is made by either the province or the police to make clear that it doesn't exist. As a result, Torontonians and visitors remain under the impression that they can be arrested just for passing by the security fence without identification.
June 27: To counter complaints that Ontarians weren't made aware of the new law, the government directs reporters to an advertisement taken out by Toronto police in some newspapers prior to the summit. The ad, titled “What you need to know about the G20 Summit,” makes no mention of the Public Works Protection Act, any recent provincial decisions, or a five-metre rule.
June 28: When contacted, the Premier’s Office discusses the five-metre rule without indicating that it didn't actually exist.
June 29: Chief Blair acknowledges that the five-metre rule never existed, but hints that he didn't correct the record because he “was trying to keep the criminals out.”
June 29: When asked by The Globe and Mail whether any action was taken by the government to get police to stop wrongly enforcing the regulation, a provincial spokesperson responds: “The application of the regulation over the weekend was operational in nature, and we do not interfere in police operational decisions.” The spokesperson also insists “the language of the regulation is very clear.”
June 29: Another government official acknowledges that the regulation was “confusing,” but says that – despite contradictory video evidence – the government does not believe there were any arrests under the non-existent rule.
June 30: The Police Services Board tells The Globe and Mail that, in fact, it was the province that informed police on June 25 – following the arrests – that the regulation was being wrongly interpreted.
That, at least, is the version of events as it currently stands. Given the number of times that the official accounts have shifted over the past week, it may well change again before long.
Will Dalton See His Shadow Today?
It has now been seven days since Premier McGuinty last communicated with Ontarians. Like the elusive Wiarton Willy, one wonders when he does finally emerge from his lair whether he will see his metaphorical shadow and go back into hiding, or feel it is safe politically to once more walk among us.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Canada Day 2010
I would like to wish my fellow Canadians a Happy Canada Day, but unfortunately I am not in a celebratory mood, the events of last weekend in Toronto still weighing very heavily on my mind. I was listening to some of the spin being offered by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair yesterday on CFRB as he was being interviewed by the host, failed politician John Tory. Mr. Tory presented him with questions that, on one level seemed reasonable enough, but upon hearing Bill Blair's responses, I realized were only props to offer the Chief a platform from which he uttered his too pat explanations for the actions of his police as well as his failure to inform the public of the 'fact' that the sweeping powers he allegedly requested months earlier from the MCGuinty Government did not exist. (The latter was explained by telling the audience that he was too busy with protesters to set the record straight.)
As well, interestingly enough, at least in the 45 minutes of the show I heard, no mention was made of the failure of the McGuinty Government to inform the public of the 'truth' about the 5 metre rule.
Incidently, it is now Day 6 since Premiere McGuinty has been heard from, apparently in too many meetings to be able to spend a moment to address some very troubling questions. Or is he hoping that the public has an extraordinarily short attention span and that all will be forgotten by next week?
This morning I read the Globe and Mail's Facts and Arguments page, which offers an eyewitness account of the police storming the peaceful assembly of citizens outside of the detention centre where so many protesters, none of whom were Black Bloc anarchists as far as I know, were being held after having had their Charter Rights violated.
Here is the the essay:
Swept from a peaceful protest
It was like a Sunday school picnic outside the G20 detention centre. Then police officers stormed the crowd of protesters. There was smoke and sounds of shooting
Cinders McLeod
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:27PM EDT
It was a slow start to the day. My teenaged son and daughter turned on the television to find that the number of G20 protest-related arrests had risen to 400 from 70 since the Saturday night before.
Craig Kielburger of Me to We and Free the Children fame was interviewing a young woman who was joining a march to the temporary detention centre in Toronto’s east end because her friend had been arrested the night before. My son Diarmid had wanted me to walk with him on Saturday, but it had been some time since I had marched.
I had gone on quite a few during the years I lived in London and Glasgow – including the infamous poll tax march of 1990. I still had my yellow “The Enemy Within” button from the Thatcher days. (My community took ironic possession of her insult). So I knew the spirit wasn’t completely lost. We had spent most of Saturday in front of the TV. Now Diarmid and Anya were asking me if we could join the group at the detention centre.
I had watched that centre grow over the past few months – watched them bring in the concrete ramparts and fencing and witnessed the growing police presence. It was a menacing landmark in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I didn’t feel good about it from the start. I didn’t feel good about the swell of arrests overnight. And I didn’t feel good about teaching my children that we should just sit and let the world be interpreted to us by TV. Did good citizens stay home and mimic the broadcasters or endeavour to find the truth out for themselves?
I thought since the detention centre was local and far away from the G20 security zone, it would be a gentle introduction into the peaceful art of protest. I cared for the community, I cared for the people who were unjustly detained and I cared that my children cared too.
So we got together a knapsack with water and cameras and walked the 15 minutes to the detention centre. My partner David was going to walk our puppy first, then join us.
It was warm and we were chatty as we walked to be part of something. When we arrived, we stood back from the small crowd. Some were sitting, some standing, all facing the police lined up in front of the detention centre. Some were singing, some chanting, some drawing birds in chalk on the pavement. There were young folk, folk my age, folk with dogs, folk with children on their shoulders, older folk and media.
I think there were three releases from the prison in the hour we were there. Every time someone was released, the crowd cheered and the media swarmed. It reminded me of the Sunday school picnic feeling that existed in Trafalgar Square before the horses stormed 20 years ago.
I should have listened to my parallel thinking, for with no warning, there was a sudden penetration and retreat in the crowd. The police had moved in for a couple of arrests.
I called Diarmid and Anya in closer. David was there now. He was our anchor as we moved in and out to take pictures. Tensions eased a little.
Then, without warning, police officers stormed the peaceful crowd, swinging their sticks and throwing people to the ground.
I saw Anya being pushed by one of the group of police. I screamed out her name. They threw the young man next to her to the ground. Diarmid ran toward the skirmish just as a kind boy pulled Anya out of the policemen’s path. She looked so thin and vulnerable and 14 in her short shorts beside the black, violent swarm.
The front line of protesters sat down again, hands held in the air in peace signs, chanting, “We are peaceful, how ’bout you.”
Someone called out to take care because a line of police officers was approaching from the other end of the street. I had just enough time to take in the notion that we were surrounded when a line of riot police moved in on the crowd. There was smoke and sounds of shooting. Diarmid and Anya ran to us and we all turned to run down a side alley. I felt a punch on my back and calmly thought, “Oh, that’s what a rubber bullet feels like.”
We found our way to the nearest street and headed for home. Diarmid and Anya walked side by side, all sibling rivalry forgotten. They now had a common enemy: injustice. They knew the police had a job to do, but what they had witnessed wasn’t it.
There were three haunting moments for me. One was seeing a young girl being slung to the ground and then forced, skinny limbs everywhere, into an unmarked police van. Another was seeing my daughter stand beside danger. That moment will never leave me. And the last was seeing people walking up the street, hands above their heads in surrender as if they had committed some terrible crime. Walking? Talking? Caring? We didn’t commit the criminal act, unless the laws have secretly changed overnight and the powers that be have neglected to inform us of those changes too.
Once home, we downloaded our photos, posted them online and listened to the news tell us what we knew not to be true (that there were no rubber bullets fired). Anya was on the phone to a local news station wanting to tell her story, but she never got through. I understand why it was so important to her, for the same reason I wrote this.
We tell our stories to regain our sense of self and our sense of our rights after they have been so brutally, and without warning, taken away from us. We tell them to protect the values we feel are Canadian. To serve and protect. Whom? What? O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Tell me: Who are the guards of Canada?
Cinders McLeod is a design editor at The Globe and Mail and lives in Toronto.
As well, interestingly enough, at least in the 45 minutes of the show I heard, no mention was made of the failure of the McGuinty Government to inform the public of the 'truth' about the 5 metre rule.
Incidently, it is now Day 6 since Premiere McGuinty has been heard from, apparently in too many meetings to be able to spend a moment to address some very troubling questions. Or is he hoping that the public has an extraordinarily short attention span and that all will be forgotten by next week?
This morning I read the Globe and Mail's Facts and Arguments page, which offers an eyewitness account of the police storming the peaceful assembly of citizens outside of the detention centre where so many protesters, none of whom were Black Bloc anarchists as far as I know, were being held after having had their Charter Rights violated.
Here is the the essay:
Swept from a peaceful protest
It was like a Sunday school picnic outside the G20 detention centre. Then police officers stormed the crowd of protesters. There was smoke and sounds of shooting
Cinders McLeod
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:27PM EDT
It was a slow start to the day. My teenaged son and daughter turned on the television to find that the number of G20 protest-related arrests had risen to 400 from 70 since the Saturday night before.
Craig Kielburger of Me to We and Free the Children fame was interviewing a young woman who was joining a march to the temporary detention centre in Toronto’s east end because her friend had been arrested the night before. My son Diarmid had wanted me to walk with him on Saturday, but it had been some time since I had marched.
I had gone on quite a few during the years I lived in London and Glasgow – including the infamous poll tax march of 1990. I still had my yellow “The Enemy Within” button from the Thatcher days. (My community took ironic possession of her insult). So I knew the spirit wasn’t completely lost. We had spent most of Saturday in front of the TV. Now Diarmid and Anya were asking me if we could join the group at the detention centre.
I had watched that centre grow over the past few months – watched them bring in the concrete ramparts and fencing and witnessed the growing police presence. It was a menacing landmark in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I didn’t feel good about it from the start. I didn’t feel good about the swell of arrests overnight. And I didn’t feel good about teaching my children that we should just sit and let the world be interpreted to us by TV. Did good citizens stay home and mimic the broadcasters or endeavour to find the truth out for themselves?
I thought since the detention centre was local and far away from the G20 security zone, it would be a gentle introduction into the peaceful art of protest. I cared for the community, I cared for the people who were unjustly detained and I cared that my children cared too.
So we got together a knapsack with water and cameras and walked the 15 minutes to the detention centre. My partner David was going to walk our puppy first, then join us.
It was warm and we were chatty as we walked to be part of something. When we arrived, we stood back from the small crowd. Some were sitting, some standing, all facing the police lined up in front of the detention centre. Some were singing, some chanting, some drawing birds in chalk on the pavement. There were young folk, folk my age, folk with dogs, folk with children on their shoulders, older folk and media.
I think there were three releases from the prison in the hour we were there. Every time someone was released, the crowd cheered and the media swarmed. It reminded me of the Sunday school picnic feeling that existed in Trafalgar Square before the horses stormed 20 years ago.
I should have listened to my parallel thinking, for with no warning, there was a sudden penetration and retreat in the crowd. The police had moved in for a couple of arrests.
I called Diarmid and Anya in closer. David was there now. He was our anchor as we moved in and out to take pictures. Tensions eased a little.
Then, without warning, police officers stormed the peaceful crowd, swinging their sticks and throwing people to the ground.
I saw Anya being pushed by one of the group of police. I screamed out her name. They threw the young man next to her to the ground. Diarmid ran toward the skirmish just as a kind boy pulled Anya out of the policemen’s path. She looked so thin and vulnerable and 14 in her short shorts beside the black, violent swarm.
The front line of protesters sat down again, hands held in the air in peace signs, chanting, “We are peaceful, how ’bout you.”
Someone called out to take care because a line of police officers was approaching from the other end of the street. I had just enough time to take in the notion that we were surrounded when a line of riot police moved in on the crowd. There was smoke and sounds of shooting. Diarmid and Anya ran to us and we all turned to run down a side alley. I felt a punch on my back and calmly thought, “Oh, that’s what a rubber bullet feels like.”
We found our way to the nearest street and headed for home. Diarmid and Anya walked side by side, all sibling rivalry forgotten. They now had a common enemy: injustice. They knew the police had a job to do, but what they had witnessed wasn’t it.
There were three haunting moments for me. One was seeing a young girl being slung to the ground and then forced, skinny limbs everywhere, into an unmarked police van. Another was seeing my daughter stand beside danger. That moment will never leave me. And the last was seeing people walking up the street, hands above their heads in surrender as if they had committed some terrible crime. Walking? Talking? Caring? We didn’t commit the criminal act, unless the laws have secretly changed overnight and the powers that be have neglected to inform us of those changes too.
Once home, we downloaded our photos, posted them online and listened to the news tell us what we knew not to be true (that there were no rubber bullets fired). Anya was on the phone to a local news station wanting to tell her story, but she never got through. I understand why it was so important to her, for the same reason I wrote this.
We tell our stories to regain our sense of self and our sense of our rights after they have been so brutally, and without warning, taken away from us. We tell them to protect the values we feel are Canadian. To serve and protect. Whom? What? O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Tell me: Who are the guards of Canada?
Cinders McLeod is a design editor at The Globe and Mail and lives in Toronto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
