You control policing


Accountability, transparency…..and control….are long ago prototypical standards waylaid by a self-serving agenda licensed by complicit civic leaders and an inattentive citizenry.  This lives wherever democracy is presumed but unguarded, and it can’t be put on police or politicians.  It rests at the feet of everyone and anyone who ignores their inherent communal responsibility.  As former Canadian Prime Minister John Turner liked to say, “Democracy doesn’t happen by accident.”


When Breonna Taylor’s family recently agreed to a U.S.$12 million settlement with the city of Louisville in Kentucky after she was killed by police, it included an apology from the mayor and an undertaking to “reform” police practices.  This included changes to how warrants are handled, establishing a housing credit program to prod officers to live in some low-income areas, encouraging police to volunteer two paid hours of work every two weeks in the neighbourhoods they serve, and tracking police use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints. 

Ms. Taylor’s family insists that this is “only the beginning of getting full justice for Breonna,” her mother said.  “We must not lose focus on what the real job is…’s time to move forward with the criminal charges (against the police officers involved)…..”  Aside from cashing the cheque, what changes happen in Louisville will depend a whole lot more on Breonna’s family and the people of Louisville than on its civic leaders and the police.


Eric Adams pushed for police reforms from the inside.  He is presently the 60-year-old Borough President of Brooklyn, New York City, was a Democratic State Senator in New York for eight years, and previously served 22 years in the NYPD, leaving with the rank of captain.  In 1995, he co-founded the reform group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care.

When Adams was 15 years old, he and his brother were arrested for criminal trespassing.  “My brother and I were both arrested together, and we were both abused together, and the police officers who arrested us did not hit us all over our body.  They just kicked us in our groin repeatedly. ……it caused the urination of blood for almost seven days.”  He suffered from post traumatic stress disorder after the incident and believes his brother still suffers from mental health illness in 2020 because of the beating in 1975.

This space can only sketch a sampling of what Eric Adams learned during those 22 years in the service. He and other black NYPD officers constantly fought systemic racism within police culture to get the promotions and placements they earned.  And, while he didn’t see the changes he hoped, his comments are informative and revealing.

“….if every encounter you’ve had with a police officer was a negative symbol, then when you see that uniform, that shield, that gun, it becomes a symbol of repressive behaviour.  We police based on the behaviour of the numerical minority that is committing crime.  That small percentage of people who commit crimes in a community becomes the methods that’s used for the entire community.”

“If police show up at a birthday party, they’re not there because they were invited.  Police see only the worst in a community.”  Adams criticized the policing of communities by cops who don’t live in the communities they police.

“Police have two rights that even the president does not have, the right to take liberty and to take life…….And that is why I critiqued and looked at how we were policing to say, if you’re going to wear this uniform and this badge, you must be of the highest quality.”

“The arrogance of – don’t question us because we protect you – is a thing of the past.  Steve Jobs made everyone now a director of a movie that could determine what the end of the script would be.  For many years, people of colour were talking about being shot, being brutalized, being arrested.  And it was ignored because – I always borrow from Jack Nicholson’s comment in ‘A Few Good Men’ when he said that you really don’t want to know the truth – the reality is that much of America did not want…..(to handle the truth).”


Racism, systemic racism, hate groups have taken centre stage in 2020 to challenge both police and policing.  These are major concerns facing law enforcement everywhere, and with Toronto’s police service and other Ontario police forces, they head a long list of issues that have been neglected for decades.

This is but a short primer on where we stand in Toronto. 

“Province blasted over ‘outdated’ police training” read the headline over Wendy Gillis’ byline under the Toronto Star banner on Tuesday, October 6 of this year.  The deck added, “Ombudsman wrote damning report in 2016 lashes out at the ‘glacial’ pace of reform.”  Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé’s 2016 report, A Matter of Life and Death, received short shrift from the Toronto police board and city politicians who claimed it was under careful review while in truth it was stuck in an intentional gridlock looking for a path to nowhere.  “If you persistently fail to respond to calls for reforms that are evolutionary, you eventually get demands for changes that are revolutionary,” Mr. Dubé concluded in the Star story.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission ( presented the Toronto Police Service Board with its latest report, a follow-up on ‘A Collective Impact’ that focused on use of force by Toronto police.  Dated August 2020, ‘A Disparate Impact – Second interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service,’ it found that the charge rate against Black persons was 3.9 times higher than against White persons.  The OHRC gave this report to the police board in July followed by a two-hour briefing in August, but then said the board talks a lot about collaboration but doesn’t do it.

The Toronto Police Accountability Coalition ( is a group which encourages debate about police policy issues, and is devoted to making the police more accountable to the public.  It publishes a bulletin at least once a month.
The TPAC noted that of the 81 recommendations in the Toronto Police Service Board’s ‘Police Reform in Toronto’ report, all of which were accepted at the Board’s August meeting, few “actually involve specific actions apart from preparing reports.”  Further, “It was clear the Board has no intention of responding to public interest in changing the way in which policing works in Toronto.”

And finally, we posted “Toronto police – mercenaries?” on May 1 of 2016, and “As we said….mercenaries!” on February 10, 2019.  From the 2019 entry, “The problem with parachute policing.”……“When neighbourhood residents know their officers as invested stakeholders in the community’s fortunes, the relationship generally changes for the better..…as it stands now, the perception that officers have no stake in the community once they’ve stowed their badges and guns can only further erode resident trust of police, given the history of random street checks, brutal force applied to citizens who have committed no crime, and failure to report incidents to the civilian oversight agency.”

Last word….if people want change, people can make change.


Prisons & the law


Repeating again federal Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger’s citation that we send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

This applies equally to provincial and federal prison industries.

So why has the Ontario Human Rights Commission gone after the province’s ministry responsible for its jails….for the third time in seven years…..asking the Human Rights Tribunal to hold Ontario accountable for failing to meet its legal obligations?

Ontario agreed to a comprehensive settlement with Christina Jahn in 2013 that included a provision to not place persons with a mental illness in solitary confinement except as a last resort. Ms. Jahn had mental health and addiction disabilities but was held in segregation in Ottawa for more than 200 days. Not only has Ontario been taken to task more than once for not obeying the provisions of this settlement, but under two different governments even more people with noted mental disorders have been placed in solitary. Soleiman Faqiri was one, highlighted again in our September 13 posting. He was killed by jail guards in Lindsay in 2016 after a segregation placement.

This time though, the OHRC is also asking that no provincial inmate without a mental health condition be placed in segregation for more than 15 continuous days and a total of 60 days in a year. This would be in line with the latest case law and international standards.

As counterpoint, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General said the province has met “all 31 deliverables specified in the consent orders.”

Right. Now tell us, who are the compliance supervisors?


Meanwhile federally, Dr. Anthony Doob, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto Centre for Criminology, chaired the Implementation Advisory Panel established by Ottawa to monitor the ending of solitary confinement in federal prisons. Included among the eight members of the panel was Ed McIsaac, executive director of the federal prison ombudsman’s office from the late 1980s until about 10 years ago.

The panel never received data it needed from Correctional Service of Canada despite repeated requests, and its members were appointed for only one-year terms, which ended this past summer. “We have accomplished nothing,” Dr. Doob said. “How much confidence do we have that the experience of a prisoner has changed? My answer is none, because we don’t have any information.” The professor accused Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and CSC of back-pedaling and delaying promises to provide even basic information.

Minister Bill Blair has committed to revive the panel as its term lapsed before it could accomplish anything. In response, Mr. McIsaac commented, “I don’t see it coming back to life absent of having the information we requested in hand, and I don’t think further promises are going to get us very far.” Professor Doob added, “I guess I’m tired of being jerked around. Nobody’s watching. Nobody’s watching the keepers. The irony of it all is that a well-run organization would have wanted to have the data collection we’re asking for in place on Day 1. It’s not rocket science to say: ‘Start recording it with a paper and a pencil – and here’s how you sharpen a pencil.’”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government is making good on Bill C-83.

We wrote Mr. Trudeau:

August 28, 2020

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Ottawa, ON

Dear Prime Minister:

About the time your father was chasing the federal government out of the nation’s bedrooms back in the 60s, I was beginning to delve into our country’s prison industry.

According to Colin Freeze in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, “Ottawa not adhering to law on solitary, watchdog says,” he noted that “Prime Minister Trudeau said to reporters on Wednesday that the Liberal government is living up to its commitment to do away with solitary confinement.”

How would you know?

A little experience with Correctional Service of Canada teaches that the agency can be Trumpian with the truth. What CSC says is so may be smoke and mirrors, and what it lives by as true may not survive beyond the front gates. Assessing C-83’s efficacy must include the perspectives of the men and women who are intended to benefit from its provision, namely the inmates. As one said to me about the difficulties CSC is having with the new handheld technology, “That’s b.s.!”

Prime Minister, keep you smellmeter handy.

Yours truly……

Copies went to Professor Anthony Doob, Minister Bill Blair, and Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner Anne Kelly.

Thanks to the panel for being refreshingly frank.

Soleiman Faqiri……say the name!


So, why isn’t the reaction here like it is there? Soleiman is but one of many seriously harmed or killed by men in uniform in Canada, just a George Floyd is one of many harmed or killed by men in uniform in the U.S. Why the difference in public response? There was no camera recording Soleiman’s murder for one thing. Not only that, the perpetrators purposely blocked witnesses while they assaulted Soleiman in tandem.

There have been seven postings in this space since October of 2017 framing the grievance Soleiman’s friends and family have over his abuse and death at the hands of Ontario public servants. They want justice and are determined to persevere until the responsible jail guards are charged and convicted.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is now also taking Ontario to task for failing to meet its commitment to end putting prisoners with mental health disabilities in segregation. Soleiman’s death is a direct result of the province’s negligence.

Plus, the decision by the Ontario Provincial Police in August of this year not to lay charges in the death of Soleiman Faqiri following a second investigation of this crime has been condemned by 60 groups including legal, mental health advocacy and faith-based organizations across Canada.

This sad obstruction of justice by Ontario prompted another letter to the culpable provincial government minister:-

September 8, 2020

The Honourable Sylvia Jones, Solicitor General,
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Re: Soleiman Faqiri

Minister Jones:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is far too polite in the motion it’s filed against Ontario for a continuing “breach of legal obligation(s) to keep prisoners with mental health disabilities out of segregation.”

Soleiman Faqiri is dead because your ministry failed to do what it agreed to do back in 2013 and again in 2018. Simply put, a mentally ill provincial inmate was murdered by gangs of guards acting in tandem for no better reason than to “teach him a lesson.”

Your provincial jail guards “teach lessons” to inmates every day in Ontario. Soleiman just so happened to die during the “instruction.” It’s against policy and procedure, it’s illegal, and it’s just plain wrong. And, it’s happening on your watch, Minister.

Following the OPP decision not to lay charges in what is so obviously a state sanctioned homicide, Yusuf Faqiri, Soleiman’s older brother, told an August 15 rally outside your office that if one wants to commit murder with impunity, then do it in a group.

Your ministry seems content with the status quo. What say you?

A cautionary note to Soleiman’s family. The government will one day come to the table to pay off the family, and one condition of a settlement is likely to be that they take the money, go away, and shut up. Government offices are well stocked with carpets and brooms.

Let’s hope the Faqiri family doesn’t allow that, but even so, Ontario can’t silence us all.

“Fighting crime by building more jails……

Paul Kelly

Paul Kelly’s quotation appeared here five years ago. It was relevant long before he said it first, is still timely today, as it will be tomorrow.

Suppose you were able to tour our provincial jails and federal prisons from Victoria to St. John’s. Aside from a gender imbalance, a noticeable observation is the difference between the racial make-up of an incarcerated population and the people in the communities from which they came. No matter what perspective you choose to explain the contrast, it remains a symptom of societal inequity.

The COVID pandemic has exposed the inadequacies of our supports and safety nets for vulnerable groups, conditions we’ve conveniently ignored and allowed to deteriorate through negligence, lack of resources and even intentional defunding. We’ve seen the tragic outcomes from viral infections in our seniors’ care facilities as an example, and are now attempting to save face, even though we’ve been aware of the unacceptable state of the situation for years.

At risk from any and all hazards facing the disadvantaged along with the elderly are the poor and homeless and addicted and people with physical and mental health conditions, and…….prisoners. The pandemic has underscored a lack of help for an increasing number of jail/prison inmates with mental health issues, with access to rehabilitative programming, and with support in transitioning back into the community upon release.

Addressing provincial conditions, Rajean Hoilett with the Toronto Prisoners’ Rights Project and quoted from a June Toronto Star article says, “We’ve seen a lot of folks who’ve been released without any support, who are telling us they don’t have shoes, they don’t have clothes, they don’t have a place to go. We know that there’s a lot of folks who use drugs who are coming out without any sort of harm reduction supplies, and we already know we’ve lost people in this way to overdoses.” Ergo, recidivism’s revolving door.

For offenders sentenced to a federal prison, we have what is called Correctional Service of Canada.
Many could and would argue the agency is better tagged Punitive Service of Canada, or Offender Warehousing Service of Canada, or Criminal Retention Service of Canada, or our preference, Prison Industries of Canada.
No, Canada calls what we have a “correctional” service. That, and “corrections” is the label provincial and territorial governments use to describe the role of ministries that oversee their jails.

This space has argued for years that putting a name to something does not necessarily make it so, like the offices that manage our jails and prisons for instance. It seems that either what we call them is a sop to people who believe they should serve that better purpose, or the intention to be a correcting influence on lawbreakers is genuine if not a touch jaded. No one in authority looks to be paying attention to compliance in the trenches with policy, procedure, or the law, or the efficacy of the way things are or what more can be done.

The criminal justice conglomerate is a mammoth monolith, costing billions of taxpayer dollars a year and employing tens of thousand of people. Most of these men and women, from policing to the courts and on through to our penal institutions and all the attendant supports and apparatus, are or believe they are working for the best interests of the country. And as we pointed out earlier, it works well….for those who control it.

Rehashing earlier critical appraisals isn’t on today’s agenda. How to fight “City Hall” is. How to effect change is. Quite simply, don’t give up, don’t give in.

Joshua and his army marched around the walls of Jericho for seven days until the noise of the shouting and rams’ horns caused those defenses to collapse.

Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis learned from that old Biblical battle.

Persist. Persist. Persist.

That is the lesson.

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Edward R. Murrow

Going to prison. Why?

“A Disparate Impact”, the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Second interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service” was published within the past week. The reactions from municipal and community leaders are as we would expect. The calls for reform and our politician’s pledge to seriously consider the reports “next steps” are as we would expect, too.

However, what will come of this report is in question. Only community vigilance can succeed in preventing influential forces from appearing compliant to public concerns while preserving the status quo. There cannot be real reform without input from impacted neighbourhoods, and written concessions from stakeholders. While this issue is on the table, awaiting its fate, we move on from where we were last time.

According to Jonathan Rudin, program director at Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, “If we ran a program that failed as much as the criminal justice system, we would not be funded. We would not be able to operate. We just keep throwing money at it and keep relying on it even though it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do.”

Added human rights lawyer Anthony Morgan, “The system is not structured to rehabilitate. We need to stop relying on this falsity. It helps us feel more comfortable with what is a really brutal system.”

If calls to defund the police were answered it would mean far fewer people in custody. This in turn has some people demanding we defund the jail and prison system, too. Ontario’s jail population was reduced by 30% by mid-June due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and is an example of what is possible. “These are people who, under the logic of the system as it was, shouldn’t have been behind bars anyway,” said Justin Piché, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa.

At the federal level, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, who oversees Correctional Service of Canada, asked both CSC and the Parole Board of Canada in early March to consider releasing low-risk offenders due to the threat of COVID-19. What is telling is that Minister Blair, who is after all supposed to be in charge, did not do more than politely ask the agencies to “consider” early releases. As a result, according to Douglas Quan in the Toronto Star on August 5, “there was no increase in the number of prisoners released during the first three months of the pandemic compared to a year earlier In fact, there were slightly fewer inmates released.”

Does that say that Correctional Service of Canada would prefer to hang onto its assets?

Now, more than half of sentences handed down by adult courts in Canada are for less than one month, 20 per cent are for more than six months, and only 3.6 per cent carry judgements of more than two years. Jonathan Rudin argues putting people in jail for 30 days because, “Oh, they’ll learn a lesson,” does more harm to the community than would funds redirected to social services and supports. “We’re just being cruel for the sake of being cruel,” he says. And, of course, minorities are more negatively affected by how the system operates than whites, exacerbating the already unacceptable social norms.

Our criminal justice system continues to put people in jails and prisons, knowing they don’t work for the good of us all. Yes, there are circumstances where some people need to be separated from the community, but better jails and prisons are not what the protesters in the streets want. The call is for an entirely different approach.

Can we really fight City Hall? Next…….

Bail boondoggle cured?


Toronto City Council recently proposed a series of reforms to the city’s police service that have a significant similarity to reforms suggested by the U.S. Senate for American policing. They are both sops, which according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, are things of little importance or value that are offered to stop complaints or unhappiness. The same ineffective scenarios should be anticipated elsewhere at all levels of government in North America.

Politicians are elected to serve their constituent’s best interests, to have their backs. And yet, there is no appetite in North American municipal, provincial/state, or federal governments to confront head-on what brought so many people onto the streets to protest policing and its impenetrable blue wall.

What can be expected over time with what’s on the table now? The goal of law enforcement, under the auspices of police unions and with government indulgence, is to create a perception of change and reform, to vilify within police ranks the proliferation of cameras, and develop strategies to avoid being filmed. Business as usual. As Toronto human rights lawyer Anthony Morgan claims, “You create a lot of supply through policing. You overpolice communities – Black, Indigenous, and racialized communities, impoverished folks, folks living with mental health challenges – and so you create a massive supply of folks that would need to then be incarcerated.”

About 70% of men and women in our provincial jails are in custody on remand. They are technically innocent and yet have lost their liberty. According to a recent Globe and Mail editorial, many of these people have been charged with violating bail conditions, itself subject to as much as a two-year sentence. Even a new Supreme Court of Canada ruling calls this country’s bail practices “unfair and harmful”, particularly for the poor, people with addictions and racialized minorities.

This ruling should make for substantial changes to the way bail is granted but there is and will be resistance unless and until the disadvantaged leverage the Court ruling in their favour. “Too often, the Court said, bail court judges have agreed to ‘boilerplate’ conditions that are applied to all defendants, regardless of their circumstances. In some cases, the conditions included unwarranted attempts at behaviour modification that are impossible for the accused person to live up to, such as telling an alcoholic they can’t drink, or ordering a homeless person to stay at a fixed address.”

With this new ruling, bail condition violations may compel a return to custody but without additional charges that simply create a “cycle of incarceration.” As it has been, people can end up serving sentences even if they were never convicted of any of the crimes for which they were initially charged. “The bail system is also partly to blame for overcrowded jails, and it contributes to the slow administration of justice by flooding the courts with unnecessary cases.”

When someone goes to jail for a few days, what happens is that people lose their homes, they lose their place in programs, they lose access to services, and for women in particular, lose access to their children. None of this makes someone’s life better or easier. High rates of recidivism continue, while what is needed are programs that divert people away from the criminal justice system and into appropriate services that get at the root causes of community rot.

It’s not rocket science, so what’s the hold-up? More later…..

Criminal justice……


Why would we entangle a person who has committed a crime into the complexities of a legal and penal system that often does its damnedest to foil an eventual return to the community as a contributing law-abiding citizen?

Recovery is what the criminal justice system is intended to do. That it routinely fails suggests this system is broken. But no. There is a valid argument supporting just the opposite.

The system works. It is not broken. It works for the benefit of those who control it.

Start with law enforcement and the work of our police services. The first of Robert Peel’s nine principles of policing, propositions almost 200 years old but widely known and accepted in police agencies today, is “to prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.”

“Crime and disorder” in some form will always be with us and these nine truths underscore the maxim that the police are the public and the public are the police. The concluding ninth of these principles recognizes “always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”

The sandwiched principles from two to eight stress a duty to secure public co-operation, approval and respect, to minimize the use of physical force, to seek favour by an impartial service to law, and to “refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary…..or of judging guilt and punishing the guilty.”

Today’s demands to defund the police are a symptom of decades of abuse and perceived injustices by law enforcement, a culmination of deteriorating relationships between police and disadvantaged neighbourhoods in this country and in other widespread areas of the world. The movement highlights the growing gulf between the police and the policed, and how far we have strayed from the founding fundamentals of preventing “crime and disorder.”

This writer grew up in a community without a police presence. Yes, the village was in the patrol area of the local Ontario Provincial Police detachment, and one of their cars would occasionally drive through the town, as did the Niagara Parks Commission Police on a patrol of their properties. Help from the police, available if needed, wasn’t witnessed in those years. Community policing was the norm, the usual remedy in times before fixed bodies were formed to enforce the law.

Was there ‘crime and disorder’ in that community? No, at least not that came to the attention of the criminal justice system via a police action. Would that be the case if the village were a neighbourhood in an urban area regularly patrolled by police officers? Yes.

Our police services are the first point of contact between a person presumed to have committed an offense and the criminal justice system. The argument for defunding police calls for a redirection of resources to social programming and services to reduce the demands on police, along with appeals for the decriminalization of minor and non-violent offenses to deter the overpolicing of some marginalized communities.

Our police fuel our courts, jails, and prisons. Efforts by the people to transform the status quo threatens the health of a major industry in Canada.

Later………..our public servants don’t have your back.


Crime dependent…..that’s us?


There’s no doubt though. The status-quo will not do any longer. But, what will change for real?

Demands to defund police are a doorway to hold our entire justice system up to scrutiny for example, to question its purpose, its goals, its efficacy, its outcomes.

As a redux of where this can go, let’s repeat a posting from March 26 of 2017.

“Cells for sale or rent.”

The New York Times ran a story in late February under Dan Bilefsky’s byline which began, “The Netherlands has a problem many countries can only dream of: A shortage of prison inmates.”

About a third of Dutch prison cells are empty, attributed to a ‘spectacular’ drop in crime over the last twenty years, and a national preference for rehabilitation over incarceration. There was a upswing in prison populations there in the 90s, but the Netherlands now imprisons only about 61 of every 100,000 citizens, similar to Scandinavia. The United States, on the other hand, puts about 666 of every 100,000 citizens in prison, the highest in the world.

Norway negotiated an agreement with the Dutch two years ago for a three-year lease of a high-security facility and sent 242 prisoners there. They’re paying $35 million per year for the use of this prison, and Belgium is also making use of Dutch jails, sending about 500 inmates across the border.

Even more cells will become surplus over the next few years. As one criminologist explained, the Dutch have a deeply ingrained pragmatism when it comes to regulating law and order. “Prisons are very expensive,” this professor at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam rationalized. There is a relatively liberal approach to soft drugs and prostitution, and the Netherlands is more focused on what works and what is effective, while people in the United States, for instance, make moral arguments for imprisonment.

The Dutch have also become creative with the vacancy rates by transforming jails into housing for asylum seekers, converting cells into apartments for families, and where the interior exercise yards, gymnasiums, kitchens and outdoor gardens have a practical benefit. High exterior walls and barbed wire are removed, but care is taken not to house former political prisoners in cells, unless they feel at ease.

Not everyone is happy. About 2,600 prison guards could lose their jobs in the next four years as more prisons close. The government doesn’t want to give up too many jobs, as this political football can play out to the disadvantage of the present centre-right party in control. As a spokesperson for the country’s Ministry of Security and Justice put it, the surplus of empty jail cells is “good and bad news at the same time.”

This isn’t an environment that’s generated in a vacuum, with no explanation, or can be simply written off to happenstance. This comes with a concerted effort to question the status quo, think outside the lock-em-up box, and take bold steps to take a different road. Separating some people from the community in a custodial setting will continue to be a reality for now, but there is an illogic to a prison-based system of justice. One perspective is in the form of a poem reprinted in Baz Dreisinger’s book, “Incarceration Nation”:-

We want them to be responsible,
So we take away all responsibilities.
We want them to be positive and constructive,
So we degrade them and make them useless.
We want them to be nonviolent,
So we put them where there is violence all around them.
We want them to quit being the tough guy,
So we put them where the tough guy’s respected.

Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it!

Of course, it doesn’t. We’ll go on to examine the why’s next time.

Toronto South Detention Centre……revisited


The quotation is from Toronto writer/journalist Raizal Robin’s “The $1-Billion Hellhole” Toronto Life cover story in its March 2017 issue. Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno reprised the nomenclature in the headline of her December 14, 2019 opinion piece. Known also as Guantanamo South and the Plea Factory, the latter since many remand inmates admit their guilt just to get out of the jail, “it’s a failure from top to bottom,” said John Struthers, president of the criminal lawyers’ association.

Rosie DiManno began her column with, “Segregation. Isolation. Over-crowding. No showers. No fresh air. No family visits. No lawyer meetings. Seething anger that can be taken out on anybody.”


Why is this jail such a mess? Every Ontario institution has its challenges, and trouble often spills over into the press. To cite four examples, conditions at the Thunder Bay jail are under scrutiny regularly, Elgin-Middlesex in London has a deplorable reputation, and Ottawa-Carlton has been controversial. Lindsay generates the most complaints; living conditions prompted a recent five-day hunger strike. But, it’s the shining citadel on Horner Avenue in Etobicoke, the Toronto South Detention Centre, that grabs the headlines.

“Despite so much evidence to the contrary, government, guards and their union cite inmate hostility as a central cause of the problems at the institution….along with ongoing complaints by guards of staffing shortages.” That’s from our posting on July 21 of last year.

Inmate hostility is justified to the degree it exists at Toronto South. Staff shortages do exacerbate the toxicity of the facility’s environment, too. In the meantime, the Ministry consistently insists it intends to resolve any issues plaguing the jail each time Toronto South makes news.

It keeps making headlines. At the beginning of March, five correctional officers were charged with aggravated assault of an inmate on December 20th of last year, and a sixth is expected to be indicted as well. Police won’t release the names of the accused, an unusual decision considering the shielding of identities and reputations of correctional officers implies a double standard. And, the dance goes on.

In the beginning back in 2014, tension among guards was palatable given that some were previously stationed at the Don Jail and others came from the Toronto West Detention Centre, both shut down earlier. That festering incompatibility permeated the entire operation, stressing inmates and non-unformed staff alike. While those issues may have been overcome and a more homogeneous climate exists today, lingering bad practices still predominate.

One bottom line stands out as an explanation for the disarray. Management doesn’t. Management doesn’t manage. We’ve seen this elsewhere at both the provincial and federal levels. Senior civil service management and the politicians who are expected to oversee operations, in this case provincial jails, are nervous and even afraid of the power of the unions. Labour unions serve a purpose and warrant support, but they are not in charge.

When will Toronto South improve? Life will change when management and the Minister at Community Safety & Correctional Services expect established practices, policies, and procedures to be foremost in daily operations at the jail, and adopts persuasive encouragement to ensure compliance.

George Floyd – Murder most foul!


Police officers across North America use tactics and techniques that are not sanctioned, frequently questionable and excessive, sometimes illegal, and occasionally lethal. These expedients encompass a surprisingly long list, unfamiliar to the most of us, and often unseen even during a police action in public in front of witnesses.

True, there are many cops who wouldn’t stoop to the practices of others, but that impregnable police ‘blue wall’ shields all and every uniform from unfettered scrutiny. That wall must be breached and toppled.

Look at the May 25 video. Derek Chauvin has his left knee on George Floyd’s neck. Notice that he puts his left hand into his left pant pocket. Why? Is he missing his keys? Is he looking for a snack? He can’t be trying to balance himself. That he could do by laying his hand on the body of the vehicle next to him; he does that too at one point.

No, his left hand is in his pant pocket to access one of those unsanctioned police tactics. Note the hand is not pushed deeply into the pocket, just far enough to hide what’s he doing with it. What he’s doing is pressing the palm of that hand into his upper thigh muscle, using his shoulder and arm strength to increase the pressure on George Floyd’s neck.

That’s intent to harm, and in this instance, was it intent to kill? Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J Alexander Kueng, the three uniformed men with Derek Chauvin, knew what was happening, and stood by. They all watched a man die at their hands. They let it happen.

There’s more. The City of Minneapolis and its police department are also culpable in the death of George Floyd. Derek Chauvin was a police officer for twenty years and there was plenty in his file to merit dismissal at more than one point before May 25, 2020. Would George Floyd be alive today if city management had acted when it should have to get rid of a bad cop?

Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis, the state’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, and Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo haven’t mentioned that hand in that pocket. This will bring it to their attention.