Pepper spray……yes, it burns.

Pepper spray, or OC spray (from “oleoresin capsicum”), is a lachrymatory agent, a chemical compound irritating the eyes to cause tears, pain, and temporary blindness. Considered a less-than-lethal control option, it has been deadly in rare cases.

According to Dr. Gregory Smith, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, UNC School of Public Health and Chair, NCMS Occupational and Environmental Health Committee:-
“The ill effects of OC. Dermal exposure to OC spray causes tingling, intense burning pain, swelling, redness, and, occasionally, blistering (capsaicin alone causes redness and pain, but not vesiculation). A severe dermatitis, called “human hand”, is found in people who process chili peppers in Mexico. Capsaicin amplifies inflammation by releasing substance P from the skin and nasal mucosa. Multiple exposures of skin or mucous membranes over a period of seconds or minutes exaggerate the response. Capsaicin augments allergic sensitization and worsens allergic dermatitis. Exposure may diminish sensitivity to heat-or-chemical-induced pain, thus increasing the risk and severity of skin burns. Capsaicin powerfully stimulates heat receptors, causing reflex sweating and vasodilation, and activates hypothalamus-mediated cooling; this dual effect increases the risk of hypothermia if victims are decontaminated with cold water on cold days”
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817004624/http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/Smith-OK.htm

These effects assume pepper spray is used as recommended by the manufacturer. Brennan on the other hand was attacked by a group of guards using a concentrated form of OC (see Just Another Day on the Range? The Guigue Summary posted Sept. 26/14). These men didn’t use hand-held dispensers, but instead a heavy canister with a hose and spray nozzle. The entire rear of his naked body was “painted”, and the aerosol spray in the air came into contact with much of the rest of his unprotected skin.

If any of us were to do this, we’d be charged with a number of indictable Criminal Code offenses, possibly even attempted murder. Be reminded that Brennan Guigue cannot be the only victim of such treatment by our public servants for one, and two, we are responsible for their behaviour.

Last month’s April 17th posting, “…now we have the names”, under the Justice for Brennan Guigue banner was important, given how much the forty pages of printed material submitted by Correctional Service of Canada reveals, and in spite of how much more was withheld (see Material/Evidence Requested from CSC, Nov. 2/14), and for which we continue to press CSC to release.

Toronto police – mercenaries?

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?

Levity. Brevity.

For years Stephen Harper and his crew played politics with logic. His government’s so-called tough-on-crime agenda defied the best available evidence in the field, costing taxpayers dearly and playing to a base that, like him and his colleagues, relished the wrong side of right.

Much can be written of the damage done, the thorny path to navigate the murky maze to daylight, and the challenges to initiating more progressive solutions. In the meantime though, and given recent Supreme Court decisions, a short and pointed jab to twisted egos offered a sunny spring recess from the serious business of resetting our priorities.

April 23, 2016

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0A6

Mr. Harper:

“Supreme Court rules against tough-on-crime legislation”
Toronto Star, Friday, April 15, 2016
“Supreme Court rulings signal end for Tories’ tough-on –crime sentences”
Globe and Mail, Friday, April 15, 2016
“Scrap these laws”
Toronto Star Editorial, Monday, April 18, 2016
“No longer mandatory”
Globe and Mail Editorial, Monday, April 18, 2016

And who didn’t know that reason would prevail as soon as the medievalists were booted from office.

I told ya, I told ya, I told ya…….

Charles H. Klassen

copies to: Rob Nicholson/Victor Toews/Steven Blaney

“…..now we have the names”

From the February 28 entry this year under this category:

“The printed material Correctional Service of Canada submitted in response to our information and privacy requests has been reviewed, along with Stephen Fineberg’s translations. Most of the reports, declarations, observations, and evaluations are in French. Just as with the video discs, the delay in analyzing the 40 pages CSC released shows our reluctance to confront what is a difficult event.
Nonetheless, before we comment, further consultation with Brennan Guigue is necessary.”

Brennan saw an obvious contradiction on a first read-through, and when he did focus on these many pages later, he felt comments weren’t necessary. Everything he needed to say was put on paper on July 24, 2014 at Donnacona Institution. “Just another day on the range? The Guigue Summary”, was the first entry on ‘Justice for Brennan Guigue’, posted here on September 26, 2014. What’s important to him with this printed material is that we have the names of all involved.

From the many names on these pages, the correctional officers involved directly in this assault are Steeve Longpré, Eric Charbonneau, D. Nantel, Samuel Penka, and Jean Pratte, acting under the direction of Correctional Manager George Jean-Pierre. Tran D. Nguyen videotaped the event for about two hours. All of these men are employed by Correctional Service of Canada, they are public servants, and on July 22, 2014, they were on duty at RCC (Regional Reception Centre) in Ste-Annes-des-Plaines,
on the north edge of Montreal.

In spite of the words, sentences, paragraphs, and sections that are blacked out, and parts of reports that aren’t filled in, there are interesting conflicts. As a for instance, Samuel Penka’s observation report noted, “My role in this team was to escort prisoner after handcuffed. Prisoner resisting verbally and physically so was gassed with MK().” We have that portion of the video tape, and it’s obvious Mr. Penka ‘misremembers’ how this unfolded, although he filed his report on the same day as the event, and it was counter-signed by George Jean-Pierre.

On the same day again, Correctional Manager George Jean-Pierre filled out his portion of the Use of Force Report. Of the ten questions posed, three are of particular interest.
Total weight of canister before? g After? g (This refers to the canister of OC gas in liquid form, and it is a requirement to note how much is used each time this is deployed. CM Jean-Pierre could not provide this data without incriminating himself and his team in an illegal act of torture.)
Was the forced used necessary and proportionate to the situation at hand?   YES
Were there any violations of the law or CSC’s policies?   NO

Contrast that with the senior managers’ observations. We are including only relevant assessments.

In the section reserved for the Correctional Manager (Operations) [name, signature and date do not appear]:
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate in the situation:   NO
Any violations of law or CSC policies?   YES

Deputy Warden Cynthia Racicot answering the same questions: [section is not dated]
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate in the situation:   NO
Violations of the law or CSC policies?   YES
The deputy warden also attached a note which was not made available.

The section reserved for Institutional Head Stéphane Lalande is dated November 24, 2014.
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate to the situation:   NO
Any violations of the law or CSC policies?   YES

Robert Piorier, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Operations completed the section reserved for him on January 8, 2015.
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate to the situation:   NO
Were all health standards met?   NO
Any violations of law or CSC policies?   YES

A September 14, 2014 evaluation of the event by Anik Desgagnés, a representative of the institution, was circumspect in its criticism, given its own employees were involved. He contradicted the video evidence at one point, but acknowledged there were “failures.” One paragraph here is blacked out, but continued, “I conclude the staff did not use a good management strategy with respect to the situation…….”

The Regional evaluation was received on December 3, 2014, but the entire section has been withheld.

The National evaluation was submitted on January 6, 2015 by Stéphane Descroches, and noted the status of the evaluation was ongoing and the “file remains open.” This report began by disagreeing with the evaluation and intervention by the institution. Three sections are blacked out. In the end, “…we conclude that the MGS (situation management model) was not respected and the use of inflammatory agents was not justified. The behaviour of the prisoner represented no threat for him of our agents.”

There was further information we requested where CSC simply dismissed the necessity of including it in the package.

Remember, what happened to Brennan Guigue should not be seen as an isolated incident, that all involved are civil servants paid from the public purse, using your tax dollars ( You pay for their underwear! ), and that all are undoubtedly still employed by your government.

Jail health care? Ontario, challenge this!

If the health care unit in Toronto South Detention Centre, Ontario’s 2 year-old superjail located in the southwest corner of the city, was moved to a location outside the institution, let’s say two kilometers or so away at the corner of Islington and Evans Avenues, and was open to the public, it would be a health care clinic threatened with a criminal investigation.

Strong words, yes, and not the first time we’ve addressed the subject. Ameliorating this critique if only a little, it may be unfair to single out this one penal institution when other provincial jails are comparable. TSDC, though, is supposed to be the end-all and be-all for custodial management in Ontario, and is an easy target.

While we are unaware of how jails in other provinces and territories stack up, we can speak to health care in our federal prisons under the domain of Correctional Service of Canada. This won’t be a lengthy analysis of any shortcomings to the health care our prison populations can access, but rather challenges bureaucratic misrepresentations of the quality of care in Ontario and federal institutions.

Prison populations have higher rates of mental health issues, substance abuse and communicable diseases than the community at large. This circumstance has been a constant, and subject to numerous studies. Fiona Kouyoumdjian, a postdoctoral fellow with the Centre for Research on Inner City Health of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, has recently released the first-of-its-kind comprehensive portrait of prisoner health across the country. Nothing in this paper is new to jail/prison administrators, but the ‘party line’ everywhere has always been that inmates get the same level of health care as the general population.

This just isn’t true. Not only that, but these same administrators know it.

To cite only one example in the federal penal system, we had an ongoing letter exchange over a few years with an inmate in Agassiz, British Columbia. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer at one point during his sentence, and had to retain his lawyer and take Correctional Service of Canada to court in order to get the surgery he needed and the necessary after-care.

As for Ontario, we’ll go into more detail. Mary Dwyer is the current manager of health care services at the Toronto South Detention Centre. She came to our attention when she testified in early February in an action by a TSDC inmate looking for redress from the lack of proper medical care in the institution, particularly during lockdowns which are rampant there. Lauren Callighen, a spokesperson for the ministry, when asked for a comment, said, “We work hard every day to ensure that inmates receive the same access to health care in our institutions as they would in the community.” I believe firefighters were then called to her office to extinguish the flames from the lightning strike.

The court’s decision is pending in that case, but we contacted Mary Dwyer for another inmate in a similar situation at TSDC. This particular inmate had more than one health concern but of immediate import was an infected pre-molar in his fourth quadrant. He had been able to pierce the infection with a sharpened staple and was able to drain the puss every couple of days. He made two requests to see the dentist, plus a dental referral was placed in his file by a doctor at the institution. It still took almost four weeks before he got some attention. The inmate was put on penicillin for seven days and then left for another two weeks before he saw the dentist again, and the infection returned in the meantime. This has been ongoing now since the beginning of February.

I pointed out to Ms Dwyer that, in the same situation, she would have seen her dentist the day an infection became apparent. Nonetheless, her email response to mine included this: “I can say that the Toronto South Detention Centre takes the healthcare concerns of all inmates in our care very seriously.”

Consider that the Ontario Ombudsman’s 2014-2015 Annual Report noted there were 2138 health care complaints from inmates in Ontario’s jails during that reporting period. Consider that not all healthcare complaints end up crossing the ombudsman’s desk. Consider that, unlike the federal system where there is some recourse for prisoners, Ontario’s inmates have no substantive remedy other than the courts.

We did indicate this wouldn’t be a long analysis, didn’t we. Lengthy this may be, but an analysis it is not. There’s one more thing we’ll add, just for comic relief, if that’s possible.

The TSDC inmate with the abscessed tooth? In one of his requests to see a dentist, he had described how he was able to drain the infection with a sharpened staple and thereby avoid the pain that normally accompanies this kind of condition. About two weeks after submitting that request, a Sergeant Tsonga showed up at his cell to ask for his “weapon”. The institution’s security department had sent her to retrieve the staple! No kidding!

All this is but one indicator that a person consigned to a provincial jail in Ontario is no longer in Canada!

Is freedom just another word?

The Washington Post reported in mid-February that the U.S. National Registry of Exonerations had recorded 1733 cases since 1989 where wrongfully convicted people were cleared of the charges that put them in prison, and had been freed as a result.

A record number of 149 people in the United States were exonerated in 2015, up from 139 the year before.  This included 58 who had been convicted of homicide, and 5 among those had been sentenced to death.  The numbers also show there was an increase year over year in the freeing of people who had pleaded guilty or falsely confessed.

These 149 innocent people had spent an average of 14.5 years in prison.

Justice may be blind, but it can also be blinded.

Canada complicit with torture? Really?

Following a judicial inquiry, the government of Stephen Harper apologized to Maher Arar in January of 2007, and paid him $10.5 million in compensation plus $1 million in legal fees to settle his civil lawsuit for its role in Arar’s rendition to a Syrian military prison where he was tortured in 2002/2003. While the Conservative government of the day could have been more aggressive in protecting a Canadian citizen, it was the shameful behaviour of our public servants at CSIS and the RCMP that left Mr. Arar traumatized, and cost Canadian taxpayers unnecessarily.

This infrequent mid-week post links with our March 20 “Human rights issues…..in Canada?”, and a February 7 Toronto Star Ottawa bureau’s Tonda MacCharles’ article, “Liberals back CSIS in torture lawsuit”.

Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin, and Abdullah Almaiki were arrested upon arrival in Syria at about the same time Maher Arar was transferred there from the United States and all were tortured in the same prison. El Maati was later moved from Syria to Egypt where he was also tortured. A second Canadian judicial inquiry headed by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci confirmed El Maati, Nureddin, and Almaiki were tortured in Syria, and Canadian officials played a role. The three men in turn filed claims against our government.

The Liberals have picked up the Harper government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation, even though they voted in favour while in opposition. What’s more, the Liberals are going further than their predecessors to protect CSIS sources. According to the Star story, the legal team representing El Maati, Nureddin and Alaiki are “stunned” by the Trudeau government’s position.

We had written Ralph Goodale on this early in February (copy below). Considering Justin Trudeau’s recent New York trip, we sent off a note to him, too:

February 9, 2016

The Honourable Ralph Goodale,
Minister of Public Safety,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: Liberals back CSIS in torture lawsuit
Toronto Star, Sunday, February 7, 2016

Dear Minister Goodale:

To understate this, what a shame!

The last government was prepared to be unreasonable, unfair and obstinate in dealing with these three men. We would have expected that from it, but to have the government of which you are a part go even further is a disappointment. Guess this is at least one black mark on your record.

What was all this about accountability for national security agencies anyway?

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

March 23, 2016

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: Human rights in Canada

Dear Prime Minister:

Your remarks during your recent and successful New York trip included a reference to Canada as a leader in human rights.

The record says otherwise. Consider the attached turnoverarocktoday.com postings, “Human rights issues….in Canada?” and “Canada complicit with torture? Really?”

You promised better than this.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Human rights issues…..in Canada?

We’re all aware of the impending sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, and the questions and criticisms over how this might be used by the Saudis, given their human rights record. Recently, the Saudi embassy in Ottawa suggested that the Kingdom could have purchased what was needed elsewhere, and in so many words, said we should mind our own business.

They have a point.

Canada is a long way removed from conditions in many countries, but we are not a paradigm of human rights’ virtues either, in spite of what the prime minister said last week in New York. Amnesty International’s secretary-general Alex Neve, and Indigenous Bar Association and University of Manitoba associate professor Brenda Gunn’s perspective of a United Nations’ committee’s findings was published on February 26 in Toronto’s Globe and Mail.

The UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had just carried out the first review of Canada since the Liberals formed a new government last fall. With Ottawa’s fresh air at their backs, about 40 indigenous leaders and activists, and human rights and equality advocates from across the country traveled to Geneva the last week in February. They were anticipating a positive outcome, given the federal government’s renewed relationship with the UN, and the welcome developments under way in Canada.

Unfortunately, and in spite of the upcoming inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women, the restoration of health care cuts for refugees, and a proposed national poverty strategy, Canada remains at loggerheads with the UN committee over our shortcomings in complying with human rights. In the face of international law, our country continues to insist that economic, social and cultural rights aren’t fully protected by the Charter, and do not need to be.

Individuals and communities who believe their rights are disregarded have no remedy. Until federal and provincial governments come together to guarantee human rights in more effective ways, and until their approach promotes economic and social rights, Canada remains a country in a rights limbo.

Just as an aside, has any country’s government ever confessed a lousy human rights record to the world?

Confidence and trust.

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