Showing posts sorted by relevance for query police abuse of authority. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query police abuse of authority. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Respect, Fear, and Loathing



If we are completely honest, many of us will admit to a deeply ambivalent relationship with the police. On the one hand we look to them for protection against the less ordered elements of society, but on the other hand, in the deeper recesses of our psyches, we also fear and, at times, loathe them. And on some level we probably recognize that they can be very dangerous if we insist too vehemently on our rights against their sometimes arrogant intrusions into our 'space.'

Think of the rampant abuse of police authority during the G20 Toronto Summit. Think of the murder of Sammy Yatim.

And I say all this from the cossetted position of a middle-class and educated white man.

I can only imagine how much more difficult that relationship must be if one is black.

Dr. Dawg has written a fine analysis/post-mortem of the the shooting of Michael Brown and the failure of the grand jury to indict his killer, Officer Darren Wilson. If you haven't already done so, make sure to check it out.

Similarly, the CBC's senior Washington correspondent, Neil Macdonald, has penned an arresting piece that deserves wide readership. His thesis: questioning police authority is a risky, even potentially deadly, business:
Most police despise any challenge to their authority. Some will abuse it, if necessary, to protect that authority, and the system can allow them to do that.

Some police are bright, professional and educated. Some are louts. Some are racists. You never know which variety you're facing.

But what they all have in common (outside Great Britain) is the weapon at their hip, and the implicit threat of its ultimate use to settle matters.
Macdonald suggests there is but one way to behave when confronted by the police:
But I've had my share of dealings with police, in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere in the world, and there is a universal truth: when police demand submission, it's best to submit.
Michael Brown's fatal mistake, he implies, was his refusal to submit:
Officer Darren Wilson told grand jurors that when he told Michael Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk that Saturday afternoon instead of down the middle of the road, Brown replied "fuck what you have to say."

Eventually, they tussled at the window of Wilson's cruiser. Finally, with both of them outside on the street and facing one another, Wilson shot the unarmed teenager to death.

Clearly, the yawning racial divide of the United States was a contributing, perhaps overriding, factor in Brown's death, and that chasm will likely never be bridged. But Macdonald suggests a practical measure that might go a long way to curbing the police violence that so painfully and periodically erupts:
Ensure that every police officer working the streets of America wears a body camera. That would certainly help.

Many police cruisers are already equipped with dash cameras. And the Ferguson case demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness accounts.

So why not pin digital cams on uniforms? They would act as impassive, accurate monitors, both in cases of police abuse and when someone falsely claims police abuse.

I suspect police here will probably resist the idea, though. Nothing questions authority like hard video evidence.
And as experience has shown us, such a measure is sorely needed in our own country as well.


Monday, April 18, 2016

Not An Obsession



Looking at the sidebar that lists the tags on my blog posts, I see I have written well over 100 entries on the police, most of them dealing with their abuse of authority; some of those abuses include the murder of unarmed or barely armed people, others the senseless beating of people. All of them attest to a constabulary, whether Canadian or American, out of control and contemptuous of any efforts to bring them to accountability of justice.

Some might say I am obsessed with the topic, but they would be wrong. What I think I am obsessed with is the desire for fairness and justice and an utter and complete contempt for those who abuse their power and authority.

Here in Ontario, that abuse is rampant, and true accountability is rare. The responsibility for such a sad state of affairs resides largely with the provincial government.

Governments seem loathe to incur the ill-will of those sworn to protect and serve us. With their 'us against them mentality,' the police have proven to be formidable forces to fear when politicians and other prominent people incur their wrath.

Legislators are failing us, and it has to change.

Consider, for example, the secrecy that surrounds SIU investigations of police actions. When their investigations are complete and they exonerate, as they almost always do, police officers who have either beaten, shot or killed a person, the public is not allowed to know the basis for exoneration, the names of the officers involved, or anything else that might provide an inkling of how the investigatory body reached its conclusion. What I didn't know until the other day is that such secrecy is not mandated under the Police Services Act.

As revealed in The Star,
the report prepared by the director of the SIU, the agency that probes deaths, serious injuries and allegations of sexual assault involving police in Ontario, goes straight to the desk of the Attorney General — and nowhere else.

The Police Services Act, the law that governs the SIU, says the watchdog’s director must report the results of investigations to the Attorney General. It doesn’t state the reports cannot be sent elsewhere or made public.
So what is stopping a wider release of SIU reports?
The spokesperson for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur [says] the reports contain information protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, “including information relating to affected persons (e.g. persons seriously injured), witnesses and officers under investigation.”
According to Brian Beamish, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, this is a bit of an evasion:
“While the name of a police officer who has been the subject of an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) would likely be personal information, there may be circumstances of significant public interest where the SIU may disclose the name or other information associated with its completed investigations for the purposes of fostering accountability and public confidence in police services, and ensuring transparency in its operations,” Beamish told the Star in a statement.
While public consultations will soon be announced by the Wynne government into Ontario's police oversight mechanisms, there really is nothing that exists in current legislation to either encourage or prevent much greater public accountability and scrutiny right now.

The bright light of public scrutiny is something the police themselves seem to fear, and while our political 'leaders' allow themselves to be bullied by our public 'protectors,' horrible situations like the killing of Rodrigo Gonzalez at the hands of police will continue:



Clearly, the dire situation demands strong, unambiguous and immediate remediation.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Standing Up To Police Abuse Of Authority



I remember a story my son told me of being in a coffee shop in Toronto during the notorious 2010 G20 Summit, about which I have written extensively on this blog. Two police officers came into the shop, one of them noticing my son had his smartphone out. He said to him, "You'd better not be filming us," the threat of confiscation being the apparent subtext. I have always thought of that incident as emblematic of the arrogant abuse of authority that was so much in evidence that weekend, abuse that is becoming increasingly common in our country today. It was also a threat with absolutely no legal basis.

In today's Star, Antonia Zerbisias writes about the public's right to document police actions, a right often impeded by police threating videographers with the rather nebulous obstructing justice charge. The issue has become especially germane in light of the police killing of Sammy Yatim, whose death was captured on video. Were it not for the existence of the video, who knows what 'official story' the public would now be hearing about this tragedy?

... there is no law, says Halifax-based lawyer David T.S. Fraser, that stops citizens from taking photographs or video in a public place. That includes shopping malls, airports, retail outlets and subway stations — unless management, not police, prohibit photography.

“I think it’s as close to an unequivocal right as you can get,” insists Fraser, whose practice focuses on privacy legislation. “As long as you’re in a public place, as long as you are not obstructing the police in the execution of their duties, and as long as you are not creating new risks and dangers, then you have the right to photograph and video-record anybody, including the police — and I would say especially the police.


Fraser goes on to say that for the charge of obstructing justice to stick, “You have to actually intend to obstruct —not just be on the sidelines, but actively interfere.

Concludes Fraser: “I would call for citizens to take more pictures of police officers, to make it more normal and make it more difficult for police officers to intimidate individuals.”

I suspect most of us couldn't agree more.

UPDATE: There is a reasonably interesting piece written by Margaret Wente, whose work I normally disdain and seldom read, on the issue in today's Globe.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Those At The Top Just Aren't Doing Their Jobs - Part 2

Continuing with the theme of my previous post, another institution whose leadership frequently fails the public that it is sworn to protect and serve is that of law enforcement. Stories abound of police abuse of their authority, and yet it seems increasingly rare to see a public accounting for that abuse.

While the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit is probably the worst example of unaccountability in recent memory, with the man the at the top, Bill Blair, accepting no responsibility for the terrible violations of citizen rights that took place, there is a plethora of other, less dramatic cases that seldom see the light of day. A recent Toronto Star investigation revealed some disturbing facts about widespread concealment of police misconduct:
A Durham cop was caught on video threatening to beat up a man and plant cocaine on him, behaviour that prompted a Superior Court judge to say the officer “committed several criminal offences in the course of his duties.”

A Toronto officer refused to help his partner arrest an off-duty cop for drinking and driving.

Seven Ontario Provincial Police constables made fake notebook entries claiming they were conducting a RIDE check to catch drunk drivers when they were really hanging out at Tim Hortons.

All of these officers were disciplined under a secretive informal process that is supposed to be used only for cases that are not of a serious nature, an ongoing Star investigation has found. Critics say this is serious misconduct that should have been aired in a public hearing.
This bizarre culture of concealment means that for the most part, the offenders' names and actions are kept from the public, and after two years of good behaviour, the misconduct must be scrubbed from the offending officer’s employment record, according to the Police Services Act, which governs policing in Ontario.

Like the officials profiled in Part 1, the people at the top have much influence over what is concealed and downplayed, thereby distorting the public's perception of both the force and those at the top of that force:
Under Ontario’s Police Services Act, a chief can choose to handle a discipline matter through informal resolution if she is of the opinion the misconduct “was not of a serious nature.”
Although these 'in-house' proceedings are meant to deal only with minor matters, the record reveals they are used to hide some pretty serious matters, with the Peel constabulary having a rather unenviable record:
In the last five years alone, 640 Peel officers — roughly 30 per cent of the force — have been sanctioned under the secretive system, some multiple times. The OPP, a force three times the size, informally disciplined almost the same number of officers over that time period.
While the police insist on the efficacy of these tribunals, the glaring and uncomfortable fact is that names and offences are kept secret, thereby obviating the crucial component of public accountability.

The Star investigation lists numerous examples of misconduct dealt with secretly, but this video of Constable James Egdon is perhaps emblematic of how serious transgressions can be swept under the rug:

In a 2015 decision, a Superior Court judge ripped into Const. Ebdon’s conduct, calling it “reprehensible.”

“The evidence establishes that Constable Ebdon committed several criminal offences in the course of his duties,” Justice Laura Bird said in her decision.

“Const. Ebdon showed a staggering lack of appreciation for the seriousness of his conduct. Perhaps that is not surprising in light of the fact that the only penalty that was imposed on him by the Durham Regional Police Service was the loss of 24 hours pay.”

Because he was disciplined informally, Ebdon’s misconduct wasn’t required to be disclosed in a court case where he testified as an officer — a fact the judge called “concerning.” Durham police will not publicly discuss Ebdon’s case.

The final word goes to Alok Mukherjee, former chair of Toronto Police Services Board.

During Mukherjee’s tenure on the police board, which provides civilian oversight the Toronto force, he said groups of officers were informally disciplined for removing their name tags during the G20 and turning off their in-car cameras — what he calls serious offences that undermine police accountability and integrity.

“My fear is that an impression is created that the discipline is not serious,” he said. “The next person who does that (misconduct) will act knowing that his matter is not serious.”

As I titled this post, those at the top just aren't doing their jobs.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Kafka, The Toronto Police, and Toronto Community Housing

"Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."

- The Trial, by Franz Kafka

Last evening, I made a brief post which included a quotation from George Orwell's 1984, linking it to a story from The Guardian that dealt with the suppression of freedom of expression rights being experienced by some British public servants. Today, he and another literary icon, Franz Kafka, came to mind as I read a story from the Star detailing a witch hunt conducted by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) that resulted in the suspension of six employees, four of whom were ultimately terminated. Indeed, if one were to substitute the word fired for arrested in the above Kafka quotation, one would have a perfect summary of what happened to these workers.

Their problems began in the aftermath of a much publicized incident of racial profiling in which two Toronto police officers, attached to the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS), stopped four black youth, ages 15 and 16, in a public housing complex. Exercising his rights, one of the lads refused to answer any questions, and the situation quickly escalated to the point where one of the officers pulled a gun, and the teens were arrested. All of the trumped-up charges, including the standard resisting arrest charge police so frequently use against those who exercise their rights, were eventually dropped.

To the police department's chagrin, someone handed over a copy of the surveillance video to The Star that captured the events, which included an unprovoked assault on one of the youths by the police, as you will see in the video below:

The fact that this video and the original story of the police abuse of authority were published by The Star did not sit well with the resume builders and careerists at TCHC. In what I am sure they deemed a remarkably good use of their well-paid time, they set out to track down the heretics who had caused public embarrassment to the police, apparently more concerned with maintaining a cozy relationship with them than they were with the egregious violation of Charter Rights the video reveals.

To make a long story short, since you can read the details in the above links, interrogations took place, and despite an absence of evidence that anyone had leaked anything to The Star, (indeed, you will see stout denials in today's story by the putative 'culprits') terminations ensured.

The abuse of authority, whether at the hands of police, employers or individuals victimizing other individuals, has always outraged me. This case is no exception.

Monday, February 22, 2016

UPDATED: The Police - Reluctant Learners In Our Midst

In many ways it is regrettable that the police apparently are not Spiderman fans. If they were, perhaps they would understand an early and painful lesson learned by Peter Parker, his alter ego: With great power comes great responsibility.

Unfortunately, some police seem to love the power, but want nothing to do with its responsible discharge, as my many posts on their abuse of authority attest to. In fact, when it is pointed out to them, they get downright outraged. Consider, for example, how they have gotten their kevlars in a twist over Beyonce's Superbowl half-time performance. (Start at about the 1:40 mark on the video.):



Whereas you and I might see an energetic celebration honouring and extolling black culture, police unions see a threat to their authority and respect, so much so that they are urging their members to boycott her upcoming concerts by refusing to provide security. To their credit, Toronto police are refusing to take part in such a boycott.

Looking deeply into the mirror to see one's shortcomings is never a pleasant experience, and having those shortcomings pointed out by others seems intolerable to some members of the American constabulary. To be reminded that Black Lives Matter by an impertinent songstress and her troupe, adorned in costumes recalling the black power movement, is more than these sensitive souls seem able to bear.

All of which inspired a spirited piece by Rosie DiManno in today's Star. She begins with these sobering facts:
People killed by the six law enforcement agencies that operate within Miami-Dade County: 14.

Seven were black. Five were Hispanic.

One of the victims was 15 years old.

The first Miami-Dade Police fatality — Feb. 15 — was a bipolar schizophrenic who swung a broom handle at officers. In a July fatal shooting by a Homestead officer (also within Miami-Dade), the same cop had shot and killed two other suspects since 2005 in separate incidents.
In each instance, officers claimed they feared for their lives.

Being a police officer seems to mean never having to say you're sorry. Indeed, it appears that their best defence is a strong offence.
... union president Javier Ortiz has called for a boycott of Beyoncé when the hitmaker kicks off her upcoming world tour in Miami on April 27, already sold out.

Ortiz slammed Beyoncé for her purported anti-police messaging — in a country where, according to comprehensive yearlong tracking by The Guardian into use of deadly force by police, 1,134 black individuals died at the hands of law enforcement in 2015. Despite making up only two per cent of the total U.S. population, African-American males between the ages of 15 and 34 comprised more than 15 per cent of all police-involved death logged by the newspaper’s investigation. Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age bracket.
Move along. Nothing to see here seems to be the uniform response to such statistics.
...a lot of cops — or at least their union leaders — are jumping on the trash- Beyoncé bandwagon, claiming, on zero evidence, that such populist messaging threatens police lives. Of course, that’s the shut-up admonition they’ve always employed when confronted by perceived enemies of the thin blue line, notably against hip-hop and rap artists they’ve vilified, but more generally against any individual or group that challenges their authority.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that policing is not even listed in the top 10 of dangerous professions as determined by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the National Sheriffs’ Association [blames] Beyoncé for four officer deaths last week. And a Tennessee sheriff who held a press conference after shots were fired near his home claimed Beyoncé’s video may have been partly responsible.
All of which may strike many as self-serving rhetoric from an institution that seems to lack any capacity for introspection and self-criticism.

Contrary to what some may think, I am not anti-police. What I am vehemently opposed to, however, is unbridled power that feels it should be answerable to no one.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Anon for providing this link to a Guardian database tracking people killed in the U.S. by the police. Accompanying pictures of the victims are quite revealing.

Friday, December 14, 2018

What Is An Authoritarian Bully To Do?



It is perhaps to state the obvious that political strongmen (I'm sure this applies to women, too) tend to surround themselves with those who will readily do their bidding. It is also true that they are very sensitive to criticism. Indeed, they do their utmost to discourage the latter. For compelling evidence, one has only to look at the long list of people Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin have disposed of.

Things are not quite as straightforward for the authoritarian bully ruling in a democracy. To be sure, such a person surrounds himself with sycophants, those willing to do his bidding in the hopes of maintaining and advancing their stations in life. For evidence, one has only to look at the supine nature of people like Caroline Mulroney and Christine Elliott serving the whims of Ontario premier Doug Ford.

However, unlike North Korea and Russia, true democracies have an obstacle to brazen, unlimited abuse of authority. It is called a free press, something Doug Ford is doing his damnedest to evade and vilify. But try as he might, the press is proving indefatigable.

Consider some of the latest revelations and commentary. Today's Star reports that Doug Ford was desperate to reward (for services rendered?) his good police pal Ron Taverner:
Toronto police Supt. Ron Taverner was offered the top position at the Ontario Cannabis Store and considered for a deputy minister post in the months leading up to his appointment to the job of Ontario Provincial Police commissioner, sources have told the Star.

Taverner, a close friend of Premier Doug Ford, rejected the idea of running the government cannabis store, and longtime bureaucrats at Queen’s Park made it clear the veteran Toronto police divisional officer did not have the normal qualifications to oversee the massive Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

“Doug wanted to do something for Taverner. That is what we were hearing,” said one source.
The NDP’s community safety and correctional services critic, Kevin Yarde, asks a salient question, one that we should all be asking:
“If Taverner’s swearing-in goes ahead on Monday, what will Ford be demanding of him?... It’s critical that police forces operate without political interference and without conflicts of interest — real or perceived.”
The Star is not the only news journal keeping tabs on Ford's Machiavellian machinations. The Globe and Mail is also deeply troubled. One of the red flags it has identified is the unseemly and wholly inappropriate alacrity with which pal Tavener leapt to Ford's defence over the demand that the OPP provide a large camper-style van whose purchase was to be "kept off the books":
Instead of looking into the substance of these very serious allegations, including a claim the Premier’s office asked police to break the law, the man on the verge of becoming Ontario’s top cop appears to have focussed his inquiries on what really matters: the size of the van.

He told the Toronto Sun that the vehicle Mr. Ford’s office wanted was more of an “extended-size van” than a “large camper van." And anyhow, the Premier – the man who didn’t hire him – is “a big guy and it would have more room for he and his team to work while on road.”

Great detective work, chief.
Writes Marcus Gee:
Democratic countries put a wall between leaders of the government and leaders of the police for a reason. If the police are beholden to those in power, it opens the door to political arrests. Police become guard dogs for the rulers instead of guardians of the public. People stop believing that the police will enforce the law without favour.

Even in a fortunate country like Canada where a descent into authoritarianism is remote, it is unwise to have a top cop who is the chum of a premier. Police sometimes have to investigate government leaders accused of lining their pockets or playing loose with election rules. How is the public going to trust the police to probe potential crimes or misdemeanors of the Ford government with Mr. Taverner in charge?
And while strongman Ford is happy to vilify the acting OPP Commissioner Brad Blair of sour grapes in his complaint about Tavener's appointment, he is by far not the only one to see peril here. Former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson is also calling for an investigation:
“What you need here is someone with complete integrity and confidence to be able to go in and review the whole process, all of the outstanding issues, and report publicly to say, ‘No, no, you’ve got it all wrong, this is a good guy, he’s the guy.’ Or, ‘This stinks and ought not to have ever happened.’”
The press and concrned officials are clearly doing their jobs in seeking to hold Backdoor Dealer Doug to account. However, the rest is up to us, the citizens of Ontario.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Police Response to Criticism? The Best Defence is an Offence (to all of us)

Yesterday I wrote an entry detailing the frustrations of Ian Scott, head of the Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, over his inability to get the cooperation of the majority of police forces when investigating allegations of police misconduct. Today, The Star reports on the strategy these forces use to combat such criticism.

Here is an excerpt from that story:

The association representing 33,000 front-line police officers in Ontario has accused the head of the province’s police watchdog of “destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system” with a “bias against police officers.”

In a letter of complaint to the body that regulates lawyers, the Police Association of Ontario says that Special Investigations Unit boss Ian Scott, a lawyer, committed professional misconduct by telling the Star in an interview that officers being investigated for alleged crimes “get all kinds of breaks in the (criminal justice) system.”

The Law Society quickly dismissed the December 2010 complaint without an investigation, telling the Police Association there is “insufficient evidence” of misconduct to warrant even a request for a probe.


The most ironic part of the complaint made by the police against the SIU head is found in the first paragraph, accusing Scott of destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system by his assertion that police officers are not held to the same high standard when being investigated for alleged crimes.

I agree that public confidence is being undermined, but not by the SIU. It is the refusal of the police themselves to cooperate with investigations, their refusal to bring wrongdoing of fellow officers to light (e.g., exactly how many have been charged in the G20 fiasco?), and the refusal of the police chiefs in charge of them to do anything to try to alter the 'brotherhood of the badge' mentality that appears to allow corruption and abuse of authority to exist and spread.

But then again, I'm sure, in their complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada, that they were aware of how effective 'shooting the messenger' can be.

Friday, September 23, 2011

From The Police Beat: More Police Brutality

Not given to monomania, I really hope that at some point in the (perhaps distant) future, I will be able to completely move on from commenting about police misdeeds. It's just that I have a real thing against the abuse of authority, and every time they come to my attention, I feel compelled to offer my observations.

I have written previously about Ontario Court Justice Lesley Baldwin and her brave comments that 'contempt of cop is not a crime'. Unlike the SIU, which has proven both toothless and feckless in fulfilling their mandate of investigating the police, Justice Baldwin has clearly seen through the barrier of the 'blue wall' that police tend to erect whenever one of their own is under fire.

She is once more in the news in a Toronto Star article entitled ‘Courageous’ judge takes on Halton cops. In part, the piece summarizes her previous ruling that prompted her 'contempt of cop' comments as she dismissed charges against Kyle Davidson of assaulting a peace officer, resisting arrest and being intoxicated in public in connection with a June 2009 arrest.

According to Davidson in an interview I saw last night on TV, a police car sped by him, narrowly missing him, at which point he mouthed an obscentiy. The police car came to a sudden stop and Davidson was told he was under arrest. Incredulous at the turn of events, he asked "For what?" after which Const. Erich Paroshy broke his arm.

Justice Baldwin's observations were as follows:

"I do find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Officer Paroshy used excessive force and broke Kyle Davidson’s arm in this case,” said Justice Baldwin in her 16-page ruling, making clear that “contempt of cop” is not a justification for an arrest.

Davidson said he has read the ruling “like 75 times” and added that he “feels absolutely vindicated. I really doubted the system.”

Baldwin went further in her ruling, calling police conduct in the case “harsh and callous.” She added: “I sensed no empathy on the part of either officer for the injuries Kyle Davidson sustained in this matter.”


In a related Star story, Justice Baldwin recommended to Crown prosecutors that they “carefully screen cases where an accused is brought before the Court on charges that arise from circumstances of suspected ‘contempt of cop’ before they proceed to prosecute the matter.” In the Dyrda case, she recommended screening “where no underlying charges accompany ‘assault resist arrest’ and ‘obstruct police’ charges.”

The above reference to the Dryda case, interestingly enough, also involved Erich Paroshy, the officer who broke Davidson's arm. The details of that case are as follows:

Baldwin acquitted brothers Bogumil and Stanislaw Dyrda of all charges, including assaulting a peace officer, stemming from an incident in January 2009.

According to court documents, Stanislaw was returning from dropping his daughter off at university in Ottawa when his car swerved off the road into a pile of rocks, deploying the airbag.

Constables Paroshy and Blair Egerter responded to a dispatch around 10 p.m. and alleged that when they tried to get information from Stanislaw he responded by saying “no.”

As they escorted him back to the cruiser, the officers testified they suspected Stanislaw was intoxicated and that he pushed himself away from Paroshy.

He was then placed under arrest, and as an altercation ensued, Paroshy alleged that Bogumil, having arrived on the scene after receiving a call from his brother, interfered by pulling off his bulletproof vest.

Stanislaw was punched by the officers, taken to the ground by Egerter and pepper-sprayed by Paroshy.

The brothers said that Stanislaw was not intoxicated, but exhausted from driving 17 hours and disoriented from the car crash; also, that Bogumil was trying to diffuse the situation by offering to translate for his brother, who speaks little English. He denied trying to take off Paroshy’s vest.

“Their duty as officers was to determine if this man needed some help. Help was not what Stanislaw Dyrda got that evening. He got beaten,” said Justice Baldwin in a 32-page ruling. “At the end of this long trial, it was clear that this case involved the excessive use of police force.”

Predictably, the Halton Police Association is offended and defensive about the judge's comments.

Police association president Duncan Foot slammed the judge for her decision in a letter to a local paper.

Trying to conceal rather than root out the problems is not a strategy that will restore public confidence, nor will it do anything to curb what seems to be the rising number of reported incidents of police brutality and excessive use of force.

Added to that, to paraphrase a subject popular with the Harper government, we can only wonder about the number of unreported crimes committed by police in their overzealous pursuit of their public safety duties.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

We Should All Be Very Concerned



Given the authorities' recent success in thwarting Aaron Driver's plans for a terrorist attack, I suspect that most Canadians are not too concerned about protecting their privacy rights. The fact that existing laws, legal surveillance and a timely tip from the FBI were responsible for stopping him should, however, be uppermost in our minds as a recent resolution by Canada's police chiefs and technology that allows for indiscriminate eavesdropping are now in the news.
Canada’s police chiefs want a new law that would force people to hand over their electronic passwords with a judge’s consent.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has passed a resolution calling for the legal measure to unlock digital evidence, saying criminals increasingly use encryption to hide illicit activities.
This law, by the way, would involve unfettered access to all electronic devices that are password-protected, including computers, tablets and cellphones, something that many would argue the state has absolutely no right to.

Thanks to some sleuthing done by my son, who sent me a series of links, you might also be shocked to know that our privacy rights are already being regularly violated by police in what would, in the old days, be called 'fishing expeditions.'

Motherboard reports the following:
The Edmonton Police Service owns a controversial surveillance device called a “Stingray” that indiscriminately surveils any cellphone within its multi-kilometre range, a police spokesperson confirmed on Thursday to Motherboard.
Previously the exclusive domain of the RCMP, these devices
force any phones within a target radius [usually several kilometers] to connect to the device and transmit identifying information. When a phone is caught by a Stingray, the police obtain the phone and SIM card IDs, as well as its location and service carrier. More recent Stingray devices are capable of intercepting voice and text communications. Stingrays surveil phones indiscriminately, leading some commentators to label them as “mass surveillance” devices.
Queries to a several other major police services were met with refusals to acknowledge their use, and now the Edmonton police are trying to backtrack. Police spokeswoman Anna Batchelor has issued a'retraction,' saying that
“there was some miscommunication/misunderstanding internally surrounding the information obtained on whether the EPS owns a StingRay, and in fact, the EPS does not own a StingRay device.”

She said it was police policy not to comment on “equipment used in electronic surveillance or on investigative techniques, therefore EPS cannot provide any further information on this topic.”
This feeble attempt at damage control should fool no one, nor should it lull us into a false sense of our privacy security. The problem is that we are currently dependent only on the honesty and goodwill of police departments to use such devices properly. For example, the Vancouver Police admit to using it only once, and records indicate that use was legitimate and authorized. But there are almost no legal safeguards to its legitimate deployment, as
we have absolutely no policy or regulatory response to police and intelligence agencies’ use of Stingrays despite the RCMP having had Stingrays for over a decade.
Contrast this lackadaisical approach with Germany, which has had federal regulation over such devices since 2002, stipulating the following:
-a warrant is required;

-Stingrays can only be used for investigation of serious crimes;

-Stingrays can only be used to determine suspects’ geo-location (not interception of communication’s content);

-the process must limit the collection of non-suspects’ data;

-non-suspects’ data cannot be used for any purpose other than confirming that it is non-suspects’ data and that this incidentally captured data must be deleted without delay;

-police use of Stingray is subject to reporting requirements for oversight and review.
Canadians, meanwhile, are being kept in the dark:
WE DO NOT KNOW whether warrants are always being sought or the nature of the warrants being applied for;

-WE DO NOT KNOW what judges are being told about the capacities of Stingrays with respect to the warrants being applied for;

-WE DO NOT KNOW if any minimization techniques are used to limit the collection of data of people who are not the targets of surveillance;

-WE DO NOT KNOW what is being done with the personal information of the thousands of people who are not the targets of legitimate police investigation.
Over the years I have tried to chronicle the myriad abuses of authority the police regularly engage in. In these fraught times, the temptation to take shortcuts, violate charter rights and generally abuse the citizenry is high. Now is not the time to give police even greater opportunity for intrusion into and violation of our lives. They need to work within tight and responsible constraints. To do otherwise should be unacceptable to all Canadians.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Police Secrecy In Hamilton, Ontario



Outside of a handful of traffic tickets, I have had almost no direct contact with police in my lifetime. Yet, in my darker moments, I have always suspected that it would be fairly easy to run afoul of them, be it through an angry word or gesture that could, with an ill-trained or unbalanced officer, quickly escalate into something of tragic proportions. Let's just say that, with so well-documented cases of police abuse of their authority, some of which I have dealt with in this blog, I have but a guarded trust in them.

It was therefore with considerable and justifiable consternation I read the following headline in The Hamilton Spectator:

Police board won't open fatal shooting reports: Hamilton Police Board decides — in secret — to keep secret lessons from police shootings

In a closed-door meeting this week, the Hamilton Police Services Board decided to keep secret a series of reports into fatal shootings and woundings of civilians by police officers.

In the wake of last summer's fatal police shooting of Steve Mesic, The Spectator asked for the reports in an effort to understand what Hamilton police had learned from their internal investigations (as opposed to the SIU's criminal investigations) of the 11 civilian shooting incidents police have been involved in over the past decade.


Not only was this decision made in secret, but it also appears to have been influenced by the heavy-handed tactics of Hamilton Police Chief Glenn De Caire, who, in an apparent effort to stop the board from voting to release the sought-after information, issued this threat:

... releasing the reports would require him to "sanitize" his reports in the future, leaving board members less well informed about shooting incidents.

Given the very questionable shooting of Steve Mesic and others in the recent past, one cannot escape the conclusion that both Chief De Caire and the Police Services Board have things to hide from the public:

Several police services — Ottawa and Durham, for example — release all or part of the reports and discuss them in open sessions. In Hamilton that has never been the case; the 2012 reports for example are summarized in a single sentence in the Professional Standards annual report.

To state the obvious, how can concealing information that the public should have a perfect right to be justified in an open and democratic society?

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Black Lives Matter, But Bullying Is Still Bullying



Just back last evening from our Cuban sojourn, it will take a little while to get my blogging and political legs back up to speed, given that I was peacefully unconnected for a week. However, an item in today's paper caught my attention that I feel moved to comment on.

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that I take great exception to the abuse of power, whether political, economic, or social. However, none of that exempts victims from criticism, not as victims, of course, but as members of our larger society. It is in that spirit that I offer my criticism of what looks to be an affirmation of the decision to exclude the Toronto Police from future participation in the annual Gay Pride Parade.

First, some background:
Black Lives Matter brought the 2016 parade to a standstill for more than half an hour in July, refusing to move until Pride officials agreed to a list of nine demands.
The most contentious of those extortionate demands, in my view, was the total removal of all police floats/booths in all Pride marches/parades/community booths.

I always felt it was not Black Pride Toronto's call to make, and that they had in fact abused the invitation they had been given to join the parade; of course, ultimately that judgement and the decision on whether or not to honour the hastily-agreed upon deal by then-executive director Mathieu Chantelois to get the parade moving again had to be made by the membership. And according to the article referenced above, they have done so.

This strikes me as a huge mistake. No one would argue that the police have, historically, abused the gay population, the infamous bathhouse raids of 1981 being perhaps the most public and egregious example, when patrons were mocked, humiliated — and arrested by the hundreds. A brief video found here affords a glimpse of the mindset that pervaded the times.

But this is no longer 1981, and last July Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders made an historic apology for this flagrant abuse of authority, an apology that was an important repudiation of such repugnant tactics. I like to think that the intervening 36 years have seen some evolution in the authorities' attitudes.

Why jeopardize those advances and the understanding between the two communities that both the passage of time and the participation in the Gay Pride festivities have helped make possible? To shut off such an important line of communication between the gay community and police culture seems to be counterproductive at the very least, given that the cultivation of such positive ties can only serve to strengthen understanding and empathy.

As neither a black nor a gay man, by what right do I offer an opinion on this issue? To suggest that this is only a black issue or a gay issue overlooks a larger point. They are all part of something bigger, Canadian society as a whole, so my expressed view is as a member of that society. To assert that only gays or blacks have any right to opine here would be to ghettoize and, to some extent, dehumanize, them as occupying special categories of citizenship.

We surely do not want to return to such prejudicial thinking, I hope.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

The Insular World Of The Police Mentality

I have written several posts in this blog about institutions and their many shortcomings, shortcomings that seem directly proportional to their age. The longer one exists, the more prone an organization seems to becoming increasingly insular, self-referential, and self-reverential.

One of the institutions most frequently targeted here is law enforcement. Whether examining local or national forces, it is clear that the temptation to overstep, misuse and abuse authority is too much for some to resist. Failure to seriously acknowledge that fact only leads to a greater likelihood it will recur, often more frequently or on an even larger scale.

Perhaps the most notorious instance of police abusing their authority and subsequent organizational inertia in responding to it was the G20 Summit of 2010 in Toronto. The details of that infamous weekend are well-known, and I have posted about it numerous times; in the aftermath of that weekend of mayhem, a G20 Criminal Investigative Project was formed to pursue and bring to justice the non-police criminals who contributed to the violence of that weekend.

As The Star's Rosie DiManno reports in today's edition, despite the legacy of illegalities perpetrated by the police and their commanders, that Project is today to be given a team award originating with Professional Standards:

[It is] being presented to some of the 82 members of the Toronto Police Service who are being honoured on Thursday along with a handful of officers from other law agencies

As Ms DiManno tartly observes:

There is little to feel proud about in the aftermath of that weekend of wreckage and trampled rights. Goodness, a slew of lawsuits against police for alleged abuse of force are still winding their way through the courts. And much of this city lost faith in its upholders of law and order, unprepared as they were to avert the chaos that erupted, then overly zealous in response to top-down orders that they “take back the streets.”

But that reality doesn't seem to exist in Policeland, it would seem.

The authorities, however, should be aware that it has not been forgotten in the larger world of public opinion.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Holding Police to Account



Late last month I wrote a piece for The Paper News examining the nearly impenetrable 'blue wall' that is an ever-present barrier to justice and accountability whenever the police abuse their authority, violate the public's rights, or otherwise brutalize them. One of the cases I wrote about was the disabling beating OPP Sgt. Russell Watson administered to Tonie Farrell, a 48-year-old Orillia ‘Good Samaritan’ whose only 'crime' was to try to help a woman who had been assaulted by three thugs.

The SIU (Special Investigations Unit) did its usual 'stellar' job. It found there were no reasonable grounds to charge the offending officer.

In today's edition of The Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights. I reproduce a few of them below:

Re: Good Samaritan brutally beaten by OPP officer, Dec. 30
Officer assaults citizen, causes serious, permanent injury. Officer charges citizen with assault and obstruction. SIU investigates officer but lays no charges. Judge dismisses charges against citizen, condemns officer’s actions.

Sadly, this case is not unique; it demonstrates the double standard that exists when the citizen victim of the assault is charged while the police perpetrator suffers no legal or disciplinary consequences. By setting the bar for charging police far too high, the SIU is failing its duty to protect Ontarians from the “bad apples” who perpetuate a culture of violence in police forces across the province.

How many more victims will it take before citizens take to the streets to demand accountability?

M. Goldstein, Mississauga
I was appalled to read about OPP Sgt. Russell Watson’s life-shattering assault on Tonie Farrell, and even more appalled to hear that he will face no consequences. This is another in a long line of incidents proving that our police are a law unto themselves.

If they are particularly stupid or their acts particularly egregious, judges may scold them, but the SIU will find there’s no grounds to lay a charge, and their superiors will not even discipline, much less dismiss them. Evidently Watson’s OPP superiors consider punching and kicking women to be all in a day’s work.

When police officers lie under oath, they are not charged with perjury. When they conspire to cover for each other and subvert the course of justice, they are not charged with conspiracy. That “blue wall of silence” seems to reach around the entire justice system.

If an individual’s safety is based on happening not to cross a police officer’s path at the wrong moment (or in the “wrong” skin), we’re in serious trouble. Governments at all levels must take steps to bring police under the rule of law. We cannot trust our justice system or our police if they can break the law with impunity.

Nina Littman-Sharp, Toronto
And about that curious provision in the law that allows the police to obstruct SIU investigations by refusing to turn over to them their investigation notes:
As I read this article, I became ever more appalled as Tonie Farrell was transformed from Good Samaritan to an abused victim to an accused defendant and then the SIU finding of no wrongdoing. Truly a disgrace.

The most infuriating and confusing aspect of this sorry tale is present in the following passage from the Dec. 30th article: “The SIU conducted a month-long investigation in 2013 and interviewed Watson, but he did not provide his notes, as is his legal right.”

This is a mind-boggling situation. I have never been a police officer nor faced violent danger in my employment. Nonetheless, I have never for one second considered the notes that I took with the pen and paper or computer (supplied by the employer and used during a paid workday) to be my property or facts that I could keep secret.

I worked as a quality assurance manager, and as such I performed investigations into quality issues, and as a member of the joint health and safety committee also conducted investigations on safety incidents. I cannot imagine a circumstance where my refusal to fully co-operate with my co-workers and management supervisors would not result in disciplinary action, which would appear on my HR records and, if there were repeat infractions, result in my dismissal.

My wife and close friends with whom I discussed this issue were similarly confused at learning that the rules appear to allow police officers to withhold information and not fully and completely assist and comply with investigations.

I wish to request the Star to prepare an article to explain to readers like myself the legal logic behind the ability (or “right”) of officers to withhold their field notes. This article should include a complete review of the pros and cons of this “right.” It would be very enlightening to learn of situations where the exercising of this “right” is clearly the correct course of action as well as the flip-side, such as the Farrell vs. Watson case and others like it.

Stan Taylor, Brampton

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Police Torturers And Their Enablers



It is heartening to know that the Hamilton police are discharging their duties responsibly, as attested to by a video that went viral this week. However, to believe that all is well in policeland would be but a comforting illusion.

Yesterday, Kev reported on the 'excesses' of some Toronto police whose actions, described by the Court of Appeals' judge as 'torture under the Criminal Code', led to the staying of a conviction against the victim. Incidentally, two of the officers involved in the abuse, Jamie Clark and Donald Belange, received promotions, no doubt rewards for their 'exemplary' work.

Where does responsibility for the rot reside? As in all institutions, it must be placed on the shoulders of the leadership, in this case the office of Chief Bill Blair, who frequently seems more adept as a politicians than he does as Toronto's top cop. And the Toronto Police Services Board, led by Alok Mukherjee, has to be seen as one of the chiefs chief enablers.

A report by former Special Investigations Unit director Ian Scott suggests that Blair virtually ignored over 100 letters Scott sent to him alleging that officers repeatedly violated their legal duty to co-operate with the provincial watchdog. Blair's spokesperson and pet poodle, Mark Pugash, disputes this, asserting: “All of the points he raised were dealt with..."

Where the truth resides is something the public is not allowed to know. As reported in today's Star, the Toronto Police Services Board refuses to make this information public:

Chair Alok Mukherjee said Thursday the board has “considered” publishing the reports, but has not because certain information must be kept confidential under the Police Services Act, such as the names of officers involved in disciplinary matters or classified police procedures.

This stands in contrast with several other police services boards in the province, which release the chief’s reports at public board meetings, with confidential details removed.


Ottawa, for example, publishes its reports online, leaving out only the names of the officers involved. [I]n Durham, reports are only kept secret if their disclosure would threaten public safety or personal privacy.

Meanwhile, the good people of Toronto are expected to remain content with this from Chief Blair:

“In every single case without exception, I have reported to the oversight authority that the statute says I’m supposed to, which is the police services board.”

But the chief said he doesn’t think those reports should be made public.

“That is at the discretion of the board, and there are aspects of those reports which quite frankly deal with issues of personnel, which are not appropriate to be made public.”


We live in a troubling time when, on many levels, the Canadian public is being treated with an indifference that borders on absolute disdain, even contempt. However, despite the best efforts of the Harper cabal to establish a Canada that is more secretive and repressive society, a process that seems to be infecting all levels of governance, we still enjoy basic freedoms as a putative democracy; full disclosure of police misconduct is required and demanded unless the police motto "to protect and serve' is to be seen as little more than a cruel irony.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

More Troubling News On The Police Front

I have the feeling that if I had both the time and the narrowness of purpose, I could devote this blog entirely to police and their abuse of authority and the citizens they are sworn to protect. It seems that one doesn't have to look far, be it on YouTube or the daily papers, to find new outrages committed by the constabulary.

The unfortunate pitfall of all of this, of course, is the danger of slipping into the fallacy of gross over-generalizations. The fact is, of course, that the majority of police do not abuse their powers (except in special circumstances such as the Toronto G20 Summit of 2010); it just seems that way thanks to a sometimes-vigilant press and some intrepid citizen journalists.

If you have the stomach for it, read about a Windsor police detective, David Van Buskirk, who has just been found guilty of viciously assaulting a visually-impaired doctor, Tyceer Abouhassan, and lying to cover up the assault. The Windsor Police Association, of course, is falling all over itself explaining away his aberrant and abhorrent behaviour and calling for understanding of the stresses he was under at the time of the beating.

No word yet about the stress Dr. Abouhassan experienced as a result of the assault.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Judge Excoriates Cops As Thugs, Expresses Contempt For Superiors Who Conceal

Yesterday I posted some of the comments made by Justice Allen upon sentencing two Toronto police officers to a year of house arrest for beating a Cabbagetown man in 2009. Today there are further comments in The Star by the Superior Court Judge, including the following:

Police turned a blind eye to thuggish behaviour by officers that’s worthy of a criminal gang. He said, “This attitude is inconsistent with effective policing. It is inconsistent with the rule of law” describing it as "...behaviour we expect from gang members on the street, not the police.”

Allen was sharply critical of superior officers at 51 Division who didn’t report the attack to the civilian Special Investigations Unit, which probes incidents where police cause serious injuries.

“Any officer who is prepared to turn a blind eye to the use of excessive force has to take some responsibility when their colleagues are facing the loss of their career and their liberty.”

Justice Allen's most damning comments came when he spoke of what motivated the police attack:

“This crime was committed because Mr. Moore spoke disrespectfully to the officers, calling them the rich man’s army and suggesting they go arrest some gangster,” Allen said. “The officers decided to put him in a cell overnight and then beat him severely when he did not cooperate in his arrest.”

Clearly, despite the myriad examples of police brutality and abuse of authority being made public, the Toronto Police force and, I suspect, the forces in many other jurisdictions, are still out of control, aided and abetted by superiors ignoring the brutality either because they are part of the 'blue wall of silence' or crave career advancement.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Sammy Yatim's Accused Killer Back On The Job



While the presumption of innocence is fundamental to our justice system, common sense and public sensibilities are always unspoken elements of the equation. This is clearly seen, for example, in jury selection, a good part of which is designed to ferret out and exclude from participation those with prejudgments that could affect the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

With that preamble and proviso out of the way, what I express in the following is simply my opinion, a perspective informed by news coverage of the accused and the aforementioned common sense and public sensibilities.

I have written several past posts on Sammy Yatim and related matters of police abuse of their authority. Yatim, readers will recall, was the 18-year-old whose death at the hands of police on July 27, 2013, was captured on video. While holding a knife in an empty streetcar, presenting no immediate threat to the many police who were on scene, Yatim was shot to death by Const. James Forcillo, who was later charged with second-degree murder.

Now, incredibly, just a few days after the beginning of his preliminary hearing, word has arrived that Forcillo has been back on the job since February.

The decision to have Const. James Forcillo return to duty — after a seven-month suspension with pay — was made by Chief Bill Blair.

“The chief, using his discretion, made the decision to lift his suspension and since February he has been assigned to administrative duties here at headquarters,” spokesman Meaghan Gray confirmed Wednesday. “He is not in uniform and his job does not require any use-of-force options.”


A close Yatim family friend, Joseph Nazar, was stunned by the news:

This is a betrayal by the police chief,” Nazar said. “This officer is charged with murder and he’s working in a police station?

“If this is true, we’re not going to sit quiet about it,” he added.


Police union head Mike McCormick, “fully” supports the chief’s decision to lift Forcillo’s suspension.

“We encourage management to find meaningful work for suspended officers when possible, as long as any risk has been mitigated,” McCormack said. “And it actually happens quite frequently.”

He said it’s good for the officers, the service and taxpayers.


What McCormick failed to acknowledge is that it's not so good for the pursuit of justice, fosters the perception of a blue brotherhood with more contempt than concern for the public, and betrays an egregious disdain for a still-grieving family that will never again embrace their loved one.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

It Certainly Took Him Long Enough

His Mad Face?

Seasoned cynic that I am, I can't help but think that Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair's denunciation of police misbehaviour is little more than a public relations exercise. Almost three years after the G20 debacle, in which over 1000 people were arrested and a mere handful of police hit with the most modest of sanctions for their egregious abuse of authority, the Chief has deemed it prudent to speak to both the public and his own troops on where he stands when 'good' cops go bad.

As reported in today's Star,

An angry Chief Bill Blair is slamming his own officers for “totally unacceptable behaviour,” including turning off dashboard cameras, being untruthful in court and racist remarks.

Included in his video message — which runs about five minutes and shows Blair in full uniform, set against a dark background and speaking directly to the camera — are two short video clips that make examples of individual officers on the force. It’s the first time the chief has used video in such a fashion.

The first clip was captured on a police dashboard camera three years ago, and shows Const. Christian Dobbs repeatedly striking Toronto cook Raymond Costain, who is face down and hidden from view, in front of the King Edward hotel.

I think I would have found this public condemnation much more credible were it coming from another police chief, given that Chief Blair was such an integral party to the abrogation of Charter rights during the G20, concealing, for example, the fact that the so-called emergency laws about 5-meter perimeters around fences were total fiction. This, of course, led to the unlawful searches, seizures and arrests of lawful protesters during that infamous weekend in June of 2010.

A real leader not only 'talks the talk' but also 'walks the walk.' I have seen no evidence of such ambulatory ability on the part of Bill Blair.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Police Deserve Our Respect - When They Don't Abuse It

Contrary to what one might believe reading my various entries on the police, I recognize the difficult job that they have, and I realize that they are often capable of feats of great heroism when they put themselves at peril to protect the public. As a retired teacher, I also know how easy it is for people to make gross over generalizations about those who work as public servants, stereotyped slurs abounding about, for example, overpaid and lazy teachers, cops on the take, etc.

However, and I think I have been consistent in this, I draw the line at police who abuse their authority or act incompetently and then try to escape the consequences through lies, misdirection, or obfuscatory political language.

My reflections today are prompted by a story on the front page of today's Star detailing the failure of Julian Fantino to apologize to Cecil Bernard George, cousin of the late Dudley George, for a near-fatal beating he received at the hands of the OPP when Fantino headed that organization:

Five years ago, Justice Sidney Linden wrote that then-OPP commissioner Julian Fantino should apologize to Kettle and Stony Point band councillor Cecil Bernard “Slippery” George for near-fatal injuries he suffered during a clash with police.

Fantino, who seems to epitomize the American belief that it should never apologize for anything, has never acted upon that judicial request and appears not to be man enough to own up to his failure, one of many in his very checkered career in law enforcement, a career that included wiretap controversies, homophobia, and corruption scandals under his command.

According to the Star article, Fantino's first feeble explanation for not apologizing to Cecil George came three weeks ago when the now-Assistant Minister of Defence said he sincerely wanted to apologize to George face-to-face, but was told by Ontario Provincial Police staff that George was dead. “I believe he passed away”.

George, who has made no secret of his ongoing participation in this life, even has his picture on the band council's webpage. Mind you, the picture includes three people with the surname of George, so perhaps the kind of discernment required to identify the correct one would have required time that an assistant minister has little of, given his weighty duties in the service of Haper Inc.

Ever the resourceful politician, when informed by the Star that Mr. George is still with us, a spokesperson said in an email late Thursday afternoon that Fantino now recalls that he offered an apology and it was declined.

George said Thursday he’s still awaiting an apology from Fantino and would welcome one.

The Fantino spokesperson also said that two other former OPP commissioners have already apologized to the community.

George said Linden specifically called upon Fantino to apologize and that Fantino should respect the judge’s recommendation.

The Fantino spokesperson said that he no longer has authority to act of behalf of the OPP.

George said he feels Fantino should still make the apology and that he should make it to the entire community.

And so you can see the problem here. The breathtaking scope of dishonesty, rationalization, evasion and absence of honour epitomized in this situation once more suggests that Mr. Fantino is yet just another politician, cut from the same cloth as the majority of the Harper regime, intent on advancing his own career at the expense of the public good.

Yet one more reason I will be protesting at my local Conservative M.P.'s office tomorrow.