Conservative MPs on the House Justice Committee have sent a bill banning the use of masks by ‘rioters’ with an increased penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Bill C-309 would make it illegal for those rioting or participating in an ‘unlawful’ protest to conceal their identities. Despite section 351 of the Criminal Code already outlawing the use of a disguise while committing an indictable act, this new legislation would also apply to the non-indictable offence of participating in an ‘unlawful’ protest, giving another means for the police to persecute protestors. NDP MP Françoise Boivin worries that this bill will be “a way to pre-emptively arrest masked protesters, even if they’re peaceful.”
Another concern would arise if police decide to use tear gas and pepper spray to control a demonstration, as they did in the early 2000s in response to the anti-globalization movement. Protestors used vinegar soaked bandanas and gas masks to protect themselves from the toxic fumes. If the police deemed just protests ‘unlawful,’ would the use of protective masks be used as an additional charge to persecute dissent? Unfortunately, the answer is in all likelihood yes.
To read more click here.
Henry Aubin, an opinion columnist with the Montreal Gazette, suggests that civilian oversight of investigations into police misconduct will save the Quebec government money. And he’s not the only one. The office of the Quebec Ombudsman argues just as much in its detailed critique of Bill 46 (a bill before the National Assembly which aims to reform investigations into police misconduct).
Concerned citizens groups have long demanded such accountability measures. The standard argument is that police forces protect each other and do not adequately investigate allegations of wrongdoing.
Police forces, for their part, have been reticent to accept civilian oversight. And the Quebec government has cited associated costs as an impediment to implementing full civilian oversight. But the Quebec Ombudsman’s report cites a number of factors to support the conclusion that the transitional and operational costs would be minimal. And the pay-off in terms of increased respect for the integrity of the process would be enormous.
Read Henry Aubin’s piece in the Gazette here.
The Quebec Ombudsman’s full report on Bill 46 is available here, and the short summary here.
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in BC Supreme Court by lawyers representing a former Nanaimo, BC RCMP officer alleging sexual harassment against her employer. Janet Merlo claims she was subject to 20 years of sexual harassment while part of the force, including sexual pranks and comments by male supervisors.
Lawyers that filed the suit are now awaiting certification by a judge that the lawsuit is a class action (a process that could take up to two years). The suit follows the widespread allegations of sexual harassment and abuse in the RCMP that became public last fall, and is among the latest stories of unaccountability and discrimination having to do with the RCMP.
More information about the lawsuit can be found here. The notice of civil claim can be found here.
Essex County OPP Const. William Scott acknowledged at his assault trial Friday that he swore at a teen and shoved him, as well as poured beer on another teen’s shoes.
But the officer said it was all part of asserting control.
Scott, a 47-year-old police veteran, is facing trial on a charge of assault causing bodily harm for his actions breaking up a party in Kingsville around 12: 30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2010.
The charges were laid by the province’s Special Investigations Unit.
Scott testified that he and his female partner were dispatched to Main Street in response to a complaint about a loud party with underage drinking.
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/Officer+admits+swearing+pouring+beer+shoes/6353268/story.html#ixzz1qAtWU0cM
In the following paragraphs, second-year McGill Law students Farid Muttalib and Eric Brousseau exchange thoughts on the policing of protests.
Eric,
We’ve seen a spate of public demonstrations in Montreal over the past few months, some of which have ended in clashes with the police. In November, a major anti-tuition hike protest ended with riot police being deployed on McGill’s downtown campus. As part of pressure tactics aiming to compel the government to change its stance on tuition, students have occupied and surrounded various downtown buildings over the past few months. At the blockade of the Loto-Quebec building in early March, a young CEGEP student suffered a serious eye injury when a stun grenade blew up near his face. At the annual anti-police brutality protest last week, things took a turn for the worse fairly quickly, as some demonstrators clashed with police officers. This week, students were detained after having blocked the Champlain bridge, and the riot squad was deployed against Aveos workers, who had blocked Côte-Vertu boulevard.
Meanwhile, not far from our very own Faculty of Law, striking students from the Schools of Social Work and Nursing have created “picket lines” and are preventing access to Wilson Hall.
Mayor Tremblay recently called for a public debate to ensure that violence no longer occurs in the context of protests. Somewhat troublingly, however, he suggested that the city would look into measures that ensure that the rights of demonstrators do not infringe the “rights of society” (suggesting that they are two opposed groups). Tremblay deplored the high costs attached to policing protests, further complaining that the protests tarnished the city’s reputation and added to congestion.The mayor suggested that the city would explore the possibility of requiring permits, compelling demonstrators to register (their routes) with police, and possibly even outlawing face coverings – although he was clearly aware of the legal obstacles such measures would have to overcome.
In my humble opinion, it is very likely that major protests become even more common in the years to come, given the current “austerity” movement and the fact that social networking makes it very easy to quickly attract large groups of people to an event. In light of this possibility, it seems more important than ever to have a public debate on the role of free expression and the right to assembly in a democratic society. This should probably be done without the loaded terms advanced by Mayor Tremblay. Read the rest of this entry »
Already engulfed with controversy and boycott, Wally Oppal’s Missing Women’s Inquiry continues to provide fodder for those who believe the process lacks genuine concern for those who were most impacted by the RCMP’s indifference and ineptitude.
Lawyers representing the family of some of the missing women attempted to obtain disclosure on documents from Vancouver police, RCMP and provinces criminal justice department, including those related to Willie Pickton’s brother. His brother had close ties to the province’s Hell’s Angels. Oppal claims that there is no connection worth investigating and that it is outside the mandate of the inquiry. The family lawyers, however, want to know why the RCMP didn’t catch Pickton earlier, especially considering Vancouver police received tips as early as 1998 from informants that linked him to the disappearance of women in the province.
The connection that the brother of Pickton has with a criminal organization and whether that connection may have influenced the effectiveness of police inquiry before Pickton was finally arrested in 2002, would appear to be relevant to the inquiry’s mandate, despite Oppal’s protest.
Read more here.
One of two independent lawyers appointed to represent the public interest at the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry has resigned. Robyn Gervais, appointed to represent Aboriginal interests at the Inquiry resigned her position today, effective immediately. Appointed in August of last year, Gervais cited concerns with the lack of Aboriginal witnesses called by the Commission, the lack of ongoing support from the Aboriginal community, and the disproportionate focus on police evidence in the hearings as reasons for her resignation. According to Gervais, after 38 days of police testimony, the Commission has yet to hear from one Aboriginal witness.
See her news release to the media here.
City Council is currently in the process of approving the 2012 City of Windsor Operating budget. We’ve been told there will be no tax increase for a record 4th year in a row. Additionally, we’ve been informed that the Acting Police Chief delivered a budget with no increases. Both of these things are very good news, but that’s where the good news ends.
The Windsor Police Service (WPS) budget is one of the biggest line items in the overall City of Windsor Operating budget and that’s the problem – all we see is a single total figure for the year and not a line by line breakdown of the WPS’s revenue and expenses. The budget is drafted by the Police Chief and approved by the Windsor Police Services Board in secret.
Read more:
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/03/02/windsor-police-services-board-needs-to-open-the-books/
Quebec’s Ombudsman Raymonde St. Germain and Public Security Minister Robert Dutil remain at odds over a bill aimed at increasing police accountability. Bill 46 was drafted in response to a special report which St. Germain authored in 2010. It provides for a measure of civilian oversight into investigations of police misconduct.
At a hearing held Monday, February 27, St. Germain complained that the newly created civilian office would not have the power to directly investigate alleged police wrongdoing. She thinks it does not go far enough in addressing the police-civilian divide and allaying public fears that police forces protect each other.
Dutil has indicated that he is sensitive to these issues but reiterated that police remain the best primary investigators in these situations. Denis Côté, the president of the Union of Quebec Municipal Police, agrees with Dutil.
Hearings regarding Bill 46 continue this week.
Read the full article here.
When Jesse-Lee Henebry, a young London resident, decided to work with the justice system, he did not expect it to end up harming him. Henebry was arrested on Nov. 17, 2009 after police found stolen goods in a car in which he was a passenger. Although the charges were later withdrawn, he was thrown into the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) for four days upon arrest.
Unfortunately, Henebry was (perhaps negligently) confined with a prisoner whom he had agreed to testify against. Several months earlier the prisoner had broken into Henebry’s apartment and robbed him at gunpoint. The prisoner recognized Henebry and he and three other inmates beat Henebry severely, “fracturing his an orbital bone, cheekbone, jaw and nose, cutting his face over his eye, driving his teeth through his lip and giving him a concussion.”
The guards, who had told Henebry to “follow the inmates’ rules or he’d have a tough time”, taunted and teased Henebry upon finding him badly beaten on the floor and while taking him to the hospital where physicians (again, perhaps negligently) failed to detect his concussion. After the hospital visit, Henebry was dumped into a segregation cell where he was found the next day, unconscious and covered in his own vomit. He was taken again to the hospital and treated for a major concussion, before being released on bail. Henebry is currently in the process of suing the EMDC for negligence.
The full story can be read here.
Henebry’s experience, besides seemingly indicating alarming conditions of neglect and callousness at the EMDC, raises troubling questions about the treatment and safety of prisoners in Ontario jails in general.
