Canada: First Nations Child And Family Caring Society Of Canada To Appeal Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision To Dismiss Discrimination Claim For First Nations Children On A Legal Loophole
|Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:08|
|Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:08|
Reading this article and especially the comments made me think about where I really stand on the issues of (alleged) excessive force (assault) by police, police, removing or obscuring their badge numbers, arresting peaceful protestors (allegedly) unnecessarily, etc.
Commenters seem to take polar opposite views, either totally supporting or totally opposing police. I do not share either of those extreme views, but perhaps my view will be considered even more extreme:
I think police officers and their unions should encourage their misbehaving colleagues to come clean and turn themselves in, and support them in doing so.
(Is that sarcastic laughter I hear? Hear me out.)
Sometimes we hear that police get frustrated because people with knowledge of crimes will not speak up. Well, this is the same thing: Police won't speak up about crimes of their fellow officers. Every time an officer keeps quiet, an injustice is done by those we depend on for justice, and another piece of the public trust is lost. How would police do their jobs if the public didn't help and support them by reporting crimes and criminals? Police jobs would become increasingly difficult and dangerous and crime rates would increase.
But why would the public help if police repeatedly arrest innocent people, use excessive force on arrestees - ie beat them up - and then lie about it, and cover up for each other, all lying to the public and the justice system? How is that any different, any more excusable than anybody who assaults any person and then he and his whole community lie about it? In my opinion, it is no different, except that the crimes of the officers are much more egregious because they are paid by the public to 'serve and protect' the public. That's called biting the hand that feeds you, never wise, and in fact these are crimes against democracy committed by protectors of democracy.
In the olden days, before cell phones with video cameras were everywhere, and videos and blog reports were not posted and available worldwide within seconds, back in the innocent (or fearful?) times when the police could easily cover up misbehaviour, the public could also turn a blind eye. Back then, 'nice Canadians' did not protest in the streets, just "union thugs" and "communists" did that. Well, that all changed starting in the 1960's when ordinary, even revered people took to the streets to improve democracy by fighting segregation and racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., protesting wars of aggression, cuts to social services, unfair labour practices, and a variety of human rights and other issues. I walked beside church ministers, social workers, nurses, reporters, teachers, steelworkers, office workers, farmers, university students and professors. The police have learned some lessons about policing democratic protests, but the traditional 'old boys' police culture has not changed fast enough to keep up, and now technology and savvy citizens are exposing the ugly underbelly of policing, where officers are criminals and cover up for criminal officers.
The exposure will ultimately be a good thing, cleansing the forces of officers who commit and cover up crimes, and depend on those methods to 'get their man'. Before that cleansing can occur, however, Police Commissions, the Brass and every officer will have to commit themselves to changing the secrecy culture that hides criminals among their ranks.
No matter what your job is, few people want to squeal on coworkers. However, some people might, for the protection of others, privately confront a colleague with the information, expect them to change, and support them through a change in behaviour. That's what I expect police and their unions to do, to police themselves, to uphold high standards for policing, and to be accountable to the public for both their actions and their truthfulness.
As police tell criminals and witnesses, it is in their best interests to be cooperative, tell the whole story, and the police and courts may be more lenient. The same applies to police: If those guilty of bad behaviour and those who know about it come clean, learn lessons and reform, the public will be more forgiving and policing will be more effective, with better public trust in officers.
When police attempt to incite riots to shut down peaceful protests, as the Surete Quebec did at the 2002 Summit of the Americas, when police bludgeon grandmotherly unionists/public employees as the OPP did at Queens Park in 1997, when police randomly attack people without cause as Toronto Police did to OCAP protesters at Queens Park in 2000, or when they detain (in the rain), violently attack or arrest over 1000 peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders, as during the G20 in Toronto 2010 ... then we have a violent police state. When people are afraid to associate, assemble, or speak freely in public for fear of police/state violence against them, then democracy and democratic freedom no longer exist in Canada.
We need a full judicial national inquiry into police actions at the G20 to fully expose those actions, including AND ESPECIALLY a thorough investigation of the entire chain of command: Toronto Police Services (the chosen fall guys?), OPP, RCMP, CSIS, and the PMO.
Would 90 (or more?) police officers independently and spontaneously hide their identities without sanction of superior officers?
I doubt it.
Would superior officers give such instructions without sanction from other authorities?
I doubt that too.
In fact, this whole thing stinks of rot at the top, not hard to imagine with a 'government' already known to be a one man show by a man who thus undermines our democracy and openly despises human rights . The violations of Charter rights at the Toronto 2010 G20 protests need to be investigated individually, and also as an orchestrated event.
If police officers on the street want to regain the trust of the public that they need to do their jobs, and protect democracy as is their job, they and their unions will support each other in telling the WHOLE truth.
Audience members asked pointed and persistent questions about the wisdom of Blatchford writing a book about 'Caledonia' while ignoring and dismissing the legal context of Six Nations' land and Aboriginal rights.
Aboriginal rights are constitutional rights, the supreme 'rule of law' in Canada and as such,the first responsibility ofthe police. That doesn't excuse any offsite personal or property damage, and charges were laid, albeit not in the middle of angry mobs. Many Six Nations people went to court, some went to jail, and some felt the disapproval of their Six Nations peers and Elders for their inappropriate actions too.
Those who criticize police but were not there at the time, like Christie Blatchford and anti-native activist Gary McHale (whose biased 'research' Blatchford relied on heavily for her book), simply do not grasp the reality that faced the OPP: There are 24 000 Six Nations men, women and children, every one of them a 'warrior' in the struggle for their rights. The police could be outnumbered and overwhelmed in a matter of minutes, and the women usually took the lead as they are responsible for the land. Police were aware that Canadians would not approve of shooting Aboriginal people: Brute strength and guns were not the answer, and despite mistakes and missteps on all sides, NOBODY DIED THIS TIME!
If there is a lesson in this for Blatchford, McHale and for all Canadians, it is that Aboriginal rights cannot be ignored or dismissed: They are the "rule of law" in Canada and internationally. Angry mobs of Canadians screaming at police won't change that. Nor will Blatchford's unrealistic, poorly 'researched' and thoroughly biased book.
What needs to change is our governments' 'political will' to resolve Aboriginal rights issues across the country, and that 'political will' must come from us: Our MPs and MPPs and municipal councils must all feel the pressure from Canadians to implement real solutions locally, provincially and nationally.
Many died from tuberculosis in the early 1900's. During that era, treatment of tuberculosis reduced its impact substantially among Canadians. However, NO TREATMENT WAS PROVIDED to Indigenous children in the crowded schools despite the efforts of the Medical officer at the time, Dr. Peter Bryce. Death rates among the children skyrocketed from 1900 to the 1950's.
Though the UN Convention on Genocide passed in 1948, Canada refused to sign it until 2000, after all of the government residential schools closed. Are we blind enough to believe this is coincidence?
This is Canada's genocide, finally becoming mainstream news, too late for the more than 50 000 children who died from Canada's intentional 'negligence'. Our governments were and are complicit in genocide and in the ongoing cover up.
The federal government is aware that it has a duty to consult with Aboriginal communities and to accommodate their rights on all of their traditional lands (not just "land claims settlements"). The feds ignored their fiduciary duty and ties responsibility to uphold the 'honour of the Crown' by failing to engage in appropriate consultations ahead of construction related to the North Warning System (formerly the DEW line). The Aboriginal governments have now invoked their rights, causing Harper to delay the project.
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL!
As proscribed by the Supreme Court, the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples applies to all traditional lands, ie, all of Canada, a fact that the powers that be in Canada are trying to hide.
http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/news/national-news/Exclusive Aboriginal consultations delay tender Arctic radar chain/4105238/story.html
We live on Aboriginal land by treaties "to a plough's depth", and by the treaties, Indigenous Peoples retain their traditional rights to sustain themselves from the land too ... all traditional territory, regardless of 'land claims' ... all of the land.
The National/Financial Post (Aug10/10) addressed the effect this is having on the oil sands and the entire resource sector, a new way of doing business, with Aboriginal communities now as business partners with a say in development and a share in revenues.
Municipalities have some knowledge of the duty to consult and some may be doing so. A Hamilton judge said it didn't say it applied in every circumstance. A Brantford judge said there's nothing that says it doesn't apply.
Saugeen Objibwa Nation and Owen Sound: "duty to consult First Nations ... a new way of doing business"
So ... billion dollar 'Indian' Affairs industry ... Show us the public accounts, the money trail, for the lands of the Haldimand Tract.
If lands were surrendered to, entrusted to, the Crown for sales and leases, show us the income and debit accounts for the trust funds.
I want to see the bottom line.
Show us the federal money trail for the Haldimand Tract lands. If INAC accepted payment for Six Nations land, INAC should have accounts showing the deposits and withdrawals for Six Nations accounts. If Six Nations sold or leased land and takes annual payouts from its account, the books should be available.
If land was sold, and paid for, what's the delay in producing that information? After all, it matters not so much what the intentions were, as what was done.
Show us the money trail!
And don't send 3 high paid (we pay!), politically correct (long winded)'communicators'. For my dime,
just one accountant and the books will do.
Judge Arrell (Brantford) said Six Nations intended to surrender the land. And then ... ?
I knew someone who intended to sell some land once, signed the agreement, but never got the money. He still owns the land. Clear cut. It's sold or it's not.
So just show us the money trail for the Haldimand Tract land Six Nations sold.
I'm being repetitive, I know, and I respect that there may be issues about whether or not some or all of Six Nations may have 'intended' to sell land or not ... but I'm just a Canadian taxpayer, and I just want the answer from my government: Did we sell the land on their behalf, and did the money appropriately accrue to their account?