Monday was a big news day and so we have a lot to cover. We’ll start with the big Government flip-flop.
Right after the Vancouver riot of 2011, the Premier announced that the Government would televise the hearings of those charged with committing offences during the riot. From our perspective it was a poorly considered policy made purely for political gain.
We had a number of concerns. Firstly, we had people contact us who may be suspects in the riot who were unwilling to present themselves to the police bearing in mind that the Government was threatening to broadcast their trial. Of course, no one wants that degree of humiliation as punishment for a few moments of beer-fueled stupidity. Others asked whether they could ever get a fair hearing in light of the Government’s position. There was little that we could do to assuage these fears.
We were concerned that the search for the truth would be hampered by the reluctance of witnesses to step forward both for the prosecution and the defence.
We were also concerned for the privacy and security of all parties, including the prosecutors and witnesses. There have been cases of criminal acts committed under the guise of vigilante justice. Bearing in mind the strong feelings expressed in the immediate wake of the riot, we are concerned for the safety of the people investigated and charged, their families and friends.
Finally, we felt that this was an attempt by the Government to dissuade lawyers from acting for the people accused. It is true that we would prefer to deal with the pressing matters in a given case and not have to face the inevitable distraction that would arise when TV cameras are pointed in your face.
On Monday the Government ran into a roadblock when the Court considering the first application to broadcast a sentencing hearing dismissed the Government’s application. The Court found that there was insufficient information provided to address certain specific concerns, some of which are mentioned above, and that it was inappropriate to adjourn the hearing to make further investigation.
Most interesting is how the Government responded to the ruling. Within a few hours, the Government pulled back — flip-flopped and dropped their plan to broadcast riot trials.
The Court decision was not an outright rejection of the Government’s application. So it is interesting that they gave up so quickly. What first came to our minds was that this was an opportunity to back away from a poor policy decision. We think that it was a poor policy and a poor political decision, so the Government was merely looking for an out and they were handed one by the ruling of the Court.
The Court rejected the assertion that the Government’s request was politically motivated. We did not think this mattered in any event. The passing of laws and policies are to fulfill political purposes — to show the voters that any particular government is doing a good job and therefore deserves re-election. We accept that governments can enact laws and make policies, so long as they comply with the constitution. If the citizenry dislike the laws put in place by the existing government, they can replace the government at the next election.
Our current provincial Government appears on track to be replaced in the next general election. It seems that the many flip-flops (HST, IRP, RiotTV) have greatly damaged the credibility of the Government. This is how it works in a democracy.
People who run for office and end up part of the Government do so because they want to do a good job for the people of their constituency. It does not mean that they have the skills, knowledge, or background to do a good job. And even if they do, unanticipated headwinds can make progress impossible.
In any event, we applaud the conviction of anyone who makes the decision to run for office. And we debate their proposals, accomplishments and criticize them for their short-sightedness, ineptitude and failures. And we think the Government was right to back away from broadcasting riot hearings, even if it means that they take criticism for the flip-flop.
Vic Toews
We do not think so highly of Vic Toews. He is the Federal Public Safety Minister, the Ottawa equivalent of the Solicitor General. In debate Monday about proposed legislation that would compel internet providers to hand over information to police on demand and to maintain information about each step you take on the internet, Toews asserted that people who oppose the legislation “stand with” child pornographers.
This is stupid and it debases Parliament. Moreover, it is defamatory to everyone who dares question proposed legislation. Unfortunately, this particular type of smear has been very effective for the Federal Government.
A flip flop may be the right thing to do. Dirty-smear tactics, i.e. a baseless allegation linking someone to criminal activity for a political purpose simply because they oppose some legislation, is wrong in every way.
Osoyoos Times Editor Apologizing to the RCMP
We have been following a story for a few days now concerning an RCMP stop of the editor of a newspaper in Osoyoos. The editorial was scathing and in our view quite arrogant. The officer was singled out and alleged to have behaved in an unprofessional manner when stopping this fellow and conducting a drinking-driving investigation.
We were somewhat cynical about his version of events. The RCMP published a response fairly quickly which we linked to on our twitter account. The editorial was removed. The editor has now apologized and retracted his statements.
We do not expect the police to be perfect. In our society the police are held to a particularly high standard. Along with this, however, is significant ascribed status. Generally people seem to respect police officers merely because of the fact of their occupation.
In our view the police often seem to expect more respect and deference than they deserve or is healthy in a free society. And we have observed all sorts of discreditable conduct by the police (first hand and on video or in police reports). And then we all know of the matters that have been in the news over the years.
But it is absolutely inappropriate, wrong and unfair in our view to single out a police officer in such a manner when he or she is properly doing their job. This particular attack on the officer was completely unwarranted. And it was a particular type of smear.
So it was appropriate for this newspaper editor to flip flop, apologize and try to fix the damage.
Epilogue:
There is a lot we did not get to in this post. An Ontario Court refused to follow a minimum sentence prescribed by law because it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment; an RCMP officer on trial in a hit and run accident causing death where there is clear evidence he was drinking may have used tactics he learned in his training to obstruct the investigation; and Court backlogs are putting serious cases in jeopardy. We may get to some of these topics in the next few days.
What we wanted to make clear is that there are times when speaking up to oppose the government or authorities is the right thing to do, and governments can be wrong, and it is better to admit certain mistakes and deal with them than allow the mistake to cause further damage.
In certain situations flip flops are just fine.