harper and the g20: "when does a government decide it's time to become accountable?"

This is painful to watch, and important.

Read More

my police complaint saga comes to a close

In light of the new scathing report on G20 police abuse, and continued calls for an independent inquiry, this seems like a good time to post an update on my own relatively minor police complaint.

I've just written the final chapter in the saga. For those just tuning in:

Part I: What happened.

Part II: My complaint is "withdrawn".

Part III: The OIPRD calls me.

Part IV: I feel I have no choice; the complaint becomes an investigation.

* * * *

A few weeks ago I received the finding of the investigation, the gist of which is summarized in this paragraph.

Taking into consideration all the information we have received to date, I am of the view that based on reasonable grounds the allegations cannot be substantiated. There is insufficient reason to conclude misconduct was committed by the officer.

There is an opportunity to request a review by the OIPRD. I did not do so, but I did write this letter.

* * * *
I am writing in response to the findings in the above-referenced complaint. I have received the Investigative Report and the letter of review of the OIPRD Liaison Officer, copies of which are attached. While I believe a formal review by the OIPRD will not change the outcome of this decision, I wish to comment on the complaints process and to reply to some of the findings of the investigation.

The complaint process

When I originally met with Detective Smith [not her real name] on November 17, 2010 to make my complaint, Detective Smith informed me that I had three options – informal resolution, withdrawal and investigation. She explained both informal resolution and investigation in very negative terms, and made those options seem inappropriate for my complaint. She took great pains to explain that “withdrawal” of the complaint would not mean the complaint is withdrawn, insisting that it was poorly named, and that the complaint would remain on the officer’s record. I signed a withdrawal, and noted that I was signing it with the understanding that the complaint was not actually being withdrawn, but would remain in the officer’s personnel file for accountability.

On November 29, 2010 I received a call from someone at the OIPRD informing me that a withdrawn complaint is indeed withdrawn. The OIPRD representative told me that the complaint would remain in a database with the notation “withdrawn”, but no other details would be on record, nor would the complaint remain on the officer’s record. Based on this new information, I felt I had been intentionally misled, and withdrew the withdrawal of my complaint.

When Detective Smith received notice that I had withdrawn my withdrawal, she called me, and I met with her for a second time, on December 6, 2010, intending to enter into an Informal Resolution. At that meeting, Detective Smith read to me the statements by the other police officers who witnessed the incident. While I fully expected them to corroborate their colleague’s version of events, and never expected them to agree with a civilian’s complaint, hearing their blatant lies was upsetting. I was angry at their conveniently edited version of the incident, and because of this, I decided to pursue the investigation.

The findings of the investigation

As stated above, I had no expectations that this investigation would substantiate my allegations. This was a case of my word against the word of three police officers (the Respondent Officer plus two Witness Officers). At least 10 civilians also witnessed the incident, but I have no way of identifying or contacting any of them. I did not sustain permanent injuries or nor did I require medical attention, so there is no physical evidence of the pain and fear I experienced. One would have to be extremely naïve to believe any other outcome was possible.

Despite this, I ask the OIPRD to consider these points.

1. In the “Analysis” section of the Investigative Report, it is noted that I was unsure of the exact words the officer used and said, “Don’t quote me on that”. I wish to be extremely clear on this point.

When I filed my complaint online on December 28, and when I spoke to Detective Smith on November 17, I quoted the exact words the officer used. Immediately following the incident, on the bus on the way home from Toronto, I wrote down the details so I could remember them.

When I met with Detective Smith the second time, on December 6, I had no notes in front of me and no longer remembered the exact words that the officer used. I worked as a journalist for many years, and I do not quote people unless I am certain of their exact words. When I said, “Don’t quote me on that,” I was speaking literally. At that moment, more than two months after the incident, I did not remember if the officer had yelled “Stay the hell out of the street!” or “Stay the f - - k out of the street!” or “Get the hell out of the street!” or some other similar phrase. I was in no way implying that I couldn’t remember the tone and general meaning of her statement. Checking my notes, I can attest that the Respondent Officer’s exact words were, “Do you want me to arrest you? You stay the hell out of the street.”

2. In the “Analysis” section of the Investigative Report, it is stated:

There was no question about the identity of the person being a police officer; however, at the end of her interview she [the Complainant] stated that the Respondent Officer should have told her that she was a police officer.

This is taken out of context. In my interview, I said that had the officer approached me in a normal fashion, identified herself as a police officer and asked me to move aside, I would absolutely have done so, as I would submit to her authority, as opposed to the production assistant’s request. But the Respondent Officer never asked me to move. Instead, she charged at me with her arms extended, pushed me against a barricade and pinned me there for several seconds while screaming at me.

My complaint had nothing to do with the Respondent Officer failing to identify herself. My point was that she never asked or told me to move, nor gave me the opportunity to respond to such a request or demand. Her first and only reaction was the use of physical and verbal force.

3. In the statement read to me by Detective Smith, one of the Witness Officers claims that during the entire film shoot, I was the only civilian to complain about the blocked intersection or to attempt to cross the intersection. However, when I arrived at the intersection, several people were already loudly complaining. People were insisting that they be allowed to cross the street, asking how much longer they would be delayed, and so forth. One officer yelled at the crowd, “Just use the subway!”, and several people shouted back that the subway had also been closed. The Witness Officer has mischaracterized the entire scene, including the incident in question.

4. The Respondent Officer does not deny making physical contact with me, but says this was necessary to prevent me from entering traffic. If this is the case, I must wonder why the Respondent Officer continued to pin my arms against the metal barricade with great force, why she leaned into my face and yelled at me, and threatened me with arrest. Surely she could not have believed she was protecting me at that point. Cars from the film shoot were speeding down the street, and there was no reason to imagine I would run into moving traffic. I was not resisting the Respondent Officer, speaking to her or even making eye contact with her. Her actions, words and demeanor contradict her statement that she was acting to protect me from harm.

Conclusion

Finally, I appeal to simple logic and reason. I am a 50-year-old woman. I have never been arrested. I have never sued anyone or lodged a formal complaint against anyone. If this incident never took place – if the Respondent Officer had not charged at me, pushed me into the barricade, leaned into my face and yelled forcefully at me – why would I go to all this trouble? Why would I (1) file a complaint online, (2) meet with Detective Smith on November 17, (3) meet with Detective Smith again on December 6 (both meetings necessitating a trip from Mississauga to Toronto), (4) give a taped interview and (5) write this letter? Why would anyone go to all this trouble if it hadn’t happened?

I took the trouble to report this incident because I was mildly assaulted by a police officer using inappropriately excessive physical and verbal force. If the Respondent Officer reacted this strongly to a verbal argument between two people on the street, what will she do in a more extreme and potentially dangerous situation? I felt her actions were unwarranted, frightening, even unstable, and that they should be reported.

Further, during the complaints process itself, I was encouraged to withdraw my complaint. If I was given incorrect information by the OIPRD – if a withdrawn complaint means something other than a withdrawn complaint – then perhaps the Toronto Police Service should re-name the “withdrawal” option to something more readily understood. However, if the information I was given by the OIPRD was correct – which I strongly suspect is the case – then I must wonder how many civilian complaints against the Toronto Police Service are withdrawn under the same conditions, thus burying a potentially substantial portion of actual civilian complaints.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely, etc. etc., with copies to the Detective "Smith" and the investigator.

The end.

Read More

resistance is not futile: resistance is everything

I think a lot about resistance: about what it means when ordinary people refuse to yield to powers much stronger than themselves. I've been thinking of the many forms acts of resistance can take, why people resist, what it means.

Last summer in Toronto, groups of people walked the streets of their city to show that they could, to defy the sudden existence of martial law that claimed they couldn't.

All over the UK, students are in the streets and occupying buildings, resisting massive cuts to education funding. The situation in the UK and throughout Europe is very dire - but the people whose system caused the pain are not suffering. A friend who lives in London and I were emailing recently, and she summed it up this way:

...they are closing libraries, cutting everything, raising university tuition fees by 200% and sales tax is now 20%! Bankers are getting huge bonuses still. We work with quite a few financial services firms and it's like they are living in a different universe. Although of course they are taking the opportunity to lay off as many as they can as well even though they are continuing to make huge profits. Barclays doesn't serve tea anymore at meetings to 'cut back'.

Some of my friend's British compatriots are employing a brilliantly creative strategy of resistance to library closures. (Many thanks to Deang for sending this story.)

A town has emptied its library in a bid to fight plans to close it down.

People in Stony Stratford, near Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, have spent the week withdrawing their maximum allowance of books in protest against council plans to close it as part of budget cuts.

And today they said the plan had been a success, with all 16,000 books withdrawn from the library.

Today, as they celebrated the empty shelves, Emily Malleson from Friends of Stony Stratford Library (FOSSL) said they were amazed at how everyone in the town had pulled together.

She said it was calculated that books were being checked out at a rate of around 378 per hour - smashing the usual rates.

"A local resident mentioned the idea, maybe as a bit of a joke, but we thought it was a great idea so we put it to FOSSL," she said.

"I went home, put it on Facebook and emailed everyone I could think of and it's just gone absolutely mad."

They planned to start the campaign on Wednesday, but keen supporters of the library started taking books out the week before.

And in just over a week, the shelves were emptied, with the final books withdrawn yesterday.

"People were going in last night to get books and there weren't any left, "she said.

"I think it's a very simple but clever idea and it's given something that people can act on and make their voice heard.

I love this for so many reasons: how this town values and protects its library, how people united can fight back, how a few organizers with a good idea can spark rebellion. I also love the story because it's about reading as resistance.

Reading has been used as act of political resistance through the ages. Countless books and movies depicting ordinary people struggling against totalitarianism will bring you to hidden books, an echo of children secretly reading books forbidden by their authoritarian schoolmasters, now with potentially fatal consequences.

I recently saw this connection in two differnt novels. (Still in the works: a winter-break "what i'm reading" post.) In The Chosen One, an excellent young-adult novel by Carol Lynch Williams, a young person's resistance to her parents' oppressive religion - and a forced marriage to a man four times her age - begins with reading. Her rebellion begins in the library, until the library becomes - literally - her means of escape.

In Anne Michaels' Fugitive Pieces, after a man risks his life to save a Jewish boy, they read together, working their way through the man's vast library, the education of that boy becoming an ongoing act of resistance.

Reading as resistance isn't about beating the enemy: it's about maintaining some human dignity, stubbornly clinging to a shred of one's own humanity. That has been the case for all the subjugated peoples of the world who have refused to speak the language of their oppressors. At least in private, and often at great cost, people the world over will insist on speaking the language of their own people. It's a way of saying: we still exist.

Also in Fugitive Pieces, a shopkeeper in the Nazi-occupied Greek village hides oranges, saving the scarce fruit - and their desperately-needed nutrition - for the neediest families. The shopkeeper could be killed on the spot: hiding an orange as an act of courageous resistance.

Food can become an instrument of resistance. The movie "Hunger" depicts the refusal of food as the ultimate resistance: the 1981 IRA hunger strike, led by Bobby Sands in 66 days of self-inflicted torture. First we see an earlier form of protest, as the political prisoners in Northern Ireland refuse to wash or change their clothes, covering the walls of their cells in their own excrement, making their captors' jobs as disgusting and difficult as possible.

When the guards haul off the men for forced bathing - heavy accent on forced - the prisoners lash out with feet and fists and teeth, individual naked men fighting back against a small army decked out in face shields and batons. It's a stunning scene. I thought: this is what resistance means. Never going quietly. Never being docile. Fighting every inch of the way. Resistance means: we will not go quietly.

Michael Fassbender's harrowing, incredible performance as Sands causes you to question the very nature of human survival and sacrifice. Watching the effects of starvation on the human body and brain, you wonder, how could a human being choose this? Where do they find the strength? Inevitably, even a believer like me may be led to ask, what good does this do?

Then in the postscript you learn that 10 more men made the same choice - that the prison ultimately met all their demands - that during the hunger strike, Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament, opening the door for political recognition of Sinn Fein.

And suddenly the movie's title isn't about the needs of the body: it's about the human hunger for freedom.

Read More

airport sexual assault, cadets for christ and the bleating heart of the usa

The only thing that scares me more than the fascist shift are all the sheeple who willingly march to the bleat.

In December, Claire Hirschkind, a 56-year-old rape survivor who has a type of pacemaker implant, was arrested and banned from an airport for refusing to submit to having her breasts handled by a stranger. Emphasis mine.

Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.

"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.

Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.

"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.

When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."

An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.

Other travelers KVUE talked to say they empathize with Hirschkind, but the law is the law.

"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.

"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.

Claire Hirschkind being sexually assaulted is "for our own protection" and "makes me feel a little safer". I keep reading and re-reading these words, marveling at how thoroughly brainwashed USians are, how perfectly their government has instilled fear in their hearts, how weak, compliant and complicit in their own oppression they have become.

Speaking of sheep, have you heard about this? A Christian cult called Cadets For Christ is operating within the United States Air Force. Cadets for Christ is part of the "shepherding" movement, which teaches that females are sheep, males are shepherds, and you do the math. Go read Ed Brayton, with links to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and HuffPo.

I was a bit suspicious when I read the family name of the people who have gone public about their daughter's brainwashing: they are Peter and Jean Baas. But this has been documented for at least a year. It is not a hoax.

Thanks to James for sending. I couldn't resist the juxtaposition of these various ruminants.

Read More

statement against security certificates: please sign and circulate

Canadian readers, please sign and circulate this important statement opposing the use of so-called certificates. Under sections 9 and 76 through 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, these provisions allow for the imprisonment of refugees and permanent residents without anything resembling due process - and the deportation of non-citizen residents, even if they face torture or execution in their country of origin. The latest court-mandated revision of these provisions is mere window dressing.

The Security Certificate process violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and every human rights document to which Canada is a signatory: the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on Torture.

Please read the full statement in both English and French, please sign and please share with everyone you know. In a country that fancies itself a democracy and a bastion of decency, the existence of these provisions is a travesty.

Read More

one arrest is not enough: demand a public inquiry into g20 police violence

Columnist Rosie DiManno has intelligently and independently told the truth about police violence at the G20 summit (see my posts here, here and here). So I'll let DiManno begin for me, writing about the arrest of one police officer in the assault of Adam Nobody.

And then there was . . . well, just the one.

Out of all the police officers behaving badly during the G20 protests — swinging batons recklessly, kicking, punching — a single cop was charged on Tuesday by the Special Investigations Unit.

Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani — you da man.

Assault with a weapon is the charge.

Perhaps somewhat unfairly, Andalib-Goortani is the only law enforcement member to wear the scandal of overzealous and allegedly criminal protester-pounding from that chaotic week last June.

He made the mistake of lifting his face-shield, which rather defeated the purpose of removing his epaulet badge number. In videotape obtained by the Star, Andalib-Goortani is clearly recognizable — Mr. Policeman with a Goatee. It was this footage, which the Star publicized nearly two weeks ago, that helped SIU investigators put a name to a face.

You’re welcome.

But just the one name and just the one face, despite a veritable deluge of videos and still photographs that was offered by the public after SIU director Ian Scott had originally claimed there was insufficient evidence to lay charges in the most notorious police pile-on incident — the tackling of Adam Nobody, a man who insists he was beaten not once, but twice, the second time around by plainclothes officers behind some police vans, a purported assault that was apparently not captured by any probing candid camera, if it indeed occurred.

Public, take a bow. If not for the unwillingness of ordinary citizens to let this matter alone, to simply accept the SIU’s frustrated and no-outcome investigation, to stand down when Police Chief Bill Blair stood up and ridiculed the veracity of earlier videotape evidence, to go along with that absurd applause-applause commendation that city council invested on police for their handling of the G20 clashes — this result, however small, would likely have never come to pass. [Read more here.]

This is all true, but it is also horribly inadequate. It took an enormous public outcry to achieve a paltry, token result. This is the way learned helplessness sets in: people see their efforts accomplish nothing or very little, so they don't bother speaking out.

Let's not forget the larger picture. The G20 itself is an undemocratic body whose autocratic decisions benefit a privatized economy to the extreme detriment of the public good. The "security" of their meetings was used as an excuse to grossly curtail basic civil liberties and to violate basic human rights. When citizens peacefully challenged both the G20 agenda and their self-appointed "right" to fashion the economy for the benefit of the few, they were brutally repressed. And when even greater numbers of citizens spoke out against that repression, they were given a token result.

We shouldn't settle for this. We must renew our calls for a full public inquiry. There will be a rally at Queen's Park in Toronto on January 8, 2011, but Canadians all over the country can and should get involved.

To stay updated, join the Facebook group Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 or follow the group on Twitter.

Read More

mcquaig: creeping authoritarianism, vindication of protesters and forcing us to pay for their financial crisis

Please read this excellent column by Linda McQuaig, which ran in yesterday's Toronto Star:

In the aftermath of the G20 fiasco here last summer, one thing Torontonians agreed on was that such summits should be held in isolated venues — on military bases, on ocean-going vessels, on melting glaciers — anywhere but where lots of people reside.

But beyond being upset with the expense and disorder that weekend, many Torontonians (and city council) sided with the police, assuming that the arrest of 1,105 people must have somehow been justified, given the rampage of a small group through the downtown core.

What is now unmistakably clear — with the release of a searing report by Ontario Ombudsman André Marin and startling new video evidence of police beatings obtained by the Star’s Rosie DiManno — is that the vast powers of the state were unjustifiably used against thousands of innocent protesters, as well as against others doing nothing more subversive than riding a bike or picking up groceries.

Unbeknownst to citizens who had gathered for a peaceful march through downtown Toronto — similar to marches frequently held without incident in the city — the provincial cabinet had resurrected police powers from the 70-year-old Public Works Protection Act, enacted when the country was at war with Nazi Germany.

This, according to Marin, triggered "extravagant police authority" which the police went on to exercise outside the intended area, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and detention far from the G20, and creating "the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history."

If one were trying to dream up scenarios of overarching police powers, it would be hard to invent anything more lurid than the real-life tale of police yanking the prosthetic leg off 57-year-old Revenue Canada employee John Pruyn, after he was unable to move quickly enough from the designated Queen's Park "speech area" where he was sitting with his daughter.

The war measures powers only compounded the problem created by the massive police presence assembled by the federal government. Harry Glasbeek, professor emeritus at Osgoode Hall Law School, notes that, with almost 20,000 police to monitor some 10,000 demonstrators, there were two "guardians of the peace" for every unarmed demonstrator.

All this not only alerts us to the dangers of creeping authoritarianism, but amounts to a vindication of the demonstrators, who were often dismissed as troublemakers.

On the contrary, we need more these sorts of citizens, who take seriously the notion that dissent is essential to freedom, because it keeps political leaders in check.

Indeed, while police were arresting the one-legged man on the lawn at Queen’s Park, a few kilometres away the G20 leaders were quietly scrapping a proposed tax on financial speculation, promoting an agenda of austerity, and generally assuring that the horrendous costs of the financial crisis would be paid for by the world’s citizens — not by the banks that brought it on.

The important role of protesters — so well appreciated by iconic Western thinkers like John Stuart Mill — is denigrated these days, perhaps because it fits uneasily with our society’s narrative about everyone being driven purely by greed and self-interest.

We seem to have trouble understanding people willing to spend hours marching in protests without the slightest prospect of personal gain, just a commitment to justice.

Instead, oddly, we accept as normal governments that squander $1 billion on "security," turning the country’s largest city into a pseudo war zone and locking up hundreds of its finest citizens.

Read More

rosie dimanno agrees with us redux: thoughts on strange bedfellows

Can hell freeze over twice in one week? Again, I thank conservative Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno. First DiManno called for Chief of Police Bill Blair's resignation over G20 police abuse. Now she announces that a newly acquired video corroborates key portions of Adam Nobody's account of his beating by plainclothes police officers - after he had been assaulted by uniformed cops.

DiManno's balanced column weighs the available evidence and acknowledges the possibility of doubt. But she is clearly inclined to believe Nobody's story.

Those images — a handcuffed Nobody being led out of camera range by uniformed officers, in the process of being arrested last June 26, not a drop of blood on him — support the 27-year-old’s formal complaint that he was immediately afterwards subjected to another vicious beating by a couple of plainclothes detectives behind two parked police vans.

After this second purported assault, Nobody's face was left bloodied, he says, his cheekbone shattered.

Within a week, he would undergo surgery to repair the damage.

Over the 31 hours that Nobody spent in custody — including about 13 hours when officers accompanied him to Toronto East General Hospital, where he underwent a CAT scan while still bound at the wrists and ankles — he was never out of police sight. He was their responsibility.

. . . .

In an interview with the Star last night, Nobody was sticking to his original accusations about the plainclothes officers.

"My cheek was already swelling when they got me. But they definitely put the boot to me."

Actually, he believes they were wearing running shoes. And they became angry when, after demanding he give his name, he obliged and said: "Nobody."

"The one guy, the blond guy, threw me down. He was grinding my face into the ground. He was holding me down with his foot on the back of my head, while the other one went through my backpack. Then he started kicking me too.

"I was in handcuffs already and they kept kicking me in the head, harder and harder.

"It wasn't until they put me in the van that I even realized my eye was bleeding."

Not one beating but two.

And no charges.

About a month after the G20, I hailed Conservative MPP Randy Hillier for speaking out against G20 police violence. One progressive blogger and a few of my Facebook contacts ripped me for this: how could I support this man, a bigot, a homophobe, a redneck?

First of all, I don't support Randy Hillier (or Rosie DiManno) in any larger sense. But if someone breaks out of conservative knee-jerk thinking and publicly takes a stand contrary to the party line and in support of justice, I think it is only logical and just that we praise them for doing the right thing.

In most activism I've been involved with, there are natural allies, and there are "strange bedfellow" allies. Natural allies are your base, your core support. You can't form a movement without them. But those allies that join your cause less naturally - the ones you win over from the other side, or who, for whatever reason, see the issue differently than most of their colleagues and are willing to say so - are equally valuable. Without them, your movement will never have mainstream traction. It will never move beyond "the left" or "the fringe" or however your opposition characterizes you.

If you put your supporters to a litmus test, you'll forever be shouting in the wilderness, speaking only to the converted. As redsock pointed out in that earlier post, a conservative columnist or representative speaking out accomplishes something most of us cannot: they reach people normally opposed or even hostile to our point of view.

Hillier's fans are not going to read our blogs and they are not going to subscribe to Socialist Worker. They will not attend our rallies and listen to speeches. But they listen to Hillier -- and in this case, he has done our work for us (and then some).

Maybe 95% of the people who pay attention to him ignored it outright, but I'll bet some of those other 5% got a seed planted in their brain. They might be more open to hearing about establishment abuses the next time they happen.

So thanks, Rosie DiManno, for doing the right thing, and also for inspiring this post.

Read More

thoughts on rape charges against julian assange

It need not be said - but I will say it anyway - that I stand in solidarity with victims of rape and sexual assault, everywhere, always.

But somehow, it must also be said that not all accusations of rape are valid and true.

Historically, women who reported rape were easily dismissed, or rape went largely unreported, because the victim and assailant knew each other, or had had consensual sex on other occasions, or the victim was sexually active, or any number of dangerous myths used to control women's behaviour. This has changed - although not entirely - in North America, because of the influence of feminist activism, but is still the case in many parts of the world.

Also historically, rape has been used as a weapon against powerless men. In the US South, African-American men were routinely accused of rape before they were lynched and murdered. These accused men had not adequately displayed their submissive status, whether intentionally, as an act of resistance, or in the imagination of their cowardly white oppressors. Black men would be accused of rape, hauled off into the woods, tortured, often castrated, then murdered. Their transgression may have been as simple as looking a white person in the eye.

When a man who has exposed the crimes of the rich and powerful on an unprecedented global scale is accused of an unrelated crime, hunted internationally and held without bail, we must give serious pause to the validity of the accusation.

Some people react to any accusation of sexual abuse and assault as if women routinely lie about rape to get attention or to get revenge. That's beyond preposterous. It's disgusting and it's dangerous and it's wrong. We must speak out about it at every opportunity.

But other people react to those same incidents as if every single accusation must necessarily be valid. As if, in the history of the world, no one has ever accused a man of rape in order to silence him, or no woman has ever lied about being raped. That's not possible.

It's also inadvertently unfair to women. Women are people. Like all people, women can lie, cheat, steal, murder, support fascism, and any other despicable act you can name. Women are capable of the entire spectrum of human action and emotion, because women are people. One female stereotype is the lying bitch who agrees to sex then blackmails the man with rape charges. The flipside stereotype is the angelic creature on a pedestal who can do no wrong. Neither cartoon helps us achieve true equality.

Women are raped. Men are raped, too. Rape is real, and we must speak out about it.

But defending Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is not defending rape. This morning Naomi Klein posted this on Facebook: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan."

Read More

police complaint update: it's now an investigation

I met with the police again yesterday, and was so dissatisfied that I chose the third option for the complaint: I escalated it to an investigation. I don't think what happened to me warrants an investigation, but no other option was acceptable to me.

Background:

Part I: What happened.

Part II: My complaint is "withdrawn".

Part III: The OIPRD calls me.

The day after I received the call from the OIPRD, the complaint coordinator - the female detective who misinformed me - called. She was shocked - shocked! - to hear that I was withdrawing my withdrawal. In all her years in her position, this was the first time such a thing had ever happened. I told her if that's true, perhaps it's because most complainants don't discover the truth.

I related to her what I was told: that a "withdrawn" complaint is indeed withdrawn, and never intersects with the officer's performance evaluations or personnel file in any way.

I told her I believe she intentionally misled me, which gave me serious concerns, not for my complaint, but for what this might mean for the Toronto Police. How many complainants are being steered towards withdrawing complaints, believing they are doing something very different? How many legitimate complaints get buried this way?

She denied this, and denied the OIPRD's explanation of a withdrawn complaint. We set up an appointment for me to come in for another interview. I did this yesterday.

The detective was again very cordial and professional. She reiterated her version of what a "withdrawal" means - that it's the wrong word, that it does stay on the officer's file for two years, that the officer's supervisor will see it, that it is an accountability mechanism.

I reiterated what I was told by the OIPRD: that a withdrawn complaint is marked as "withdrawn" in the database of all complaints, and nothing happens after that - it is simply noted as withdrawn. I told her that if the OIPRD is correct, then I was intentionally misled.

She asked, "But why? Why would I do that?"

I felt like saying, "Isn't it obvious?" Omitting that, I said, "To reduce the number of complaints against the Toronto Police Service. To make complaints go away, to make the police force look better."

She said, "If you do that, it will only come back to bite you in the ass anyway. And besides, I have to look at myself in the mirror. I could not do my job that way."

We agreed it was strange and confusing, as both versions - hers and the OIPRD's - could not be true. She said she wouldn't speculate on the OIPRD representative's motive or how they do their job, but clearly and flatly denied that interpretation of a withdrawn complaint.

We left it at that, and then discussed my other options. The OIPRD representative thought that the informal resolution process might work for me. (Everyone is very careful to say, "I'm not telling you what to do, it's up to you, but this might be what you want...") The detective said I could do that if I want, but this complaint is not really resolved, as the officer believes her actions were justified. But meanwhile, I'm thinking that the third, higher option - investigation - seemed so unwarranted. I didn't have serious injuries, wasn't beaten up or illegally detained. It was a minor incident, I simply wanted it documented and the officer to be accountable.

I was all set to do the informal resolution process, when I asked about the other officer that was on the scene. Would it be possible to find out who that was? The detective shuffled through the papers in my file, and only then did I realize there were statements from all the officers who were present that evening.

The detective read from the male officer's statement. I heard that I darted out into the street (I did not), that the female cop "escorted" me back behind the barricades (interesting word choice!), that I yelled and cursed at the female cop, saying something like "Get your hands off me! Get the hell away from me!"

All lies. I said, "That's it, I've heard enough. We'll do the investigation."

We all know that police officers lie to protect each other. That's a well-known fact. But hearing my own story re-written in such a way just made my blood boil. I never physically attempted to walk in the street - I was arguing with the production assistant, but not getting past her. The cop did not "escort" me behind the barricade - she ran at me with both arms extended, pushed me hard against the barricades, leaned into me and yelled in my face. And I did not resist in any way. The officer seemed so angry and out of control, I was afraid that even looking at her might escalate the situation. While she yelled at me, I froze, and looked down and away from her. I did or said nothing until she released me. My hurt and surprise at my own inaction caused me to write this: "in which i learn the lasting effects of the g20 police brutality".

[An aside: the male officer on the scene noted that in an all-day film shoot, where thousands of people were similarly prevented from crossing the intersection, "the complainant" - yours truly - was the only person who caused a problem by attempting to cross the street. And it was the first time a withdrawn complaint had ever been un-withdrawn. And the first time a Heys Luggage backpack had developed rips in the mesh pockets. I'm the first writer to ever question the terms of a magazine's contracts. I'm the first support-staff employee to ask for a raise; everyone else is completely satisfied. Yes, my complaint is always the first. But I'm no trailblazer. Your complaint will probably be the first, too. It's a kind of indirect peer pressure: no one else is doing it, maybe you shouldn't do it either. Funny, my replacement backpack developed the same rips in only three weeks. What a coincidence.]

I asked the detective if she needed any more information from me. She asked if I would be willing to make a short, taped statement. I told the story into a tape recorder, she asked me a few follow-up questions, and I was on my way. I'll next hear from them in January. After a decision is made, if I am not satisfied, I can appeal to the OIPRD; the next decision of the OIPRD is final. I don't expect anything to come of this, as I didn't sustain serious injuries and I have no witnesses on my side. But at least it will be documented.

As I've said in my previous posts, what happened to me was not very serious. I know this and have acknowledged it from the outset. But if this officer was so aggressive and out-of-control over someone verbally arguing about crossing a blocked intersection, how will she react in a high-pressure situation? If her first response is to grab, shove and yell, what will she do if someone actually does yell back? She said in her statement that she was protecting me from imminent danger. Maybe my little complaint will help protect someone else from danger.

Read More

rosie dimanno calls for toronto police chief's resignation

Imagine how bad, how blatant, how incontrovertible, the evidence must be: Rosie DiManno agrees with us.

Sorry chief — truly I am — but sorry just isn’t good enough.

A man of integrity, which Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is, would at least offer to resign.

And a police services board that has the authority to hire and fire this city’s top cop — no one else can do that — should think seriously about terminating Blair’s renewed contract.

Some professionals, because of the power they wield and all the moral heft they carry in our society, don’t have the luxury of being so profoundly wrong or misguided.

It is not simply about taking the blame for the misdeeds of others — officers who answer ultimately to their chief through the chain of command — because the buck stops in that brass-and-braid invested office.

It’s about acknowledging one’s own misjudgments, statements and actions (or inactions) that have brought law enforcement into disrepute, from the top down.

Blair is neither a private citizen nor a talk-radio loudmouth, a defence lawyer who can stand on the courthouse steps and spew nonsense or a bloviating politician. He’s our No. 1 cop. His is the face of law, order and probity.

And the chief is far too polished a public persona to have just sloppily put his foot in it when vehemently condemning the independent Special Investigations Unit last week.

Blair knew very well what he was saying and the impact it would have coming from so virtuous a source when he lashed out at the SIU on a radio show, slamming the agency for relying on a YouTube video as corroboration for allegations of brutality against a cop during the G20 Summit protests in June, accusing it of “guesswork and speculation.”

SIU director Ian Scott called Blair’s bluff, announcing the watchdog had reopened the investigation into custody injuries sustained by Adam Nobody — broken nose and shattered cheek — during his arrest. Further, Scott revealed that a sworn affidavit had been obtained from the man who shot the 26-second video. John Bridge has declared he turned the camera off for only a few moments, fearing he too would have to run from police, before flicking it back on and capturing the rest of the incident.

What was Blair thinking when he teed-up on the SIU? That kind of stuff is expected from the obstreperous police union. It was shocking and, frankly, insupportable coming from the police chief.

So Friday Blair took it back, in a manner of speaking, a thrust-reversal in which the chief simultaneously managed to cut himself a whole lot of slack.

“In an effort to demonstrate the potential significance of the missing audio and video, I said police were attempting to arrest an armed criminal and that the missing video images might have shed light on the reasons force was used,” said Blair in a released statement.

“This statement created a false impression that I wish to clarify. I have no evidence that he was armed or violent and all charges against the injured man have been withdrawn. I regret the false impression that my comments may have created and apologize to Mr. Nobody.”

Well, that’s all right then. It was only the police chief, after all, running off at the mouth, insinuating, accusing; perplexing even his most ardent acolytes.

But should “Tapegate” be allowed to end there, on a self-justifying grace note, without any stern consequences?

Blair impugned the trustworthiness — insofar that it had much — of the SIU. At minimum, he trashed their investigative competence, implying the damning YouTube video had been edited, “tampered” with, and then ineptly scrutinized by SIU analysts so that the potentially exculpating unseen was, unfairly, never taken into consideration.

He bullied by proxy a couple of civilians by essentially calling them fabricators of evidence.

Wind the tape back further: Blair misled about the applicability of that wrongfully exploited five-metre fence law used to pick off G20 protesters.

On his watch, a scary seizure — chainsaw, crossbow and fuel-tipped arrows — was proferred by police as weapons-porn, a sly bit of theatre to pre-emptively rationalize formidable use of force, although those items were not taken off demonstrators.

And he’s been unable to exercise the muscular sanctions of his office so that cops who whaled on harmless citizens — doesn’t matter if they’re annoying or provocative — can be identified and charged.

If cops remove their badges or change the numbers so that their identity can never be traced — despite the face recognition imagery and other high-tech gadgetry available to police investigators — they are not merely a small pack of lone wolves, rogues unfit to wear the uniform. Somewhere in the back of their minds, I dare say, lay a conviction that such conduct would be acceptable on the front line of heated police-public collision.

And that culture of entitlement does not exist in a vacuum. Those anonymous cops must surely know who’s watching their backs: other cops.

How can Blair ever again admonish witnesses to shootings and assaults who adhere to the street-level code of silence? That see-no-evil covenant has now — though hardly for the first time, where police are concerned — been consecrated by cops themselves.

About 100 officers caught on camera without their identification tags during the G20 protests will face a one-day suspension without pay — hardly an onerous penalty. Yet a half-dozen believed to have caused actual injuries are in the wind, the SIU unable to lay criminal charges because they can’t put a name to a shielded face. And Blair is purportedly unable to flex either command or moral suasion against colleagues protecting them.

bona fides of a long and meritorious career record. No fool he — far from that — Blair also enjoys political clout, having successfully manoeuvred the thickets of Toronto’s policing hierarchy and civilian oversight. He has friends in high places and that is of inestimable value in a political culture averse to challenging police brass.

Collectively, however, Blair has diminished himself.

It’s been a sorry display indeed. [Ed note: links added.]

The video in question is here.

Last Thursday, it was announced that no criminal charges will be laid in connection with any of the incidents under investigation. What a surprise.

If you haven't seen this excellent video yet, a summary of recent police violence against protestors in Canada, please watch: Police State Canada.

Read More

police complaint update: i was misled: withdrawn means withdrawn

You remember I had a brief but unpleasant run-in with a Toronto cop: here.

I filed a complaint, and when I went in for the interview, I was told I had three options: informal resolution, withdrawal and formal complaint. The detective took great pains to explain to me - several times - that "withdrawal" didn't actually mean withdrawal, that it's an incorrect term for that option. She specifically told me - several times - that a withdrawn complaint is an "accountability mechanism", because the complaint will stay on the officer's record for two years. The department can thus see if this was an isolated incident or if there is a pattern of similar behaviour.

The detective was clearly steering me in the direction of withdrawal. She said the first option, informal resolution, required a face-to-face meeting with the officer and was a route seldom taken. The third option, formal complaint, was a long, involved process involving an investigation and usually reserved for allegations of serious misconduct. The middle option, withdrawal, was presented as the "just right" solution to provide what I was looking for.

Given all this, I signed a withdrawal, but in the space for "reasons for withdrawal" I wrote: I understand that the details of this complaint will remain on the officer's record for two years, as an accountability mechanism. That is what I wanted, so the complaint can be withdrawn with that understanding.

Yesterday I received a phone call from someone at the OIPRD who files and tracks complaints. When she read my withdrawal form, she thought I had the wrong impression of the option I had chosen. And indeed I did.

Withdrawn means exactly what it says. The complaint is withdrawn. It remains in a police database of every complaint that is filed. The database shows the officer's name, complainant's name, place and date of incident; under resolution, it would read: "withdrawn". A withdrawn complaint does not go in the officer's personnel file. The officer's supervisor does not see it. It does not become part of their performance evaluation. Because it has been withdrawn.

The OIPRD person explained that the informal resolution process is often used in cases like this, and does provide the accountability I was seeking. Both complainant and officer are given an opportunity to explain their positions, and the details are recorded in the officer's personnel file, seen by her supervisor, and become part of her performance evaluation.

I do not see how this could have been a misunderstanding on my part. In the interview, the detective took great pains to explain, in detail, several times, that a "withdrawn" complaint remains on the officer's record for two years - in exactly the way it does not. I was deliberately misled.

Both detectives were so friendly, even jolly, as we chatted about the inconveniences of film shoots in Toronto. Perhaps cynically, I viewed that friendliness as good customer service practice. Now I see it as something more sinister.

The clerk who called is going to speak to her supervisor to see how a withdrawn complaint can be un-withdrawn and re-activated, so we can begin an informal resolution process.

How many complaints against Toronto police are withdrawn under these conditions?

Read More

highway fun, highway blues in pennsylvania

We always spend the last night of our US Thanksgiving trip at the home of my brother and sister-in-law in central New Jersey (near the city of New Brunswick, for those who know the state). We stay up late talking and drinking wine with some combination of friends - who happen to be siblings, nieces, nephews, and their respective partners - then wake up early to hit the road. The drive takes us through a part of New Jersey to Pennsylvania, through the Delaware Water Gap, up through the Poconos to New York State, then straight up through New York, emerging at the New York State Thruway at Syracuse.

We usually stop for a late breakfast near Scranton. (You may know the name from "The Office". It is indeed a real town in Pennsylvania.) But on this trip, we got horribly lost after leaving my brother's home - trying to correct a simple wrong turn just got worse and worse, and we wasted nearly two hours of drive-time. Because of this, we didn't want to take an hour for breakfast at a crowded Denny's, but we don't eat fast food. We especially gave up eating fast food on car trips many years ago. Driving around trying to find a supermarket would be more time-consuming than Denny's. On the way down, we stop at Whole Foods in Oakville for their amazing salad bar, but this is not an affluent area where we're likely to find one of those. What to do?

Through this dilemma, we discovered Sheetz, my new favourite pit-stop. Sheetz is a chain of gas stations and convenience stores in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and northeastern Ohio. What makes it special is fresh, fast food made to order. You order by touch-screen from a menu that includes the usual less-than-healthy but yummy items like burgers, breakfast sandwiches, shakes and plenty of fried things, but also salads and wraps with a good variety of ingredients. Any fast-er food franchise where you control exactly what you order - such as Subway or Blimpie - is already a much healthier option.

I see how the touch-screen order system is designed to encourage you to order more food, as you see all kinds of options that you might not otherwise think of, from double meat or dressing to fried things on the side. But the choices are extensive, there are many healthy options, and it's very inexpensive. I was way impressed. Here's Sheetz in their own words, and here's a map of where you find them.

* * * *

Despite Sheetz, Allan and I will be in no hurry to drive through Pennsylvania again. Driving through the Poconos area on a winding two-lane highway, we were cruising along in the right lane, doing no more than five miles an hour over the speed limit. After discovering what two speeding tickets will do to your car insurance, we are determined to never get another speeding ticket again. It takes us a bit longer to get places, but we don't care: we don't speed. Thus imagine our surprise when a state trooper with lights flashing pulled up behind us.

The officer informed us that there is a law in Pennsylvania that requires motorists passing emergency vehicles to move to the left lane if possible. This trooper was parked in a turn-off with his lights flashing - although no emergency was taking place - waiting for cars to not pull over, so he could ticket them. And, we suspect, waiting specifically for cars with out of state plates.

We were doing 70 mph (the limit was 65) in the right lane, and when we saw him, slowed a bit. To our left, cars were zipping by at top speeds, on a road filled with curves. It was far safer to simply drive slowly without changing lanes - especially because we could see there was no actual emergency, merely a police car with lights flashing, no other vehicle present - than it would be to move into the faster lane. Of course we didn't argue with the state trooper, as that can only result in a greater fine.

When he went back to his car to check license and registration, I assumed we would be issued a warning. I was wrong. He ticketed us. He said the fine can range from $25 to $250, and he generously gave us the minimum. As we drove away, I read the citation. Twenty-five dollars? Not quite. The citation includes:
- Fine: $25
- EMS: $10
- Mcare: $30.00
- Costs: $34.50
- JCP/ATJ: $10

I had to look up that last one: it's the cost of checking your information via computer from the cop car. Grand total for the ticket: $109.50.

In the fine print, it says that in order to contest the ticket without cost, you must appear in person. If you plead not-guilty by mail, you are required to send the full amount of the ticket plus a $7.00 processing fee, to be held as "collateral". If you are found not guilty, the money will be returned.

I don't know if being found non-guilty comes before or after pigs fly and hell freezes over, but obviously out-of-state drivers are unlikely to be aware of this lane-changing law, and are probably unable to contest a ticket in person. So the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has state troopers faking an emergency, likely waiting for out-of-state plates to pass, in order to fund the state's EMS, Medicare and mobile toys. Do I even have to tell you we're not paying this?

As an additional irritant, the trooper asked us where we were coming from, why we were traveling, and where we were going. Why is a state trooper asking us those questions? He's not working for federal border control or customs. If we have a valid license and registration, and are using the highway in a lawful manner, what the hell business is it of Pennsylvania's where we are going and why? Yet if we had politely answered, "We are not required to tell you that," things would have gotten much worse. That is an abuse of power.

Read More

a history of violence: stacy bonds' attacker has had some practice

If you're following the Stacy Bonds police abuse story and subsequent "investigation" (quotes necessary), don't miss this important follow-up by Dr. Dawg (note new address!). The uniformed criminal that humiliated Stacy Bonds has a history: "Portrait of a thug".

Read More

new tsa airport screening assault regulations, or, security theatre goes x-rated

By now I hope everyone has heard about the new regulations on airport screening from the US's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Full-body scanning equipment ("naked scanners") have been installed in 68 US airports, with more on the way. If you object to increasing your daily dose of radiation, you can opt for a full-body "pat down" by guards, i.e., being sexually assaulted by strangers.

As the ACLU puts it, "Giving people a choice between being virtually strip-searched in an x-ray machine or enduring an aggressive groping is really no choice at all." But don't worry, the person sticking their hands down your pants will be a trained professional. Or not.

You've seen the video of the man refusing the scan at the San Diego airport and the children's book cover parody that made the rounds. (Amazingly, more than one Canadian blogger was fooled!) But the implications for freedom to travel, civil liberties, privacy, and the encroaching police state are deadly serious and very frightening.

Dr. Dawg noted a different kind of climate change because Ezra Levant appears to agree with us. That caused me to click, and here I am quoting that blowhard! Strange bedfellows indeed.

Surprise! Canadian travellers to the United States are now subject to having high school dropouts touch their breasts, penises and vaginas as part of “airline security.”

Sorry, do the words penis and vagina make you uncomfortable?

They certainly make the U.S. Transportation Security Administration uncomfortable.

The TSA can’t even bring themselves to use those words when describing their new “enhanced pat-down” procedure.

You will find them nowhere on their website, including their section on advice for travellers.

They have pages about how to pack your toothpaste.

But they don’t tell you that you will stand in line while a stranger touches you in places that, if done by anyone else, would lead to sexual assault charges.

Oh, by the way: Their touching of penises and vaginas isn’t limited to adults.

They grope children, too. In the past two weeks, the Internet has been flooded by videos taken by passengers on their cellphone cameras, filming their own screaming children being fondled by uniformed officials.

So what’s the new rule for parents to teach our children?

Don’t let strangers touch your privates—unless they say they’re allowed to?

Unless they are in a position of authority? Unless Barack Obama says it’s OK?

Levant goes on to show his true colours when he asks, "Where is the American Civil Liberties Union?" He claims that august organization is "too busy defending the rights of terrorists," and throws in a little Islamophobia into the bargain. Obviously, Levant is either a liar or a fool who didn't do his homework (my money's on liar), since the ACLU has been campaigning against these regulations from the moment they were announced. That's how I first heard about this: through the ACLU mailing list.

Despite Levant's gratuitous bigotry, it's good to see people from all points of the political spectrum decrying this very serious invasion of privacy and unwarranted expansion of government power.

Radiation and naked body images or physical assault, which will it be? I don't love the idea of full-body scans, but I could not endure a pat-down by a stranger. If I literally had to to submit, to save my life, I guess I could force myself to live through it, by reminding myself that I've lived through worse. But I think I would throw up, or pass out - or probably disassociate, which seems to be what my mind does - and I'd very likely have nightmares and flashbacks about it.

And there are millions of people - men and women - who would feel the same way. My friend James sent me this, from Skepchick.

The full-body scanners also involve unspecified amounts of radiation, which several scientific and medical groups, not just the tin-foil hat types, have expressed concerns about. So, opting out of the full body scan seems like it might be a good idea. I’ve had a LOT of x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs. I’m not Evil Knievel, but I have managed to break a lot of bones, particularly in my head. (Hey! Let’s not extrapolate!)

Anyway, on the advice of my doctor, I’m supposed to limit my exposure to radiation and microwave sources. Ok, simple enough. I opt out of the scan.

Except. When you give the technology a pass, you are now subject to a fairly intimate groin grope and feeling up. A lot of folks have said that if you don’t want to have the scan and fly safely, or accept that some strangers will have to touch you, then you should just not fly. The reality is, though, that for many of us we must fly semi-regularly as part of our jobs. It’s not entirely my choice to fly; I can’t take a week of work off to drive to California and back for a business trip. So, bring on the grope.

Except. I am a rape survivor. And I know that if I am forced to have the kind of circle jerk that I’ve seen on video–where a bunch of TSA screeners surround me and one of them touches me in very private places–there is a real chance I’m going to freak out. Traveling is always very stressful, in part because I have visual processing issues and epilepsy (see above; i.e, fractured head). Add onto that reliving a painful part of my past–someone touching me and I have no ability to say "I don't consent"–I am not a happy traveler.

Don't listen to Ezra Levant. The ACLU is leading the charge against this and you can join them. DHS has been forced to retreat before and we can make them do it again. Sign a petition to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and share it with everyone you know.

* * * *

Update. Apparently I wrote this whole post without ever mentioning the stupidest thing about this. Luckily redsock put it in comments: None of this will make us any safer. Alternate post title: "security theatre turns x-rated".

Read More

update on toronto police complaint

You may recall that I had a minor incident with a Toronto police officer in late September. Along with many other people, I was prevented from crossing the street by a photo shoot, and was in danger of missing my GO bus - which would mean an additional hour of commute in between my two 12-hour weekend shifts. While I was wrangling with the condescending production assistant, a police officer completely over-reacted, charging at me, grabbing my arms and shoving me against the barricade. I filed a complaint, and today was my interview about that complaint.

(As an aside, I'd like to note that I always intended to file the complaint. Hoping to stave off some anticipated cynicism, I noted that the complaint would probably do nothing - which perhaps gave an impression that I might not follow through. That was not in doubt.)

Going to the interview, I was quite nervous. I've been more nervous dealing with police as I get older, maybe because I've seen more of the reality of what can happen. The ongoing harassment at the US-Canada border isn't helping, either.

I'm pleased to report that the interview was completely painless. A female detective escorted me to her office and explained her role as an internal mediator between the public and police officers. In the middle of her spiel, we were joined by a male detective, who she introduced as her partner. I was decidedly less comfortable sitting in a room with two police officers, but I tried not to focus on it.

Female Detective asked me what I hoped to accomplish through my complaint. I said I felt the officer had reacted in an overly aggressive manner, and that it was my responsibility to report it. That was all.

Ms Detective explained there were three routes I could take. The first is called an "informal resolution," in which the officer and the complainant are brought together for a face-to-face meeting with the detective as mediator. Needless to say, very few people take this option!

Second, there is a poorly-named option called a "withdrawal," which Ms Detective assured me does not mean the complaint is withdrawn. It means the complaint and the officer's response goes into the officer's record for two years. That gives a two-year window to see if this was an isolated incident, or if similar incidents are piling up. It's an accountability mechanism.

The third option would be an investigation, in which there would be lengthy interviews and reports written up. She was clearly downplaying this route, but if I thought it was warranted, I would have done it anyway.

The middle option, a so-called "withdrawn" complaint placed in the police officer's file, was the right thing to do. I wrote a short statement of why I was choosing this option, which included my understanding that the complaint would be on record for two years.

Both detectives displayed a lot of empathy for the frustration of dealing with film shoots, having your activities hampered by their needs taking priorities over the public's, possibly missing one's GO train. Naturally they couldn't express empathy with the specifics of my complaint against the officer. The female detective simply read the officer's response: that she was "saving" me from a high-risk situation in which I maight have been hurt. But they were all kinds of sympathetic about my situation that night.

Whether this empathy was real or strategic, I can't say, and perhaps it doesn't matter, because it was an intelligent - and successful - approach. We've chatted about customer service on wmtc, such as in my problems with Heys Luggage (here, with follow-up here and here). This was definitely good customer service. And believe me, I'm aware that my privilege as a white, middle-aged woman was at play, and that fact that no protest or civil disobedience was involved.

I also learned that Toronto police who work on film shoots are paid by the production companies, not by the City of Toronto. Mr. Detective said that Rob Ford wants to stop that practice, and replace police on film shoots with private security guards - which would end public accountability altogether. Both detectives were opposed to this idea, but Mr. Detective said they shouldn't worry too much, because he can't make that change on his own, it's procedural and would need all kinds of approvals.

Mr. Detective also said he knew of a neighbourhood group that was so frustrated by the inconveniences of a lengthy film shoot in their community that they gathered armed with vuvuzelas! Every time the PAs called for quiet... guess what. The detective told the story with a touch of admiration in his voice.

Read More

looking for g20 photographer

Does anyone know who took this photo?

I posted it here but I don't know how I obtained it.

If you know you took this photograph, could you please contact me? The photographer can remain anonymous as she or he wishes, but can also give consent for the photo to be used as part of the G20 inquiry.

Read More

alex hundert, the g20, and our civil liberties being flushed away

Between school and war resisters, my blog time is very limited these days. I've been reading about the events surrounding activist Alex Hundert, that is, the very real threat to all of our basic civil liberties. I haven't been able to write anything myself, so I'll just redirect you to someone who has.

For the best news and analysis on this, see Dr Dawg:

Alex Hundert, an anarchist arrested for G20 actions before a single demonstrator was even on the street, is back in jail. As many readers will know, he was out on bail when he was re-arrested by seven police officers for speaking on a university panel. Allegedly this was a breach of previous bail conditions that forbade his attendance at political demonstrations. An evidently brain-dead justice of the peace--no legal training is required for these patronage appointees--agreed with the cops, and he was jailed over Thanksgiving.

At a new bail hearing this week, he was told he would be freed, but only upon several new conditions, including (pay close attention here, Canada) no expressing political views in public, including in the media. He said no to that, and as of this writing he's behind bars.

Not that the corporate media give a damn about this obvious breach of what used to be our Charter rights. As of this writing, the news about Hundert has appeared in all of two places: Rabble.ca and the Vancouver Media Co-op.

The above post has two updates, and you can get all caught up there.

There's also very good coverage from Peace, order and good government, eh? and a statement from the Canadian Association of Journalists at Rabble.

This is scary stuff, and if we think it's insignificant because it's happening to only one person, that's even scarier. We shouldn't need anyone to quote the old saw that ends with "...and then they came for me." It's happening here, in my country, to someone. Isn't that enough reason to speak out?

Read More

in u.s., raids on peace activists; in canada, raids on... who?

In case you didn't hear elsewhere, the FBI raided and vandalized the home of peace activists in Minnesota, claiming they had links to terrorist organizations. This wouldn't be big news if not for the current so-called anti-terrorism laws - under which these peace activists could be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. Local coverage:

The homes of six Twin Cities activists, including three prominent leaders of the Twin Cities antiwar movement, were raided Friday by the FBI in what an agency spokesman described as an investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism."

An FBI spokesman Steve Warfield confirmed that six Minneapolis homes were raided this morning.

Among the homes raided were the apartments of Jessica Sundin, who was a principal leader of the mass antiwar march of 10,000 on the opening day of the Republican National Convention two years ago, and Mick Kelly, who was prominent in that protest and among those who announced plans to march on the Democratic National Convention in Minneapolis, if the city is selected to host it in 2012. Neither has been arrested.

Kelly said in an interview this morning he had "absolutely not" been involved in illegal activities.

A raid was also in progress at the home of Meredith Aby, another local antiwar leader who was frequently the spokeswoman for the march on the GOP convention. Sundin and another source said that a fourth raid took place at the home of Tracy Molm, a leading activist in Students for a Democratic Society, an organization at the University of Minnesota.

The source said raids occurred at the addresses of two other activists whose names he did not disclose.

Supporters of Sundin, Kelly and Aby had gathered on the sidewalks outside each of the residences.

Ted Dooley, an attorney, said he had reviewed the search warrant issued in the raid on Kelly's apartment. "It's a probe into the political beliefs of American citizens and to any organization anywhere that opposes the American imperial design," he said.

Kelly said he was the subject of a similar early raid.

“They broke down a door, smashed a fish tank, and went through my books and papers,” Kelly said.

Kelly described himself as a 40-year veteran of the peace movement . . .

Lest you think this is only a US issue, and could never happen in Canada, please read this important post by Alison, writing at Dawg's Blawg.

On the same day the nation was preoccupied with the national Lib/Con competition for votes to preserve/kill the long gun registry, the Libs and Cons combined forces to slip the Combating Terrorism Act through second reading in the House - 220 votes to 84 in a classic Lib/Con vs NDP/Bloc split -just ten minutes before the long gun vote.

The Libs and Cons may disagree on whether it is either useful or an egregious invasion of privacy and civil liberties that Canadians should have to spend a few minutes registering a long gun online, but when it comes to locking Canadians up for 12 months without a warrant or compelling them to appear before a court based on some anonymous tip, they're both just fine with that.

The right to remain silent, the right not to be jailed without charge, the right to know what the charges are against you - pfft!

In reintroducing Bill C-17 for the third time on Monday to reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson emphasized a fabulous new feature:

"The key here is that the person required to attend an investigative hearing is treated as a witness, not someone who is accused of a crime."

True, as long as your definition of "witness" includes being arrested if you don't comply and being detained for up to 72 hours if you do.

But what if you are also suspected of being likely to commit a terrorist crime some time in the future. Over to you, Mr. Nicholson :

"a judge can order the person's detention for up to 12 months."

Go to the original for more plus full linkage.

As you may recall, I don't care very much about the long-gun registry. I think gun registration is a good idea, but I also know it does very little to reduce crime. I view the whole kerfuffle as a lot of overheated political grandstanding on both sides, and misplaced enthusiasm on the part of many activists. So while many people were behaving as if the gun registry is the ultimate determinant of Canadian civilization, the Liberal-Conservative coalition continued to support the deterioration of your basic human rights and civil liberties.

Progressive bloggers flogged Jack Layton for not toeing their party line on the gun registry, but only the NDP was standing up against "slipperysloping into 12thC pre-Magna Carta sensibilities" (Alison). Why was that?

By Wednesday Libby Davies wondered aloud in the House why there were hundreds of articles in newspapers across the country dealing with the gun registry but no mention of the debate on the Combating Terrorism Act.

Good question, Libby.

Gee, do you think it has anything to do with who is affected by the so-called anti-terrorism laws? Hmmm.

Read More

in which i learn the lasting effects of the g20 police brutality

This evening I was slightly roughed up by a Toronto cop. And the first thing I thought of - unlike anything I've ever experienced before - was, "Don't talk back, don't move, don't look at her. Don't escalate." I thought of the G20, and I thought, I don't want to get hurt, I don't want to get arrested.

That's how terrorism works.

I got out of work early tonight, 7:00 instead of the usual 10. King Street in front of Scotia Plaza was barricaded off for a film shoot. I ignored it and stepped past some traffic cones. I could hear someone with a megaphone on the other side of the street directing people to move me. One of the production assistants asked me to leave. I said, "Sorry, I'm not missing my bus for your movie."

I managed to get to the corner of King & Bay, where people were being held on all four corners, and I tried to cross the street. A production assistant told me I couldn't go. I told her my bus runs once per hour, and I'm not going to miss it. She said, "We're all tired and cold, too, but we have to be patient."

I said, "You may be tired and cold, but you're getting paid. I'm trying to get home, and I'm not going to miss my bus."

I tried to go. She tried to stop me. I tried to go.

From the other side of the intersection, a female cop came charging at me with her arms fully extended, grabbed my upper arms and shoved me back into the metal barricade. I was wearing a full backpack, which absorbed the shock. Had I not been wearing a backpack, she would have hurt me.

Leaning into my face, she screamed, "Do you want me to arrest you? You stay the hell out of the street."

I looked away and offered no resistance. This is very unlike me. It's not the first time I've been confronted by an overheated cop, but it's the first time I didn't resist.

As the female cop accosted me, a male pedestrian came over and yelled at her, "What are you doing? How long are we going to have to stand here?" A male cop then appeared, shouting, but also intervening between me and the out-of-control female cop. He said, not looking at me, "When a police officer tells you to do something, you do it! You were about to get run over by 10 different cars! They have a permit to use the street!" I shouted back that I had not disobeyed a police officer, but he wasn't looking or listening to me.

The male pedestrian and the male cop got in a shouting match. The cop told him he could cross underground in the subway - at which point several people yelled back that the subway was closed, too.

Meanwhile, several fake New York City yellow cabs were driving by. The male cop yelled at the male pedestrian, "Just because they're shooting a New York City scene doesn't mean you have to act like a New Yorker!"

That was pretty funny on several levels, especially since in New York I used to walk through film shoots all the time. I worked in Rockefeller Center, and if I stopped for every film shoot, I'd never get back from my lunch break on time.

While the male cop was yelling, the film production assistant was saying, "Why don't you all just take a deep breath. Maybe chilling out and taking an extra minute would be a good idea." That was the most galling thing of all. I don't need a flunky on a film shoot giving me relaxation advice! Just do your job. Don't lecture me on how I'm supposed to like it.

When they released the crowd and I walked down King Street, I could feel where the officer had grabbed my arms. And I realized, sadly, why I didn't make eye contact, why I didn't yell or push back: the brutality of the policing at the G20. I felt really sad and defeated by this.

I got her badge number. I know what it will do - nothing - but I plan to report it anyway.

Read More