"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.






3 comments:
This kind of editorial about-face makes me just a tad paranoically nervous.
I should admit that I'm a subscriber to the Globe and Mail. Hence the nervousness.
Sounds about right. That last paragraph really puts it in a larger context. The typical return-to-business-as-usual leaves coherence out in the cold; and with little or no coherence to the stories coming out from all sides, one is left with an unhappy, threefold choice - side with the government ("Good German"), side with the protesters ("Conspiracy Theorist"), or side with no one and keep yourself busy ("Apathetic Twat").
That particular threefold choice leaves me very unhappy, It is designed to be insufficient to my needs as a citizen.
Post a Comment