Comedian Chris Rock once suggested we should outlaw bullets, not guns. But, either way, guns and bullets are a lethal combination.

“If we keep enabling deadly police confrontations, we will be forced to keep justifying deadly outcomes.”
This is from Desmond Cole’s Toronto Star column of December 3rd last year, “Time to disarm the police”. He’s become a weekly contributor to the newspaper’s op-ed page, his work centering on racial, policing, and social justice issues.

Desmond argues that Toronto police are too quick to resort to deadly force, resulting in multiple fatal shootings. He makes an unfavourable comparison with Montreal’s more progressive police service when dealing with people in mental health crises, citing examples which “proved that police often do put their lives on the line, and can do so without needlessly jeopardizing the lives of the people they serve.”

The Toronto Police Accountability Coalition, http://www.tpac.ca, goes even further in its Bulletin No. 95 of March 21 this year. Noting not only the number of police shootings, plus the budgeting for a “substantial number of new weapons”, and the increasing use of CEW weapons (tasers), the TPAC concluded that “it is time to talk seriously of taking weapons out of the hands of rank and file constables.”

One telling observation came out of the trial of Constable James Forcillo, who was convicted of attempted murder in the death of Sammy Yatim, one of Toronto’s more infamous police shootings. Sammy Yatim died on an empty Toronto streetcar on the evening of July 27, 2013. He was in mental distress and carrying a small knife when confronted by several police officers at a distance who were outside the vehicle.

One, James Forcillo, fired nine rounds within seconds of coming on the scene, hitting his target eight times. The first three shots were fatal, the other five were for what, “good measure”? Not only that, another officer subsequently tasered the prone and almost dead man.

After the trial, CBC’s Metro Morning’s Matt Galloway briefly spoke with a British police officer who had reviewed the evidence. Under similar circumstances in Britain, he said, the police there would probably not have deployed weapons.

The police in Britain would probably not have deployed weapons.

Why shouldn’t the police who patrol our neighbourhoods live where we do, or at least in the same communities?

And, why do our police officers ‘cocoon’ in their cars, isolating themselves further from the people they “serve and protect”.

This has been on our radar for decades, but it’s recently come to the front burner in the United States where tensions between police and racial groups draws attention to the demographic composition of police departments across the country.

Now, the Toronto Star’s Betsy Powell brings this issue home with, “Many new cops don’t live in Toronto”, from the paper’s Friday, February 12 edition. And, there is no difference in Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary and other Canadian cities.

Peter Sloly, a former Toronto deputy chief, estimated that 80 to 85 per cent of Toronto’s cops don’t live in the city. Only 21 of 44 recent recruits call Toronto home. Police union leaders claim Toronto is too expensive for many on the force, but this argument ignores that today’s police earn a lot more than the average Torontonian.

“I think you can be committed to a neighbourhood, committed to community safety, do your job, and sleep somewhere else,” is how former Toronto police chief Bill Blair defended an out-of-town workforce.

But, Mariana Valverde, a criminologist at the University of Toronto disagrees. “Where you live and what you think of a good place to live, does have a bearing on how you do your job as a police officer. We care more about people who live like us…..it’s basic psychology.” She believes this should be included in the debate around police reform and our perspective for controlling the force’s $1-billion budget.

A tempest in a teapot? How many teapots make a cyclone?

It wasn’t until Jim Rankin’s Toronto Star “How a police stop of four black youth shook a community” was published on August 7, 2012 that the details of a November 21, 2011 incident in Lawrence Heights came to wide public attention. Four young black men – three 15 year-olds and a 16 year old – were walking in the common area of their Neptune Drive housing complex on the way to an after-dinner Pathways to Education mentoring session in a nearby building. They had been stopped and questioned many times before by police, but they’d also recently attended a program where they learned about their rights.

An unmarked van pulled up, and two Toronto police officers with TAVIS (Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy) got out, stopped the teenagers and began questioning them. They tried to assert their rights and walk away, but security video footage shows one officer punching one of the four in the stomach, pushing him as he drops to the ground, and as two others walk toward their friend, that same officer draws his gun and points. Backup is called, five cruisers arrive, upset residents and families are seen gathering, and the teens are charged with assaulting police and other offences, all of which are eventually dropped or pieced off.

Parents and supporters went to 32 Division station that night following the arrests, were treated rudely according to Roderick Brereton, one of two youth workers who also arrived at the station to offer support, and were told to leave. “This encounter never should have happened. My client was stopped leaving his home and investigated for trespassing. This was perverse”, said Craig Bottomley, a lawyer for one of the youth.

We met Roderick Brereton (urban rez solutions/take back you world) over lunch at the end of November in 2012. We couldn’t talk about this specific 2011 event or the young people involved of course, but we spoke of our life experiences in Toronto, and the work he and his business partner do in at-risk communities. Roderick is black, and our stories reflected the differences race makes, day to day.

Later, in December of 2013, another Jim Rankin Toronto Star entry told us the teenagers were suing police. Two of the five officers named in the suit were also charged under the Police Act, the same two officers who had originally stopped the four youth.

Now, after all this time, Jim Rankin and Wendy Gillis’s “Rights board wants in on cop hearing” from the March 3 Toronto Star this year, tells us that the Ontario Human Rights Commission wants standing at the disciplinary hearing for the two charged officers.

That hearing is scheduled to begin in October. THAT IS, OCTOBER OF 2016! We had to write:

March 10, 2016

Mark Saunders, Chief,
Toronto Police Service,
40 College Street,
Toronto, ON M5G 2J3

Dear Chief Saunders:

Recent comments from you, your office, and others reference building and restoring public confidence and trust in our police service.

As an example of the challenges this presents, I point to November 21, 2011, on Neptune Drive. Four black teenagers were assaulted and wrongfully arrested by Toronto police when they attempted to assert their rights as innocent citizens going about their business. Video coverage gave this incident due media attention, the latest from the Thursday, March 3 Toronto Star, “Rights board wants in on cop hearing”.

Confidence and trust? Your predecessor in the chief’s office summarily dismisses Adam Lourenco and Scharnil Pais once the file of this interaction and the security tape crosses his desk, and reprimands other officers subsequently involved. At the same time, the City of Toronto initiates discussions with the victims for a financial remedy. This is accomplished and settled no later than the spring of 2012. That’s how it’s done. Why are we still hearing about this more than four years later?

Confidence and trust? I don’t doubt you mean well, but Chief Saunders, please don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining!

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

distribution:

John Tory, Mayor,
Office of the Mayor,
City Hall, 2nd Floor,
100 Queen Street West,
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

William Blair, MP,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Mike McCormack, President,
Toronto Police Association,
200 – 2075 Kennedy Road,
Toronto, ON M1T 3V3

Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner,
Ontario Human Rights Commission,
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900,
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9

John Sewell,
Toronto Police Accountability Coalition,
206 – 401 Richmond Street West,
Toronto, ON M5V 3A8

Jim Rankin,
The Toronto Star,
One Yonge Street,
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

Wendy Gillis,
The Toronto Star,
One Yonge Street,
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

Desmond Cole,
The Toronto Star,
One Yonge Street,
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

This police ‘carding’ business just won’t stop. It won’t go away.

More than two dozen Ontario groups and individuals expressed their concerns in December around how the province’s Community Safety Minister Yasir Naqvi’s proposed legislation contains too many loopholes and exceptions, and doesn’t reflect the minister’s initial intent to put an end to carding. The “policing industry” has come out with its own differing criticisms of what already appears to be watered-down new rules, and which are currently under a 45 day review.

Our police are of course intimidated by any interference in their operations. It would appear though that somewhere between the minister’s first announcement, and his presentation of the draft legislation, police had already managed to intervene on their own behalf, gaining ground against an all-out ban.

What should we take from this on-going debate? Simply, our police services, public servants though they may be, assume they are a force onto themselves, and intend to broach no encroachment upon claims as an autonomous authority.

How is it possible for specific government agencies to hold such sway over the masters we have put in place to act on our behalf?

How is it possible? Again, we let ‘em.

Imagine this:
What if our military had as much influence on Parliament Hill as our municipal police services have in the country’s City Halls?
What would we call Canada then?

“(Carding) is a form of arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” André Marin, former Ontario Ombudsman

Back in the third week of September, the Peel Police Board, which includes the mayors of Mississauga and Brampton as members, instructed their police to suspend carding. But, Police Act restrictions do not give police boards the authority over operational functions, and Peel police chief Jennifer Evans refused to implement the ‘recommendation’.

That is but one recent example fueling the protests against carding, and which prompted Ontario’s CSCS minister Yasir Naqvi to announce on Thursday, October 22, that the practice would be illegal “by the end of fall.”

Well, not quite. The Toronto Star’s headline a week later read, “Random Carding – The End” heralding Ontario’s announcement of a strict set of regulations for the interaction of police with members of the community. In other words, administration but not elimination. Desmond Cole’s companion piece that day, “You can’t legislate police decency”, applauded the new policy but argued that this good start is only a beginning to protect marginalized people from abuses of power.

Both the Star and the Globe ran editorials the next day on October 30. The Globe’s “Don’t regulate carding. Just ban it”, was echoed by the Star’s “Good riddance to carding.”

As expected, by November 7, the Star was reporting that “Chiefs, officers push back against new carding rules.” Police were making a last-ditch effort of halt aspects of the province’s restrictions on street checks before they became law during the 45 day review period of the proposed legislation. What impact they have is pending.

Arguments are now made from different sources that what’s proposed are nothing more than ‘toothless political band-aids’, that the Police Act must be changed to empower civilian police boards to control operational procedures, and that police officers will continue to do as they wish, law or no law.

Only we can bury carding. That, and lots and lots and lots of cameras. Most people don’t know their rights, are too timid to speak up for themselves or others, and frequently believe they are not vulnerable to abuse. Those attitudes must change.

Remember, the People are sovereign in a democracy, police officers are first and always public servants, deserving of respect and good will, but in the end, we still pay for their underwear.

‘Carding’ is code for police state.

The Ontario government, represented by Yasir Naqvi as Minister of Community Safety, held five meetings around the province to determine a best approach to “carding”. Oddly, it seems the intention is to find ways to regulate/control/justify its use rather than eliminate the practice. Meetings in Ottawa, Thunder Bay, London and Brampton culminated in Toronto’s September 1st public consultation which was the loudest and liveliest of the five.

The Globe and Mail’s Monday, September 14 editorial, “The existential crisis facing carding”, began with:-
If Yasir Naqvi, the Ontario Minister of Community Safety, took a position on lemonade, it would probably look like this:
“We believe that lemonade has a valid refreshment purpose and should continue to be part of the standard arsenal of cold beverages used to combat thirst. However, we have zero tolerance for the squeezing of lemons to extract their juice, and stand opposed to the mixing of lemon juice with sugar and water to produce a potable liquid. Thank you.”

This Globe editorial further made the point to which we’ve returned over and over, that if carding is such a valuable crime prevention tool, why not require all Canadians to register their information with police? That would of course meet no constitutional standard.

The province is looking for a wink-wink way to be a little bit unconstitutional.

We followed up with a short letter to the minister:

September 19, 2015

Honourable Yasir Naqvi, Minister,
Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
18th Floor,
George Drew Building, 25 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Carding/Street Checks/Police Stops

Dear Minister:

The Globe and Mail’s Monday, September 14 editorial, “The existential crisis facing carding” , is as succinct on the subject as is possible.

Throughout the five ‘carding’ meetings in different Ontario cities, “….governments and police forces continue to search for rationalizations to allow carding. It boggles the mind.” is how the Globe concluded its commentary.

Carding is, after all, a form of fishing. Fishing is a pastime our police officers must restrict to their own free time, rod, reel and line in hand. One does not fish with a pencil and pad.

Why are politicians so afraid of our police services?

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

A group of Toronto Star journalists, Jim Rankin included, has initiated a campaign to help people find out what information the Toronto Police Service may have collected and recorded during “carding” stops.

The paper’s front page on July 18 asks “Think you’ve been carded? Let’s find out.” Instructions detail how to file a freedom of information request, and offers help if money is a problem. The Star would like the results shared with the newspaper, stipulating that no sensitive pieces of information will be published.

It will take some time to compile what comes out of this. The TPS ATIP division may be overwhelmed with the response to the Star’s effort to inform the public of what is in the police database.

Want to participate? Have questions?

email:     carding@thestar.ca

or, write:
Jim Rankin, Reporter,
The Toronto Star,
One Yonge Street,
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

Let’s watch. Stand by.

We often disagree with the Toronto Star’s Rosie DiManno, but her “Activist ombudsman trumped by police” in the paper’s June 24th edition fell on our side of the fence.

Ontario Ombudsman André Marin has lobbied for years to have oversight of the MUSH sector (municipalities, universities, school boards, and hospitals), and the provinces new Accountability and Transparency Act passed last December did just that……or so Mr. Marin thought. The Star’s Rob Ferguson reported a few days before Ms DiManno’s column appeared that the provincial government had quietly excluded police boards from the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

A provision in the Act allows the government to claw back what’s already given, but in the case of police boards, Treasury Board president Deb Matthews claims there was no loss of oversight but rather police boards were just not added. Marin’s office was provided some time back with a list from the government, naming about a dozen agencies that would be excluded under the Act….like library administration…..but police boards were not on that list. It was the intervention of a number of police chiefs, including Toronto’s, that caused the province to enact the regulation exempting police boards from the Ombudsman Act.

This is a bad move. Our letter to Premier Wynne points that out.

July 1, 2015

Kathleen Wynne, Premier,
Legislative Building,
Queen’s Park,
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Re: Accountability and Transparency Act

Dear Premier Wynne:

Sorry, Premier, it’s not good enough!

That police services boards were excluded (or, “it’s that it wasn’t added”, as Deb Matthews said) from Ontario Ombudsman André Marin’s oversight just doesn’t cut it.

The Toronto Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the Special Investigations Unit, and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, along with municipal and provincial politicians, seem to tuck neatly into our police chiefs’ back pockets.

Tell me Premier Wynne, if all these bodies provided what was needed, why then does an organization such as John Sewell’s Toronto Police Accountability Coalition exist? Why are we getting newspaper reports every week of judges criticizing police practices? Why? The TPSB, et al, are not working on behalf of the people, from whom all authority flows.

It’s time to stop fearing our men and women in uniform, and begin giving our police services the direction they deserve.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen