RCMP Watch

(Edmonton Journal) - Law enforcement officials should provide answers to worried communities, shedding light whenever possible. Folks around Edson must be wondering what it takes to get a straight and respectful explanation from the RCMP in the case of a recent bogus attack claim following the Emily Stauffer murder.

It’s true that the prime directive for any police force must be policing, not public relations.

That realm shouldn’t be the stuff of congeniality contests or massage sessions. It further goes without saying that protecting both the rights of the accused along with the safety and security of the larger society is a delicate, difficult balancing act.

Every day, men and women in police work literally risk their lives in often-

unsung service to Canadians. Even the most wildly libertarian inclined among us recognize that the very first, indispensible responsibility of any government lies in law enforcement. Without it, we slip off the evolutionary grid into the bog.

But in accepting that, we can also expect that those who serve us daily must remember whom they work for. Police forces of any stripe are not walled, self-contained entities unto themselves. They are pledged instead to serve the people who employ them, and who, upon occasion might rightly have material questions and concerns.

Imperfect though democracy may be, those inquiries are regularly made by a free media, along with individual citizens, interested organizations and elected representatives outside and inside government.

Citizens of Edson and region have been traumatized by the recent killing of 14-year-old Emily Stauffer on a walking trail. And there is every reason to believe authorities led by the RCMP are pulling out all the stops to get to the bottom of the case, while observing the legalities. An account by a woman who claimed she had escaped the clutches of an assailant understandably sent up even more shock waves in the community.

It’s become apparent that the accusation was false. And there does seem to be evidence that there is a back story about the woman that militates against pursuing the mischief charges that would follow most of us who pulled a similar stunt. But considering the widespread fears that accompanied the ruse — which, after all was announced by local Mounties who didn’t dismiss them out of hand — at least some sort of explanation that didn’t violate privacy rights seems appropriate.

Instead, employing the same sort of institutional hubris that has dogged the force of late, RCMP spokesman Cpl. Wayne Oakes waxed superior and haughty in a public statement: “I cannot and will not provide any details. There were no grounds to believe that the event actually happened, and that’s that.”

That’s that indeed. Which shows that even when the force is working flat out, night and day, while likely deservedly protecting the human rights of a person of interest, RCMP brass “cannot and will not” send out the right sort of message to those it is trying to protect.

This is no time for arrogance, but for vigilance and reassurance.