Lorne Gunter (National Post Editorial) – It’s always a struggle in a democracy to find the proper balance between civil liberties and the need for police and security agencies to protect us from the very real threats to our safety.
I’m not talking just about terror attacks, either. For most Canadians, I suspect, terrorism is low down on the list of safety concerns. Being afraid to walk home from the bus stop is a more immediate worry — that or the possible theft of their car.
We want police to keep criminals out of our communities (terrorists, too). So our instincts are to support officers in their duties. And, in general, we’re willing to give CSIS and other security agencies a lot of latitude in conducting the touchy, shadowy business of thwarting extremists before their plots turn deadly.
On the other hand, we would like — although we seldom get — courts to take a harder line, especially with repeat, violent offenders. So we distrust judges. As a class, in recent years, the judiciary has shown itself far too lenient with thugs.
So when it was revealed in the WikiLeaks document disclosure this week that Jim Judd, the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, thinks our courts have CSIS and others tied up “in knots,” a natural first reaction is to side with Judd against the judges. It’s easy to see activist judges waving the Charter around to hobble our spy agency as it toils against terrorists and those who offer them support, funds and sanctuary.
Judges have recently made it harder to search suspects and harder still to enter evidence that was gathered in a less than pristine manner. Sentencing is also a joke in too many cases; life means 10 years, two years means four months and over half of convicted criminals never see the inside of a jail, at least not on their first offence.
We’re inclined to shout, “Give it to ‘em, Judd!”
But then there is that all-important liberties versus safety balance. Just when we’re about to side with CSIS, the RCMP and our local police, along come the cases of Stacy Bonds, Andrew Clyburn and, of course, Robert Dziekanski.
Ms. Bonds is an Ottawa theatrical makeup artist who was stopped on the street by Ottawa police in 2008. For no apparent reason, officers asked her her name, ran it through police computers and when nothing turned up, let her go. But as they walked away, she asked them why they had stopped her, at which point they arrested her. At the police station, when Ms. Bonds objected angrily to being detained, she was kicked, stripped of her shirt and bra in public and forced to sit topless and in soiled pants in a cell for several hours.
Last month, a judge dismissed all charges against Ms. Bonds and reprimanded police for the indignities they perpetrated on her.
Mr. Clyburn’s is a tougher case. He is an oilfield worker from Lac La Biche, Alta., who was arrested by local RCMP in Sept. 2009 after he harassed staff at a bar and got into a boozy brawl. After Mr. Clyburn spent a few hours sleeping it off in a cell, an officer escorted him down a hall in the station, at which point Mr. Clyburn seems to have said something to the officer. Security cameras then show the officer lunging at Mr. Clyburn, throwing him against a wall twice, then pinning him to the floor and for 40 seconds raining blows down on the helpless man’s head and face.
The officer, Const. Desmond Sandboe, a nine-year RCMP veteran, pleaded guilty on Friday to assault.
Mr. Dziekanski, of course, is the unfortunate Polish immigrant who died at the hands of Taser-wielding Mounties at the Vancouver airport in October 2007.
Whenever the state grants authority to use force against civilians, or to spy on others in a way that would be illegal for most of us, the courts and judges are the last safeguard of our liberties. Granted, judges often act as though they hold degrees in experimental sociology. They still have an essential role in a democracy.
Given that CSIS and the RCMP have been able to break up terror rings such as the Toronto 18, the judges’ “knots” seem not to have placed too great a burden on our defenders. And in the process, those knots may have protected the rights of innocent Canadians.
The article confuses two issues. The actions of individuals in the use/misuse of authority and the necessity of combating overall threats to the public safety. In order to combat criminal activity as defined by the people through their elected representatives, the police are allowed to arrest under certain circumstances. If the individual officer(s) act ignobly in the discharge of their duties in that respect then you will have to deal with them, and not restrict police authority. Stop all arrests?
Everybody whines about too much police “authority”. Yet when issues come close to home they are the first to ask why wasn’t something done. Why have they not arrested anybody in the Fort McMurray murders of Somalian gangsters asks the CBC? Police should be doing more they snivel. The very corporation that regularly attacks the police and decries their “authority” wants immediate action, arrests and prosecution. There is a trade off.
Such as a recent decision of the BC Judge Stromberg-Stein. Police following the minefield of case law in the obtaining a statement from an accused 15 year old killer, has it thrown out because of her view of juveniles, not anything done illegally. Total disregard for the Supreme Court. There will be no more statements if this stands. Another curb on police “powers”? More like another stab into the heart of a wish for a non violent society.
So, take away the ability of the police to take statements from juveniles totally or have them just abide by the case law already set down? Both it would appear. The upshot? Juveniles run amok (more than now) with no consequence. More curb on police “power”. The bleeding hearts will rejoice until their progeny is stomped to death, then the police bashing will renew.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
20
I find it interesting that when it comes to police and their actions they are hardly punished for the seriousness of their infractions but when it comes to the public they are punished severely.
I am referring to the G-20 summit in Toronto this year. One thousand people were arrested and detained while only 100 of them were charged with anything. Parliament invoked a war time law and tweaked it to their advantage and when it all erupted the people were blamed for their police actions.
Now the Ontario Ombudsman has come forth saying that this law was probably not legal and has shed some light on the actions of the RCMP, OPP and Toronto police in their use of excessive force and is holding the Toronto Police Force and the Province of Ontario responsible for with holding from the people their intentions to invoke this law and has called it entrapment. Chief Bill Blair is not happy that it rest on his shoulders and has of course denied that they deceived the people and seriously infringed on the people’s civil rights but the videos shot those days seems to paint a different picture.
Does this sound like something our police forces would do when it comes to the public as a whole?
Time for change is long over due in the way our police forces operate and it’s crucial that something is done before it’s to late, that’s if it’s not already there, that is?
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
23 
42
“So when it was revealed in the WikiLeaks document disclosure”
Quote.
The release of these classified documents was wrong. However it never ceases to amaze me how governments cry fowl when they commit the same offences to discredit and punish individuals.
(SEE BELOW EXAMPLES)
Canadian government:
Veterans ombudsman says bureaucrats reassured him on privacy breaches
6 Oct 2010 … Faced with criticism from Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre … including medical records, that steps had been taken to ensure only a …
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/…/Veterans…/story.html?id...
———————————————————————-
US Government:
Jury convicts Libby on four charges – Politics – msnbc.com
6 Mar 2007 … WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/ – United States – Cached
———————————————————————-
, along come the cases of Stacy Bonds, Andrew Clyburn
Quote
With all the discussion people should be directed to the “Use of Force Model” of the respective police agencies.
In the Ms. Bond case it appears that she is “slightly resisting”. The correct response would be “empty hands soft” (Pain compliance and joint manipulation.)
The kneeing by the officer was “empty hands hard”. The presence of several officers would have made the controlling of Ms. Bond possible without strikes.
Male Police officers cutting off her cloths speaks for itself.
Mr. Clyburn appears “cooperative”. The use of “empty hand hard”( strikes) was not required according to the use of force model.
Those are the facts.
The similarities in these cases appears to be that action was taken due to the subjects being verbally abusive to the police. That is not grounds to use excessive force or make an arrest!
The ottawa City Police want to be judged as individuals; and they should be. The actions of one police officer should never be grounds to judge all police officers.
The Ottawa City Police cannot have it both ways.
They are reviewing their cell block policy, and adding more cameras. Now, police moral is at an all time low. The trauma seems to be lost regarding Ms. Bonds and redirected to all Ottawa City Police Officers.
Do a timely,open as possible investigation; then tell the truth no matter who it helps or who it hurts. Hold the individuals accountable for their conscious actions with the information that they had at the time. If required, implement the proper policies and procedures to prevent further occurrences.
The citizens are not merely saying that they want responsible policing. They are also saying:
THAT COULD BE ME BEING ABUSED!
Calvin Lawrence
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
20
Mr. Gunter is entirely on the mark. Since 9/11 civil rights have been under attack in both the USA and Canada. The RCMP needs no encouragement to take special liberites with the public as the several recent deaths in custody seems to point out. It is always easy to assume that you and I will never be falsely accused or tasered to death in an airport but it can happen. Thank God for the Charter and its protection, such as it is.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
23
I think what most people object to in the legal system is some of the perplexing jurisprudence that does nothing to further the safety of the citizens. The only time the courts really take impaired driving seriously appears to be in cases of bodily harm and death. The propensity for throwing out a case on nonsensical technicalities does not happen as often in the serious cases.
The nonsensical verdicts that handcuff all law enforcement in some cases should be dealt with by addressing the actions of individuals. Such claptrap as wanting to dismiss a case because the accused did not get in touch with the specific lawyer of his choosing (but did speak with one) does not foster confidence in the system. The recent decisions from the SCC was actually a bit of common sense in that regard:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc35/2010scc35.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc36/2010scc36.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc37/2010scc37.html
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
21