Judge laments refusal of police to enforce the law

[Argus]

It's the job of the police to maintain the Queen's peace; sometimes acting violently will just beget more violence, which runs rather counter to the whole peace thing. So, they have some leeway in deciding how and/or when to enforce certain laws. However, the aforementioned is a decision made within a legal, not political, framework; the maintenance of lawful peace and order is the main goal, not the advancement of a political platform. Unfortunately, since the Oka affair, Ontario ministers have become frightened of using the Crown's power, via the OPP, against aboriginal protesters, and their fear of damage to their political success has led them to direct the provincial police--as they, not judges (the injunction instructed protesters to move from the rail line, not the police to move them, and, as the judge himself said: "a judge of this Court cannot order a police agency to enforce a civil court order"), have the authority to do--to refrain from using even the slightest hint of force against First Nations protesters. This was most obvious in Caledonia, which has now set a precedent that the OPP continues to follow and other police forces are adopting.

First of all it isn't just the OPP. The RCMP have been similarly reluctant on native reserves, especially in enforcing drug, weapons and people smuggling laws against the Mohawks in Quebec. Second, the big political mess which is most influential in this case is Ipperwash, not Oka. And the reason that was blown into such a mess was the Ontario Liberals, in particular Dalton McGuinty, did everything humanly possible to build it into one in order to tar Mike Harris as much as possible. Following that, McGuinty indeed ordered OPP to not enforce any laws which might create another such affair for fear it would make him look bad. After all, if Mike Harris was evil incarnate for directing the OPP to crack down on native protestors, how can he not do the exact opposite and order hands off?

Especially given he's the most craven, self serving, venal, incompetent, worthless excuse for a politician in recent memory.

The OPP cannot simply ingore direction from the Governor-in-Council--to do otherwise would in itself be insurrection

I get where the direction is coming from. But it seems to me that if you or I disobeyed a court order we'd be arrested. If politicians can order the OPP to ignore a court order without themselves being arrested then what's the point of even having laws? Why not just rule by fiat. The politicians can simply decide who or is guilty of an offense, and who can simply ignore the law.

as Brown put it--primarily those in the provincial government for setting the precedent others are now following. And who, in this democracy, are the politicians ultimately accountable to but us, the voters?

[ed: font]

I though the law was the law and it didn't matter what the voters or politicians thought of it. Isn't that why we have the oh-so-sacred constitution?

[Signals.Cpl]

Total BS. The only people who were whining about the last few instances were the lefties who think natives walk on water. As far as I'm concerned, if you use physical force to confront police you get what you deserve.

Yeah well then you are unique, if any police force moves on the protestors and it gets violent many of the so called supporters will back away and the politicians will distance themselves from the consequences of their decisions. One violent confrontation and the media will run with it as the big bad police stomping on the little innocent FN protestor fitting for his rights.

[Argus]

Yeah well then you are unique, if any police force moves on the protestors and it gets violent many of the so called supporters will back away and the politicians will distance themselves from the consequences of their decisions. One violent confrontation and the media will run with it as the big bad police stomping on the little innocent FN protestor fitting for his rights.

So do we decide what laws are to be enforced based on media popularity?

[g_bambino]

[T]he big political mess which is most influential in this case is Ipperwash, not Oka.

My mistake.

II though the law was the law and it didn't matter what the voters or politicians thought of it. Isn't that why we have the oh-so-sacred constitution?

I'm not sure what you're asking. No law, constitutional or otherwise, deals specifically with the government and its instructions to police on the engagement of aboriginal protesters. At best, the provisions of the law pertaining to the rather nebulous concept of "peace, order, and good government" strongly suggest that the government should ensure its police always use their authority to enforce the order of a court (only using discretion on the method by which the task is carried out). So, what we find ourselves in is something of a grey zone; the government is not breaking the letter of any law, though it is acting against the spirit of the concept of peace, order, and good government, which is at the core of our system, but not yet to a point where the system is so compromised its in danger of collapse (though, as the judge warns, the government is at the top of a slippery slope). Hence, it remains a political matter to be dealt with by the elected (part of the, in the federal case) legislature and/or voters themselves, whom an unwritten part of the constitution says should whenever possible be given the first opportunity to rectify problems with government. A governor dismissing a government and/or ordering the arrest of ministers is a long, long, long way off.

[Signals.Cpl]

So do we decide what laws are to be enforced based on media popularity?

No, but we should make sure that our politicians have the spine to do what is needed. We need the politicians to decide that the laws will be enforced and stand behind the police when those laws are enforced no matter the media pressure or the backlash from the actions those actions. If police act the first thing that happens is numerous complaints of police brutality and heavy handed action without bothering to determine if there was in fact such actions the politicians who supported this position will promptly start back peddling to distance themselves. No politicians with back bone to do what is needed means no action by the police be it municipal, provincial or federal.

[Sleipnir]

How many individual threads do we need of the Attawapiskat topic? Sheesh.

[g_bambino]

How many individual threads do we need of the Attawapiskat topic? Sheesh.

Though tangentially related, this is a separate matter.

[cybercoma]

No they're not, if they didn't commit crimes they wouldn't be incarcerated.

Right. If they didn't have a vastly younger population than non-aboriginal Canadians they wouldn't have as many people incarcerated either.

[Sleipnir]

Why would anyone in their right mind risk being swarmed only to be thrown under the bus by people like you in court or worse yet an inquiry?

Which is why you get more officers as back up to serve the injunction. What becomes of the law of it doesn't get enforced by the authorities?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Signals.Cpl]

Which is why you get more officers as back up to serve the injunction. What becomes of the law of it doesn't get enforced by the authorities?

And what happens when the police officers enforce the law in one area and as soon as one thing goes wrong they are left on their own by the politicians and judicial system? This would embolden the protestors throughout Canada and further cement the action or lack thereof when it comes to the police departments throughout Canada.

What we need is a politician to stand behind the police, in this case the PM should decide how to deal with the protests one way or another and pass it down to provincial and municipal governments which would direct their police departments to deal with the situation according to the direction of the federal government. At this point the guys on the pointy end of the stick will know that their action is supported by the government and will commit to it, and thats what is necessary here the knowledge that what you are doing is right and that you will not be abandoned the second something goes wrong.

[g_bambino]

in this case the PM should decide how to deal with the protests one way or another and pass it down to provincial and municipal governments which would direct their police departments to deal with the situation according to the direction of the federal government.

One can't cross jurisdictions like that; the prime minister cannot tell provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 9, 2013 by g_bambino

[Canuckistani]

The only way this will change is if the 2nd Nations people of the province get outraged enough to push the provincial govt to push the police. At the moment, inaction is unfortunately the safer bet for provincial govts, because of the racist attitudes among 2nd nations people that 1st nations people should not be held to the same legal standard.

[Signals.Cpl]

One can't cross jurisdictions like that; the prime minister cannot tell provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces.

[ed.: +]

He can pass down directions, if the Provincial and/or municipal government(s) chose to ignore those directions the federal government has a number of agencies and organizations that they could use to enforce the law without requiring the provincial or municipal police departments.

My point is that if the PM were to make a decision and support police enforcing the laws more politicians down the chain will be willing to do so as well, now few politicians want to suggest let alone support stricter enforcement of the law against FN because they don't want to be held responsible for the result which will not be pretty.

[g_bambino]

He can pass down directions, if the Provincial and/or municipal government(s) chose to ignore those directions the federal government has a number of agencies and organizations that they could use to enforce the law without requiring the provincial or municipal police departments.

We have something called the constitution. It disallows the federal government from telling provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces or from subverting a provincial government's sovereignty. Only if an incident was occurring on land that falls under the federal Crown's jurisdiction or a provincial government made a request could the federal government mobilize the RCMP or army.

My point is that if the PM were to make a decision and support police enforcing the laws more politicians down the chain will be willing to do so as well...

That's only a possibility.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 9, 2013 by g_bambino

[Argus]

We have something called the constitution. It disallows the federal government from telling provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces or from subverting a provincial government's sovereignty.

What if the provincial government is so spineless and cowardly that it virtually cedes sovereignty to natives, and outright refuses to uphold law of any sort, including the criminal code, in their presence?

[Argus]

One can't cross jurisdictions like that; the prime minister cannot tell provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces.

[ed.: +]

Funny. Didn't I see Ontario's Finance Minister on the news today telling the federal government what to do about the natives on Victoria Island, the "Idle No More Movement' and indians in general?

Though watching a representative of a government whose policy towards natives has been abject surrender and grovelling for the last five years giving instructions on how to deal with natives might tends to make ones gorge rise.

[Signals.Cpl]

We have something called the constitution. It disallows the federal government from telling provincial or municipal governments what to do with their police forces or from subverting a provincial government's sovereignty.

And there are other ways for the federal government to make their point with or without the provincial government consent. RMCP as well as the railway police can be utilized to deal with protestors and let the economy of the provinces suffer for lack of action. The Emergencies Act would probably suffice if it were to look like an insurrection by the FN. The Federal government has a lot of options that may by heavy handed but can direct the provinces to do as they want.

[Argus]

Of course, we realize it's not so much a decision by police but a decision by politicians in these cases. Political cowardice has a long history in Canada, and is certainly firmly at home among left wing politicians. So it should be interesting to see what the federal government does if there are native issues where the RCMP doesn't answer to the provinces.

Judge Brown’s frustration echoed that of B.C. Supreme Court Judge Mark McEwan last spring. In that case, Justice McEwan was so angry with the RCMP’s unwillingness to administer his orders to end an aboriginal blockade in the northern part of the province he compared the situation to one of the most infamous native standoffs in recent memory – Caledonia.

Justice McEwan asked lawyers in the case if they understood how “demoralizing and undermining to the whole idea of the rule of law it is to have people carry on in a community flagrantly in violation of both the Criminal Code and a court law – a court order.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/passive-police-are-putting-themselves-above-the-law/article7284384/

[g_bambino]

And there are other ways for the federal government to make their point with or without the provincial government consent.

Only outside of provincial jurisdiction.

[g_bambino]

What if the provincial government is so spineless and cowardly that it virtually cedes sovereignty to natives, and outright refuses to uphold law of any sort, including the criminal code, in their presence?

It remains a provincial matter.

[g_bambino]

Funny. Didn't I see Ontario's Finance Minister on the news today telling the federal government what to do about the natives on Victoria Island, the "Idle No More Movement' and indians in general?

I don't know; did you? Do you think anyone in the fedral Cabinet fell over themselves to recognise his self-granted authority to govern the federal government?

[Signals.Cpl]

Only outside of provincial jurisdiction.

So if the FN decide to get destructive and the provinces do nothing the Federal government will stand by and watch the economy go down the drain? There are financial means for the federal government to force the provinces to act and there are also financial means to stop the FN from throwing a tantrum or at least take the wind out of their sails. What about the Emergencies act? If only half of the threats that are thrown at Canada by the "protestors" are carried out I think that it would warrant an intervention by the federal government through any means available to them such as putting financial pressure on the provinces to get them to act.

[Canuckistani]

The Feds sure didn't want to know at Caledonia, passed it off to the province. Ontario of course wanted the feds involved. Likely see the same thing this time.

[g_bambino]

So if the FN decide to get destructive and the provinces do nothing the Federal government will stand by and watch the economy go down the drain

Disregarding the lack of clarity on which economy you're talking about, yes, the federal government can't override a provincial government in its jurisdiction; it would be flat-out unconstitutional to do otherwise. The hypothetical situation you paint is ludicrous, though; what provincial government would allow its own province's civil society to fall apart to the point where the provincial economy was destroyed? What legislature would let the government do that? What lieutenant governor? How many voters?

What about the Emergencies act?

The military can only be mobilised to enforce law in a province at the request of the province's government, as happened in the October Crisis.

[Boges]

Well in In Ontario the legislature isn't a sitting.

After Caledonia and any number of other horrible things the Mcguinty Liberals have dine. Nothing would surprise me.