Monday, February 21, 2011

Doug Christie: Police must be accountable to earn respect

Doug Christie: Police must be accountable to earn respect

Rule of law must apply to officers and the public in equal measure


By Doug Christie, Special to Times Colonist February 17, 2011


Police deserve to be admired and respected to the extent they protect society from violent criminals, theft and fraud, rape and other social evils.

But the respect they deserve can only be earned by careful attention to the law themselves and respect for the citizens they serve, whether they be drunk or sober, rich or poor, right or wrong, good or bad. Respect is a mutual thing.

It is shocking to hear of a policewoman stabbed, perhaps just because she was in uniform. It is equally shocking to hear police have shot to death Jeff Hughes and Ian Bush, or kicked a couple of people into unconsciousness to prevent a fight, or arrested someone like Mike Stebih for no good reason.

The point of this is simple. If police want to continue to be respected, they must earn it through a transparent scrutiny of their own dubious acts or questionable conduct.

To think police don't break the law on occasion would be naïve. To think prosecutors who rely on them every day as professional witnesses can impartially determine if they have broken the law or that lawyers who work with them every day can be counted on to look with dispassionate objectivity is downright childish.

There is a growing gulf between the police and public trust, which can only be fixed and crossed with any hope of restoration of faith when the police are judged for their conduct by the public themselves and not by their constant co-workers in the system itself.

This can be accomplished by an equally simple modification to our law. Every police action causing death or grievous bodily harm to a citizen should be subject to an inquest, which must commence within a short and reasonable time.

At this inquest a jury should be empanelled, which has the power to attribute fault and law charges under the Criminal Code. Any aggrieved party should have standing to appear, testify and be represented to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses, just like at a coroner's inquest today.

The results of the jury's verdict would be binding and unappealable. They could lay charges and could recommend remedial action. The minor modifications to the Coroners Act and the appointment of legally trained coroners would cost money, but respect for law is not cheap and the absence of it causes a violent breakdown of the whole society and the safety and security of police and the public.

If police want respect, and they should deserve it, they must stand before the public as equals, not above us with the protections of their friends, in a legal system most of us do not even understand.

I do not want to wait from Oct. 23, 2009, to perhaps April 2011 for an inquest into the death of Jeff Hughes, who was shot to death in Nanaimo in the presence of more than five police officers, to know what happened and why.

Is there a shortage of witnesses? Can't they remember what happened? If we wait much longer, they may have that excuse.

Is the public satisfied when teenager Ian Bush is shot in the back of the head by a lone RCMP officer, less than an hour after his arrest for having an open beer bottle, and the attorney general declares no charges are warranted?

If Robert Dziekanski had not been on video, would there be a public inquiry? How difficult is it for us to see a person kicked in the head and hear that a prosecutor in the privacy of his or her office has decided no charges are warranted -- and hence we are assured justice is done?

The essential ingredient of a society where citizens and police are in agreement on the enforcement of the law is simply that the law applies to police and citizens in equal measure. The police cannot be above the law. With the present system of accountability, that impression is well-founded.

To remove the present lack of trust, true accountability must be restored. My suggestion would go a long way to achieving that end.

Doug Christie is a Victoria lawyer.






And on the Jeff Hughes case


Public to hear facts of Nanaimo shooting

Postmedia News February 18, 2011



NANAIMO — Facts surrounding the police shooting death of a 48-year-old Nanaimo man will be revealed to the public for the first time at an inquest scheduled for July.

The court proceeding will take place nearly two years after Jeffrey Scott Hughes, described by some people as a harmless man who loved the environment but by others as a neo-Nazi, was shot dead by Nanaimo RCMP outside his Selby Street apartment on Oct. 23, 2009.

The inquest is scheduled for July 25 to 29 in B.C. Supreme Court in Nanaimo. It will be heard by Coroner Marj Paonessa and a jury.





Thursday, February 17, 2011

Rick Dykstra Calls Canadians to Action

Member of Parliament Rick Dykstra, who sits on the House of Commons Justice Committee, encourages Canadians to share their thoughts and concerns about the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Contact Member of Parliament Rick Dykstra and tell him you want freedom of Canada and an end to the disgusting censorship reign of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission:

Rick Dykstra
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

(postage free)
Telephone:     (613) 992-3352
Fax:     (613) 947-4402
Web Site:!/pages/Rick-Dykstra/6448493769

Liberty strengthened in Canada as CHRC grinds to a halt


Liberty strengthened in Canada as CHRC grinds to a halt


The Ottawa Citizen – February 17, 2011
‘Gridlock’ chokes Human Rights panel: Lawyers
Lack of resources, conflict have led to ‘complete mess’
By Chris Cobb

Recent staff departures and internal turmoil at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are delaying critical rulings on grievances against government departments and federally regulated industries, lawyers charge. “It’s a complete mess right now,” human rights lawyer Paul Champ told the Citizen. “The entire human rights system is in gridlock – it’s in crisis.” “Things don’t seem to be moving very well,” said another lawyer, who asked not to be identified. “Cases are not being advanced very quickly. I don’t know if the delays are because of staff turmoil, delays in appointments or the quality of appointments – or all of the above.”

The Tribunal acts as a court to rule on human rights cases referred to it by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As first reported by the Citizen in January, more than half of the Tribunal staff have left for other public service jobs or have been sidelined by stress since the appointment of Shirish Chotalia, a Calgary lawyer named to the post by the Harper government in late 2009. According to the Public Service Alliance, five employees – roughly a quarter of the staff – have filed harassment-related complaints against Chotalia. Now, more details are emerging. The key position of executive director, vacated by the previous incumbent’s retirement last April, still hasn’t been filled by a permanent replacement, despite two completed competitions.

According to a written statement sent to the Citizen from the Tribunal, the first hire was rejected by Chotalia because of a faulty job description that “could not be reconciled with the Chair’s vision.” A second person, hired competitively after the job description had been re-jigged, failed a language test, so the position has been filled by a succession of contractors and staff. The job is currently occupied by Frederick Gloade, who is scheduled to leave following a transition period when a permanent replacement is found. …

As well, the Harper government has refused to renew contracts of experienced Tribunal members and been slow to appoint new ones. For a brief period last year, Chotalia was the only full time Tribunal member. At present there are three fulltime members, including Chotalia, and three part time members -less than half the usual complement available to hear cases.

Read the rest here.







Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Muslim Canadian Congress: "If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from"

An interesting article on Sharia Law and Multiculturalism in the Calgary Herald.


Mahfooz Kanwar "If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from"

By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald February 11, 2011

"If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from, or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law," says Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress."

About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their children from music and coed physical education programs for religious reasons.
The families believe that music is un-Islamic - just like the Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of Afghanistan - and that physical education classes should be segregated by gender even in the elementary years.

The school division is facing the music in a typically Canadian way - that is, bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these demands, even though in Manitoba, and indeed the rest of the country, music and phys. ed are compulsory parts of the curriculum.

Officials say they may try to have the Muslim children do a writing project on music to satisfy the curriculum's requirements. The school officials have apparently consulted the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and they have also spoken to a member of the Islamic community suggested by those very same Muslim parents.
In any event, the school district is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school and Canadian culture.

Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says he has some better ideas.
"I'd tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach music and physical education in our schools. If you don't like it, leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law," said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary.

That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country. "Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way around," he argues.

Kanwar, who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan via England and then the United States in 1966, says he used to buy into the "Trudeaupian mosaic, official multiculturalism (nonsense)."

He makes it clear, that like most Canadians, he is pleased and enjoys that Canada has citizens literally from every country and corner in the world, as it has enriched this country immensely. But it's official multiculturalism - the state policy "that entrenches the lie" that all cultures and beliefs are of equal value and of equal validity in Canada that he objects to.

"The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian values - not Muslim values - with British and French rule of law and traditions and that's why it's better than all of the other places in the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea that sharia law has a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada," says Kanwar, who in the 1970s was the founder and president of the Pakistan-Canada Association and a big fan of official multiculturalism. Kanwar says his views changed when he started listening to the people who joined his group.

They badmouthed Canada, weren't interested in knowing Canadians or even in learning one of our official languages. They created cultural ghettos and the Canadian government even helped fund it.
"One day it dawned on me that the reason all of us wanted to move here was going to disappear if we didn't start defending Canada and its fundamental values."

That's when Kanwar started speaking out against the dangers of official multiculturalism. He has been doing so for decades.

So, it's no surprise that Kanwar is delighted with the recent speech British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered to the 47th Munich Security Conference on Feb. 5.

"Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism," said Cameron, "we have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views - racism, for example - we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. . . . This hands-off tolerance," said Cameron, "has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless and . . . can lead them to this extremist ideology."

Kanwar actually credits German Chancellor Angela Merkel for being among the first of the world's democratic leaders to take the courageous step in October to say that official multiculturalism had "failed totally."

It appears leaders are getting bolder. During an interview with TFI channel on Feb. 10, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the government policy that encourages immigrant groups to foster distinct societies within France "is a failure."

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," he said.

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy added.

Kanwar says for years, some "non-whites like me" have felt comfortable pointing out the failings of official multiculturalism. What's encouraging is that now "whites" or the majority culture and its leaders are starting to sound the alarm.

MultiCult a failure in France? [CBN :France in civil war]