Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Mail could be moving again by Tuesday following speedy Senate approval of government legislation ordering locked-out Canada Post workers back to their jobs. : During a rare Sunday sitting, senators vigorously debated — but ultimately approved — a bill that sets the stage for resumption of mail service.
Mail could be moving again by Tuesday following speedy Senate approval of government legislation ordering locked-out Canada Post workers back to their jobs.
During a rare Sunday sitting, senators vigorously debated — but ultimately approved — a bill that sets the stage for resumption of mail service.
The legislation later received royal assent, and now becomes law.
After giving the bill a second reading, members of the upper chamber heard testimony from federal ministers, Canada Post executives and union members.
Should the measures become law Sunday, letter sorting would resume Monday in preparation for delivery the next day, Canada Post chief operating officer Jacques Cote told the Senate.
The session followed a 58-hour marathon filibuster in the House of Commons led by the opposition New Democrats. The Conservative benches erupted in cheers after MPs passed the bill Saturday night.
The government tabled the back-to-work bill last Monday after Canada Post locked out the union in the midst of rotating strikes that began early this month.
The NDP tried to stall passage of the bill, calling it unfair to the workers.
Several senators also gave the legislation a rough ride, peppering witnesses Sunday with questions about details of the bill, the longer-term implications for Canada Post and the government's overall approach to labour issues.
Liberal Senator Terry Mercer said the legislation amounted to “the beginning of an attack on public service unions.”
“This is contemptuous in its attitude toward a labour union of any kind,” added Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray.
Labour Minister Lisa Raitt told the senators the government acted to preserve Canada's economy.
“This is not our first choice in how we would like to see this labour dispute resolved, but the choice is a necessary one,” she said.
“Our citizens cannot afford to be left waiting.”
Asked if back-to-work legislation would become a standard Conservative approach to labour disruptions, Ms. Raitt said, “If it is a matter of national public interest, the government will intervene.”
The legislation actually provides members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers slightly lower wages than the last offer from the post office. It also limits an arbitrator to choosing between the final offers — winner take all — of the two negotiating parties on other matters.
Talks between the two sides collapsed late Wednesday, and a final half-hour discussion Saturday morning failed to close the gap.
The union says its workers will return to the job.
“The legislation provides for enormous financial penalties for individuals and union representatives in the case of defiance,” CUPW said in a statement Sunday. “We believe that this government would use any excuse to destroy the union should we defy the legislation, and we will not give them any opportunity to do so.”
George Floresco, one of the union vice-presidents, said people would remember “what Canada Post did and what the government did, and the Harper government is going to wear this for a long time to come.”
“We're going to take an aggressive stance in the arbitration process, even though it's a very poor way to settle issues, and we'll be coming up for bargaining in the next four years and we're going to prepare for that round ... our members are determined to keep up the fight.”
During a rare Sunday sitting, senators vigorously debated — but ultimately approved — a bill that sets the stage for resumption of mail service.
The legislation later received royal assent, and now becomes law.
After giving the bill a second reading, members of the upper chamber heard testimony from federal ministers, Canada Post executives and union members.
Should the measures become law Sunday, letter sorting would resume Monday in preparation for delivery the next day, Canada Post chief operating officer Jacques Cote told the Senate.
The session followed a 58-hour marathon filibuster in the House of Commons led by the opposition New Democrats. The Conservative benches erupted in cheers after MPs passed the bill Saturday night.
The government tabled the back-to-work bill last Monday after Canada Post locked out the union in the midst of rotating strikes that began early this month.
The NDP tried to stall passage of the bill, calling it unfair to the workers.
Several senators also gave the legislation a rough ride, peppering witnesses Sunday with questions about details of the bill, the longer-term implications for Canada Post and the government's overall approach to labour issues.
Liberal Senator Terry Mercer said the legislation amounted to “the beginning of an attack on public service unions.”
“This is contemptuous in its attitude toward a labour union of any kind,” added Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray.
Labour Minister Lisa Raitt told the senators the government acted to preserve Canada's economy.
“This is not our first choice in how we would like to see this labour dispute resolved, but the choice is a necessary one,” she said.
“Our citizens cannot afford to be left waiting.”
Asked if back-to-work legislation would become a standard Conservative approach to labour disruptions, Ms. Raitt said, “If it is a matter of national public interest, the government will intervene.”
The legislation actually provides members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers slightly lower wages than the last offer from the post office. It also limits an arbitrator to choosing between the final offers — winner take all — of the two negotiating parties on other matters.
Talks between the two sides collapsed late Wednesday, and a final half-hour discussion Saturday morning failed to close the gap.
The union says its workers will return to the job.
“The legislation provides for enormous financial penalties for individuals and union representatives in the case of defiance,” CUPW said in a statement Sunday. “We believe that this government would use any excuse to destroy the union should we defy the legislation, and we will not give them any opportunity to do so.”
George Floresco, one of the union vice-presidents, said people would remember “what Canada Post did and what the government did, and the Harper government is going to wear this for a long time to come.”
“We're going to take an aggressive stance in the arbitration process, even though it's a very poor way to settle issues, and we'll be coming up for bargaining in the next four years and we're going to prepare for that round ... our members are determined to keep up the fight.”
Sunday, June 26, 2011
diplomats were aware of widespread abuse, such as electrocutions, whippings and sleep deprivation, in Afghan prisons where Canada's detainees were held.
OTTAWA — Thousands of pages of newly released documents about Afghan detainees show diplomats were aware of widespread abuse, such as electrocutions, whippings and sleep deprivation, in Afghan prisons where Canada's detainees were held.
The documents appear to support the government's assertion that Canadians did not knowingly transfer detainees who were tortured.
However, the 362 heavily censored documents released Wednesday describe private torture chambers, squalid prisons, rumours of summary executions and officials losing track of Canada's detainees.
The political fallout continued Thursday, a day after the government released more than 4,000 pages of documents.
Opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry, saying the document dump had not answered key questions.
NDP defence critic Jack Harris chided the government for spending $12 million — the cost of preparing the documents for release — "to suppress the truth."
"This is clear evidence they knew something was up," Harris told Postmedia News Thursday.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said the yearlong process culminated with an "unprecedented amount of information" being put before politicians and the public.
"Canadians have got a clear picture that our men and women in uniform fully accepted all of our international obligations and have done a heck of a good job representing this country," Baird said.
The documents show Canadian diplomats heard allegations of abuse and mistreatment on a regular basis in 2006 and 2007, and were aware of the Afghan National Directorate of Security's pattern of torture.
Diplomats relayed allegations of torture to senior cabinet ministers in Ottawa, who raised the issue with Afghan authorities. In one document listing "actions on the detainees issue" for 2007, a redacted and summarized portion noted Prime Minister Stephen Harper raised concerns with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Although the exact date of the meeting is not filed, Harper made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on May 22, 2007 and met that day with Karzai. That same day, the two held a joint news conference where Karzai publicly denied any cases of detainee abuse.
An account at the time by the Globe and Mail cited 30 cases of prisoners being abused in Afghan jails.
"We do not have any such case of torture," Karzai told reporters at the news conference. "So I can tell you . . . that story was not true, as much as it caused news and controversy in Canada."
During a June 2007 visit to an NDS facility in Kabul, Canadian-transferred detainees told diplomats their bodies and feet had been beaten with cables. One detainee claimed he had been given electric shocks, while another said he had been forced to stand for two days.
Detainees also relayed claims from other prisoners that inmates at the NDS Kandahar facility had their fingers cut and burned with lighters.
In a case that caused Canada to suspend transfers of detainees, one of Canada's detainees brought a Canadian official to a room where he was interrogated, showed the official a four-inch bruise on his back, and pointed out the "large piece of braided electrical wire" and rubber hose used to beat him.
The documents also show Canadian officials, in those early days in Kandahar, had problems tracking detainees they had transferred.
In June 2007, Canadian officials visited an NDS facility to check on 12 detainees transferred by Canadians. They were surprised to learn that 10 had been released without their knowledge.
Afghan officials criticized Canada for detaining apparently innocent Afghans, and sending them to detention facilities.
In an April 2007 meeting with NDS chief Amrullah Saleh, Canadian officials asked how many of the fewer than 150 detainees transferred by Canada's regular forces were in fact Taliban, and not innocent local farmers. In response, Saleh said "he simply did not know."
"Most of those detained by Canadian Forces, he guessed, would subsequently have been released," the report reads.
Transfers of Canada's detainees to Afghan authorities restarted after the two nations reached a "Supplementary Agreement," which granted Canada additional rights of oversight and visitation.
Canadian officials frequently visited prisons unannounced to interview detainees. In some cases, Canadian officials were not allowed to meet with detainees despite the transfer agreement stating they had full access to detainees.
Numerous minor instances of abuse, such as yelling and slapping, continued to occur after this new agreement was reached and concerns were raised with Afghan officials after each incident, federal officials said this week.
During a November 2007 visit to Sarposa prison, one detainee told Canadian officials that "detainees captured by ISAF forces were treated well but those captured by Afghans (sic) authorities are often subjected to ill-treatment."
When journalists reported allegations of abuse, the documents show diplomats attempted to verify the stories were true. In one case, the documents said allegations of abuse were "misconstrued" in a newspaper article. In another case, diplomats determined an anonymous detainee interviewed for a story made similar claims to Canadians officials. However, verifying the abuse was impossible "without a name from the journalist."
Included in the documents are memos authored by diplomat Richard Colvin, who raised concerns over torture to his superiors.
Colvin's secret reports from April 2007, sent to Ottawa's highest-ranking foreign affairs and security intelligence officials, detailed a meeting held with Karzai's chief of staff Omar Daoudzai.
"Awareness of detainee mistreatment was discussed," Colvin wrote. "Such practices would constitute a violation of Afghanistan's international obligations, as well as Afghan domestic law."
After visiting Sarposa Prison, Colvin reported he was concerned by the treatment of detainees handed over by Canada.
"Concern expressed about the situation in Kandahar is not the prison itself but overall treatment of detainees, including those transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian forces."
Colvin described the prison's general shortcomings, such as guards taking bribes, children of detainees being kept with the general prison population, insufficient water and sanitation and lack of prayer facilities.
The name of Asadullah Khalid, governor of Kandahar from 2005 to 2008, also appears in the documents in relation to claims he personally tortured people in his prison.
"It has been reported by multiple sources that the governor maintains a private detention facility," the documents read. "It has been reported that Khalid had admitted to keeping detainees there."
Stories of alleged detainee abuse made their way home to Canada outside of official channels.
A Military Police academy instructor shared anecdotes of abuse in a lecture to trainees. He told his class a story he heard second-hand of Afghan National Army troops dragging a detainee to a grisly death behind a pickup truck.
An investigation was conducted into the incident, which determined the story to be hearsay.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canadian+officials+knew+Afghan+torture+claims+Documents/4996583/story.html#ixzz1QMTAWA3A
The documents appear to support the government's assertion that Canadians did not knowingly transfer detainees who were tortured.
However, the 362 heavily censored documents released Wednesday describe private torture chambers, squalid prisons, rumours of summary executions and officials losing track of Canada's detainees.
The political fallout continued Thursday, a day after the government released more than 4,000 pages of documents.
Opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry, saying the document dump had not answered key questions.
NDP defence critic Jack Harris chided the government for spending $12 million — the cost of preparing the documents for release — "to suppress the truth."
"This is clear evidence they knew something was up," Harris told Postmedia News Thursday.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said the yearlong process culminated with an "unprecedented amount of information" being put before politicians and the public.
"Canadians have got a clear picture that our men and women in uniform fully accepted all of our international obligations and have done a heck of a good job representing this country," Baird said.
The documents show Canadian diplomats heard allegations of abuse and mistreatment on a regular basis in 2006 and 2007, and were aware of the Afghan National Directorate of Security's pattern of torture.
Diplomats relayed allegations of torture to senior cabinet ministers in Ottawa, who raised the issue with Afghan authorities. In one document listing "actions on the detainees issue" for 2007, a redacted and summarized portion noted Prime Minister Stephen Harper raised concerns with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Although the exact date of the meeting is not filed, Harper made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on May 22, 2007 and met that day with Karzai. That same day, the two held a joint news conference where Karzai publicly denied any cases of detainee abuse.
An account at the time by the Globe and Mail cited 30 cases of prisoners being abused in Afghan jails.
"We do not have any such case of torture," Karzai told reporters at the news conference. "So I can tell you . . . that story was not true, as much as it caused news and controversy in Canada."
During a June 2007 visit to an NDS facility in Kabul, Canadian-transferred detainees told diplomats their bodies and feet had been beaten with cables. One detainee claimed he had been given electric shocks, while another said he had been forced to stand for two days.
Detainees also relayed claims from other prisoners that inmates at the NDS Kandahar facility had their fingers cut and burned with lighters.
In a case that caused Canada to suspend transfers of detainees, one of Canada's detainees brought a Canadian official to a room where he was interrogated, showed the official a four-inch bruise on his back, and pointed out the "large piece of braided electrical wire" and rubber hose used to beat him.
The documents also show Canadian officials, in those early days in Kandahar, had problems tracking detainees they had transferred.
In June 2007, Canadian officials visited an NDS facility to check on 12 detainees transferred by Canadians. They were surprised to learn that 10 had been released without their knowledge.
Afghan officials criticized Canada for detaining apparently innocent Afghans, and sending them to detention facilities.
In an April 2007 meeting with NDS chief Amrullah Saleh, Canadian officials asked how many of the fewer than 150 detainees transferred by Canada's regular forces were in fact Taliban, and not innocent local farmers. In response, Saleh said "he simply did not know."
"Most of those detained by Canadian Forces, he guessed, would subsequently have been released," the report reads.
Transfers of Canada's detainees to Afghan authorities restarted after the two nations reached a "Supplementary Agreement," which granted Canada additional rights of oversight and visitation.
Canadian officials frequently visited prisons unannounced to interview detainees. In some cases, Canadian officials were not allowed to meet with detainees despite the transfer agreement stating they had full access to detainees.
Numerous minor instances of abuse, such as yelling and slapping, continued to occur after this new agreement was reached and concerns were raised with Afghan officials after each incident, federal officials said this week.
During a November 2007 visit to Sarposa prison, one detainee told Canadian officials that "detainees captured by ISAF forces were treated well but those captured by Afghans (sic) authorities are often subjected to ill-treatment."
When journalists reported allegations of abuse, the documents show diplomats attempted to verify the stories were true. In one case, the documents said allegations of abuse were "misconstrued" in a newspaper article. In another case, diplomats determined an anonymous detainee interviewed for a story made similar claims to Canadians officials. However, verifying the abuse was impossible "without a name from the journalist."
Included in the documents are memos authored by diplomat Richard Colvin, who raised concerns over torture to his superiors.
Colvin's secret reports from April 2007, sent to Ottawa's highest-ranking foreign affairs and security intelligence officials, detailed a meeting held with Karzai's chief of staff Omar Daoudzai.
"Awareness of detainee mistreatment was discussed," Colvin wrote. "Such practices would constitute a violation of Afghanistan's international obligations, as well as Afghan domestic law."
After visiting Sarposa Prison, Colvin reported he was concerned by the treatment of detainees handed over by Canada.
"Concern expressed about the situation in Kandahar is not the prison itself but overall treatment of detainees, including those transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian forces."
Colvin described the prison's general shortcomings, such as guards taking bribes, children of detainees being kept with the general prison population, insufficient water and sanitation and lack of prayer facilities.
The name of Asadullah Khalid, governor of Kandahar from 2005 to 2008, also appears in the documents in relation to claims he personally tortured people in his prison.
"It has been reported by multiple sources that the governor maintains a private detention facility," the documents read. "It has been reported that Khalid had admitted to keeping detainees there."
Stories of alleged detainee abuse made their way home to Canada outside of official channels.
A Military Police academy instructor shared anecdotes of abuse in a lecture to trainees. He told his class a story he heard second-hand of Afghan National Army troops dragging a detainee to a grisly death behind a pickup truck.
An investigation was conducted into the incident, which determined the story to be hearsay.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canadian+officials+knew+Afghan+torture+claims+Documents/4996583/story.html#ixzz1QMTAWA3A
Saturday, June 25, 2011
hellish 11-hour G20 arrest ordeal
Well, good luck on Saturday.”
These were the five words Sean Salvati cheekily uttered to two RCMP officers on June 23, 2010, three days before the G20 summit. And with that one sentence, what had been a fun evening of friends and Blue Jays baseball quickly became a hellish 11-hour ordeal in which Salvati claims he was arrested, strip-searched, beaten, denied access to a lawyer and left naked in a cell for nearly an hour.
Scenes of Salvati’s ordeal were captured by police security cameras at a downtown police station and his lawyers have obtained several hours of footage through Freedom of Information requests.
In one video, Salvati is shown being led from an interrogation room by three officers and escorted naked past a female officer.
Salvati also alleges he was beaten while officers forcibly strip-searched him.
“One of the officers grabbed the neck and began punching me,” Salvati said in an interview with the Star Thursday. “(He) mentioned something about ‘These are your rights.’ You know? Like: ‘You think you have rights? These are your rights.’
“And I just started screaming.”
Salvati, a 33-year-old licensed paralegal, claims he was an innocent victim caught up in the G20’s overzealous security effort. The charge that allegedly got him thrown in jail — Salvati was pulled from a cab and arrested for public intoxication — was never filed in court.
He is suing the Toronto Police Services Board, the attorney general of Canada and four Toronto police officers for false arrest and imprisonment.
The lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court late Thursday afternoon and seeks at least $75,000 in damages. Salvati further alleges police assaulted him in custody and violated his Charter rights by denying him access to a lawyer and subjecting him to cruel and unusual treatment when they locked him naked in a cell for 48 minutes.
Salvati’s allegations have not yet been proven in court and no statements of defence have been filed.
“You just never imagine when you go about your daily life that this is the kind of thing that could happen to you when you’ve done nothing wrong,” said lawyer Paul Quick, who is representing Salvati along with Murray Klippenstein. “And Sean hasn’t done anything wrong.”
When reached early Thursday night, police spokesman Mark Pugash said he was not in a position to comment because he could not confirm whether Toronto police had yet been served with Salvati’s lawsuit.
“You’re asking me questions that are at the heart of this man’s lawsuit and we haven’t seen the statement of claim,” Pugash said. “That will happen in due course but I think it’s entirely inappropriate to answer questions at this point before we’ve even had a chance to look at what he’s alleging.”
In his court filing, Salvati claims he and his friends encountered several police officers on the evening of June 23 and were intrigued by the robust security in downtown Toronto, stopping several times to chat and even take pictures with officers.
At the end of the night, while trying to hail a cab, Salvati said he encountered two female RCMP officers and tried to engage them in conversation, too. He said the officers ignored him, prompting Salvati to say they should be more polite because taxpayers are paying for their overtime.
He then saluted the officers and said, “Well, good luck with Saturday.”
The filing states Salvati hailed a cab to go to a friend’s house. At a red light, two police officers approached the taxi and pulled him out.
In his claim, Salvati alleges he was questioned “repeatedly about his comments to the two RCMP officers and, specifically, what he meant by his reference to ‘Saturday.’ During this time, the two RCMP officers that Mr. Salvati had spoken to earlier arrived at the scene . . . and identified Mr. Salvati as the person who had spoken to them.”
Salvati was then arrested for public intoxication. He claims in his court filing he had consumed slightly less than four glasses of beer in 5½ hours and was “in full control of his faculties.” He further alleges he requested a breathalyzer test but was denied.
“As soon as I was placed under arrest, I knew that something completely out of the ordinary was happening,” he said.
Salvati alleges he was taken to 52 Division near Dundas St. W. and University Ave. and subjected to a strip search because he had been “uncooperative” and would be lodged in the “general population.”
He claims he was then taken to a room by three officers, one of whom began to “strike and slap” him on his face and body and kneed him in the chest as the other two held his handcuffed arms.
Salvati further alleges one officer threatened to rip his nipple ring out but was urged by another officer not to because then he would require “medical.”
In his claim, Salvati said he was then taken from the room and escorted naked past a female officer and placed in an unoccupied single-person cell. He further alleges he was left naked for 48 minutes and at one point an officer placed his clothes on the floor in the hallway within his sights.
“It was punitive,” Salvati said. “I had said to a friend of mine, who took me to a doctor the next day, I told her that I felt like I’d been raped.”
After Salvati’s boxers and shirt were returned to him, he was visited by two men in plainclothes, according to his court filing. They would only identify themselves as “Officer C” and “Officer SIS” and led him to a separate interrogation room, where they “questioned him about the G20 summit, his alleged role in the anticipated protests, and his remark about ‘Saturday’ to the RCMP officers.”
(Saturday was the day of the largest protests of the G20 weekend, including a labour march, which police believed would be used as cover for anarchist groups bent on destruction.)
Salvati’s lawyers have since tried to obtain the names of these two men through a Freedom of Information request. They were told that 52 Division officers and the Professional Standards Unit had reviewed footage from a security camera and the two men could not be identified.
“It just defies common sense that an unidentified person could walk into 52 Division and meet privately with a prisoner and interrogate them . . . without someone having to say, ‘This is who I am. This is why I’m here,’ ” Quick said.
Salvati was released at 9:42 a.m., about 11 hours after he was pulled from his cab by police. He claims he was given an offence notice that he was charged under the Liquor Licence Act with being intoxicated in a public place. He learned six months later his charge was never filed in court.
Salvati said he has since filed a complaint about his arrest to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director but their investigations were only able to substantiate one of his claims, which is that he was not given access to a lawyer. This finding was deemed to be of a “less serious nature,” however.
Today, Salvati said he feels he was being punished that day for trying to assert his rights. The incident has left him traumatized and suspicious of police. A day after his release from jail, he saw a doctor and was given Valium for his anxiety.
A full year has passed since the G20 summit, but Salvati still has no answers for why this happened to him.
“I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, at a Jays game three days before (the G20 summit) and I got caught up in it all,” he said. “And it’s changed my life.”
These were the five words Sean Salvati cheekily uttered to two RCMP officers on June 23, 2010, three days before the G20 summit. And with that one sentence, what had been a fun evening of friends and Blue Jays baseball quickly became a hellish 11-hour ordeal in which Salvati claims he was arrested, strip-searched, beaten, denied access to a lawyer and left naked in a cell for nearly an hour.
Scenes of Salvati’s ordeal were captured by police security cameras at a downtown police station and his lawyers have obtained several hours of footage through Freedom of Information requests.
In one video, Salvati is shown being led from an interrogation room by three officers and escorted naked past a female officer.
Salvati also alleges he was beaten while officers forcibly strip-searched him.
“One of the officers grabbed the neck and began punching me,” Salvati said in an interview with the Star Thursday. “(He) mentioned something about ‘These are your rights.’ You know? Like: ‘You think you have rights? These are your rights.’
“And I just started screaming.”
Salvati, a 33-year-old licensed paralegal, claims he was an innocent victim caught up in the G20’s overzealous security effort. The charge that allegedly got him thrown in jail — Salvati was pulled from a cab and arrested for public intoxication — was never filed in court.
He is suing the Toronto Police Services Board, the attorney general of Canada and four Toronto police officers for false arrest and imprisonment.
The lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court late Thursday afternoon and seeks at least $75,000 in damages. Salvati further alleges police assaulted him in custody and violated his Charter rights by denying him access to a lawyer and subjecting him to cruel and unusual treatment when they locked him naked in a cell for 48 minutes.
Salvati’s allegations have not yet been proven in court and no statements of defence have been filed.
“You just never imagine when you go about your daily life that this is the kind of thing that could happen to you when you’ve done nothing wrong,” said lawyer Paul Quick, who is representing Salvati along with Murray Klippenstein. “And Sean hasn’t done anything wrong.”
When reached early Thursday night, police spokesman Mark Pugash said he was not in a position to comment because he could not confirm whether Toronto police had yet been served with Salvati’s lawsuit.
“You’re asking me questions that are at the heart of this man’s lawsuit and we haven’t seen the statement of claim,” Pugash said. “That will happen in due course but I think it’s entirely inappropriate to answer questions at this point before we’ve even had a chance to look at what he’s alleging.”
In his court filing, Salvati claims he and his friends encountered several police officers on the evening of June 23 and were intrigued by the robust security in downtown Toronto, stopping several times to chat and even take pictures with officers.
At the end of the night, while trying to hail a cab, Salvati said he encountered two female RCMP officers and tried to engage them in conversation, too. He said the officers ignored him, prompting Salvati to say they should be more polite because taxpayers are paying for their overtime.
He then saluted the officers and said, “Well, good luck with Saturday.”
The filing states Salvati hailed a cab to go to a friend’s house. At a red light, two police officers approached the taxi and pulled him out.
In his claim, Salvati alleges he was questioned “repeatedly about his comments to the two RCMP officers and, specifically, what he meant by his reference to ‘Saturday.’ During this time, the two RCMP officers that Mr. Salvati had spoken to earlier arrived at the scene . . . and identified Mr. Salvati as the person who had spoken to them.”
Salvati was then arrested for public intoxication. He claims in his court filing he had consumed slightly less than four glasses of beer in 5½ hours and was “in full control of his faculties.” He further alleges he requested a breathalyzer test but was denied.
“As soon as I was placed under arrest, I knew that something completely out of the ordinary was happening,” he said.
Salvati alleges he was taken to 52 Division near Dundas St. W. and University Ave. and subjected to a strip search because he had been “uncooperative” and would be lodged in the “general population.”
He claims he was then taken to a room by three officers, one of whom began to “strike and slap” him on his face and body and kneed him in the chest as the other two held his handcuffed arms.
Salvati further alleges one officer threatened to rip his nipple ring out but was urged by another officer not to because then he would require “medical.”
In his claim, Salvati said he was then taken from the room and escorted naked past a female officer and placed in an unoccupied single-person cell. He further alleges he was left naked for 48 minutes and at one point an officer placed his clothes on the floor in the hallway within his sights.
“It was punitive,” Salvati said. “I had said to a friend of mine, who took me to a doctor the next day, I told her that I felt like I’d been raped.”
After Salvati’s boxers and shirt were returned to him, he was visited by two men in plainclothes, according to his court filing. They would only identify themselves as “Officer C” and “Officer SIS” and led him to a separate interrogation room, where they “questioned him about the G20 summit, his alleged role in the anticipated protests, and his remark about ‘Saturday’ to the RCMP officers.”
(Saturday was the day of the largest protests of the G20 weekend, including a labour march, which police believed would be used as cover for anarchist groups bent on destruction.)
Salvati’s lawyers have since tried to obtain the names of these two men through a Freedom of Information request. They were told that 52 Division officers and the Professional Standards Unit had reviewed footage from a security camera and the two men could not be identified.
“It just defies common sense that an unidentified person could walk into 52 Division and meet privately with a prisoner and interrogate them . . . without someone having to say, ‘This is who I am. This is why I’m here,’ ” Quick said.
Salvati was released at 9:42 a.m., about 11 hours after he was pulled from his cab by police. He claims he was given an offence notice that he was charged under the Liquor Licence Act with being intoxicated in a public place. He learned six months later his charge was never filed in court.
Salvati said he has since filed a complaint about his arrest to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director but their investigations were only able to substantiate one of his claims, which is that he was not given access to a lawyer. This finding was deemed to be of a “less serious nature,” however.
Today, Salvati said he feels he was being punished that day for trying to assert his rights. The incident has left him traumatized and suspicious of police. A day after his release from jail, he saw a doctor and was given Valium for his anxiety.
A full year has passed since the G20 summit, but Salvati still has no answers for why this happened to him.
“I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, at a Jays game three days before (the G20 summit) and I got caught up in it all,” he said. “And it’s changed my life.”
Friday, June 24, 2011
Woman who encountered Officer Bubbles sues police : Courtney Winkels has filed a lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board for $100,000.
Woman who encountered Officer Bubbles sues police
About a year ago, Courtney Winkels blew some bubbles. Ten minutes later, she found herself trapped between lines of police in riot gear. Officers grabbed her, threw her against a brick wall, and arrested her.
She spent the next 50 hours in captivity, she said. She was finally charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence. At her first and only court date last August, her charge was thrown out.
Ms. Winkels has had some time to think about what happened. Now the 21-year-old woman, whose peaceful act at Toronto’s G20 protests made an Internet sensation out of “Officer Bubbles,” has filed a lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board for $100,000.
She’s claiming damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, as well as breach of Charter rights. The police services board is named as the defendant in the claim as the employer of all officers in the Toronto Police Services.
It’s been almost a year since protests rocked Toronto’s streets during the G20 summit, ultimately leading to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Ms. Winkels, from Caledon, was in town the weekend to act as a trained street medic during the protests. She told reporters on Thursday that she felt police actions that weekend were “absolutely unacceptable. There needs to be police accountability, and civilians, people that were there need to step forward and make sure that justice is served.”
The subject matter is familiar territory for her lawyer, Davin Charney, the founder of the Centre for Police Accountability. He called the police force hypocritical for asking the public to come forward with evidence against Black Bloc protesters without holding to account the “Blue Bloc” of police officers who violated the law while corralling crowds during the G20 weekend’s protests.
While two police officers have since been charged for their actions, Mr. Charney said the lawsuit aims to call on the senior leadership of the force for executing the orders that led to so many citizens’ arrests.
“Let’s not be satisfied with scapegoating of two police officers – foot soldiers, when the generals who gave the orders are getting off scot-free.”
Ms. Winkels said she wasn’t even aware she was being filmed when she blew bubbles at Constable Adam Josephs, who threatened her with arrest if one touched him. The video went viral, and Constable Josephs would later himself launch a lawsuit against YouTube and a number of the website’s users for defamation over a series of cartoons that contained a person with his likeness.
“I thought [the original video] was kind of neat,” Ms. Winkels said; she called the video “a very good way to see some of the ridiculousness of some of the police actions that weekend.”
Mr. Charney is also representing a second plaintiff, Jason Wall, in a separate case in small claims court. Mr. Wall is requesting $25,000 for G20-related damages. Both claims were filed on Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board declined to comment because of the ongoing nature of the claims.
About a year ago, Courtney Winkels blew some bubbles. Ten minutes later, she found herself trapped between lines of police in riot gear. Officers grabbed her, threw her against a brick wall, and arrested her.
She spent the next 50 hours in captivity, she said. She was finally charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence. At her first and only court date last August, her charge was thrown out.
Ms. Winkels has had some time to think about what happened. Now the 21-year-old woman, whose peaceful act at Toronto’s G20 protests made an Internet sensation out of “Officer Bubbles,” has filed a lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board for $100,000.
She’s claiming damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, as well as breach of Charter rights. The police services board is named as the defendant in the claim as the employer of all officers in the Toronto Police Services.
It’s been almost a year since protests rocked Toronto’s streets during the G20 summit, ultimately leading to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Ms. Winkels, from Caledon, was in town the weekend to act as a trained street medic during the protests. She told reporters on Thursday that she felt police actions that weekend were “absolutely unacceptable. There needs to be police accountability, and civilians, people that were there need to step forward and make sure that justice is served.”
The subject matter is familiar territory for her lawyer, Davin Charney, the founder of the Centre for Police Accountability. He called the police force hypocritical for asking the public to come forward with evidence against Black Bloc protesters without holding to account the “Blue Bloc” of police officers who violated the law while corralling crowds during the G20 weekend’s protests.
While two police officers have since been charged for their actions, Mr. Charney said the lawsuit aims to call on the senior leadership of the force for executing the orders that led to so many citizens’ arrests.
“Let’s not be satisfied with scapegoating of two police officers – foot soldiers, when the generals who gave the orders are getting off scot-free.”
Ms. Winkels said she wasn’t even aware she was being filmed when she blew bubbles at Constable Adam Josephs, who threatened her with arrest if one touched him. The video went viral, and Constable Josephs would later himself launch a lawsuit against YouTube and a number of the website’s users for defamation over a series of cartoons that contained a person with his likeness.
“I thought [the original video] was kind of neat,” Ms. Winkels said; she called the video “a very good way to see some of the ridiculousness of some of the police actions that weekend.”
Mr. Charney is also representing a second plaintiff, Jason Wall, in a separate case in small claims court. Mr. Wall is requesting $25,000 for G20-related damages. Both claims were filed on Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board declined to comment because of the ongoing nature of the claims.
Toronto police were overwhelmed at G20, review reveals : Julian Falconer, a prominent human rights lawyer involved in G20 cases, argued the police reasoning for rounding people up was faulty.
Toronto police were overwhelmed at G20, review reveals
In the first significant admission things went wrong during the G20 summit last year, Toronto police say they did not have the right tactics to effectively handle the Black Bloc, were so overwhelmed at a temporary detention centre that some prisoners were never given access to a lawyer and that in future officers should not box in protesters without leaving an exit.
They have also revealed the exact moment commanders ordered the streets cleared: At 7:35 p.m. on June 26, the primary day of protests, officers at the Major Incident Command Centre at police headquarters gave the order to arrest all protesters who had not dispersed, for breach of the peace.
The findings are contained in a review of policing at the summit released by Chief Bill Blair Thursday and collectively paint a picture of a force underprepared, despite the millions spent on G20 security.
It also contains new numbers: 1,118 people were arrested, more than previously reported; 39 arrestees reported being injured, five of whom had to be treated in hospital; and 97 police officers were injured. At times, fully half of the Toronto Police Services uniformed officers were occupied by the G20.
Police accountability advocates, however, said the review was only a beginning.
“For those of us following the G20, this is nothing new, but it’s a step forward to hear Chief Bill Blair recognize this in a report. It’s not enough, but it’s a step,” said Penelope Chester, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
When about 1,000 people broke away from a peaceful labour march and started smashing property, riot police were unable to keep up with them, the review found. In one case, when officers attempted to head the group off, they could not get into position quickly enough. Police tactics, such as forming cordons or using arrest squads, were designed for stationary crowds, it said.
Throughout that night and the next day, police boxed in, or “kettled,” groups of protesters and arrested them in an attempt to regain control of the streets.
Once they were brought to the temporary detention centre, at a converted film studio on Eastern Avenue, detainees sometimes waited more than 24 hours. The use of two different processing systems – one by court officials running the centre and one by police – combined with a dearth of staff created a backlog, meaning some people never saw an officer who could assess their medical condition or give them access to a lawyer.
What’s more, staff lost track of when they had been fed and where their property ended up.
The report remained silent on several issues, including the searches conducted blocks from the summit and what role, if any, RCMP commanders in the Integrated Security Unit played in decision-making during those days.
Critics said it fell far short of admitting responsibility for problems, glossed over allegations police had not co-operated with investigations into their conduct at the summit, and did not provide enough detail about what had been done to hold individual officers accountable.
“It’s like diagnosing someone with a cold when they’re dealing with a gunshot wound,” said David Midanik, a lawyer working on one of two class-action lawsuits against police. “There’s nothing about the police mindset, the ISU structure, the overall systemic contempt for the Charter of Rights.”
Julian Falconer, a prominent human rights lawyer involved in G20 cases, argued the police reasoning for rounding people up was faulty.
“The truth of the matter is, simply being present doesn’t constitute a breach of the peace,” he said. “I would hardly define this [review] as a hard look at police deficiencies.”
In the first significant admission things went wrong during the G20 summit last year, Toronto police say they did not have the right tactics to effectively handle the Black Bloc, were so overwhelmed at a temporary detention centre that some prisoners were never given access to a lawyer and that in future officers should not box in protesters without leaving an exit.
They have also revealed the exact moment commanders ordered the streets cleared: At 7:35 p.m. on June 26, the primary day of protests, officers at the Major Incident Command Centre at police headquarters gave the order to arrest all protesters who had not dispersed, for breach of the peace.
The findings are contained in a review of policing at the summit released by Chief Bill Blair Thursday and collectively paint a picture of a force underprepared, despite the millions spent on G20 security.
It also contains new numbers: 1,118 people were arrested, more than previously reported; 39 arrestees reported being injured, five of whom had to be treated in hospital; and 97 police officers were injured. At times, fully half of the Toronto Police Services uniformed officers were occupied by the G20.
Police accountability advocates, however, said the review was only a beginning.
“For those of us following the G20, this is nothing new, but it’s a step forward to hear Chief Bill Blair recognize this in a report. It’s not enough, but it’s a step,” said Penelope Chester, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
When about 1,000 people broke away from a peaceful labour march and started smashing property, riot police were unable to keep up with them, the review found. In one case, when officers attempted to head the group off, they could not get into position quickly enough. Police tactics, such as forming cordons or using arrest squads, were designed for stationary crowds, it said.
Throughout that night and the next day, police boxed in, or “kettled,” groups of protesters and arrested them in an attempt to regain control of the streets.
Once they were brought to the temporary detention centre, at a converted film studio on Eastern Avenue, detainees sometimes waited more than 24 hours. The use of two different processing systems – one by court officials running the centre and one by police – combined with a dearth of staff created a backlog, meaning some people never saw an officer who could assess their medical condition or give them access to a lawyer.
What’s more, staff lost track of when they had been fed and where their property ended up.
The report remained silent on several issues, including the searches conducted blocks from the summit and what role, if any, RCMP commanders in the Integrated Security Unit played in decision-making during those days.
Critics said it fell far short of admitting responsibility for problems, glossed over allegations police had not co-operated with investigations into their conduct at the summit, and did not provide enough detail about what had been done to hold individual officers accountable.
“It’s like diagnosing someone with a cold when they’re dealing with a gunshot wound,” said David Midanik, a lawyer working on one of two class-action lawsuits against police. “There’s nothing about the police mindset, the ISU structure, the overall systemic contempt for the Charter of Rights.”
Julian Falconer, a prominent human rights lawyer involved in G20 cases, argued the police reasoning for rounding people up was faulty.
“The truth of the matter is, simply being present doesn’t constitute a breach of the peace,” he said. “I would hardly define this [review] as a hard look at police deficiencies.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)