Pandering

Posted on by Pete Cross

Under the cloak of COVID, while monies are raining down from on high, the Canadian government has decided that this is an opportune time to pander to the select groups who hold the Federal Liberals dear to their socially active and political hearts. Their slobbering self interest doesn’t seem to know any bounds and it is certainly not constrained by any concern for budget. 

Is it all aimed at a near future election call by the Liberals? Most likely. Is it cynical, opportunistic and ethically questionable? Yes it is. Do their actions have any merit? Possibly, but it would be difficult to measure. However, their motivations are obvious. 

On February 19th of this year, in a single day, the Prime Minister announced three items with that somber voice designed to instil righteousness and clearly aimed at those of us with Grade 8 education levels.  

The first, which is economically debatable but politically obvious, was the extension of the CERB benefits for an additional 12 weeks. Sick benefits were extended as was Employment Insurance for a cumulative total of 54 weeks. The pros and cons of doing this is one for the economists to debate. Clearly though, the handing out of funds never seems to engender any liberal or social antipathy and Mr. Trudeau seems to relish the daily ritual coverage of the doling out of monies, as he guides us to health and prosperity and implores us to save lives.

The second announcement was the re-tooling of the Official Languages Act, which Mr. Trudeau described as legislation to further enhance that “beautiful french language”. In this “modernization” of the Languages Act  as presented by Ms.Joly (a rumoured “favourite” of Mr. Trudeau) should raise some concern and debate; although admittedly no one seems to be paying close attention to an Act to do with languages. It seems like strange timing in terms of priority, until you read what the changes entail. The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP who are currently supporting the minority Liberals must be aware that Mr. Trudeau is preparing to try and pull the rug out from under them— by usurping their claim as being a better representative of the people of Quebec. 

The first amendment is to Section 83 —which states that “nothing in the Act abrogates or derogates from the rights of other languages, by explicitly mentioning Indigenous languages”.  This is lawyer inspired convoluted language but the intended results are that Nunavut and the North West Territories will officially recognize English, French and “indigenous languages as official languages”.  Surprisingly, little fanfare to announce that Canada has another “official” language? It may also seem trite but compliance to this could have profound effect on the courts and the providing of government services.

Also in this Languages Act the government is proposing to “encourage” further funding for french immersion across the country– including the hiring of more french immersion teachers, and even stream lining a “Francophone immigration corridor”. All this to aid them in their search for French speaking teachers outside of Quebec. 

No matter how meritorious this promotion of the french culture and language it is coming at a time when French as a language and culture is dwindling. Using their own statistics, the francophone population outside of Quebec in 1971 was 6.6%. It was 3.9% in 2011 and is anticipated to be at 3.0% by 2036.  One has to question whether an “immersed” Canada outside of Quebec is a relevant and achievable goal. The Liberals clearly think so, but they are likely more concerned in how it will “play” in Quebec. 

Finally, since 2016 the Government of Canada has been “committed” to appointing “only functioning bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada”. However, there was an exception clause in the act under Section 16(1) which was purposefully placed there in consideration of the need for geographic representation on the courts and a possible lack of bilingual judges in the unilingual West. The Liberals are now going to remove this exemption, so that all will have to be fluently bilingual to serve on the highest court in the land. This could have a direct impact on the makeup of this highest court, more francophone than representative.

As an oblique aside, the Government says that “it will be necessary to keep in mind the importance of representativeness of Indigenous peoples in the highest institutions of our country….”. They then direct the Government to “actively envision the appointment of Indigenous judges to the Supreme Court of Canada”.  One has to admire the “actively envision” language as camouflage for a direct order.

Which brings us to the the third announcement of this busy day.

It pertained to Bill C-22, which is to deal with the “Mandatory Minimal Penalties (MMP) as outlined in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  They are announcing changes to the fourteen offences in the Criminal Code and six in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Why? If you follow this Liberal government you probably have already guessed. Because, minimum sentences “targets black, indigenous and racialized communities”. 

Their blatantly stated goal is to bring down the numbers of the Federally incarcerated who are there due to “systemic discrimination and racism” and a system which they believe punishes “black and indigenous people”.   Mr. Lametti seems to want us to believe that this “over representation” was some form of pointed racist selection process, not the result of persons having committed the crimes.

The statistics are bold and clear.

 From 2007-2017 they argue “black and indigenous were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a MMP”.  Although only 5% of the population is indigenous, they make up 30% of the Federal inmate population; blacks represent 3 % of the population but represent 7.2% of the incarcerated. The answer, according to the social progressives, is not to try and stem the crime by fighting the obvious crime instigators like poverty and unemployment in these communities. Their solution, if parties are caught in a criminal offence, is to promote “judicial discretion”. They are directing Judges that they “must take into consideration the individual and their experience with systemic racism”. 

They will even be funding $28 million to “social contracts training” for  Judges in case they are missing the message. 

Is there evidence that mandatory sentencing doesn’t work? Yes, but there is also evidence that it does work, so this reformation is not necessarily based on the evidence— what it is based on is playing to a certain minority.  

In 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that minimum sentencing was constitutional but maybe not an “appropriate response” to Section 12 of the Charter which deals with cruel and unusual punishment. 

The pros of minimum sentencing point out that it eliminates disparity, provides consistency, and avoids Judge shopping. If one holds that the law should reflect the peoples wishes, in 2005 —74% of Canadians felt that sentencing was too lenient. It should be remembered that the minimum sentencing was brought into effect under the dreaded Stephen Harper Conservative government in response to Canadians and their complaints about the lack of justice. 

But none of this seems to have been the motivating factor for Justice Minister Lametti. What may be more relevant is that the multi-party “black caucus” issued a call to action  and “demanded the elimination of mandatory minimums”. Mr. Lametti a signatory to this document.  

There is little doubt that Mr. Lametti has been emboldened and given comfort by the courts, which are allowing him to play to the minority audience. 

In 2016 in R vs Lloyd, when dealing with some drug offences, the court thought that the drug offences and sentencing for them did not take into account “indigenous heritage and the impact of colonialism”.  In R vs Gladue the Judges said that a different “analysis and approach is required by Judges when sentencing aboriginal offenders and that “imprisonment is a less appropriate or less useful sanction”.  

Far be it for this writer to be in disagreement with the learned judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are a distinguished group of scholars, but their voting records seem to have a very natural lean to the left. Mr. Lametti and the Liberals are also playing in the Biden band and trumpeting whatever is currently playing in the North American media. The riotous Trump entourage is now thankfully gone but we now have the Trudeau and Biden love-in which could prove equally destructive and divisive with its approach to social issues, or rather its dogmatic adherence to Twitter driven policies.

Having lived most of my life in the criminal world, the positions of this Liberal government when it comes to crime and minority rights, seems at times completely ludicrous. We have been traveling down this left branch of the victim road for an interminable many years now. One has to wonder and ask that with each further step— are we getting any closer to some ill-defined justice utopia ? By creating different classes of criminals with different levels of personal and cultural responsibility are we moving towards justice and fair and equal treatment, or away from it? 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that the definition of justice is a concept on ethics and law “that means people behave in a way that is fair, equal and balanced for everyone”. Minimum sentencing seems to fit that definition whereas the policy of Mr. Lametti feels that the principal of proportionality applies and one should allow for “the role of the social context”, which seems counter-intuitive.

The symbolic scales held by the Roman Lady of Justitia symbolizes giving fair and objective consideration to all evidence, without showing bias one way or the other. Mr. Lametti and his Liberal colleagues are unhesitatingly standing on those scales and even trying to influence who hold those scales. They are brazen in their efforts, choosing a time when debate and accountability have been Zoomed out.

The fifth estate have been completely coopted by the the social agenda, content to just count the number of COVID cases and their variants. To them, application of justice, or the breach of charter and constitutional rights are far less interesting than Oprah, Harry, and Meaghan. The pablum of celebrity successfully diverting us from worthy debate on issues of importance; and, that is what the Liberals are counting on.

Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey via Flickr Creative Commons – Some Rights Reserved

Let them Eat Cake

Posted on by Pete Cross

As you or may not be aware, there are three classes or categories of employees within the RCMP according to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.  The first are those that have representation; those officers now being represented by the novice union, the National Police Federation (NPF), and the officers are now dutifully paying union dues. The second category are those who are managerial, but are excluded from representation, civilian members for the most part. The third and final category are the officers of the RCMP who have no representation. This final category are the upper managerial ranks —Inspector and above, purposely distinguished from the rank and file by their “white shirts” and their brass laden uniforms. 

No doubt you are wondering how these “white shirts” are faring in this day and age when the RCMP is being pummelled from all sides. They have had no pay increases either since 2017— despite this loftier status.

To be sure many of those in the elevated ranks have already gathered up their challenge coins and headed for the exits, driven out by old age or a sense of foreboding. Some are clearly worried about their perceived paltry pensions and are seeking salvation and further riches on the civilian horizon; bound for guarding the pipeline, the Independent Investigations Office or dare one mention the new Surrey City Police.  

But for those that remain behind and for all those that aspire to become one of the knighted, there is still some hope. 

The general public may be a little amazed to to learn that these officers, who have gone from one disaster to another in the last number of years, feel that they need a pay raise and an increase in benefits, usually the reward for a job well done.

However, in the policing world, pay raises are the result of a constant ratcheting effect, a keeping up with the Jones’ kind of rational. 

That aside, the difference this year is that for the most part, their pay and benefits are going to be paradoxically tied to the unionized rank and file and the capabilities of the union negotiators of the National Police Federation.  

Recently, I listened in to a recorded zoom style meeting, billed as a “Town hall” meeting which was open to all of the white shirts of the RCMP.  Admittedly, it was a bit like crashing a get together at a Masonic Hall, as one could not help but feel that by listening in, without an invitation, was somehow illicit. 

The meeting was chaired by C/Supt Leslie Ohare and Supt. Bert Ferreira who have been overseeing the “Officer Consultative Committee”. This committee is designed to be an intermediary or representative body for the officers with the Treasury Board Secretariat. The TBS will end up making the final determinations as to the white shirted officers in terms of pay and benefits and is the same Treasury Board Secretariat that is currently negotiating with the NPF. 

So things have now changed with the coming of age of this union movement. The white shirts are for the first time facing Treasury Board, cap in hand as usual, but this time dependent on the NPF settlement. The reason is that Treasury Board must know the end results of those negotiations, before they can make a determination as to the rates of pay for the senior executive. 

There were two terms heard when listening in on this meeting with reference to the demands of the executive and that is what they call the “pay line” and the need for there to be “no inversion”.  In simple terms, they just mean that depending on what a Staff Sargent gets will by necessity determine what an Inspector gets. The accepted labour relations argument being that there is a need for pay separation and also satisfying the need to incentivize these higher positions. They don’t want some lower position getting greater pay and benefits than the white shirted, which would be an “inversion” of the salaries. It is a caste system after all, so one could not bear the thought that some operational lower rank could surpass an administrative manager, no matter what their respective roles and responsibilities. 

So, now the white shirts are cheering on the NPF. Ironic to say the least considering that for decades these same managers argued and fought the battle against unionization.

In terms of the current ongoing NPF negotiations, Treasury Board confirmed during this meeting that the negotiations are currently scheduled into June 2021. They are meeting monthly (the next meeting is scheduled for March 2-4, 2021) and all  are hoping to have a deal done by the summer –which would require ratification by the rank and file and a possible pay raise by the Fall of 2021. 

Should no agreement be reached and arbitration needed, it was also learned that this would delay any settlement for at least another year. One would think that this would not be a very sellable position for the NPF.  

Originally, the NPF was arguing publicly for a 17% pay request, but lately in their news releases or interviews they seem to be avoiding those bald numbers in terms of what they are asking, likely thinking that it is better to slightly dampen expectations. One would have to think, that inflation alone for the last few years would probably guarantee an 8% increase. That in itself would bring the 131st rated RCMP constable from $86,110 to $92,998. This is still a long way from the Delta Police who are currently ranked number one at $107,840. Even third ranked Edmonton is at $106,262, still leaving a discrepancy of $13,264 per year. 

Of course no one knows what the free spending Liberals are thinking. The Treasury Board makes recommendations to the Cabinet and they base their recommendations on three major factors; the size of the total compensation package, the internal relativity to other similar agencies, and the “state of the economy”. One of the negotiators with Treasury Board described the negotiations with the NPF as “the mood being receptive” but added that there were still “many issues outstanding”. 

During this “town hall” the officers asked why they couldn’t get their pay raise immediately, but were given the standard answer of needing to wait for the NPF.  These same officers are  also now demanding (or asking for) : – unlimited sick leave, an increase in their pay to make up for the fact that they do not get overtime, and forty more hours of annual leave. They were also seeking greater benefits. On their list were increases in the dental service allowance; an increase in the PSHCP dependent coverage and an increase in life insurance from $160,000 to $500,000 with the employer paying all premiums. 

These demands would or should not be considered out of line in terms of executive compensation. However, it will be difficult for the general public to rationalize demands for pay raises with the demonstrated fallibility of the RCMP senior ranks. The RCMP has hit a new low in terms of recruitment, morale, pay, and the implementation of the diversity and inclusion agendas. 

The last few years has also watched them pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from the harassment suits, has seen report after report demanding changes of the RCMP. Shortages in manpower have been termed a “crisis” and over 3,000 complaints were filed against the RCMP in 2017 alone. The use of force during this era of Freddie Gray has risen 10% in the last three years. It has overseen operational and investigational disasters such as Mark Norman and are now waiting for the fallout from Port au Pique, and Cameron Ortis. An internal audit in 2020 said that the Mounties were accepting applicants who were poorly qualified and some even with criminal records. That the emphasis was now on “the quantity of applicants with less focus on the quality”. The solution to these recurring pitfalls is not either obvious or on the horizon.

The senior ranks throughout history have promoted their distinct and honourable position in the RCMP. They are to be saluted when passing, paying deference to their wisdom, experience and at having reached the upper echelons of a world class police department. All of these perceived notions can now be effectively argued and challenged. Promotion to this group has become diluted by policy, dwindling experience and best intentions. The red serge is becoming threadbare, exposed threads being pulled on a daily basis.

This fraying of this once proud organization has been overseen by this same group who are demanding, in fact assuming, they are to be rewarded nevertheless.

Like Marie Antoinette telling the throngs to eat cake in lieu of enough bread to eat, they seem to have “a frivolous disregard for the starving peasants and a poor understanding of their plight.”

Their personal financial goals on the other hand are seemingly quite clear. The senior ranks of the RCMP will continue to demand their cake.

Photo courtesy of Irina via Flickr Commons – some Rights Reserved

Commissioner Lucki and Her New (but Old)”Strategy”

Posted on by Pete Cross

This headline and announcement came on January 26, 2021, relayed to all members of the RCMP in the form of a Commissioners Broadcast. One would have thought on first glimpse that finally there was finally some addressing of the multiple concerns now facing this organization. Had the Chief Executive of your National Police Force finally awoken from her semi-slumber to finally deal with some of the many issues plaguing the boys and girls in red? 

Well you would be both right and wrong. You would be right in assuming that there is in fact a new announced strategy. You would be wrong in thinking this was a strategy that was new in terms of goals and or objectives. You could also be right if you paid it little heed and put it in the category of the never ending pablum which continues to spill forth from Ottawa.

There will be a very select few within this vast organization who will be nodding their heads in affirmation of this new “strategy” but we would be equally safe in saying that those that would applaud this new development are not the same people that are working the night shifts in Coquitlam or Burnaby tonight.  So what is it?

 Is it a strategy to deal with recent gun violence?  No.

 Is it a strategy to deal with the lack of ability to recruit new members? No. 

Is it a strategy to deal with the current salary structure of the RCMP? No. 

Rather “today is an important day for the RCMP” because on this date, the RCMP has launched (with the fanfare of an Elon Musk Space X rocket) the “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy”.  If this was not enough excitement, she also announced that this strategy would also be part of the “Vision 150 Agenda”.  Most of you will have to admit that you have no idea what Vision 150 is, but apparently this is a good thing so nod your head approvingly.  

Not only is this a “new” strategy; but it is a “LIVE” strategy.  (Someone will have to explain to me how a strategy takes on the qualities of a human being—but remember that this is coming out of Ottawa –the generator of all acronyms and inanities).

We should also note, that neither the RCMP in general or Ms. Lucki in particular came up with this strategy on their or her own. This is not an original thought. No, they admit, this strategy came from “consultation” with the National Council for Diversity and Inclusion; other Federal employee “networks”; and “policy centers with direct impacts on EDI”.  One could cynically translate this to mean that this policy was being pushed down to the Mounties– causing them to now on bended knee genuflect before those very busy gods of correctness.

According to the announcement, “this robust and comprehensive strategy introduces fundamental changes to the RCMP’s systems that will allow us to promote an inclusive organization that values diversity and serves employees and communities with dignity and respect”.

“It also focuses on identifying and reducing workplace and service delivery barriers for Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (believe it or not, even this has an acronym BiPoC) women, persons with disabilities and members of LGBTQ2+ communities”.

It goes on. “The EDI strategy identifies clear, concrete and transparent actions under four “pillars” that will embed equity, diversity and inclusion into the way we think about, and perform all aspects of our mandate.” What are those four pillars you ask:

-Provide Leadership and Governance

-Be Clear, Accountable and Transparent

-Enhance Awareness and Education

-Change Culture and Transform. 

You will be forgiven if none of these general life statements mean anything to you. It is the language of LinkedIn resumes, supervisor assessments, or senior RCMP executive speeches. Does anyone remember Mission Statements? This is a similar exercise. It says a lot, but its beauty in its crafting is that it says nothing. 

 They are going to “review workplace policies and practises through an “EDI, GBA+ and anti-Black racism lens to combat systemic racism”. (Remember when Ms Lucki didn’t’ think there was systemic racism and then within 48 hours recanted—she clearly has now been fully indoctrinated into the cult of goodness)

Even more specifically, there will be more “representation on selection boards” and they will be establishing “talent development plans for occupational groups with low diversity”. They will be “linking EDI goals to Performance, Promotion and Compensation”. 

As said before, this will all be aligned with “Vision 150”, a description of which you can find on the government website, that is if you have endless mindless hours and a propensity to like watching paint dry. If you dare to dive down on this government site you will find a Vision 150 “tracker”, which is divided into the four “pillars” once again. Deeper still, you will find a “tracker” for each program that is being initiated. 

It is here where you will see most of the proposed programs such as; the increase in body cams, further training in cultural understanding and diversity, a number of programs which involve consultation with the Indigenous and Indigenous women, promotions to advisory boards of various minority representative groups, and oversight programs in the major crime areas. There is even a program designed to hire civilian investigators in the area of financial crimes. 

There is an uncomfortable dystopian feel to all this. A new type of Republic of Gilead. The RCMP has even created the ominous sounding position of “Special Designated Officer for Diversity and Inclusion” and named Nadine Huggins as its first leader. Ms. Huggins of course, is “looking forward….to bring a results oriented approach to establishing an inclusive workforce and workplace.”  

One could make an educated guess as to the eventual goals of Ms. Huggins with a quick check of her resume. Her masters thesis was entitled: “Canadian Nationhood and the Identity Discourse: Incorporating Minority and other Groups”. In this thesis she refers to the French and English as the “Charter groups”  and all others make up the “marginalized”. Her Twitter universe is filled almost entirely with all the requisite black lives matter tweets or tweets on reconciliation and inclusion. The Federal government has always been her home, and all her jobs have a heavy emphasis on Indigenous representation and working at such things as the Taskforce on Diversity and Inclusion. Ms. Huggins fits the woke stereotype and her solutions will be patently obvious and predictable.

None of this is news. These policies of inclusion have been around for decades, although the terminology has changed. Affirmative action to inclusion and diversity, the French and English in this country are no longer the founding nations, now according to Ms. Huggins they are the “Charter groups”. The RCMP have been flying gay pride flags over detachments, holding diversity and inclusion detachment strategy sessions for quite some time. The RCMP in other words have been “awoke” for some time.

Forty years ago, discussions in RCMP management circles were concerned about how physical requirements for admission often precluded those coming from the Asian community. To address this problem height and weight requirements were altered and a point system was developed. The pendulum then swung towards the need to recruit females in the late 1970’s and 1980’s and the physical training was changed to accommodate. 

The solutions then were the same as now, greater inclusion and representation which almost always translates to more hiring and promotion. The only difference in this strategy from those of thirty years ago is that the target beneficiary for greater inclusion keeps moving and that marginalized pendulum has now reached its full arc.  

One can not argue that the idea of greater representation of the Canadian mosaic in policing is a wrong-headed idea. It is not. The flaw is in the belief that the barriers are “systemic” within the current system. They are not, that is only an easy and convenient simplification. The barriers are much more complicated and broader in scope. Culture, language, education, and economic well being are much greater contributors to a lack of entry and inclusion. 

The other blemish in these simplistic academic theories is the fundamental assumption that policing– meaning in its simplest form, the investigation of crime and the enforcement of laws can be bent by a cultural, colour or gender bias.

The conduct of investigations are based on simple concepts and on answering the five w’s. Techniques can change, but ultimately, all investigations follow a practised format based on experience which form a type of checklist. Straying from the orthodoxy would be rare. The checklist is largely unaffected by cultural or ethnic influence.

The creation and passage of laws is done by the duly elected in the various legislatures and the Federal Parliament. They laws are based on a perceived or pre-determined need by those elected representing the citizens at large. It is highly subjective.

However, enforcement of those same laws is objective and should be by its very nature, immune from influence by outside factors.

If these future strategies are aimed at infusing cultural or gender differences into the course of an investigation or imply choices in enforcement of those laws –we are going to find ourselves in a very dangerous neighbourhood. 

As this next chapter begins, one must realize that this strategy is a pure, made-in Ottawa “strategy”, and as such it will have little to no impact on the general population of the RCMP involved in day to day operational policing. What it is doing is enshrining for the future years a gender and culture check-list for promotion and advancement.  That is already in full swing, so this “strategy” is only serving to codify and legitimize advancement based on factors other than competency. 

This is a long bumpy road but is largely an academic exercise being played out by mandarins in the hushed halls and padded conference rooms of the Ottawa cognoscenti. The topic is in the wheelhouse of Commissioner Lucki, fitting nicely into her comfort zone and is likely part of her bid to retain her job. However, it is unlikely to be part of the conversation at one in the morning when uniformed officers are hunched over their 7-11 coffee.

Photo Courtesy of Serge Saint via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved

Old Mounties are the New Guard in Surrey

Posted on by Pete Cross

As many of you are now aware, a new Chief has been anointed by the Surrey City Counsel Police board. The signalling white smoke has come out of the Surrey Detachment chimney officially proclaiming that Norm Lipinski has metamorphosed once again and become the head of the brand new Surrey Police Department. The selection process was described as an extensive “world wide search” and after casting this wide all encompassing net, it was then conveniently discovered, that they only needed to look a couple of miles west of Surrey to find the perfect candidate in the hamlet of Delta.  

The Police Board said they chose Lepinski because he was “a seasoned leader in community level policing”. Further, Mr. Lepinski after this thorough vetting, showed “demonstrable experience promoting progressive policing policies, including commitment to de-escalation training and ability to foster a diverse and inclusive environment”.

Now, many of you readers, will at this time begin the slow roll of the eyes skyward, but one must accept that this is after all the “new” policing world. Clearly, Mr. Lipinski has reached master class level in professing and promoting the politically acceptable —the lauded dialogue of “consultation” “progressive” “diversity” “representation” and “equity in policing” and he can probably put them all in one sentence.  

These professed qualities will undoubtedly be tested early. The large South Asian community in Surrey has already begun expressing displeasure at the choice of Mr. Lepinski.  

What may be more questionable is that Lepinski has now decided that at least two of his three Deputies should be from the Mounties— the same Mounties, they are striving to replace. The fact that he has chosen from the Mounties is somewhat perplexing, but even more baffling may be the two he has chosen for those Deputy positions. 

To help us better understand maybe we need to review the curriculum vitae of Mr. Lepinski, who is orchestrating this controversial transition, as it may provide some clues.  

Mr. Lepinski spent thirty years in the Edmonton Police Service before deciding that he wanted to re-settle into this land of the lotus. He seemed to use his time in Edmonton wisely. He achieved a Masters of Business Administration degree as well as a Bachelor of Laws Degree while there. 

He left Edmonton in 2010 after thirty years and then in a somewhat unusual move applied to be a red serge Mountie. This proposition was apparently received with wide open arms. In fact they were so taken with him, they immediately assigned him the high rank of Assistant Commissioner for E Division British Columbia. One could assume that this move was approved by the then Commissioner of the RCMP Bob Paulson.   

Then in 2015,  Lepinski, after a relatively brief five years with the RCMP (maybe long enough to find the way to the Tim Hortons in Green Timbers) then applies and becomes Deputy Chief of the Delta Police Department, a small 200 person department on the geographic boundary with Surrey. Here he joins his old alumni from Edmonton Police Service— Neil Dubord —who had become the Chief of Delta PD. No doubt this was a coincidence.  

Chief Dubord himself had spent twenty-five years with the Edmonton Police Service eventually rising to the rank of Deputy Chief in Charge of Community Policing. He left Edmonton in 2012 and he too headed for the milder climate of British Columbia where he too impressed the locals and won the job of Chief of BC Transit Police. 

After three short years Dubord also got itchy feet and then applied and won the competition to become the Chief of Delta PD . That was also in 2015. Dubord is also academically inclined and managed to earn a Masters degree in Leadership and Training and now lists himself as a Canadian Human Resource Professional. He has also written a dissertation for his PHD in business.

It may be a little cheeky to point out that, although academically gifted, loyalty would not be the single foremost characteristic for either of these individuals. 

But for Lepinski the career march continued once again. Lepinski spent five years in Delta and despite now having spent forty years in police work—having already reached the normal declared age of retirement at sixty-five— decides that he should apply and indeed warrant the job to become the  Chief of Surrey. 

It may be pertinent in the future to note that Lepinski’s spouse of many years is former Global television reporter Lynda Steele— who now has a radio talk show on CKNW the preeminent station in Vancouver and Surrey. CKNW throughout the development of MacCallum’s vision of a separate police agency was very anti-MacCallum. It will be interesting to note if the coverage changes in the next few years. 

So now, Lepinski after picking up his third pension cheque, has now assumed his new role as Chief of the  Surrey Police Service. 

Clearly, Mr. Lipinski is well versed in RCMP and Municipal police politics. It is equally clear that he has a deft ability to self-promote. However, he is now facing problems in Surrey that he would not have seen in Delta or during his brief stay in the Mounties. Surrey is unique in many ways in both its makeup and the problems that come with it; extensive gang activity, disparate ethnic communities, massive population growth, and a large immigrant contingent will create a fire hose of daily problems and emergencies– and that is not even considering the logistics of changeover of equipment and personnel. It will all demand an enormous amount of operational competency and a dextrous administration in this city which proclaims “Where the Future Lives Here” 

One has to constantly remember that the Mounties are being dispatched from Surrey because the policing need was not being met in that city; at least according to the majority of the voters and taxpayers of that City. The underlying enormous structural and cultural problems within the RCMP are at the root of the various issues and those issues can be placed squarely at the feet of the upper management of this organization over the last number of decades. It is not the individual police members. 

Therefore there is a singular issue of paramount importance in this transition and that is the need to transform the RCMP current structure. The normal organizational pyramid one expects, in the Surrey RCMP, is upside down. It is ridiculously top heavy.

The general duty officers, the uniforms, need to once again become the largest and dominant component of the detachment. Advancement and promotion need to be contingent on first coming through the rank and file where experience lurks, not in the carpeted cubicles of the current over bureaucratized offices. It is at the first attendance level that your future professional police officers are fed and cultivated and grow to be professional and competent officers of the law and would form the backbone of any professional service.

With deference to the background of Mr. Lepinski; his speciality in “community policing” or “diversity” is not either the main problem nor is it the solution to making Surrey a viable and professional police service. 

If one accepts the need for change and recognizes the obvious mis-management that has been occurring and accepted for many years in the RCMP, it would be seemingly counter-intuitive to think that in the building of this new force, that the Mountie system should be adopted wholesale in any way. Should it not be assumed that bringing into the fold some Mounties, who have thrived under this dysfunction, they would not be the likeliest candidates to lead any reform. In naming RCMP Supt Jennifer Hyland and RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike Lesage as his Deputies, clearly Mr. Lipinski does not agree. 

Supt Jennifer Hyland, is a former twenty year member of the New West P.D. After this stint she also discovered it beneficial to move over to the Mounties where she too was welcomed with open arms and rose up the ranks. Inspector in North Vancouver for a brief time and then quickly promoted to being the Superintendent for the Maple Ridge RCMP; the same detachment she had served in from 2006-2014. 

Upon returning to Maple Ridge she said “This is my hometown, and this has been a career highlight for me—to be the chief of police in my hometown.”

(Coincidently, Hyland’s spouse, Paul Hyland just got made the Deputy Chief in New Westminster PD.) 

Apparently that homecoming feeling wore off after four years and she is now heading over to the Municipal force in Surrey.  She will oversee the “support services bureau, in charge of recruiting, training, leadership and development.” 

Supt. Hyland never seems hesitant to speak of her accomplishments and says that she is leaving having “fostered that culture of respect and support in Ridge Meadows”.

Hyland received the 2020 International Association of Women Police award for mentoring and coaching. The program according to the advocates was “successful in assisting female police officers with their advancement in leadership roles.” All laudable of course, especially in this woke age, but one wonders if the average Surrey voter feels that the problem with the current police department is a lack of female officers or that the officers are victims of a toxic culture. Again, Mr. Lepinski may think so. 

The second deputy choice, Mike Lesage, is even a little more baffling. If there was a classic manager personifying the RCMP in the last number of years it would be Mr. Lesage, who often points out that he is a member of the Garden River First Nation. His career trajectory is common to many in the high ranks of the RCMP; into Ottawa, and then out to the hinterland to dip his toe in the waters of the unwashed. National Aboriginal Policing, National Crime Prevention Section, the Community Policing Bureau, then stints with the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team and most recently the RCMP Anti gang unit at Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. 

So what can we make of these appointments. First and foremost the populace of Surrey will be hearing a lot about “community engagement”. We can also easily assume that the third and final Deputy will be of South Asian descent. But, when we get past the community consultation phase, the coffee klatches and the town hall meetings (the Delta PD have many town hall meetings) will there finally be some final recognition of the real problem? That is the unanswered question.

Only time will tell and maybe National Police Federation President Brian Sauve is right when he describes it as a “flawed transition” and that everything is in “disarray”. Of course, Mr. Sauve has been spending good Mountie union dues fighting against the obvious inevitably of the transition even happening. He also clearly has a vested interest in his union not losing the biggest RCMP detachment in the country. So it is entirely possible that he is wrong once again. 

To be sure, there is a cloying feeling to all of this, a feeling of old hat, old broom, nothing new; and that is indeed unfortunate.  The first opportunity may already have been missed.

Photo Courtesy of Reg Natarajan via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved

March of the Fringe

Posted on by Pete Cross

The recent storming of the Capitol in Washington, besides being a dull reflection of all that ails that country, was another shining example of the Gordian knot which is 21st century police management. On full national display was the fact that operational policing decisions have now been supplanted by the politically minded managers who now populate the top of every police agency and the politicos who wish to control them. The historical record has now been forever warped by this unhealthy blend of political considerations and policing; where public image has become paramount. Another damaging blow to the credibility and sustainability of policing as it is now practised.

The woeful inadequacy in Washington came with a severe cost. The mayhem resulted in deaths and inadvertently gave a life boost to the sombre and dark tones of right wing political extremism. If one watched the live time feed of the progression of the riot (which is what it was— it was not a “coup” attempt as speculated by many of the media mavens and the hand wringing liberal left) a crowd of 8,000 persons attending a Trump rally were then spurred on and re-directed to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and on to Capitol Hill. Under the banner of some general notion that by doing so they would alter a House vote on the election. Some dressed as Vikings, others carried Confederate flags, members of the Alt right stirred in with red hatted MAGA supporters; a mass of people with mixed motivations and unclear reasonings. Some of this much maligned group included police officers and firefighters. 

This alleged army of the far right fuelled with political purpose, still felt it necessary to stop every fifty feet to preen for a selfie. Some of the group seemed content to sit on the steps, the more radicalized began to break windows and enter into the Capitol itself.

Dressed in their various garbs, this ill-defined fringe, carried into the House. The resistance to them was at times sporadic and often half-hearted. Officers can be seen standing around, apparently unaware of the hand to hand combat some of their other fellow officers had endured outside. It was bizarre even in riot standards.

The protestors seemed somewhat caught off guard by the level of advancement that they had achieved. With no clear understanding as to how to carry out their goal, some felt that sitting in the same chair as the House Leader Nancy Pelosi was somehow a victory of sorts. They posed for the in-house cameras. Some of the officers who were there to repel the invaders, also posed for selfies with the protestors and helped direct rioters as to where to go once inside. 

The protestors were gradually pushed out, grabbing at any souvenirs they could take, no doubt to show their future grand children.

This is not to downplay the violence. There was an outright battle on the fence lines, no doubt prompted by some of the hardcore right who came prepared for the fight with baseball bats, gas masks, explosives and the like. One protestor was shot, a police officer died of physical complications from the fight. It was nothing less than a bar brawl in broad daylight.

There were 1400 cops there. Were they out-numbered? Yes, but that is not unusual, police often face situations where they are outnumbered. There was no police strategy, they were out-numbered, but more importantly they were un-prepared. 

In a detailed article by the Washington Post the chronology of events and the decision making of the management group was outlined. Three of the key mentioned managers have since resigned, as they should, but the damage has clearly been done. 

The timeline speaks for itself :

Sunday January 3rd (three days before the march on the Capitol)

 — Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund (heads the 2,000 member Capitol Police whose sole job is protecting the Capitol and its two square miles) asks House and Senate Security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby; in the event that quick assistance was needed. This request was based on the fact that police “intelligence” was now suggesting that the crowd for the pro-Trump rally was going to be bigger than originally anticipated. The request was denied. 

—- House Sgt at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t “comfortable with the optics”

—Senate Sgt at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard “contacts”and ask them to “lean forward” and be on alert. (This “lean forward”clearly a new in vogue government phrase)

Monday January 4th 

—-Sund continues to worry and receives some more police intelligence. “We knew we would have large crowds, the potential for some violent altercations”. There were claims at this time that the alt-right instigators had discussed storming the building and targeting lawmakers. Sund explains in his defence, that “You might see rhetoric on social media. We had seen that many times before”…”people say a lot of things on line”

—Sund calls Irving and Stenger again

—Sund decides to “lean forward” and calls Maj.Gen William J Walker, head of the 1,000 member National Guard. Walker who said that he thought he could call 125 personnel fairly quickly. 

— Sund over the weekend had also conferred with D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III who also agreed to lend a hand if trouble began. 

Wednesday January 6th

— 12:40 Protestors arrive at the White House for the Trump speech where the idiot incarnate tells them that there needs to be a “fight” against the law makers. The lawyer for the idiot, says that this is a “trial by combat”.

—-1300 Sund calls Chief Contee who sent 100 officers to the scene. 

—13:09  Sund calls Stenger and Irving requesting Emergency to be declared in his request for assistance. They say that they will “run it up the chain”

—-13:20 (approx) Aides to the top congressional leaders were called to Stengers office for an update and were infuriated to learn that the Sgt at Arms had not called the National Guard or any other reinforcements. They tell them that it was their responsibility to do this without seeking approval from leaders. 

—- During this time Sund said he called Irving twice more and Stenger once to check on their progress. Sund says he is losing patience and also calls Walker to tell him to get ready to bring the Guard. 

— 14:00 Protestors arrive at the Capitol buildings after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue 

—-14:10  Irving calls back to give approval to call the Guard. 

—-Plain Clothes officers begin barricading the door to the Speaker’s lobby

—-14:15 Protestors have broken through the perimeter fencing in a heated battle, and begin climbing the stairs to the outside of the building. The D.C. Police begin sending cars to assist. 

—14:26 Sund is now on a conference call with the Pentagon. 

The problem is that unlike elsewhere in the U.S. The D.C. National Guard does not report to a governor, but to the President. The Secretary of the Army was not on the call to actually give the approval.  

The call had been organized by the D.C. Homeland Security Director, Chris Rodriguez. On the call is the D.C. Police Chief, the Mayor and Walker. 

Sund makes an urgent request for the calling out of the National Guard. Several Pentagon people are on this call, including Army Staff Director Lt. General Walter Piatt. Piatt states during this call that “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing in front of the Capital”. Piatt’s boss is Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and is the one who has to approve the deployment of the Guard. 

The call gets noisy with people over talking others before Contee intervenes and asks for clarification “Steve, are you requesting National Guard Assistance at the Capitol?” Sund says “I am making urgent, urgent, immediate request for National Guard Assistance. “

Piatt again jumps in to the conversation again and again pushes back on Sund saying he would prefer to have Guard soldiers take up posts “around Washington” relieving the D.C. Police so that they could respond to the Capitol instead of the guardsmen. 

Of course, Piatt points out that McCarthy the Secretary of the Army and the final approval needed was not on this call. 

Contee asked Piatt “Let me be clear, are you denying this?” No, Piatt said he just didn’t have the authority to approve it. 

—-1504 hrs According to the defence department McCarthy “verbally” authorizes the activation of the entire D.C guard. 

*It would take another two hours for most of the citizen soldiers to leave their jobs and homes and pick up their gear. 

—-15:45 hrs Stenger, unaware of the apparent order by McCarthy, tells Lund that he would ask his boss, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for help getting the National Guard authorized. No one knows how this ended up. 

By this time, Capitol Police, Secret Service, Park Police and the FBI were all on the scene helping to eject rioters, and sweep the building. 

One could safely assume that by 1700 hrs the rest of the National Guard would have been in place, in time to assist the janitorial staff with sweeping up. 

Bureaucratic creep, multiple levels and authorities, conference rooms and command centres. These are the characteristics of modern day police management, where political agendas have been welcomed into operational decision making. What it looks like, how it plays to the media has become the overriding question in police departments.

Don’t think that this can happen in Canada? Is there a need to remind anyone of the shooting of Nathan Cirillo on Parliament Hill, and the gunman, Michael Zehauf Bibeau, a 32 year old misfit and drug addict, no more organized than this Washington group, allowed to run into Parliament, passed several security staff and allowed to run free in the halls before being shot 32 times. Do I need to remind anyone how Ms. Chretien woke up to an intruder in her bedroom, an individual having got past that intrepid group of yawning and bored Mounties at 24 Sussex. Or how about the fellow who blew himself up with ten sticks of dynamite inside a Parliament Hill washroom in 1966 before he could make it to the House of Commons. 

It is obvious to most that Security,at the best of times, is a bit of a mugs game. This despite growing levels of dark suits and Oakley sunglasses. If one wants to storm Parliament Hill with 8000 angry demonstrators, do we think that we would be equipped to turn them away? It seems unlikely. 

Having been once part of the Olympics in Vancouver in 2010 we were surrounded and “supported” by tthe Gold, Silver and Bronze command centres who were in application tragically comic. Hundreds of officers passing paper between themselves and a myriad of high level officers. There is little doubt that if there had been a true security “incident” in this billion dollar security operation, it would still have fallen to a dozen officers on the front line, while hundreds would have remain closeted in various boardrooms. 

The fallout now in Washington has been tiresome in its predictability. Politicians and government officials now kicking themselves in the head with their knee-jerk reactions. Band wagon lawmakers now out from behind their desks, now calling the whole episode a “severe systemic failure” that must not happen again.

Three officers have been suspended and seventeen more are under investigation. The entire force of 2,000 officers who are there to defend the two square miles have a $500 million budget and are under full review. Out of the woodwork come the usual suspects of the woke culture filling the air with the allegations of the police force being a group of  old boys networks, a structure built of glass ceilings, and racial bias. It seems to be agreed that this was a well paid police force, often filled with patronage appointments and a police force obviously suffering from “mission creep”. 

The next security concern, the Biden inauguration will be ridiculous in the over kill. Already forming up in Washington is more soldiers than are in Afghanistan. Perfect 20/20 hindsight.  

Democrats have pounced on another chance to pontificate and stamp out the evil Trump and have now voted to impeach him for a second time over this incident. If the first impeachment didn’t work, get up and try, try, again. 

When the dust settles, the Incident Command classrooms throughout North America will have trainers analyze what went wrong in course after course; only to have it happen again once the memories start to fade. Nothing will change until we get away from the current and constant belief that more is good, that bigger is better.  The incident command system with all the self-important middle managers need to be removed and arm chair quarterbacks need to disappear along with their “desk top exercises”. The pyramid needs to be drastically flattened.

The bigger problem will still be that police management must become apolitical. Currently, that seems unlikely.

Photo by Marco Verch Courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons – Some Rights Reserved

Freedom and the Battle with Public Safety

Posted on by Pete Cross

As a person who once wore blue— it was often drummed into our cerebellum that civil libertarians were the devil; and if not the devil, then they were doing the devils work. 

So I am approaching this well established policing tenet with some trepidation. Somewhat shockingly, I have found myself in agreement with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (The Pivot Legal Society still remains way outside my new found conversion) This dark metamorphosis has come to me parallel with an over-riding feeling that we Canadians have become sheep.  We are following an eager and willing governmental shepherd –as we traverse the rolling hills of Covid.   

Our Liberal shepherds seemingly believe and voice in convincing fashion that they are part of the greater and principled good. Their stated goal is to insure that none of us fall into harms way, they are protecting us from ourselves. Our once personal decisions have now been taken over by an all knowing government, only they in a position to know what is right and guide us. To save us in their crusade, they are clearly willing to subjugate the many for the sake of the few. They are so convinced of their noble-mindedness that there is no apparent need for any evidence or justification.  Every question is met with a perfunctory rejoinder: “public safety”.

We, the unwashed masses, in return, have become wilfully blind to the trampling of our rights and freedoms. Seemingly ignorant as to the cost of that blindness. 

The “public safety” chorus is being used as a societal hammer to nail down those non-believers, the heretics who question any or all of the protocols. To question is to be labelled un-educated, selfish, or as one local media personality called those that dare to be contrary, the “knuckle draggers”. 

The strange symbolic flag of this righteous cause has become a cloth item that fits over the ears. Remember, it is not protecting you, it is protecting them from you. A grandiose symbol that conjures up fits of love or rage—ironically produced for a few pennies mainly in a communist China. 

The “health” ordered rules have led to police identification checks, roadblocks, warrantless searches and arrests. In the last few weeks there has been a hue and cry for increased charges and allusions to possible jail time. The ever changing restrictions, rules, regulations and creation of  anonymous tip lines are supported by the exhortation that the  government is “standing with us”. 

They deflect accountability, either financially or administratively with the axiom that they are only following the “science.” The fact every Province is gathering the science and interpreting that “science” differently seems to be lost to the many. Doctors can be found on every side of the issue, doctors signing letters to have children get back to school, other doctors insisting that they are kept away. Leaders hide behind the un-elected health officials when there is any sign of push back. 

 The right to life, liberty and security as enshrined under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been pushed aside by medical mandates designed primarily to save an encumbered and clearly inadequate health care system. But the most mystifying element is how quickly the populace fell into acquiescence. Are we so complacent in our freedoms that the removal of them is met with a shrug of the shoulders. 

Did anyone foresee that it would be a flu virus that would lead to the subjugation of basic human rights in this country? A flu virus that would cause people to turn onto each other —willing to report often minor contraventions of a health order, yelling on Twitter for the jailing of their fellow citizens for gathering in a group of more than a totally subjective pre-determined few. 

Some of the more restrictive covenants have come out of the Maritimes. Newfoundland recently  placed an almost outright travel ban, completely contrary to the mobility rights outlined by Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CCLA decided that this was finally enough to act and brought the matter to court. They lost that case when Justice Burrage of the Newfoundland Supreme Court felt that it had been justified in the “name of public health”. (The CCLA is appealing.)

In Prince Edward Island after the revealing of four (4) new cases began closing gyms and dining rooms. There was a total of fourteen (14) cases at that time in the entire Province, which has a population of 157,000 people. That is a percentage of 0.00891%. They argued that they were being “precautionary”; the CCLA counters that in “terms of civil liberties..proportionality should trump precautionary”. 

The irresponsible media continues to fuel a rather perverse fear that non-compliance was associated with quick death. This continual marketing of fear in search of life giving headlines has played a massive role in the public acceptance of these ever increasing freedom restrictions. 

Doom scrolling has become a thing. Children afraid to leave their house, visit their friends. Suicide rates doubling, unbridled mental health issues, the education system put on hold, elective surgeries postponed possibly for years, unemployment the highest since the depression, and businesses collapsing. 

This is not to say that there was indeed a segment of the population, the elderly and the enfeebled, who with often numerous frailties would clearly be put in a struggle to survive if exposed to this particular flu variant. A drastic curtailing of those that were allowed to be near or intermingle with the vulnerable, seems more plausible and therefore more justifiable in these instances. 

For the others in society the presented justifications require a real stretching of the imagination. It is also become increasingly apparent that the battle against Covid is being waged by only 20% of the population. A large segment of the population remain unaffected. They didn’t see their income decrease, they did not lose their jobs, they were not forced to work in possible contamination. The responsibility for this fight against the virus has fallen directly on the most vulnerable and the financial underclass in Canada. The immigrant factory worker in the meat processing plant must get the product undisturbed to those of us trying out some new recipes at home. 

The mandarins making up the fight and speaking from the pulpit have not been touched by the virus in general terms. They speak to us from on high, above the tidal waters, above the possibility of drowning. The governor of California out with a group at the “French Laundry” restaurant, the Ontario finance Minister vacationing out of the country, the Kingston public servant raising a glass of cheer on her boat during the summer, another day off thanks to virus. School in, school out. Tickets to six persons playing poker, or to people not of the same residence having dinner together. 

In the news today, the clinics for the vaccine closed for the weekend in Ontario. Its a crisis for some, not for a lot of the others. It is easy to tell other people to conform, it is easy to be in the right, if the impinging on those rights does not have a palatable and economic effect on your personal circumstances. 

So with all these vagaries of cause and effect can we justify the breaching of our constitutional rights? Can we forego Section 2 which declares our fundamental freedoms of belief, expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association? Can we forego Section 6 which encapsulates our mobility rights, the right to enter, remain and leave Canada, and the ability to move and take up residence in any Province? It is a fundamental question as to whether we should be trusting the government to make those decisions for us. Ask the people in Hong Kong.

As the years have gone by I have found myself moving from the left side of the political spectrum to the centre right; more libertarian, now wavering in my belief that the government had to play a significant role in our lives. My outlook is less philosophical and more practical, based almost exclusively on decades of observation rather then on some natural political bend in philosophy. 

Government just doesn’t do things well in many instances. This isn’t conspiratorial, this isn’t for lack of effort by sometimes well meaning government employees, but more a matter of structural logistics. (The RCMP in its current form is clear cut proof of a too big, often illogical and structurally inert governmental institution; able to see the problem, but just not capable of doing anything about it. ) The current rollout of the vaccine seems to be hell bent on proving this to be true. 

There are some instances when public safety could or may invoke restrictions on the right to life and liberty. But, at the same time, there needs to be justification with compelling and testable evidence of any governmental action. Any constriction of fundamental human rights needs to be seriously examined. It can not be based solely on possibilities. Most importantly it has to be proportional to the cause. (The latest stats: 1.625% of the population of Canada has contracted Covid—85 % of those have recovered; so 1.3% of the 1.6% have recovered. Currently there are 0.24% of the population with active Covid)

Where does this leave the police? It needs to be learned that discretion in law enforcement is always a fundamental determinant of policing.  The larger the discretionary factor in terms of law applicability, the more the difficult and subjective the job for the police. When you put in place ever-changing and questionable rules and regulations, enforcement becomes dangerous territory. The value of a police force is measured in its level of credibility and its demonstrated integrity. Moral and ethical reputation is crucial to the policing life-blood.

The arbitrary or discretionary use of force and rule applications has to be seen as consistent, practical, and effective. Otherwise, you are open to ridicule and cynicism, neither of which will be helpful when it comes to enforcing the laws. The inconsistencies in the health orders and proclamations are too numerous to mention. Should you be able to outlaw dining outside in a public space, or to attend church services, or to go to another Province, while at the same time allowing NHL hockey teams to gather in their local hockey rink, or wave the need for Blue Jays officials to quarantine or deeming liquor and cannabis stores as essential. 

 It is getting harder and harder to understand and believe in this all being a rational exercise. The din of apoplectic  doctors wanting more and more infringements of your rights in an effort to save their Intensive care units seems endless. Those same ICU units, which according to the authorities have been on the “brink” of collapse, every day, day in and day out for the last six months. 

We need to take some time, to pause and consider the obvious stomping on the Canadian Constitution which is now underway. For some it is their economic livelihood and ability to care for their families which is at stake, for others it is their mental and physical health and ability to carry on. For all of us it is our personal freedom. No one should like the direction this country is going in terms of human rights and the arbitrary and the often counter-intuitive enforcement of its laws. 

Somewhat apropos Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Or if you would like something a little closer to our Canadian home, Pierre Trudeau said “I remember thinking that walking on the beach as a free man is pretty desirable”. 

Photo Courtesy of Edna Witni via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved