Wednesday, October 6, 2010
This Blog Has Moved
For a variety of reasons, including some extra flexibility, I've moved this blog to justinbeach.ca please adjust your bookmarks accordingly.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The McGuinty Cabinet Shuffle means nothing.
I've always found the 'cabinet shuffle' as a response to political trouble somewhat insulting. Such shuffles rarely change anything about the government - it is the equivalent of slapping a fake mustache on and pretending to be someone else. That these maneuvers change anyone's mind in the least speaks poorly of the intelligence of those individuals.
In the case of Dalton McGuinty's recent shuffle it is doubly insulting. It insults the intelligence of voters like most cabinet shuffles but it also trivializes the secret suspension of the Charter during the G20 (real or fictional) perpetrated by this government. It symbolically says that human and civil rights aren't something Ontarians care a great deal about and that with a little smoke and mirrors we'll forget. All of this while the police continue to harass anyone brave enough to make a complaint regarding the G20.
While the McGuinty government was, for a time, a welcome reprieve from the Harris conservatives, whose policies continue to damage Toronto, McGuinty and his people have become just as corrupt and self serving as the government he replaced.
Many misinformed people still believe that the police acted correctly during the G20. This is perpetuated, in part, by politicians and the media repeatedly talking about violence at the G20. The truth is the only violence at the G20 was committed by the police. The black bloc engaged in vandalism, not violence. From the protester's side there was no violence at the G20.
Despite the support of the uninformed and those who are genuinely opposed to civil and human rights the actions of the McGuinty Government will cost them dearly in the next election. There is a block of voters who fluctuate between the Liberals and the NDP or Greens. There are not a huge number of them but they are very important and the Liberals know it. If they fail to scare a significant number of these voters away from other parties - a defeat the Tories at all costs call - the Liberals cannot form a majority. It is these voters that McGuinty has alienated and most of them are too smart to be terribly impressed by a cabinet shuffle unless it includes shuffling Mr. McGuinty out of the leaders chair.
In the case of Dalton McGuinty's recent shuffle it is doubly insulting. It insults the intelligence of voters like most cabinet shuffles but it also trivializes the secret suspension of the Charter during the G20 (real or fictional) perpetrated by this government. It symbolically says that human and civil rights aren't something Ontarians care a great deal about and that with a little smoke and mirrors we'll forget. All of this while the police continue to harass anyone brave enough to make a complaint regarding the G20.
While the McGuinty government was, for a time, a welcome reprieve from the Harris conservatives, whose policies continue to damage Toronto, McGuinty and his people have become just as corrupt and self serving as the government he replaced.
Many misinformed people still believe that the police acted correctly during the G20. This is perpetuated, in part, by politicians and the media repeatedly talking about violence at the G20. The truth is the only violence at the G20 was committed by the police. The black bloc engaged in vandalism, not violence. From the protester's side there was no violence at the G20.
Despite the support of the uninformed and those who are genuinely opposed to civil and human rights the actions of the McGuinty Government will cost them dearly in the next election. There is a block of voters who fluctuate between the Liberals and the NDP or Greens. There are not a huge number of them but they are very important and the Liberals know it. If they fail to scare a significant number of these voters away from other parties - a defeat the Tories at all costs call - the Liberals cannot form a majority. It is these voters that McGuinty has alienated and most of them are too smart to be terribly impressed by a cabinet shuffle unless it includes shuffling Mr. McGuinty out of the leaders chair.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Fresh Hope for the CBC - Richard Stursburg Departs
I moved just shy of a month ago and, through a variety of technical issues, have been mostly offline since then. I think that all the issues are fixed now and I'm back. That's why I haven't said anything about Richard Stursburg's departure from the CBC until now.
People who know me, or who have been following my online activities for awhile would have wondered - I've wished for Stursburg's departure for years. In his 5+ years with the corp Stursburg has taken the CBC from a world renowned public broadcaster to just another commercial broadcaster that happens to be Canadian. Starting as the head of English Television Richard Stursburg maneuvered into position as the head of all English Language services - television, radio and online. Along the way he poisoned everything he touched.
He took CBC television from a safe bet any night of the week to the least of the Canadian commercial broadcasters. He dumbed down radio to match his television offerings and he took CBC News from a source of information and insight to a tabloid filled with trivia and sensationalism. He made token, superficial gestures toward the reality of internet based consolidated media but didn't really embrace it in the way the National Film Board, NPR or the BBC did.
The reality is that his departure doesn't mean that the CBC is going to come back but it does provide hope. The devil we don't know can't possibly be as bad as the devil we did.
The only words that really come to mind to commemorate his departure are
People who know me, or who have been following my online activities for awhile would have wondered - I've wished for Stursburg's departure for years. In his 5+ years with the corp Stursburg has taken the CBC from a world renowned public broadcaster to just another commercial broadcaster that happens to be Canadian. Starting as the head of English Television Richard Stursburg maneuvered into position as the head of all English Language services - television, radio and online. Along the way he poisoned everything he touched.
He took CBC television from a safe bet any night of the week to the least of the Canadian commercial broadcasters. He dumbed down radio to match his television offerings and he took CBC News from a source of information and insight to a tabloid filled with trivia and sensationalism. He made token, superficial gestures toward the reality of internet based consolidated media but didn't really embrace it in the way the National Film Board, NPR or the BBC did.
The reality is that his departure doesn't mean that the CBC is going to come back but it does provide hope. The devil we don't know can't possibly be as bad as the devil we did.
The only words that really come to mind to commemorate his departure are
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Canadian Coalition for the Defenece of Civil Liberties
The great American writer, publisher, inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin once said that “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.” However you feel about the "War on Terror" it cannot be denied that since the attacks of September 11, 2001 "security" in North America has gone into overdrive.
Recently, in Canada, at the Olympics and at the G8/G20 meetings civil liberties have been compromised, in the name of security. Threats to public safety, we were told, necessitated "inconvenience" on the part of the public. (Inconvenience in this case meaning a curtailing of civil liberties.) It would be better I think to simply not hold these events than to sacrifice any civil liberties in their name. Politicians will say that if we don't hold the Olympics or don't hold the G20 out of fear then the "terrorists have won." I say that if we sacrifice civil liberties, even for a day, in the name of security then the terrorists have won.
Is there a risk, with diminished security, that someone will take advantage of the opportunity and kill people? Yes. Let us keep things in perspective though. On 9/11 nearly 3,000 people were killed but untold generations of people have fought and died to establish the civil liberties we have - the cornerstone of our society. In World War II alone 60 million people died to save the west from tyranny and hate. If we give up our civil liberties, our basic freedoms to protect ourselves from terrorism we do a great disservice to the memory of the 3,000 that died on 9/11, the 60 million who died in WWII and untold millions more who have given their lives in war and in political movements over hundreds of years.
As it did during the era of slavery in the US, during WWI and WWII, in the creation of the UN and peacekeeping Canada must lead the way and say that in Canada while compromises will always be made between freedom and public safety that our basic civil liberties, guaranteed under the hard won Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not be set aside for any event, regardless of it's importance for diplomacy or tourism. That is the attitude that has made Canada great and it is our only way forward short of sacrificing everything that Canada is and everything that has drawn people here from every corner of the globe.
We may never know exactly what happened at the G20. Politicians at all levels of government seem adamantly opposed to answering questions about it. Even if there is a public inquiry it is doubtful whether the answers we get will be full, complete and honest. That does not stop us though from drawing some conclusions about the G20 and looking for ways to prevent it from happening again.
Before the G20 happened, when it was announced that the McGuinty Government had used a WWII anti sabotage law, the Public Works Protection Act, to extend police powers for the G20 I created a Facebook group "Torontonians Against Martial Law" as a reaction against it. Because the next event, whatever it may be, may not be in Toronto I am changing the name of that group to the Canadian Coalition for the Defence of Civil Liberties.
The Coalition, will be asking all governments, Federal, provincial and local to pass laws that reinforce the charter by placing reasonable restrictions on police and security forces. The goal is not to attack police or to create additional security threats but to create clear lines of communication, to ensure transparency and accountability and to make it illegal to give police orders which ask them to jeopardize civil rights or do anything which may jeopardize their personal careers or damage the vital relationship between police and the public.
Very specifically we will be asking for:
Recently, in Canada, at the Olympics and at the G8/G20 meetings civil liberties have been compromised, in the name of security. Threats to public safety, we were told, necessitated "inconvenience" on the part of the public. (Inconvenience in this case meaning a curtailing of civil liberties.) It would be better I think to simply not hold these events than to sacrifice any civil liberties in their name. Politicians will say that if we don't hold the Olympics or don't hold the G20 out of fear then the "terrorists have won." I say that if we sacrifice civil liberties, even for a day, in the name of security then the terrorists have won.
Is there a risk, with diminished security, that someone will take advantage of the opportunity and kill people? Yes. Let us keep things in perspective though. On 9/11 nearly 3,000 people were killed but untold generations of people have fought and died to establish the civil liberties we have - the cornerstone of our society. In World War II alone 60 million people died to save the west from tyranny and hate. If we give up our civil liberties, our basic freedoms to protect ourselves from terrorism we do a great disservice to the memory of the 3,000 that died on 9/11, the 60 million who died in WWII and untold millions more who have given their lives in war and in political movements over hundreds of years.
As it did during the era of slavery in the US, during WWI and WWII, in the creation of the UN and peacekeeping Canada must lead the way and say that in Canada while compromises will always be made between freedom and public safety that our basic civil liberties, guaranteed under the hard won Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not be set aside for any event, regardless of it's importance for diplomacy or tourism. That is the attitude that has made Canada great and it is our only way forward short of sacrificing everything that Canada is and everything that has drawn people here from every corner of the globe.
We may never know exactly what happened at the G20. Politicians at all levels of government seem adamantly opposed to answering questions about it. Even if there is a public inquiry it is doubtful whether the answers we get will be full, complete and honest. That does not stop us though from drawing some conclusions about the G20 and looking for ways to prevent it from happening again.
Before the G20 happened, when it was announced that the McGuinty Government had used a WWII anti sabotage law, the Public Works Protection Act, to extend police powers for the G20 I created a Facebook group "Torontonians Against Martial Law" as a reaction against it. Because the next event, whatever it may be, may not be in Toronto I am changing the name of that group to the Canadian Coalition for the Defence of Civil Liberties.
The Coalition, will be asking all governments, Federal, provincial and local to pass laws that reinforce the charter by placing reasonable restrictions on police and security forces. The goal is not to attack police or to create additional security threats but to create clear lines of communication, to ensure transparency and accountability and to make it illegal to give police orders which ask them to jeopardize civil rights or do anything which may jeopardize their personal careers or damage the vital relationship between police and the public.
Very specifically we will be asking for:
1) A clear chain of command. Regardless of how many agencies are involved there must be a single commander, fully accountable for anything and everything that happens.If you believe that the civil liberties gained by the sacrifices of generations are worth preserving the Facebook Group is Here.
2) The Maintenance of Civil Liberties: While special rules may be imposed inside venues, such as Olympic Venues or the G20 meeting place, these rules may not be imposed citywide. Outside of the venues citizens should enjoy all of the rights and privileges they normally would, including the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, association and expression. This includes surveillance. Security cameras can be used only inside the venues themselves, not in the wider city.
3) Non-Lethal Force: Non lethal weapons such as tear gas, tasers and rubber bullets were meant to be used only as an alternative to deadly force. Security officials seem to have lost sight of this fact and are instead using them as a means of "crowd control". Both tear gas and pepper spray are banned from use in warfare as chemical weapons, they can have dangerous and long lasting side effects. Sound cannons can permanently damage hearing. Rubber bullets can leave permanent scars and tasers can kill. None of these weapons must ever be used except as an alternative to firing live ammunition into a crowd. Anyone ordering their use must be able to demonstrate that the situation had escalated to a point where deadly force was the only other alternative - failure to do so should result not only in their immediate dismissal and a ban from their ever serving in any security role ever again but should, in fact, result in criminal prosecution and a certainty of jail time.
4) A Ban on Mass Arrests: Arresting everyone in a crowd because of the actions of a few is the same as arresting everyone in a city because one person commits a crime. - Police must be able to prove that each person arrested was suspected of a crime individually. Each person must be told at the time of arrest or detention the reason they are being held and what crime(s) they are being charged with. If a person is arrested without evidence that they personally were involved in a crime it will constitute false arrest and imprisonment, the person will be entitled to compensation and the arresting officer will be subject to severe penalties.
5) Ban on Kettling: Kettling or the boxing in of a protest by police, leaving no exit, was banned in the UK following their G20 experience. It can create panic, make a bad situation worse and almost always boxes in people who have nothing to do with the protest. It should be banned as a practice in Canada by all levels of government.
6) Treatment of Prisoners: The treatment of prisoners by police should never, under any circumstances, fall below the conditions laid out for the treatment of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. That means that prisoners must be treated with dignity and respect and in no way threatened, assaulted or tortured. They must have rapid access to legal counsel, counsel can only be refused by meeting privately with an attorney and signing a statement stating that the individual is officially refusing counsel. Prisoners must be given at least three square meals a day, and those meals must meet the religious, ethnic, dietary and health needs of the prisoner and prisoners must be given, at need, rapid access to medical attention. Aside from access to legal counsel, which is a western tradition, these are the minimum standards that would prevent a military from accusations of war crimes in a time of war. They should be the minimum standards of any police force in Canada at all times, not just for the G20.
7) Individual Officer Responsibility: Because police officers can jeopardize their careers by violating the civil rights of a citizen, individual officers must have the right to decline orders that they feel endanger public health, safety or civil rights.
8) Open Communication: A new branch of all of Canada's police forces should be established. Their job should be to liaise with organizers - to, where permitted, sit in on organizational meetings and provide a police/security perspective and to relate the perspectives and plans of organizers to security planners. Where it is possible protest organizers should also be allowed to sit in on security planning meetings and to provide the organizers perspective. Open lines of communication should remain at all times, including during the protest, between organizers and police.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
My Experience With Teksavvy (If you're looking for an ISP Keep Looking)
If you are looking for an Internet Service Provider ( ISP ) or phone service in Toronto I strongly caution you against going with Teksavvy.
I moved recently and placed an order with Teksavvy for phone and DSL Internet Service. 16 days later the phone works, but I never got internet from them and have finally placed an order with a different company.
Teksavvy, a name I find ironic now, would like to blame all of the problems that occurred on Bell (Teksavvy is a re-seller and buy their bandwith from Bell). I'm sure that Bell was part of the problem. Bell has a well earned reputation for mediocre service and hostile customer service but Bell is surely not the entire problem. Sadly I think blaming Bell has become a crutch for Teksavvy. If anything goes wrong they simply blame Bell and go about what they were doing. No effort is made to investigate the problem or to keep the customer informed.
A timeline of events and phone calls is listed below. During several of those calls there were exchanges that went something like this:
Me: Why isn't my internet active?
Teksavvy: We can't activate your internet until your phone is active.
Me: But my phone is active, it has been for a week.
Teksavvy: Your phone is active?
Me: Yes, I'm talking to you on it right now.
Teksavvy: Ok, let me look into it and call you back
(no one calls back)
It wasn't until July 27, 15 days after my initial order, when my phone was disactivated that they realized that my phone had been active and that there was a problem (despite my trying to tell them that days earlier.) At this point Teksavvy went into full blame Bell mode. I didn't have a single conversation with them where Bell wasn't mentioned several times - we've called Bell, we've emailed Bell etc.,
They finally gave me August 4 as an activation date for my internet - but as that was the 4th activation date they'd given me I had no reason to believe that it would be accurate and switched to a different carrier. At no point in any of this did Teksavvy seem at all remorseful about any this. Their attitude at all times was more along the lines of "that's just the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do." The reality is that there was something they could have done. They could have listened why I tried to explain the situation to them. Their frantic phoning and emailing of Bell could have started on July 20 - when Internet failed to activate the first time and not 8 days later. They could have tried to explain the problem from their perspective. They could have been proactive in keeping me informed instead of my having to take the initiative to find out why the things they said would happen weren't happening. They could have called me back when they said they would. Teksavvy did none of this. They did not, in short, act like a professional organization or like a service provider.
There are plenty of organizations out there providing phone and internet service. You should pick a different one.
The full timeline of my experience with Teksavvy goes like this:
July 12 placed order
July 13 was told the phone activation date was July 16
July 14 was told the internet activation date was July 20
July 16 Phone was activated
July 20 was told internet activation date had been moved to July 23
July 23 11 am - internet wasn't active, called to find out why and was told that they would check into it and call me right back
July 23 3 pm - No one had called back yet so I called again and was told they would find out what happened and call me back
July 23 7 pm - No one had called back so I called again and was told that internet activation date had been moved to July 30 - I asked to speak to a manager and was told that the manager wasn't available but would call me back - the manager never called me back.
July 25 Subscribed to 56k Dialup service as a backup to Teksavvy
July 27 phone stopped working - I called and asked to speak to a manager - I was told that a manager was not available but someone would call me back. This time a manager did call me back and I relayed my experience so far. The manager (Sean) said that the phone should not have stopped working and that he would look into it and either he or someone from tech support would call back. No one called back.
July 27 4 pm - the phone started working again
July 27 8 pm - the phone stopped working again
July 27 9 pm - Mellissa (?) said that the problem was on Bell's end and Andre (escalation mgr) would look into it in the morning and call
July 28 am - Phone working again
July 28 11:30 am - Scott called to see if the phone had been activated - said internet now delayed until August 4
July 28 Cancelled Teksavvy Service filed an order with Start.ca
I moved recently and placed an order with Teksavvy for phone and DSL Internet Service. 16 days later the phone works, but I never got internet from them and have finally placed an order with a different company.
Teksavvy, a name I find ironic now, would like to blame all of the problems that occurred on Bell (Teksavvy is a re-seller and buy their bandwith from Bell). I'm sure that Bell was part of the problem. Bell has a well earned reputation for mediocre service and hostile customer service but Bell is surely not the entire problem. Sadly I think blaming Bell has become a crutch for Teksavvy. If anything goes wrong they simply blame Bell and go about what they were doing. No effort is made to investigate the problem or to keep the customer informed.
A timeline of events and phone calls is listed below. During several of those calls there were exchanges that went something like this:
Me: Why isn't my internet active?
Teksavvy: We can't activate your internet until your phone is active.
Me: But my phone is active, it has been for a week.
Teksavvy: Your phone is active?
Me: Yes, I'm talking to you on it right now.
Teksavvy: Ok, let me look into it and call you back
(no one calls back)
It wasn't until July 27, 15 days after my initial order, when my phone was disactivated that they realized that my phone had been active and that there was a problem (despite my trying to tell them that days earlier.) At this point Teksavvy went into full blame Bell mode. I didn't have a single conversation with them where Bell wasn't mentioned several times - we've called Bell, we've emailed Bell etc.,
They finally gave me August 4 as an activation date for my internet - but as that was the 4th activation date they'd given me I had no reason to believe that it would be accurate and switched to a different carrier. At no point in any of this did Teksavvy seem at all remorseful about any this. Their attitude at all times was more along the lines of "that's just the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do." The reality is that there was something they could have done. They could have listened why I tried to explain the situation to them. Their frantic phoning and emailing of Bell could have started on July 20 - when Internet failed to activate the first time and not 8 days later. They could have tried to explain the problem from their perspective. They could have been proactive in keeping me informed instead of my having to take the initiative to find out why the things they said would happen weren't happening. They could have called me back when they said they would. Teksavvy did none of this. They did not, in short, act like a professional organization or like a service provider.
There are plenty of organizations out there providing phone and internet service. You should pick a different one.
The full timeline of my experience with Teksavvy goes like this:
July 12 placed order
July 13 was told the phone activation date was July 16
July 14 was told the internet activation date was July 20
July 16 Phone was activated
July 20 was told internet activation date had been moved to July 23
July 23 11 am - internet wasn't active, called to find out why and was told that they would check into it and call me right back
July 23 3 pm - No one had called back yet so I called again and was told they would find out what happened and call me back
July 23 7 pm - No one had called back so I called again and was told that internet activation date had been moved to July 30 - I asked to speak to a manager and was told that the manager wasn't available but would call me back - the manager never called me back.
July 25 Subscribed to 56k Dialup service as a backup to Teksavvy
July 27 phone stopped working - I called and asked to speak to a manager - I was told that a manager was not available but someone would call me back. This time a manager did call me back and I relayed my experience so far. The manager (Sean) said that the phone should not have stopped working and that he would look into it and either he or someone from tech support would call back. No one called back.
July 27 4 pm - the phone started working again
July 27 8 pm - the phone stopped working again
July 27 9 pm - Mellissa (?) said that the problem was on Bell's end and Andre (escalation mgr) would look into it in the morning and call
July 28 am - Phone working again
July 28 11:30 am - Scott called to see if the phone had been activated - said internet now delayed until August 4
July 28 Cancelled Teksavvy Service filed an order with Start.ca
Sunday, July 25, 2010
One Month Later: G20 Backlash Still Gaining Steam (and bubbles too)
It was one month ago that the G20 meetings began in Toronto. Several people have said to me recently that the G20 is over, that everyone should just "let it go." The first of these, of course, was Toronto's Mayor David Miller - who was ready to move on the monday after the G20 ended. Police were still exercising powers of search that they didn't actually have in downtown Toronto when the Mayor urged us all to let it go and think about the tall ships and the start of Pride. Canadians have a tendency to look at the positive and sweep things that are uncomfortable under a rug and agree not to look at them. That the Alberta Tar Sands are a worse environmental catastrophe than the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico or that many of our First Nations Reserves are little better off than third world countries, for example, are not really discussed. Fortunately there are proud and patriotic Canadians who are refusing to allow the G20 to be put in the back of a closet to be dragged out only for a 'remember when' segment on tv news the next time the G8/G20 come to Canada.
What happened in Toronto a month ago is simply too important. In short, according to hundreds of witness' including journalists, three levels of government and federal, provincial and local police from across Canada conspired to deprive more than 1,100 people of their basic civil rights. Police and the Provincial Government lied to the press and the public about police powers, evidence and events and after it was over there was a mad rush to compliment the police and, other than that, deafening silence. Because Quebecers were specifically targeted by police the G20 has also breathed new life into the sovereignty movement. It's also worth noting that all of this, by the time all of the costs are added up, will likely have cost Canadian taxpayers somewhere between 2 and 2.5 billion dollars.
Canadians, if you ask them, believe in "Peace, Order and Good Government" and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the G20 the Charter was suspended in Toronto and we didn't have peace, order or good government and now we have to know why. So, although there are currently four inquiries and hundreds of independent legal cases going forward the Toronto G20 won't be over until a full, open ended, independent, federal inquiry is concluded and anyone and everyone responsible for what happened, from the Prime Minister to individual police officers is held accountable.
For those of you who think "The G20 is over" a few headlines from the last week (weeks after the G20 leaders went home):
Send a message to demand a G20 independent public inquiry now
Petition to Restore Funding for the Court Challenges Program
Globe and Mail: Harper on the G20: Toronto’s pain, the world’s gain
Recent Supreme Court ruling will benefit those wrongly detained at G20
Edmonton Journal: Arbitrary arrests at G20 summit unjustified in a democratic society
Multiple G20 reviews panned by ex-police monitor
Civil liberties lawyers, MPs gathering evidence against G20 summit arrests
G20 arrest probe sought by Quebec groups
Globe and Mail: Ontario watchdog launching new review of police action during G20 summit
Toronto Sun: Claims of abuse by G20 cops
Ottawa Citizen: G20 Cleanup Left Undone
Nanaimo Daily News: Protesters, journalists deserve G20 apology
Montreal Gazette: G20 protest Saturday sees turnout despite rain
Hamilton Spectator: Local G20 protesters demand inquiry
Similar protests were held across Canada
Toronto Life: Cops look for public input in G20 review—just don’t mention officers, the OPP, the RCMP, personal experiences or operational matters
Toronto Star - Security operation or political theatre?
Video: G20 Toronto Illegal Public Works Act Searches with Flashlight Cop
CTV: Police actions blasted by social welfare groups
Winnipeggers hold another rally to protest the treatment of G20 demonstrators
Globe and Mail: Irishman caught in hurly-burly over hurley
Rabble: G8/G20 Communique: G20 violence against women
CTV: Suspected leader among G20 vandals surrenders
Hell, even Broken Social Scene is weighing in.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The cost of Not having a #G20 inquiry is unacceptably high
The Globe and Mail today backed down from calls for an independent inquiry into the G20 stating that the Government only needed to review the spending and choice of locations and that:
You can bet that if it was about Mel Gibson or Tiger Woods they'd want the whole story with no detail left out. Ironically this is from the same newspaper where Christine Blatchford took the time after the G20 to talk about the difference between real journalists and those who only claim the title because they go in search of truth and facts and report them to others. Small wonder that the alternative press and individual blogs are becoming more and more popular while newspapers are fending off death.
The people claiming that a full, impartial, independent, federal inquiry is not needed seem primarily concerned about the time involved and the cost. (Many of the politicians obviously are trying to avoid incriminating themselves.) The cost though of not having an inquiry are far, far higher than the cost of having one.
Preventing a full, independent inquiry of the G20 from start to finish and sparing no detail - from the date it was decided it would be held in Canada to the trial of the last person arrested - is tantamount to an admission of guilt by every official involved from Stephen Harper down to the last line officer. By preventing the public from being fully informed they will allow stories, true and untrue to spread and circulate and allow the public to believe whatever they like. It would permanently damage the relationship between the people of Toronto (and many others across Canada) and the police. It would allow people to believe that everyone involved including Bill Blair, Julian Fantino, David Miller, Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper and their cabinets were directly involved in, or at least approved of, serious human rights abuses.
The press and politicians frequently complain about a cynical, alienated public however every time they are given an opportunity to correct this, by leveling with people and telling the truth they decline - often, as in this case because it's just too time consuming or expensive to answer questions that the public is asking. Democracy is neither fast, easy or cheap and it's time the politicians and any journalist worth their salt stopped shirking their responsibilities and job descriptions any time it becomes inconvenient.
"It needn't take an inquiry, or even be “independent,” but governments and protective agencies should come together to review and lay out the facts about how the G8/G20 summits were planned and executed."It is sad that a news organization should decide that they only want a little information and don't really need the whole story on a major international, taxpayer funded conference that resulted in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history?
You can bet that if it was about Mel Gibson or Tiger Woods they'd want the whole story with no detail left out. Ironically this is from the same newspaper where Christine Blatchford took the time after the G20 to talk about the difference between real journalists and those who only claim the title because they go in search of truth and facts and report them to others. Small wonder that the alternative press and individual blogs are becoming more and more popular while newspapers are fending off death.
The people claiming that a full, impartial, independent, federal inquiry is not needed seem primarily concerned about the time involved and the cost. (Many of the politicians obviously are trying to avoid incriminating themselves.) The cost though of not having an inquiry are far, far higher than the cost of having one.
Preventing a full, independent inquiry of the G20 from start to finish and sparing no detail - from the date it was decided it would be held in Canada to the trial of the last person arrested - is tantamount to an admission of guilt by every official involved from Stephen Harper down to the last line officer. By preventing the public from being fully informed they will allow stories, true and untrue to spread and circulate and allow the public to believe whatever they like. It would permanently damage the relationship between the people of Toronto (and many others across Canada) and the police. It would allow people to believe that everyone involved including Bill Blair, Julian Fantino, David Miller, Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper and their cabinets were directly involved in, or at least approved of, serious human rights abuses.
The press and politicians frequently complain about a cynical, alienated public however every time they are given an opportunity to correct this, by leveling with people and telling the truth they decline - often, as in this case because it's just too time consuming or expensive to answer questions that the public is asking. Democracy is neither fast, easy or cheap and it's time the politicians and any journalist worth their salt stopped shirking their responsibilities and job descriptions any time it becomes inconvenient.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Exposed to Tear Gas or Pepper Spray at the #G20? How are you feeling?
At least a few people caught in police tear gas assaults at the G20 are reporting ongoing negative side effects from the chemical. In the cases I know about it is a prolonged menstruation lasting, as of this date, 17 days in all three cases.
In doing a little investigation, very little so far, it turns out that both tear gas and pepper spray are known to cause dangerous side effects, particularly in people with pre-existing conditions, but even in otherwise healthy people. It is actually illegal, under international law, to use either substance in warfare and police and politicians are well aware of this.
I won't go on quoting specific articles though I will suggest a few for reading.
First from Now Magazine way back in 2001 and a good overview from Common Dreams published in the wake of the 1999 Seattle WTO riots. There is also this bit of info from the Montreal Mirror.
I am not a doctor or a lawyer but if you were exposed to tear gas or pepper spray at the G20 and are experiencing any health problems they could be related to the chemical exposure. Get yourself to a doctor and if you'd like to get in touch either via email at beach.justin at gmail.com or via Facebook and I'll put you in touch with others. Sharing information going forward would be a good idea in terms of your health and potential legal action.
#G20 Debate is about "collateral damage" - Not Police vs. Black Bloc
I've tried explaining this in previous posts but there are many people who still don't seem to understand. The politicians and police agencies involved in the G20 are trying desperately to frame this as a debate where you either support the police or you support the black bloc. This is true of politicians at the city, provincial and federal level.
The truth is that if it were just about the police vs. the black bloc, if police had simply arrested vandals and left it at that, there would be no protests of any size and there would be no calls for an inquiry.
Most of those who are angry and asking questions about police actions at the G20 do not support the black bloc, or anarchists generally. Like everyone else, almost all of the people now calling for public inquiries denounce in the strongest possible terms the actions of the bloc on Saturday, June 26. In fact one of the questions that we would like answered is: Why did the police stand down and allow the black bloc to rampage for so long. Because the bloc wore masks and because police did not apprehend them in the act it is going to be very difficult to prove who was involved in the vandalism.
The big questions though, for those calling for an inquiry do not involve the black bloc at all but rather what is known in modern military terminology as "collateral damage." Why were hundreds of innocent, peaceful people, many of them not even protesters assaulted and arrested? What went wrong at the detention facility that caused many people who had done nothing wrong to be held under conditions that would have, had this been a war, violated the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs? Why were they held in dangerously overcrowded cells and denied medical attention and appropriate food and water? Why were journalists (apparently) targeted? Were the mass arrests meant to justify the bloated security budget? These are just a few of the many questions we would like answered. As citizens and taxpayers we have a right to some honest answers.
The attempt to frame this as a debate between supporters of the police and supporters of the black bloc is simply a convenient way for those who do not wish to answer questions to hide from the public.
I certainly cannot speak for all of the people calling for an inquiry but my impression is, based on myself, the people I know who are involved and those I've talked to that the people demanding an inquiry generally do support the police, most of the time and do not support the black bloc or have any problem with the vandals being arrested and tried - however something (perhaps many things) went very, very wrong on G20 weekend in Toronto and we would like to know what went wrong, why and who is responsible.
Some answers have been offered to date, but the answers we've been given do not explain anything and, in many cases, directly contradict the publicly available evidence - so an impartial public inquiry seems the best way to proceed.
Asking questions of elected leaders and public servants and expecting honest answers didn't used to be a treasonous act in this country. Let us hope it still isn't.
The truth is that if it were just about the police vs. the black bloc, if police had simply arrested vandals and left it at that, there would be no protests of any size and there would be no calls for an inquiry.
Most of those who are angry and asking questions about police actions at the G20 do not support the black bloc, or anarchists generally. Like everyone else, almost all of the people now calling for public inquiries denounce in the strongest possible terms the actions of the bloc on Saturday, June 26. In fact one of the questions that we would like answered is: Why did the police stand down and allow the black bloc to rampage for so long. Because the bloc wore masks and because police did not apprehend them in the act it is going to be very difficult to prove who was involved in the vandalism.
The big questions though, for those calling for an inquiry do not involve the black bloc at all but rather what is known in modern military terminology as "collateral damage." Why were hundreds of innocent, peaceful people, many of them not even protesters assaulted and arrested? What went wrong at the detention facility that caused many people who had done nothing wrong to be held under conditions that would have, had this been a war, violated the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs? Why were they held in dangerously overcrowded cells and denied medical attention and appropriate food and water? Why were journalists (apparently) targeted? Were the mass arrests meant to justify the bloated security budget? These are just a few of the many questions we would like answered. As citizens and taxpayers we have a right to some honest answers.
The attempt to frame this as a debate between supporters of the police and supporters of the black bloc is simply a convenient way for those who do not wish to answer questions to hide from the public.
I certainly cannot speak for all of the people calling for an inquiry but my impression is, based on myself, the people I know who are involved and those I've talked to that the people demanding an inquiry generally do support the police, most of the time and do not support the black bloc or have any problem with the vandals being arrested and tried - however something (perhaps many things) went very, very wrong on G20 weekend in Toronto and we would like to know what went wrong, why and who is responsible.
Some answers have been offered to date, but the answers we've been given do not explain anything and, in many cases, directly contradict the publicly available evidence - so an impartial public inquiry seems the best way to proceed.
Asking questions of elected leaders and public servants and expecting honest answers didn't used to be a treasonous act in this country. Let us hope it still isn't.
Monday, July 12, 2010
My initial theory on what happened in the back rooms at the #G20
There haven't been inquiries yet, so we're left to draw our own conclusions based on the evidence we have. In some cases there isn't a ton of evidence of any kind to deal with. Based on what we do know though, and on the apparent chain of command confusion surrounding the G20 I'd like to put forward a somewhat educated guess as to what might have happened.
When the black bloc riot started downtown police did nothing at all about it. What we have heard was that the police were concerned that some of the black bloc may have had firearms and going after them would have increased the risk and that the police's top priority was protecting the fence surrounding the G20 conference itself.
On examination neither of these excuses make much sense. First if police were concerned that the black bloc had guns then they did exactly the wrong thing. If you believe you are dealing with armed people you don't allow them to run around downtown doing as they please. Second, with 20,000 security personnel the police should have had no trouble guarding the fence and going after the 100 or so black bloc protesters.
Going back to the chain of command questions I'm guessing that after the smoke had cleared (within a few hours) that someone was angry about the decision not to pursue the black bloc. The government, after all, had spent 1 billion on security and when a security issue arose there was no response.
So the word went out that the "black bloc was hiding inside the peaceful protests" - I don't doubt that this is what line officers were told. They were also likely told something like "getting these people is a priority, so err on the side of arresting too many - everyone with a backpack or a bag of any kind is a suspect, anyone with a bandana is a suspect, anyone from Quebec or anyone from outside Canada is a suspect, anyone wearing black is a suspect, and if in doubt arrest." They weren't, I don't think, told this because it was true but because a large number of arrests (an all time record for Canada in fact) would make it look like the billion dollar security effort was effective, by the time all of the outcomes of the arrests were known (by the time the trials were over) the public would have forgotten about it. In the public mind the police had gotten the 'terrorists.'
That, at least to me, seems to match the way things work in Canadian politics at the moment, at least since Harper took over. It would explain everything that happened, including why police were so overly aggressive and why no one at a political level wants to talk about it.
I may have to amend this as more information comes out but without a full, independent public inquiry we are forced to draw our own conclusions so it is time to start putting the pieces together ourselves.
When the black bloc riot started downtown police did nothing at all about it. What we have heard was that the police were concerned that some of the black bloc may have had firearms and going after them would have increased the risk and that the police's top priority was protecting the fence surrounding the G20 conference itself.
On examination neither of these excuses make much sense. First if police were concerned that the black bloc had guns then they did exactly the wrong thing. If you believe you are dealing with armed people you don't allow them to run around downtown doing as they please. Second, with 20,000 security personnel the police should have had no trouble guarding the fence and going after the 100 or so black bloc protesters.
Going back to the chain of command questions I'm guessing that after the smoke had cleared (within a few hours) that someone was angry about the decision not to pursue the black bloc. The government, after all, had spent 1 billion on security and when a security issue arose there was no response.
So the word went out that the "black bloc was hiding inside the peaceful protests" - I don't doubt that this is what line officers were told. They were also likely told something like "getting these people is a priority, so err on the side of arresting too many - everyone with a backpack or a bag of any kind is a suspect, anyone with a bandana is a suspect, anyone from Quebec or anyone from outside Canada is a suspect, anyone wearing black is a suspect, and if in doubt arrest." They weren't, I don't think, told this because it was true but because a large number of arrests (an all time record for Canada in fact) would make it look like the billion dollar security effort was effective, by the time all of the outcomes of the arrests were known (by the time the trials were over) the public would have forgotten about it. In the public mind the police had gotten the 'terrorists.'
That, at least to me, seems to match the way things work in Canadian politics at the moment, at least since Harper took over. It would explain everything that happened, including why police were so overly aggressive and why no one at a political level wants to talk about it.
I may have to amend this as more information comes out but without a full, independent public inquiry we are forced to draw our own conclusions so it is time to start putting the pieces together ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
