\/\/\/\/\/\/
G20 "Independent Civilian Review,"
Tue, 2010-07-06 20:23
#1
No Yards
G20 "Independent Civilian Review,"
Tue, 2010-07-06 20:23
#2
No Yards
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 6, 2010TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD ESTABLISHES
INDEPENDENT CIVILIAN REVIEW OF THE OVERSIGHT OF G20 POLICINGToronto – The Toronto Police Services Board is establishing an Independent Civilian Review, to identify and study issues raised by the public and Board members regarding oversight, governance, accountability, transparency and the communications and supervision issues arising from a multi-jurisdictional model of policing in the context of the governance role and policies of the Toronto Police Services Board.
“In the week since the G20 Summit, the Board has taken the time to meet, identify issues and concerns and develop a reasoned approach to review the oversight and policy aspects of policing at the G20 Summit,” said Toronto Police Services Board Chair Alok Mukherjee. “We believe that this Independent Civilian Review is the most appropriate way forward and is in keeping with the Board’s history of taking measured and reasoned approaches to key civilian oversight issues.”
Subject to the Terms of Reference developed by the Reviewer, in consultation with the Board, the Reviewer may seek the input of any individuals, agencies, organizations or associations who have information that could assist in the review.
In addition, the Reviewer will review relevant legal authorities, policies and practices as well as decision-making structures and processes with respect to policing in place during the Summit.
Following completion of the Independent Civilian Review, the Reviewer will submit a report to the Board with recommendations related to policy, structural and systemic issues for consideration and any action, as deemed necessary.
-30-
For more information
Board Office
416-808-8080
Tue, 2010-07-06 20:27
#3
No Yards
They announced the review and then didn't allow any input from anyone there, and I'm not sure if the public will have any say at all on the terms of reference ... we shall see, but at best this is probably going to be a bunch of "bad apples" who might be drummed off the street and into a desk job for a year.
Wed, 2010-07-07 01:42
#4
RevolutionPlease
Like Tommy P, Maysie and others, I'm not in the mood to comment too much here. It won't help me. This is sickening.
I have hope the brave people that unfortunately I'm not one of can move this forward. Yep. I'm an interloper on the sidelines. Gotta keep my job for now. I wish I could be as strong. Bravo to those that resist. I'm ready. We're here and we're not going away. Judge me if you will.
Wed, 2010-07-07 04:08
#5
Cueball
We need to organize an independent civilian review ourselves.
Wed, 2010-07-07 05:21
#6
Cueball
Precisely. We must keep the heat on.
I like Mandel, but preferably we need a much more establishment jurist to lead the commission. A lot of people were offended by this and I am sure there are more than a few grey beards who are wagging their heads at this abuse of civil liberties.
Wed, 2010-07-07 05:23
#7
not only an excellent suggestion but an essential rquirement I think - and if such a citizens' commission is held - the analysis of the events and the actions of those who perpetrated them - from all the way up to all the way down will likely reveal much and astound many.. Mike Mandel and/or lawyers against war might be a good place to start, And Council of Canadians is also active on the issue It's a foregone conclusion that the bad guys will try to contain the damage and the Citizen/s commission must expose the damage. But it definitely should happen.
Wed, 2010-07-07 05:27
#8
Cueball
By the way. When did we become "civlians" I thought we were "citizens."
Wed, 2010-07-07 05:39
#9
I think you DON'T 'need a much more establishment jurist' or you're likely to find the whole thing 'steered' - If it's a citizen/'s comission why not citizens - pick a half to a dozen there's lots of good possibilities Paikin, Naomi Klein, John Clarke, Rebick, Dobbin -Barlow - There are many excellent possibilities out there but I would recommend you stay away from a Iacobucci type solution - why use 'their' people?
Wed, 2010-07-07 06:02
#10
Cueball
You need a more establishment jurist because you need to create an inclusive framework that also speaks to the establishment. Those people are necessary ingredients in moving the process along, but the fundamental point of this process is to put presssure on to force the creation of real "public enquirey" with teeth in the establishment.
We do not need something that is simply going to reiterate what we already know. But a forum which will allow the real extent of police abuse to be told in a cohesive manner, thoroughly and methodically, not as a means of expressing core political views, but to examine process, and keep the media and the people involved in the story.
My view is that the establishment is actually greatly divided on the issue of police overeach in this case, and that therefore there is an opening here for real political movement. Some heads must roll. In order to make this happen we need to engage with the establishment.
Most of all it can not be something that can be dismissed as a left wing talking shop, but something that has the credibility to bring forward testimonies from multiple sources.
Wed, 2010-07-07 06:08
#11
Diogenes
Some heads must roll. In order to make this happen we need to engage with the establishment.
Everyone! Let's all do The Chomsky 
Wed, 2010-07-07 08:20
#12
Cueball is right. A "people's inquiry" might be a good idea, but it cannot replace the demand for an official public inquiry. We can't give up on that demand out of frustration at the enemy's first move.
In that respect, John Sewell (ex-mayor of Toronto) sounds a lot better than Adam Vaughan:
Former Toronto mayor and representative of the Toronto Police Accountability Association John Sewell attempted to speak with the board and was told to wait, while others in the audience cried "shame".
Sewell later said he supported the review, but wanted input into the process before Mukherjee presents final recommendations.
"The idea of an independent review is a good one but it depends how it's done," he said. "There's no mechanism to involve the public in what's reviewed. It's all between the reviewer and the board," he said. "We should also be clear that this has got to be a big, broad review. The mandate excludes any operations, anything about how you spend money, anything about the relationship between the OPP and the Toronto police, which I think is now the critical issue."
Adam Vaughan, who both sits on the board and represents the Trinity-Spadina communities where the rioting occurred, urged the public to be patient.
"We called this meeting on short notice. We set up a process to set up a proposal for the public to tell us what they think about it," he said. "I recognize people's urge to speak, but the reality is that this has to be done carefully, it's going to be done well. In two weeks there's going to be a presentation to the public. I recognize that people want to speak, and they will speak and be heard."
The review is intended to focus on jurisdictional matters and governance and not individual complaints. Those, said Mukherjee, are best handled through various police complaints processes and the courts.
Wed, 2010-07-07 09:25
#13
writer
I thought some would be interested in this write-up by a friend:
I attended the Toronto Police Services Board meeting this morning, along with about 50 other concerned citizens. The Chair, Alok Mukherjee put forward a motion to create "an Independent Civilian Review of the oversight of the G20 policing" in the context of the multi-jurisdictional nature of the security arrangements.
Board member and City Councillor Pam McConnell spoke to ensuring that whatever review mechanism was put in place, it must allow input from the community. She insisted the public must be allowed to speak to the Independent Civilian Review, and that the Terms of Reference for it be made available to the public as soon as possible. Adam Vaughan, another City Councillor on the Board, expressed his strong concern that the ICR be truly independent.
Former Toronto mayor John Sewell was in attendance, and objected that there would be no public input into the Terms of Reference that will create the ICR. He also said that he had arranged the day before to address the meeting before a vote on Mukherjee’s motion, and the vote to approve the motion happened before Sewell or anyone else was allowed to speak to it. In reply Adam Vaughan suggested that the public send the board written deputations to inform the Terms of Reference.
In fact, in my opinion the creation of the ICR is a welcome move by the Police Services Board. The obfuscations, refusals to consider a review, and the constant barrage of lies that have been coming from the Toronto police – from regular cops on the street right up to Chief Bill Blair – have been unconscionable. That the Board made this decision in the face of obvious police reluctance is definite progress. On the other hand the fact that Sewell says he was lied to strikes an alarming note, considering the sea of official prevarications we have all been swimming in for the last few weeks.
The eventual Terms of Reference governing the mandate of the ICR may be extremely limited, so much so that actual police conduct, and the mass violation of civil rights which has blighted the political landscape of this city, may not enter into it at all. However, I suspect that Alok Mukherjee, for all his apparent mildness, is doing what he can from within the system. I strongly recommend that readers fight the possibility of a limited mandate and follow Councillor Vaughan’s suggestion; write the Board as soon as possible, letting them know how you envision a review of the G20 policing, and what should be included under the Terms of Reference.
The Toronto Police Services Board website with the .pdf of Alok Mukherjee’s motion: http://www.tpsb.ca/
You can write the Board at:
Alok Mukherjee, Chair
Toronto Police Services Board
40 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2J3(Contact form)
http://www.tpsb.ca/Contact/
Wed, 2010-07-07 10:20
#14
Wed, 2010-07-07 14:23
#15
writer
MM51.9 - "To Commend Staff on their Outstanding Work for the G20 Summit - by Councillor Grimes, seconded by Councillor Saundercook"
1. City Council commend and thank all City Staff who participated in, prepared for, planned, and responded to the G20 Summit on a job well done.
7/7/2010 12:27:32 PM “MM51.9 - Adopt the item” 36 yea+0 nay,2/3 maj,quorum YES Ainslie YES Ashton YES Augimeri YES Carroll YES Cho YES De Baeremaeker YES Del Grande YES Feldman YES Filion YES Ford YES Grimes YES Hall YES Heaps YES Holyday YES Jenkins YES Kelly YES Lee YES Lindsay Luby [Chair] YES Mammoliti YES Milczyn YES Miller YES Minnan-Wong YES Moeser YES Moscoe YES Nunziata YES Ootes YES Palacio YES Pantalone YES Parker YES Perruzza YES Rae YES Saundercook YES Shiner YES Stintz YES Thompson YES Walker
http://torontocitycouncil.blogspot.com/2010/07/votes-on-items-mm519-and-...
(Members of the Police Services Board did not participate.)
Wed, 2010-07-07 15:12
#16
No Yards
The next motion was just as outragious:
MM51.10 - "To commend the outstanding work of Chief Bill Blair, the Toronto Police Service and the Police Officers working during the G20 Summit in Toronto - by Councillor Grimes, seconded by Councillor Saundercook"
1. City Council commend and thank Chief Bill Blair and the Toronto Police Service as well as the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Canadian Forces and the Peel Regional Police personnel, along with all other police services that participated in this joint venture, on a job well done.
Amendments/Additional Motions:
Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Shelley Carroll
That City Council thank Chief Blair for his support of the Toronto Police Services Board decision to launch an Independant Civilian Review of the G20 Summit.7/7/2010 12:28:28 PM “MM 51.10 - Carroll” 35 yea+1 nay,2/3 maj,quorum
YES Ainslie YES Ashton YES Augimeri YES Carroll YES Cho YES De Baeremaeker YES Del Grande YES Feldman YES Filion YES Grimes YES Hall YES Heaps YES Holyday YES Jenkins YES Kelly YES Lee YES Lindsay Luby [Chair] YES Mammoliti YES Milczyn YES Miller YES Minnan-Wong YES Moeser YES Moscoe YES Nunziata YES Ootes YES Palacio YES Pantalone YES Parker YES Perruzza YES Rae YES Saundercook YES Shiner YES Stintz YES Thompson YES WalkerNO Ford
Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Mayor David Miller
That City Council thank and acknowledge the Toronto Police Services Board for exercising its appropriate oversight role.7/7/2010 12:29:25 PM “MM51.10 - Miller” 35 yea+1 nay,2/3 maj,quorum
YES Ainslie YES Ashton YES Augimeri YES Carroll YES Cho YES De Baeremaeker YES Del Grande YES Feldman YES Filion YES Grimes YES Hall YES Heaps YES Holyday YES Jenkins YES Kelly YES Lee YES Lindsay Luby [Chair] YES Mammoliti YES Milczyn YES Miller YES Minnan-Wong YES Moeser YES Moscoe YES Nunziata YES Ootes YES Palacio YES Pantalone YES Parker YES Perruzza YES Rae YES Saundercook YES Shiner YES Stintz YES Thompson YES WalkerNO Ford
Vote on Motion MM51.10, as amended by the previous motions:
7/7/2010 12:30:18 PM “MM51.10 - Adopt item as amended” 36 yea+0 nay,2/3 maj,quorum
YES Ainslie YES Ashton YES Augimeri YES Carroll YES Cho YES De Baeremaeker YES Del Grande YES Feldman YES Filion YES Ford YES Grimes YES Hall YES Heaps YES Holyday YES Jenkins YES Kelly YES Lee YES Lindsay Luby [Chair] YES Mammoliti YES Milczyn YES Miller YES Minnan-Wong YES Moeser YES Moscoe YES Nunziata YES Ootes YES Palacio YES Pantalone YES Parker YES Perruzza YES Rae YES Saundercook YES Shiner YES Stintz YES Thompson YES Walker
Everyone believes this was a "job well done" .. except Ford, who's only problem is supporting the TPSB and its enquiry.
What a pile of cowards and useless assholes.
Wed, 2010-07-07 17:07
#17
Cueball
A public inquiry is the only answer with imput from those that were abused/arrested and let's hope they let the public have input. A private ciizens inquiry would result in nothing, because there is no way they could get the police involved, to attend.
Of coure, or at least it is very unlikely. However inviting (challenging) them serves its own purpose. I liu of their attendance there will be a number of official documents available, as well as reports and statements of the police to work with.
You are not going to get an official enquirey that is inclusive of the counter-narrative at all from the authorities. This much is clear. Therefore, imo, having a Citizens Enquirey is probably the only way that any kind of cohesive counter-narrative can be put into the public domain. What will happen otherwise, is that the official narrative will be expressed as truth, and the huge amount of testimony that expressess the counter-narrative will be treated as "suspect" and in need of being proved in court, as part of other processess that will take years to be cleared, and so never make it into the public domain, while the issue is current.
A few bad apples will be exposed no doubt as a sop to the overt truth, some time far in the future, when these new police powers will be well entrenched.
Therefore, providing a venue for expressing the counter-narrative in the immediate proximity of these events is a necessity. "Threatening" to provide such a platform, and undermining the official narrative without their inclusion, indeed is a good way to preassuring them into creating an inclusive public enquirey.
Wed, 2010-07-07 17:47
#18
dandmb50
A public inquiry is the only answer with imput from those that were abused/arrested and let's hope they let the public have input. A private ciizens inquiry would result in nothing, because there is no way they could get the police involved, to attend.
There were many abuses at "Torontonomo Bay" Detention Centre and this MUST be investigated by an independant observer(s) and I have questions if this will be done. Most officers were controlled but many were out of control and must be held accountable, the sooner the better. The one thing that bothered me most was I read and heard that the police were told "not to engage the Black Bloc" and it appears they did not. I walked from Queen to College Saturday night along Yonge Street and did not see one officer? I must have walked up there just shortly after they had broken many windows. Is there any truth to these instructions to the police?
Daniel .. Toronto
Wed, 2010-07-07 22:38
#19
Catchfire
> Dear Residents,
>
> At yesterday’s meeting of the Toronto Police Services Board, the Board formally
established an Independent Civilian Review of the G20 Summit.
>
> This review will identify and study the issues raised by the Board and the public
regarding the oversight, governance, accountability, transparency, communications,
and supervision.
>
> Within the next two weeks, the Board will finalize and present the Terms of
Reference for the Review. We invite the public to make recommendations on the
Terms of Reference.
>
> With the release of the Terms of Reference, the Board will also announce the
individual who will lead the review. The Board is currently pursuing a person to
lead the Review who has a high level of experience and skill in reviewing complex
matters such as this, and whose neutrality and support from all sides will be
above reproach.
>
> The Review will last about 8 to 12 weeks. The Review will conclude with a report
to the Board with recommendations regarding policy and structural issues.
>
> Individual complaints should be forwarded to the Office of the Independent Police
Review Director, Gerry McNeilly. The website is www.oiprd.on.ca.
>
> The public submissions with regards to the Terms of Reference can be made to the
Board Office at [email protected]. For further information and updates, follow the
Chair’s blog at www.tpsb.ca.
>
> The Board believes that this Independent Civilian Review is the most appropriate
way forward, allowing us to review the oversight and policy aspects of policing at
the G20 while not jeopardizing ongoing investigations or individual or policy
complaints.
>
> If you have feedback on the Terms of Reference for this Review, or suggestions on
who would be a good reviewer, please forward this to me as I can share this with
the Police Services Board.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Adam Vaughan
> City Councillor, Ward 20 – Trinity-Spadina
>
>
> Councillor Adam Vaughan
> Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
> 416-392-4044
>
> Toronto City Hall
> 100 Queen Street West
> 2nd Floor, Suite C50
> Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
> -----------------------------------
> visit us online at www.ward20.ca
>
Wed, 2010-07-07 22:53
#20
Frustrated Mess
Wed, 2010-07-07 23:59
#21
No Yards
Thanks for that vid FN ... The Real News Network is doing an awesome job of real coverage, and real questions.
Yes, what the hell did happen to our $1.2B?
It didn't take $1.2B to put up a fucking fence and declare martial law inside the fucking fence.
And the $120 Million in triple-time-wages for your brown shirt brothers, while being an impressive bit of thievery on it's own, that still leaves one big steaming-heap-o-embellishment to account for.
Follow the money - That's one fine "term-of-reference" that should be explored.
Thu, 2010-07-08 01:09
#22
There needs to be a Citizens Inquiry. The Capitalists Class ( a.k.a. establishment) does not have to be included. The point being the working class taking control of it's own destiny.
You will hear reformest from the Working Class saying the Capitalists Class needs to be included but that is just a sell out. They are more dangerous to the working class then the bourgeousie themselves. They will sell you out.
The working class needs no validation from the capitalists class. We can stand on our own two feet and come to our own conclusions. We have more then enough capable experts in our ranks. We are more then capable to run the economy under our terms.
A Citizens Inquiry is a must.
Thu, 2010-07-08 01:11
#23
Diogenes
from theStar.com: Council commends 'outstanding' police G20 work
After an emotional morning-long debate, city council voted 36-0 to "commend the outstanding work" of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, his officers and other police forces working during the G20 summit in Toronto.
I've never been to Toronto. What planet is it on?
Thu, 2010-07-08 01:16
#24
As a matter of fact, a Citizens Inquiry run by the working class is a necassary step in the developement of working class leadership.
If the establishment wants to ignore our conclusions, well that's fine, because we sure as well, will be ignoring theirs.
Thu, 2010-07-08 03:46
#25
Cueball
Board review of G20 not enough -- Toronto Star
Collectively, they turned our city into an armed camp with empty streets, secretly invoked special police powers, allowed a few hooligans to run amok burning police cruisers and smashing store windows, and then arrested and incarcerated more than a thousand people, the vast majority of them guilty of no crime. Businesses in the downtown area suffered a big drop in sales. Instead of showcasing the city, the event produced damaging images, broadcast around the world. What is needed is a full public inquiry, called by either the province or Ottawa.
As we can see certain elements of the "establishment" are not actually pleased.
Thu, 2010-07-08 17:41
#26
I like the idea of Sewell or Paikin heading such a commission.
Thu, 2010-07-08 18:02
#27
bagkitty
Hear, hear... this point is not made often enough. Although, on the sunny side, at least the citizens aren't being referred to as "clients" or "stakeholders".By the way. When did we become "civlians" I thought we were "citizens."
Thu, 2010-07-08 18:42
#28
No Yards
I did not vote because I did not have the information I needed to make an informed decision.
There was no staff report, no police presentation, no independent research — no facts. None. City Council voted on a very serious and contentious issue based on limited first-hand experience and media reports.
That’s not good enough.
Thu, 2010-07-08 19:01
#29
No Yards
Blair Witch Hunting (and lots of other juicy little details that might not be so obvious at first brush.)
But was he really?
The Integrated Safety Unit (ISU) charged with summit security, created by the RCMP, was composed of forces – including the OPP and the Canadian military – with greater jurisdictional authority than Toronto police in matters of international security.
The summit was a federal undertaking, but under treaty rules that govern the protection of international dignitaries, it’s the province that was called upon to fulfill security obligations.
That means all roads lead back to one Julian Fantino, the OPP commish and former Toronto chief who, it is well known, has no love for his successor. (Fantino’s contract expired this month. Word came down Wednesday, July 7, that he will be replaced by Chris Lewis effective August 1.)
Thu, 2010-07-08 19:04
#30
I say shoot for the moon, have an Independent Inquiry, have a Citizen's Inqiry and sue them big time.
I appreciated what Janet Davis had to say, a much more thoughtful response than the majority of the counsellors who seem to they can put icing on a pile of shit and people will swallow it.
Thu, 2010-07-08 19:06
#31
I've been thinking along Trippie's lines for a few days now.
I think activists in Toronto should have their own Inquiry.
I mean, government inquiries are all about P.R. anyway, why not have our own where we are in greater control of the message anyway?
It'd be fun.
"Committee of Public Safety"?
Thu, 2010-07-08 19:15
#32
Cueball
Moreso, we should organize a national inquiry, given that organizations and people from all across the country were affected by the events in Toronto, and were supporters and organizers of the G20 protests. There will be people from all across the country who will have stories about how their civil liberties and their right to protest the actions of federal government were undermined.
Indeed people from all over were caught up in the police sweep.
Organizing feeder events in major urban centers leading up to a main inquirey in Toronto would also be a good way of touching base, keeping the story relevant locally in the media, and also serve the purpose of keeping people in touch and mobilized on a national level.
If I recall correctly, the Canadian Peace Alliance in the glory days of the peace movement organized a Citizens Inquiry into Peace and Security back in the late 80's, and a "Citizen's Inquiry into the Civil Liberties and the G20" might be modeled on that.
We definitely need to take the agenda out of the hands of the responsible authorities, since, it is quite obvious that they are completely dead set on evading their responsibilities.
Thu, 2010-07-08 19:26
#33
A Citizens Inquiry would be a powerful statement that we are no longer willing to place our confidence in them to provide a fair and honest review.
I think the prorogation woke up a lot of people and these people are now tuned into what is going on and aware of the violence done to peaceful protesters, this is not going to go away.
Fri, 2010-07-09 00:34
#34
Daedalus
The fact they refer to it as a "civilian" review rather than a public inquiry or private citizen's board or whatever is very telling.
Police forces were supposed to have been originally established as a civilian force (Robert Peel and all that). Now they're ... what? A paramilitary?
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:29
#35
No Yards
That makes "sense" .. they did after all put the safety of 20 assholes hiding behind a highly guarded fence, behind a wall, behind another layer of guards, inside secured buildings, each with personal private security, ahead of the safety of the citizens to whom they are sworn to protect ... obviously they don't really give a shit about "civilians" ... "civilians", unlike your own citizens, can more easily be classified as collateral damage.
Fri, 2010-07-09 10:39
#36
It's wierd for me, because as you all know, I hold P.R. and stuff like that in pretty low regard.
But, whether you or I like it or not, that's the game as it exists right now.
I forget who, but some cabinet minister a good while back got caught being crass about a program, liking it because it was so full of "announceables".
That's been a trick of McGinty's for some time now. Announce a 20 million dollar program that spans a good number of ministries, and five or ten ministers can go out over the province for a month or two announcing over and over again this 20 million dollar program, giving the impression that the government is spending and spending on warm and fuzzy things we all like.
Meanwhile, in the fine print, the qualifications for said program disqualify all but a very few. That way, the government spends only a small fraction of what the public thinks this "progressive" government did spend, and his ministers and government in general get lots of good P.R.
--------------
A citizens inquiry into the events at the G20, if done properly, can do the same thing. Coldly put, there's a lot of "announceables" in the annecdotes of people there. And it's stuff like that which sells papers and doesn't cost much for the news media to cover.
And while "Brenda McConformist" up in Etobicoke might not be perturbed by story A, B, or C, story D will.
That's happening already without any concerted attempts along those lines.
Fri, 2010-07-09 10:39
#37
To some degree or another, everyone chips in on a system that furnishes a handsome compensation package to those who subsequently set about in earnest to beat and kill some of the less favoured employers as the circumstances warrant, in order to ensure the well being of fellow parasites who are also beating upon the same employers. It's a complex, if not dysfunctional workplace arrangement, where nonexistent labour/management dialogue is but one of the many deficiencies.
Fri, 2010-07-09 11:07
#38
Cueball
A citizens inquiry into the events at the G20, if done properly, can do the same thing. Coldly put, there's a lot of "announceables" in the annecdotes of people there. And it's stuff like that which sells papers and doesn't cost much for the news media to cover.
And while "Brenda McConformist" up in Etobicoke might not be perturbed by story A, B, or C, story D will.
That's happening already without any concerted attempts along those lines.
I agree, but it would have to get done pretty fast. Maybe someone is already doing it? If so, who?
Fri, 2010-07-09 11:26
#39
I'm not sure speed is necessary at all, Cueball. In fact, if I was organizing it I would be more than happy to drag it out into the municiple election season. 
I think what you don't want is a torrent, you want a steady drip, drip, drip.
----------------
When I was young, I had relatives Columbus Ohio and we'd visit them almost every summer for a week or so. That was back in the days of the Viet Nam war. They got the Columbus Dispatch every morning, and below the fold on the front page was always a picture of a clean cut Marine in dress uniform. They way clean cut Marines got their pictures below the fold on the front page of the Columbus Dispatch-- along with all the other papers in the heatland-- was to get killed in Viet Nam.
Tacticians and strategists will argue about the Tet Offensive, or LBJ and Walter Cronkite, but I think what turned the tide on public opinion on the Viet Nam war was those pictures of clean cut Marines on the doorstep every day.
And once and a while it was someone you knew, or someone you knew, knew.
Fri, 2010-07-09 11:35
#40
Cueball
I'm not sure speed is necessary at all, Cueball. In fact, if I was organizing it I would be more than happy to drag it out into the municiple election season.
I think what you don't want is a torrent, you want a steady drip, drip, drip.
I agree entirely. especially the part about municpal elections. It struck me watching that "Real News" interview with Miller, just how much he seemed like the hapless well meaning US Ambassador portrayed in Oliver Stone's El Salavador, when he has been out manouvered and hoodwinked by the CIA and military advisor charachters who pull their heavy weight routine on him at the moment of crisis.
That said, money, organization and so on all take time to co-ordinate.
Fri, 2010-07-09 13:35
#41
writer
*** The Ontario Ombudsman is investigating McGuinty's G20 law: anyone who has a complaint or relevant info call 1.800.263.1830 during business hours. ***
Fri, 2010-07-09 13:51
#42
You know, Writer, I've had difficulty remaining on an even keel through all this, and regretably, it's showed through. I admire your constant plunking away at the pragmatic, and your example has contributed to my admittedly slow regaining of composure over these events.
Thank you.
Fri, 2010-07-09 14:07
#43
A Citizens Independent Review would be great. They could then send out requests to all the police forces etc involved to come and tell their side of the story and also invite all citizens who want to tell their stories. Of course the police would not attend but a public place for hearing all the stories would serve a useful educational purpose as we go forward.
The Police Board Inquiry has such narrow parameters it will not even look at that actual police conduct from the summit.
Fri, 2010-07-09 14:21
#44
writer
Hey, Tommy_Paine, thanks so much for that. It means a lot.
Fri, 2010-07-09 14:46
#45
ah, well, see now you're wrecking my composure. In a good way.
Fri, 2010-07-09 23:00
#46
For a proper Citizens inquiry I think we need to make an out lay of all the emements needed.
Such as:
- Who will be on the judgement panel? Social activist Lawyers, Social activists, Professors, randum citizens, people with a socialist tendencie, etc?
- What are we trying to find out? Police missconduct, rights violations, government miss direction, why downtown Toronto, why the cost etc?
- Were will it be held? AT the U of T, community center?
- What will we do with the findings?
- How will be invited to presenttheir side of events? In this we need all people, from governmetn, police officals, regular police officers, activests, strangers walking by, people living in the area, people that came to Toronto. Every one from every angle must be allowed their say.
Basiclly everything we as citiziens need to know.
Step one, agreeing to have one, Step two, How to have it. Step three, when to have it. st
Sat, 2010-07-10 07:57
#47
dandmb50
How does the story go .. The military came forward and shut down the Jew that was peacefully protesting and arrested him, then they got away with it, so they came and took away the Christian for peacefully preaching on the street, arrested and took him away and nobody said anything.
Then they came for me, and I wish I had spoken up earlier when they took away the Jew and the Christian.
We better all wake up and not let this happen to any of us because we may end up in Torontonomo Bay (Detention Centre) I bet it's still open.
Daniel .. Toronto
Sat, 2010-07-10 11:39
#48
writer
Harper's security: a mean dog's breakfast: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/834287--chain-of-command-questio...
I am not a number! I am a human machine! http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/834461
Sat, 2010-07-10 13:25
#49
Hear, hear... this point is not made often enough. Although, on the sunny side, at least the citizens aren't being referred to as "clients" or "stakeholders".By the way. When did we become "civlians" I thought we were "citizens."
They are using the term "civilian" to differentiate between citizens who are police and citizens who are not police. The idea of a "civilian review" is that citizens who are not police will be doing the review.
I don't buy the impartiality, considering that people on the Police Services Board have been tripping all over themselves since day one to praise the police actions as much as humanly possible, but in this case, that is why they used the term "civilian" as opposed to "citizen". We're all citizens, including the police.
Sat, 2010-07-10 14:34
#50
I don't know whether it's still true, but we used to get fairly frequent hints that any member of the Police Services Board who stood up to the chief(s) could face some serious intimidation, maybe even legal trouble. Someone else will remember better what Judy Sgro faced, eg, in the 1990s (scary, as I vaguely recall), or Alan Heisey in 2004, slurred and smeared for comments he'd made years before about pornography (Fantino-party vengeance). Maybe all the independent thinkers (if any) learned to stay away from that appointment?
Sat, 2010-07-10 17:15
#51
This is one of the thoughts I had on this whole thing, is that the underlying problem is that the police in Toronto have become a political force. I'm not even sure you could tag it with being "Conservative" or "Liberal" (though I would tag it as fascist) but just a political force along the same lines developers are, etc.
Maybe that's an inevitability of metropolitan cities. Or, maybe it's a right of passage that happens, then the power is broken, eventually.
It might be instructive to look at what's happened in other cities. I'm sure there are experts on municiple governance here who would know.
Little help?