Allegations of abuse by women detained during the G20 summit are included in an alternative report presented Thursday into how Toronto police investigate sexual violence against women.
“The word of the police is not reliable,” said the activist known as Jane Doe at a news conference Thursday to detail those allegations. Women “hesitate to come forward because of fear of violence.”
Doe, the pseudonym of a woman who successfully sued police in 1986 after she was raped, women’s studies professor Beverly Bain, and Toronto Rape Crisis Centre counsellor Grissel Orellana were to present their own report to Toronto Police Services this afternoon as a counterpoint to the auditor-general’s report on how police handle sexual assault cases.
Toronto police “are unfit to conduct a review against themselves. They are not equipped to investigate themselves,” said Farrah Miranda, a spokeswoman for the activist group Toronto Community Mobilization Network that organized the news conference.
“Women’s groups are connecting the G20 violence against women with the ongoing police violence against women,” she said.
Allegations of sexual abuse first surfaced as women were being released from the Eastern Ave. detention centre during the June 26-27 weekend that brought world leaders and thousands of demonstrators to Toronto.
“It is the fear of sexual assault that was much more profound for them,” said Bain of the women detailing their allegations Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board has appointed lawyer Doug Hunt to investigate police accountability during the summit. Toronto police have asked people with allegations against them during that weekend to file a formal complaint.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
discrimination during cadet training .
Expelled cadet wants to go back to RCMP
Wed, Jul 21 - 5:03 AM
TORONTO — An expelled RCMP cadet said Tuesday that he’s looking forward to heading back to training after winning an appeal against the Mounties in a discrimination case stretching back 11 years.
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that Ali Tahmourpour was the victim of racial discrimination during cadet training in 1999 in Regina.
"I’m going back," Tahmourpour, 37, said in a phone interview.
"I’m fit in every respect to be a policeman and I have something to contribute to the RCMP. I love the RCMP."
Tahmourpour, a Muslim of Iranian heritage, had won his case in 2008, when the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled in his favour. The tribunal found he was verbally abused, unfairly evaluated and singled out by his instructors because of his religious belief.
The RCMP terminated his contract after completing 14 of the 22 weeks training, and prevented him from enrolling again.
The tribunal found those decisions were made "based in part on his race, religion and-or ethnic or national background," and that he "was not given an equal opportunity to develop and demonstrate his skills."
The RCMP took the case to Federal Court, where a judge set aside the commission’s findings and ordered the matter back to the tribunal.
On Monday the Federal Court of Appeal restored the commission’s 2008 ruling, except on the issue of compensation — which has been referred back to the tribunal.
Wed, Jul 21 - 5:03 AM
TORONTO — An expelled RCMP cadet said Tuesday that he’s looking forward to heading back to training after winning an appeal against the Mounties in a discrimination case stretching back 11 years.
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that Ali Tahmourpour was the victim of racial discrimination during cadet training in 1999 in Regina.
"I’m going back," Tahmourpour, 37, said in a phone interview.
"I’m fit in every respect to be a policeman and I have something to contribute to the RCMP. I love the RCMP."
Tahmourpour, a Muslim of Iranian heritage, had won his case in 2008, when the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled in his favour. The tribunal found he was verbally abused, unfairly evaluated and singled out by his instructors because of his religious belief.
The RCMP terminated his contract after completing 14 of the 22 weeks training, and prevented him from enrolling again.
The tribunal found those decisions were made "based in part on his race, religion and-or ethnic or national background," and that he "was not given an equal opportunity to develop and demonstrate his skills."
The RCMP took the case to Federal Court, where a judge set aside the commission’s findings and ordered the matter back to the tribunal.
On Monday the Federal Court of Appeal restored the commission’s 2008 ruling, except on the issue of compensation — which has been referred back to the tribunal.
MPs question public works adviser's dismissal CBC News .
MPs question public works adviser's dismissal
John Nicol CBC News
Opposition MPs want to know why the federal Conservative government fired a public works special adviser who went on to win a precedent-setting award for damages.
Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert, brought wrongful dismissal charges against the federal government. CBC) Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert hired in 2005 under the Liberal government's attempt to cut billions from the federal budget, was unceremoniously fired at the end of August 2006 after erroneously becoming the subject of a media-led scandal.
Instead of defending him, Public Works let him suffer in silence under the media storm and then said they were laying him off with fellow special adviser David Rotor.
A public service labour board adjudicator ruled, in a decision released Tuesday, that Tipple deserved $1.35 million and counting for the psychological damage, loss in reputation and wages. Rotor, who was also a victim of similar treatment, is expected to reach a similar settlement.
"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry, why were their reputations destroyed, and why are taxpayers paying millions of dollars to cover up for the mishandling of this file by Michael Fortier and his colleagues," said NDP MP Charlie Angus, referring to the former minister for public works.
Although the adjudicator, Dan Quigley, laid much of the blame on deputy minister I. David Marshall for casting Rotor and Tipple adrift in a callous manner, he noted in his decision that Marshall had a meeting with the minister during which his thoughts "crystallized" on the need for their dismissal.
'"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry ….'
— NDP MP Charlie AngusMarshall is traveling in Europe and unavailable for comment, but another former public works minister, Liberal MP Scott Brison, knew Marshall well and finds it shocking that Marshall would have instigated their dismissal.
"David Marshall was extremely dedicated to The Way Forward reform package and to ultimately help the Canadian taxpayers save billions of dollars," Brison told the CBC on Wednesday from Halifax. "These two gentlemen were committed to the same program and they were all part of the same team.
"I think there's a larger agenda at work here."
Quigley, upon hearing the testimony from Marshall, also found it shocking that he could fire two men who were implementing his program and about whom he gave glowing reviews. The adjudicator called Marshall's treatment of Tipple "disingenuous" and "callous."
"In all my dealings with Mr. Marshall he was fair and decent, hard-working and earnest, and focused on getting the best value for Canadian taxpayers," Brison said. For Marshall to do what he did, "I believe there was significant political pressure from either the minister's office, or perhaps even the Prime Minister's Office, to get rid of these two men."
Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says the decision was made by Public Works and Government Services Canada.
"It was the Department of PWGSC who hired these individuals," he wrote in an email. "It was then PWGSC Deputy Minister David Marshall's decision to end their term.
"This had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office."
Reviewing decision
A Public Works Department spokesman said department officials "will review the Public Service Labour Relations Board's decision and determine its options. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment on these legal proceedings."
Angus, the NDP public works critic, doesn't believe the government has many options, especially when the adjudicator had to make five extra disclosure orders —what he called "obstruction" — when the government continuously failed to deliver information for the case that was drawn out over almost four years.
"When you read the decision, it's a staggering indictment of this government," Angus said in an interview in Ottawa. "I mean, what you're seeing is a government that allowed the reputation of two men, who suddenly became problematic, to be trashed … to see obstruction of justice.
"You know, it certainly would send a chill down the spines of anybody who has to deal with this government on any level."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/20/tipple-public-works-reaction.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uI5PA1pm
John Nicol CBC News
Opposition MPs want to know why the federal Conservative government fired a public works special adviser who went on to win a precedent-setting award for damages.
Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert, brought wrongful dismissal charges against the federal government. CBC) Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert hired in 2005 under the Liberal government's attempt to cut billions from the federal budget, was unceremoniously fired at the end of August 2006 after erroneously becoming the subject of a media-led scandal.
Instead of defending him, Public Works let him suffer in silence under the media storm and then said they were laying him off with fellow special adviser David Rotor.
A public service labour board adjudicator ruled, in a decision released Tuesday, that Tipple deserved $1.35 million and counting for the psychological damage, loss in reputation and wages. Rotor, who was also a victim of similar treatment, is expected to reach a similar settlement.
"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry, why were their reputations destroyed, and why are taxpayers paying millions of dollars to cover up for the mishandling of this file by Michael Fortier and his colleagues," said NDP MP Charlie Angus, referring to the former minister for public works.
Although the adjudicator, Dan Quigley, laid much of the blame on deputy minister I. David Marshall for casting Rotor and Tipple adrift in a callous manner, he noted in his decision that Marshall had a meeting with the minister during which his thoughts "crystallized" on the need for their dismissal.
'"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry ….'
— NDP MP Charlie AngusMarshall is traveling in Europe and unavailable for comment, but another former public works minister, Liberal MP Scott Brison, knew Marshall well and finds it shocking that Marshall would have instigated their dismissal.
"David Marshall was extremely dedicated to The Way Forward reform package and to ultimately help the Canadian taxpayers save billions of dollars," Brison told the CBC on Wednesday from Halifax. "These two gentlemen were committed to the same program and they were all part of the same team.
"I think there's a larger agenda at work here."
Quigley, upon hearing the testimony from Marshall, also found it shocking that he could fire two men who were implementing his program and about whom he gave glowing reviews. The adjudicator called Marshall's treatment of Tipple "disingenuous" and "callous."
"In all my dealings with Mr. Marshall he was fair and decent, hard-working and earnest, and focused on getting the best value for Canadian taxpayers," Brison said. For Marshall to do what he did, "I believe there was significant political pressure from either the minister's office, or perhaps even the Prime Minister's Office, to get rid of these two men."
Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says the decision was made by Public Works and Government Services Canada.
"It was the Department of PWGSC who hired these individuals," he wrote in an email. "It was then PWGSC Deputy Minister David Marshall's decision to end their term.
"This had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office."
Reviewing decision
A Public Works Department spokesman said department officials "will review the Public Service Labour Relations Board's decision and determine its options. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment on these legal proceedings."
Angus, the NDP public works critic, doesn't believe the government has many options, especially when the adjudicator had to make five extra disclosure orders —what he called "obstruction" — when the government continuously failed to deliver information for the case that was drawn out over almost four years.
"When you read the decision, it's a staggering indictment of this government," Angus said in an interview in Ottawa. "I mean, what you're seeing is a government that allowed the reputation of two men, who suddenly became problematic, to be trashed … to see obstruction of justice.
"You know, it certainly would send a chill down the spines of anybody who has to deal with this government on any level."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/20/tipple-public-works-reaction.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uI5PA1pm
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
long road to justice .... Omar Khadr
Omar Khadr's long road to justice
t was almost exactly eight years ago when a firefight broke out as U.S. forces approached a mud-walled compound in eastern Afghanistan. When the dust settled, a Green Beret was mortally wounded and four other U.S. soldiers had sustained injuries. Beneath the rubble, next to a dead body, lay Omar Khadr, a Toronto-born 15-year-old, blinded by shrapnel and bleeding from bullet wounds to his chest and shoulder. He was taken into custody and transferred to the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, accused of lobbing the grenade that killed the U.S. soldier.
All these years later, it looks as though Mr. Khadr, now 23, will have his day in court, starting on Aug. 10, before a U.S. military commission. The precedent-setting case will be the first war-crimes trial for the Obama administration, and it will involve a defendant considered by many to have been a child soldier, deserving special protection because of his age.
Key players, including the Harper government, Canada's top court, the Obama administration and Mr. Khadr himself, have all made important moves recently that could help to shape his future. Here is a look at the latest developments:
January, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within a year.
January, 2010 The Guantanamo Bay detention centre remains open, and Omar Khadr is the only remaining Westerner held among nearly 200 detainees. (There are 180 now.) David Hicks, known as the Australian Taliban, was repatriated in 2007. Detainees have been released to several other Western nations, including Denmark, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Britain.
Jan. 29, 2010 The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canada has violated Mr. Khadr's rights by taking part in illegal interrogation methods, including sleep deprivation. But it says the federal government must be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Feb. 16, 2010 Ottawa announces it has delivered a diplomatic note to the United States in response to the Supreme Court ruling. The note asks the U.S. not to use Canadian-collected evidence in prosecutions against Mr. Khadr, a gesture observers call “inadequate and invalid.”
April, 2010 The senior U.S. special forces officer in charge of the assault in Afghanistan where Mr. Khadr was captured testifies that he was only trying to set the record straight when he changed his report of these events after the fact. He initially wrote that the person who threw the grenade was killed himself. The military official changed that report some time later to indicate that the thrower of the grenade had survived. Mr. Khadr's lawyer claimed the changed report was evidence that the “government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
May, 2010 The lead military interrogator at Bagram prison in Afghanistan testifies that he used accounts of Afghan boys being fatally gang-raped “by four big black guys” to extract Mr. Khadr's confessions.
May 25, 2010 A New York Times editorial headlined “Tainted justice” calls on the Obama administration to repatriate Mr. Khadr. It states, “The conditions of Khadr's imprisonment have been in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international accords on the treatment of children.”
July 5, 2010 The Federal Court of Canada rules that the federal government has a week to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights. “This is the time to bring Omar Khadr home,” says NDP human-rights critic Wayne Marston, who contends that Mr. Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his alleged offences.
July 7, 2010 Mr. Khadr says he wants to fire his court-appointed U.S. lawyers, saying he will defend himself before the U.S. military tribunal. “It's going to make it even more farcical if there's no defence,” says Nathan Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers.
July 12, 2010 At a pre-trial hearing, Mr. Khadr calls the military commission process a sham. He also reveals that he was offered a deal if he pleaded guilty: a 30-year sentence, with five years to be spent at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the rest in Canada. He rejected the deal.
“I will not willingly let the U.S. government use me to fulfill its goal,” Mr. Khadr says. “I have been used too many times when I was a child, and that's why I'm here – taking blame for things I didn't have a choice in doing, but was forced to do by elders.”
The Harper government issues a statement saying it will appeal the Federal Court decision requiring the government to determine how to safeguard Mr. Khadr's rights. The move is a bid to avoid being compelled to ask the United States to send Mr. Khadr back to Canada.
Aug. 10, 2010 Omar Khadr's trial before a U.S. military commission is scheduled to begin.
t was almost exactly eight years ago when a firefight broke out as U.S. forces approached a mud-walled compound in eastern Afghanistan. When the dust settled, a Green Beret was mortally wounded and four other U.S. soldiers had sustained injuries. Beneath the rubble, next to a dead body, lay Omar Khadr, a Toronto-born 15-year-old, blinded by shrapnel and bleeding from bullet wounds to his chest and shoulder. He was taken into custody and transferred to the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, accused of lobbing the grenade that killed the U.S. soldier.
All these years later, it looks as though Mr. Khadr, now 23, will have his day in court, starting on Aug. 10, before a U.S. military commission. The precedent-setting case will be the first war-crimes trial for the Obama administration, and it will involve a defendant considered by many to have been a child soldier, deserving special protection because of his age.
Key players, including the Harper government, Canada's top court, the Obama administration and Mr. Khadr himself, have all made important moves recently that could help to shape his future. Here is a look at the latest developments:
January, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within a year.
January, 2010 The Guantanamo Bay detention centre remains open, and Omar Khadr is the only remaining Westerner held among nearly 200 detainees. (There are 180 now.) David Hicks, known as the Australian Taliban, was repatriated in 2007. Detainees have been released to several other Western nations, including Denmark, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Britain.
Jan. 29, 2010 The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canada has violated Mr. Khadr's rights by taking part in illegal interrogation methods, including sleep deprivation. But it says the federal government must be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Feb. 16, 2010 Ottawa announces it has delivered a diplomatic note to the United States in response to the Supreme Court ruling. The note asks the U.S. not to use Canadian-collected evidence in prosecutions against Mr. Khadr, a gesture observers call “inadequate and invalid.”
April, 2010 The senior U.S. special forces officer in charge of the assault in Afghanistan where Mr. Khadr was captured testifies that he was only trying to set the record straight when he changed his report of these events after the fact. He initially wrote that the person who threw the grenade was killed himself. The military official changed that report some time later to indicate that the thrower of the grenade had survived. Mr. Khadr's lawyer claimed the changed report was evidence that the “government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
May, 2010 The lead military interrogator at Bagram prison in Afghanistan testifies that he used accounts of Afghan boys being fatally gang-raped “by four big black guys” to extract Mr. Khadr's confessions.
May 25, 2010 A New York Times editorial headlined “Tainted justice” calls on the Obama administration to repatriate Mr. Khadr. It states, “The conditions of Khadr's imprisonment have been in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international accords on the treatment of children.”
July 5, 2010 The Federal Court of Canada rules that the federal government has a week to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights. “This is the time to bring Omar Khadr home,” says NDP human-rights critic Wayne Marston, who contends that Mr. Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his alleged offences.
July 7, 2010 Mr. Khadr says he wants to fire his court-appointed U.S. lawyers, saying he will defend himself before the U.S. military tribunal. “It's going to make it even more farcical if there's no defence,” says Nathan Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers.
July 12, 2010 At a pre-trial hearing, Mr. Khadr calls the military commission process a sham. He also reveals that he was offered a deal if he pleaded guilty: a 30-year sentence, with five years to be spent at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the rest in Canada. He rejected the deal.
“I will not willingly let the U.S. government use me to fulfill its goal,” Mr. Khadr says. “I have been used too many times when I was a child, and that's why I'm here – taking blame for things I didn't have a choice in doing, but was forced to do by elders.”
The Harper government issues a statement saying it will appeal the Federal Court decision requiring the government to determine how to safeguard Mr. Khadr's rights. The move is a bid to avoid being compelled to ask the United States to send Mr. Khadr back to Canada.
Aug. 10, 2010 Omar Khadr's trial before a U.S. military commission is scheduled to begin.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Tiny bubbles cause international stir
Tiny bubbles cause international stir
'Officer Bubbles' video goes viral around the world
By DON PEAT, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: July 16, 2010 7:37am
The video, called “Booked for Bubbles?” and posted by therealnews.com, includes one officer stating in no uncertain terms he’ll arrest Courtney Winkels if she keeps blowing bubbles at him and a fellow officer.
In the video posted on YouTube, the officer told Winkels, if the bubble touches him, she’ll be arrested for assault.
“Do you understand me?” he asked.
“Bubbles?” Winkels asked.
“Yes, that’s right, it’s a deliberate act on your behalf, I’m going to arrest you,” the cop replies. “You either knock it off with those bubbles. If you touch me with that bubble you’re going into custody.”
In what the video describes as “moments later,” “Bubble Girl” is shown getting arrested.
The video, filmed by Nazrul Islam, was even featured on FoxNews this week followed by a lively debate around whether or not you can get arrested for blowing bubbles at police officers.
Toronto Police spokesman Meaghan Gray declined to comment on the video.
Gray said the force hasn’t been commenting on individual photos and videos from the G20.
She pointed out with any photo or video it is hard to establish the context an event takes place in.
In a statement to the Sun, Winkels stressed she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles.
“The fact is that the bubbles had nothing to do with my arrest,” she said. “The reason I was arrested is because I was wearing a backpack and had a lawyer’s phone number written on my arm. This number was given out by lawyers, and they advised us to have it written somewhere on our bodies.”
The 20-year-old was a volunteer street medic at the G20 and said she “wasn’t even protesting.”
“My medical supplies were taken and suggested they could be used as evidence for my charge,” she said.
Court records show she is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.
Winkels said she was talking to another officer when “Officer Bubbles” came over and angrily told her to put her bubbles away.
“I was having a conversation with the female officer,” she said. “She asked me my name, and I preferred not to give it. If she had asked me to identify myself to the police, I would have shown them my ID which I was carrying in my pocket, however, she was talking to me person to person, not officer to civilian.”
Winkels asked the female officer if her bubbles were bothering her.
“She laughed and shrugged her shoulders, which I perceived as a ‘No big deal!’” she said. “After this point, Officer Bubbles stormed over and said what he said on the video.”
Winkels said she put the bubbles away and the officer went away.
She was later swept up with others when arrests were made at Queen St. W. and Noble St. in Parkdale.
“I was not ‘blowing them in his face’ or being rude, I was simply trying to keep the mood of the crowd light, as I figure happy people are less likely to start a violent outbreak,” Winkels said. “There was no way I could have blown them in his face because, as I said, he was nowhere near me when I was blowing them, until he came over to talk to me. He was standing roughly 20 or 30 feet away, and nowhere near the range of the bubbles.”
Winkels said she feels she was not treated fairly during the G20.
“I was denied many of my civil and human rights, and this whole situation has been blown out of proportion, no pun intended,” she said.
'Officer Bubbles' video goes viral around the world
By DON PEAT, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: July 16, 2010 7:37am
The video, called “Booked for Bubbles?” and posted by therealnews.com, includes one officer stating in no uncertain terms he’ll arrest Courtney Winkels if she keeps blowing bubbles at him and a fellow officer.
In the video posted on YouTube, the officer told Winkels, if the bubble touches him, she’ll be arrested for assault.
“Do you understand me?” he asked.
“Bubbles?” Winkels asked.
“Yes, that’s right, it’s a deliberate act on your behalf, I’m going to arrest you,” the cop replies. “You either knock it off with those bubbles. If you touch me with that bubble you’re going into custody.”
In what the video describes as “moments later,” “Bubble Girl” is shown getting arrested.
The video, filmed by Nazrul Islam, was even featured on FoxNews this week followed by a lively debate around whether or not you can get arrested for blowing bubbles at police officers.
Toronto Police spokesman Meaghan Gray declined to comment on the video.
Gray said the force hasn’t been commenting on individual photos and videos from the G20.
She pointed out with any photo or video it is hard to establish the context an event takes place in.
In a statement to the Sun, Winkels stressed she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles.
“The fact is that the bubbles had nothing to do with my arrest,” she said. “The reason I was arrested is because I was wearing a backpack and had a lawyer’s phone number written on my arm. This number was given out by lawyers, and they advised us to have it written somewhere on our bodies.”
The 20-year-old was a volunteer street medic at the G20 and said she “wasn’t even protesting.”
“My medical supplies were taken and suggested they could be used as evidence for my charge,” she said.
Court records show she is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.
Winkels said she was talking to another officer when “Officer Bubbles” came over and angrily told her to put her bubbles away.
“I was having a conversation with the female officer,” she said. “She asked me my name, and I preferred not to give it. If she had asked me to identify myself to the police, I would have shown them my ID which I was carrying in my pocket, however, she was talking to me person to person, not officer to civilian.”
Winkels asked the female officer if her bubbles were bothering her.
“She laughed and shrugged her shoulders, which I perceived as a ‘No big deal!’” she said. “After this point, Officer Bubbles stormed over and said what he said on the video.”
Winkels said she put the bubbles away and the officer went away.
She was later swept up with others when arrests were made at Queen St. W. and Noble St. in Parkdale.
“I was not ‘blowing them in his face’ or being rude, I was simply trying to keep the mood of the crowd light, as I figure happy people are less likely to start a violent outbreak,” Winkels said. “There was no way I could have blown them in his face because, as I said, he was nowhere near me when I was blowing them, until he came over to talk to me. He was standing roughly 20 or 30 feet away, and nowhere near the range of the bubbles.”
Winkels said she feels she was not treated fairly during the G20.
“I was denied many of my civil and human rights, and this whole situation has been blown out of proportion, no pun intended,” she said.
Warning sirens should have gone off all across Ottawa, and especially in the Prime Minister’s Office, when Stephen Harper announced last December that Toronto would host the G20 summit.!
Warning sirens should have gone off all across Ottawa, and especially in the Prime Minister’s Office, when Stephen Harper announced last December that Toronto would host the G20 summit.
The sirens should have sounded not just because of the potential for violent protests in downtown Toronto, but because of the possible damage that the riots and the subsequent official inquiries might do to Harper’s political fortunes.
Whether he likes it or not, Harper may well discover his election prospects forever entangled in the aftermath of the G20 summit.
So far, though, he has managed to escape the post-G20 fallout, which includes calls for public inquiries into police actions that weekend, the threats of lawsuits against the City of Toronto and demands for compensation for lost business and destroyed property.
Indeed, since it ended nearly three weeks ago, Harper has said nothing about the summit. Instead, he’s spent the last weeks merrily travelling across Canada, enjoying the Calgary Stampede and hitting the summer festival circuit.
He’s left it to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to take the heat for the summit while at the same time ensuring his Tory members on the Commons committee on public safety successfully blocked efforts by opposition MPs earlier this week to launch hearings into the summit policing.
Despite his silence, Harper has much to answer for about the G20 in Toronto and the G8 held a day earlier in Huntsville — from why the summit was held in downtown Toronto to the staggering $1.2 billion cost to questionable federal spending in the Muskoka area.
Such questions deserve a full airing by Harper.
Inquiries are rightly being held into police actions that resulted in some 1,000 people arrested during the two-day summit in what many contend was an unprecedented and excessive manner.
The Toronto Police Services Board and the RCMP will both look into how police performed during the summit.
Meanwhile, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin will investigate the Ontario government’s use of the Public Works Protection Act, which at first was described as giving police the power to detain and arrest anyone within five metres of the security fence surrounding the summit’s no-go zone.
But a separate inquiry is needed into the overall planning and handling of the G20 by Harper and his government.
Except for a few tourism officials thrilled with the thought of packed hotel rooms, everyone knew that sticking the summit in the middle of our largest city was a bad idea.
So, was it stupid decision-making by Harper’s advisers or simple incompetence that resulted in the summit being foisted on Toronto?
Adam Vaughan, whose city council ward was most affected by the summit, accuses the Harper government of a “cascade of failures.”
Clearly, Harper doesn’t want to be seen as bowing to public pressure to hold a full-scale inquiry, given that he is on record as opposing a public probe of the summit security.
What’s stopping him, though, from calling it a “review,” as long as the result is the same, namely a full look at all the decisions leading up to the fateful summit.
Here are some questions a review panel could examine:
• How did the costs reach $1.2 billion?
• What efforts were made to control spending?
• Did 10,000 delegates really need to be in attendance?
• Who approved more than $50 million in spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement’s riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka for such “summit-related” items as bandshells and street paving in towns never visited by any delegate?
• Who decided to hold the summit in downtown Toronto instead of on the CNE grounds?
• Why was Toronto Mayor David Miller’s advice ignored?
• What steps were taken to ensure no security overkill?
• Who was in overall control of spending?
• Who authorized the fake lake?
The list goes on.
These questions will likely dog Harper right to the election.
And unless he answers them, no good will come out of the summit for Harper, just as nothing good has come out of it for Toronto.
The sirens should have sounded not just because of the potential for violent protests in downtown Toronto, but because of the possible damage that the riots and the subsequent official inquiries might do to Harper’s political fortunes.
Whether he likes it or not, Harper may well discover his election prospects forever entangled in the aftermath of the G20 summit.
So far, though, he has managed to escape the post-G20 fallout, which includes calls for public inquiries into police actions that weekend, the threats of lawsuits against the City of Toronto and demands for compensation for lost business and destroyed property.
Indeed, since it ended nearly three weeks ago, Harper has said nothing about the summit. Instead, he’s spent the last weeks merrily travelling across Canada, enjoying the Calgary Stampede and hitting the summer festival circuit.
He’s left it to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to take the heat for the summit while at the same time ensuring his Tory members on the Commons committee on public safety successfully blocked efforts by opposition MPs earlier this week to launch hearings into the summit policing.
Despite his silence, Harper has much to answer for about the G20 in Toronto and the G8 held a day earlier in Huntsville — from why the summit was held in downtown Toronto to the staggering $1.2 billion cost to questionable federal spending in the Muskoka area.
Such questions deserve a full airing by Harper.
Inquiries are rightly being held into police actions that resulted in some 1,000 people arrested during the two-day summit in what many contend was an unprecedented and excessive manner.
The Toronto Police Services Board and the RCMP will both look into how police performed during the summit.
Meanwhile, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin will investigate the Ontario government’s use of the Public Works Protection Act, which at first was described as giving police the power to detain and arrest anyone within five metres of the security fence surrounding the summit’s no-go zone.
But a separate inquiry is needed into the overall planning and handling of the G20 by Harper and his government.
Except for a few tourism officials thrilled with the thought of packed hotel rooms, everyone knew that sticking the summit in the middle of our largest city was a bad idea.
So, was it stupid decision-making by Harper’s advisers or simple incompetence that resulted in the summit being foisted on Toronto?
Adam Vaughan, whose city council ward was most affected by the summit, accuses the Harper government of a “cascade of failures.”
Clearly, Harper doesn’t want to be seen as bowing to public pressure to hold a full-scale inquiry, given that he is on record as opposing a public probe of the summit security.
What’s stopping him, though, from calling it a “review,” as long as the result is the same, namely a full look at all the decisions leading up to the fateful summit.
Here are some questions a review panel could examine:
• How did the costs reach $1.2 billion?
• What efforts were made to control spending?
• Did 10,000 delegates really need to be in attendance?
• Who approved more than $50 million in spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement’s riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka for such “summit-related” items as bandshells and street paving in towns never visited by any delegate?
• Who decided to hold the summit in downtown Toronto instead of on the CNE grounds?
• Why was Toronto Mayor David Miller’s advice ignored?
• What steps were taken to ensure no security overkill?
• Who was in overall control of spending?
• Who authorized the fake lake?
The list goes on.
These questions will likely dog Harper right to the election.
And unless he answers them, no good will come out of the summit for Harper, just as nothing good has come out of it for Toronto.
G20 bubbles prompted arrest threat .... “Bubbles?”
G20 bubbles prompted arrest threat
Kenyon Wallace July 17, 2010
A soap bubble floating toward a heavily armed police line during the G20 summit was apparently dangerous enough to prompt one Toronto Police officer to threaten the playful bubble blower with arrest.
The exchange was captured on video and has become a YouTube sensation, drawing close to 100,000 views, while inspiring a charged debate on Fox News over whether one can be arrested for blowing bubbles in the direction of police.
“If a bubble touches me, you’re going to be arrested for assault. Do you understand?” says the officer in the video wearing a badge bearing the name A. Josephs.
“Bubbles?” asks Courtney Winkels, the 20-year-old bubble blower.
“Yes, that’s right, it’s a deliberate act on your behalf. I’m going to arrest you. Do you understand me?” the officer responds. “You touch me with that bubble, you’re going into custody.”
A look of shock comes over Ms. Winkels’ face as she complies with the officer’s instructions to put the bubbles away.
“I was having a conversation with a female officer and I even asked her if my bubbles bothered her. She smiled and shrugged it off so I figured it didn’t….. It’s not like I was throwing stuff at them,” Ms. Winkels told the National Post on the phone from her family’s cottage in Huntsville. “Then this big officer marches over and he’s totally in my face.”
Related
Toronto police make two more G20-related arrests from ‘Most Wanted’ list
Toronto police release top 10 ‘most wanted’ list of G20 protesters
Video: Latest weapon of choice for G20 protesters: Bubbles
.Shortly after her exchange with the angry officer, which took place on the final day of the summit, Ms. Winkels and several others gathered near Queen Street West and Noble Street in Parkdale were arrested. She spent the next 47 hours in police custody moving from the Eastern Avenue detention centre to the Vanier detention centre for women in Milton, before being charged with conspiracy to commit mischief.
The charge is unrelated to the bubble incident, she said, and pertains to the eyewash she was carrying in her capacity as a member of the Toronto Street Medics, an independent organization of volunteers offering medical care to people injured during the G20 protests.
“The police said I could throw it in their faces and temporarily blind them. I was, like, ‘Are you kidding me?’ “
She said police had searched her bag the day before and told her she could carry her medical supplies.
Toronto Police spokeswoman Meaghan Gray wouldn’t comment specifically on the bubble-blowing incident.
“A video is minutes in time that doesn’t necessarily accurately reflect all of the circumstances that were involved in that particular situation,” Ms. Gray said. “If the individual in that video feels like she was mistreated by a police officer, she should file a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.”
Ms. Winkels said it was never her intention to antagonize police by blowing bubbles.
“I realize now maybe the bubbles weren’t the greatest idea — but still, it’s bubbles,” she said. “I was just keeping the mood light.”
.Posted in: G20, Posted Toronto Tags: Toronto Police, g20, Bubbles .
Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/17/g20-bubbles-prompted-arrest-threat/#ixzz0u679SUya
Kenyon Wallace July 17, 2010
A soap bubble floating toward a heavily armed police line during the G20 summit was apparently dangerous enough to prompt one Toronto Police officer to threaten the playful bubble blower with arrest.
The exchange was captured on video and has become a YouTube sensation, drawing close to 100,000 views, while inspiring a charged debate on Fox News over whether one can be arrested for blowing bubbles in the direction of police.
“If a bubble touches me, you’re going to be arrested for assault. Do you understand?” says the officer in the video wearing a badge bearing the name A. Josephs.
“Bubbles?” asks Courtney Winkels, the 20-year-old bubble blower.
“Yes, that’s right, it’s a deliberate act on your behalf. I’m going to arrest you. Do you understand me?” the officer responds. “You touch me with that bubble, you’re going into custody.”
A look of shock comes over Ms. Winkels’ face as she complies with the officer’s instructions to put the bubbles away.
“I was having a conversation with a female officer and I even asked her if my bubbles bothered her. She smiled and shrugged it off so I figured it didn’t….. It’s not like I was throwing stuff at them,” Ms. Winkels told the National Post on the phone from her family’s cottage in Huntsville. “Then this big officer marches over and he’s totally in my face.”
Related
Toronto police make two more G20-related arrests from ‘Most Wanted’ list
Toronto police release top 10 ‘most wanted’ list of G20 protesters
Video: Latest weapon of choice for G20 protesters: Bubbles
.Shortly after her exchange with the angry officer, which took place on the final day of the summit, Ms. Winkels and several others gathered near Queen Street West and Noble Street in Parkdale were arrested. She spent the next 47 hours in police custody moving from the Eastern Avenue detention centre to the Vanier detention centre for women in Milton, before being charged with conspiracy to commit mischief.
The charge is unrelated to the bubble incident, she said, and pertains to the eyewash she was carrying in her capacity as a member of the Toronto Street Medics, an independent organization of volunteers offering medical care to people injured during the G20 protests.
“The police said I could throw it in their faces and temporarily blind them. I was, like, ‘Are you kidding me?’ “
She said police had searched her bag the day before and told her she could carry her medical supplies.
Toronto Police spokeswoman Meaghan Gray wouldn’t comment specifically on the bubble-blowing incident.
“A video is minutes in time that doesn’t necessarily accurately reflect all of the circumstances that were involved in that particular situation,” Ms. Gray said. “If the individual in that video feels like she was mistreated by a police officer, she should file a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.”
Ms. Winkels said it was never her intention to antagonize police by blowing bubbles.
“I realize now maybe the bubbles weren’t the greatest idea — but still, it’s bubbles,” she said. “I was just keeping the mood light.”
.Posted in: G20, Posted Toronto Tags: Toronto Police, g20, Bubbles .
Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/17/g20-bubbles-prompted-arrest-threat/#ixzz0u679SUya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)