Some insight into the cops' worldview

Ran across this post on a website called Connected Cops a short time ago.

While it's not especially surprising to see cops using the intertoobz and taking advantage of the power of things like FB and the Tweeter, what's instructive is the tone of this particular piece. It purports to be about lessons in the use of social media for law-enforcement professionals in the wake of the G20, which is innocuous enough, but note the underlying assumption implicit in the title: "When cops are attacked with social media."

The day they turned the Charter of Rights into toilet paper

Well, I guess it's official now. Out of bathroom tissue? Just make a few photocopies of The Charter. The highest law of the land carries about as much weight as a couple of rolls. Single-ply scratchy.

By now, everyone's aware of the latest shameful episode in the Alex Hundert saga; ridiculously onerous bail conditions which can't possibly hold up when submitted to even the most elementary constitutional challenge, obviously designed to set him up for further arrests and harassment. Excuse me? No attending meetings? No talking to your friends? No expressing political opinions? (I'd suggest that Justice of the Peace Inderpaul Chandhoke might want to reacquaint himself with the Charter of Rights, but given what people have been using it for, perhaps we can't blame him for not wanting to review it too closely.)

And of course, the coercion to which Alex was subjected at the Metro East detention centre: no phone call, no lawyer, sign these conditions or you'll be kept in solitary confinement till God knows when.

So not only have we reduced the Charter to something to be used for distasteful personal hygiene – we've reduced ourselves to the stereotypical banana republic.

Smarter and better observers than I have gone through this already. It's hard to single out any one post in particular, but Travis Fast has nailed it here:

From the time of initial arrest the idea is not to get a criminal conviction but to use the administration of justice to systematically harass political activists depriving them of their liberty, time and money (on defence lawyers). What the police, Crowns and Courts are doing is abusing the the justice system in order to police political dissent.

It used to be that when Toronto cops misbehaved, Julian Fantino could be counted on to spin it as isolated and confined, or just the work of a few bad apples. Anyone who believes that now, I've got some land to sell you. This is obviously part of a coordinated and systemic effort by the cops and the Crown to criminalize dissent and intimidate other citizens.

But again, I'm not really pointing out anything new here. What I would suggest, though, is that it's all part of a nauseatingly established pattern evident from both police and prosecutors. They engage in this repulsive authoritarian bullshit, abusing us and our fellow citizens, for the same reason that dogs lick their own genitals: Because They Can.

And why is that? Well, there's a sorry history behind it, but what it boils down to is this: there is NO accountability for these bastards. There is absolutely no meaningful institutional way of holding these people responsible for the abuses they visit upon us. That's why I keep going on (and yes, I know, I do go on ... ) about the futility of expecting an institutional response.

The reasons for this are complicated, but they can be approached from two broad perspectives: the police and the courts. Some of my fellow bloggers have dealt with the courts already (plenty of links to get you started, I hope), so let's focus on the police.

On paper, police are subject to civilian oversight. In practice, the Toronto Police Association has a long history of doing everything possible to neuter that, and it has been abetted in that by a tame and ineffectual Police Services Board. Board members have varied from “cops are tops” cheerleading to sporadic attempts to assert some measure of control, but as a corporate entity, the Board has never, in living memory, demonstrated anything close to genuine effectiveness.

Perhaps the best illustration of that is in the Toronto Police Association's continuing refusal to refrain from political activity. Every few years the issue arises, and just as predictably the Board will harrumph and cluck its disapproval – and be blown off. No one has ever had the stones to actually put the question to a legal test. Culturally, historically and institutionally, the board has always been a paper tiger.

Just as predictable has been the police union's response: huffing and puffing about how Board members “don't understand police work.” The arrogant and transparently ridiculous argument that Association executives aren't police officers and thus aren't subject to the proscription on political activity. (Jesus H. Murphy. How many other people get to decide for themselves which laws they'll obey and which laws they'll ignore? How they'll interpret the laws? Or throw up bullshit excuses like “we're not police officers” for the purpose of this law?)

But it hasn't stopped there. Five years ago, we saw widespread defiance of an order from the chief of police during contract negotiations, marked by mass demonstrations of armed and uniformed cops to demand more and more of our money. Call me a stickler for paperwork if you must, but we provide police officers with those uniforms and weapons to be used in the performance of their duties. Marching on city hall in a display of armed force to press private contract demands is not part of those duties.

And given that there's never been any material or tangible consequence for things like this, is it any surprise that more and more cops feel the licence to go wilding – on us? Who's going to stop them? We've all heard dozens of revolting stories of egregious police abuses, sadism and brutality during the G20, and it's abundantly clear that nobody's going to face any criminal or disciplinary liability for any of it. The Blue Wall's up, folks, and it's going to stay up.

Established procedures for complaints? Independent inquiries? Talking to the Police Services Board? Uh-huh. Good luck with that.

(To come: more on the dysfunctional nature of police culture.)

Update: Speaking of cops, it seems that Officer Bubbles is inadvertently demonstrating the healing power of public scorn.

What, the goalposts aren't far enough to the right yet?

Seriously.

Between CTV and Canwest or whatever they're calling it nowadays, isn't there enough of a steady drumbeat of right-wing memes already? We don't have enough of these narratives bouncing around in the echo chamber? How much more do we need?

Ottawa police chief Vern White seems to have taken up the scaremeister-in-chief role for today, and found willing stenographers in CTV Ottawa. Terror is the new reality, apparently. Be afraid. Ottawa is vulnerable, and we don't know how many more scary brown people with funny names there are.

And so it goes. Citizens urged to be vigilant. 9/11. Let's not be lulled into a false sense of security. It's only a matter of time. Wonder how long it'll be until one of the Attack Parrots^TM trots out the old "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" line?

Ridiculous as it is, it's also something to worry about. As the airwaves, newspapers and cyberspace fill up with these narratives – backed up by endlessly looping images of burning police cars, black-clad vandals and the like – there's going to be less room for thoughtful analysis, for nuance, for reflection, and for skepticism. Much as I'd like to think people want to devote themselves to the requirements of engaged citizenship, the sad reality is that not everyone has the time or inclination to seek out information, to think, to analyze, and to deconstruct the narratives we're being fed.

It's not especially comforting to think where it might lead. Keep people in a constant state of fear and insecurity, and sooner or later it gets easier to relieve them of their civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. Trust us, we're here to keep you safe. You don't mind all these cameras, do you? After all, if you've got nothing to hide ... Oh, and if your neighbour says something suspicious, don't hesitate to report it.

We saw this kind of thinking taking hold in the runup to the G20, and again in the aftermath. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association cites the example of a cop pushing a citizen into a van for transport to the Eastern Avenue gulag and observing "that's what you get for protesting." We've seen a lot of misguided argument similar to that, most of which goes along the lines of "well, you shouldn't have been there."

Two responses to this come to mind straight away. Firstly, the right to demonstrate, to protest and to assemble peacefully is an inherent right in an open and democratic society. No one – not the police, not the federal, provincial or municipal goverments, not private corporations – gets to take that away arbitrarily. And telling citizens who were tear-gassed, beaten, tasered or locked up that they shouldn't have been there in the first place is simply blaming the victim. When someone is sexually assaulted, do we still say "you were asking for it, you shouldn't have been there, you brought it on yourself dressing like that?"

Second, and more unsettling, is the cumulative effect that so many similar incidents have. It's not hard to discern a calculated strategy to demonize the entire idea of public protest. Keep repeating phrases like "black-clad vandals" and "riots in the streets" and showing the same images of burning police cruisers and smashed windows, and pretty soon the whole notion of protest, dissent and demonstration takes on pejorative overtones. Couple that with widespread police brutality and no effective institutional response or accountability mechanisms, and soon you have a cowed and fearful population.

It is in this context that the drive to establish a so-called "Fox News North" needs to be viewed. Not content with two major private conglomerates beating the drums, the Harper machine is moving to set up a propaganda channel of its own. What we've seen this summer, on everything from the census to the CRTC to the manufactured controversy over Homegrown, should be a pretty good indicator of what we'll be getting should this initiative succeed.

At the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunal, Hermann Goering supposedly told one of his interlocutors that

Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

It's a story that's been repeated and possibly embellished over time. More detailed account here.

So yes, Vern White is right in warning us to be vigilant. But perhaps he's not telling us just what we ought to be looking out for.

The approaching police state

Clayton Ruby represents Charlie Veitch, who was charged under the Public Works Protection Act in connection with the G20 clusterfuck. He's got some choice things to say about the Charter of Rights and freedom of assembly.



Best suggestion: cut off the money. Isn't that reassuring?

When cops go wilding

Wilding: a slang term that refers to the practice of marauding in bands to terrorize strangers and to swagger and bully. From the Urban Dictionary. The term came to prominence in connection with New York's Central Park Jogger case in 1989.

Well, it looks as if the Toronto Police Services Board is going to launch an “independent civilian review” of the giant G20 clusterfuck. That should go well. No doubt it'll have the power to subpoena witnesses, compel production of documents, and cut through the layers of misinformation and bullshit that have characterized virtually everything we've heard from official channels.

That's one view, anyway. There's another view, one more likely experienced by the people who got kettled, rousted, tasered, beaten and locked up. From their perspective, the view looks more like this:

• authoritarian bullies who know they're untouchable
• brutality
• lying
• torture
• beatings
• sexism
• homophobia

Even if the bogus charges of “breach of the peace” or “causing a disturbance” don't stand up in court, nothing changes the fact that hundreds of people were locked up in the Eastern Avenue gulag and treated with contempt, sadism and utter disregard for their fundamental rights. The message couldn't have been more clear: exercise your rights to free speech and free assembly, and this is what'll happen to you. Don't like it? You shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Here's some of what you can expect, apparently:

Sean Salvati says he was arrested, beaten and tortured before the summit even began, apparently because a couple of RCMP officers outside a baseball game took exception to his wishing them good luck. An excerpt from his account:

"The booking sergeant then immediately came from around the desk and grabbed me by the neck while officers 8830 & 8659 held me by the arms. I was dragged into an interrogation room with the door shut to be held by officer 8830 & 8659, while the booking sergeant began to beat me in the face, body and kick my legs. I was never asked to remove my clothing nor would I have objected if a strip search was what they were attempting to do - but my clothing was forcibly removed in way as to flip myself around like a rag doll on the concrete floor. The buttons of my shirt were ripped open. At this point I was completely naked and the beating continued. At no time did I resist or fight back, nor did they perform a search of my areas. I had defensive bruising to my foreams and many welts, burns from being dragged along concrete which I have documented with a physician and taken pictures of. The booking sergeant advised that he was going to rip out a nipple ring that I had (which was not returned to me) and made an attempt to pull it out, however, either officer 8830 or 8659 advised him not to. This was torture. It was removed in such a forceable way that it was swollen and painful for days following the assault. I did not resist and would have removed it myself if I was asked to. I was taken through the booking hallway completely naked in front of female officers and forced to sit in a holding cell for approximately 4 hours - completely naked."

Nathan Adler talks about being herded into the veal pens on Eastern Avenue after getting caught up in a snatch-and-grab operation near Novatel on the Esplanade. Forget, for a moment, about the presumption of innocence and the numerous problems inherent in mass indiscriminate arrests. One of the details that stands out, particularly, is his description of a claustrophobic prisoner having a panic attack and the reaction of one of the cops:

" ... the officer responded by taunting him and saying, “if you can’t handle it now wait until we get you into a cell, it’s going to be ten times worse”. "

(Gratuitous sadism. If nothing else, it's a pretty novel spin on “serve and protect.”)

Stephen (can't really blame him for not wanting to give his full name) earned this for little more, it seems, than natural curiosity and throwing the “rock on” gesture to a few music fans whose black clothing earned them the attention of police:

"In the blink of the eye my coffee had gone sailing through the air, and I felt the
unmistakable impact of a body tackling me to the ground. Realizing the state of affairs, and the likelihood that this was an officer of the law, I immediately went limp and declared out loud : “My identification is in my right hand pocket, I am complying, MY IDENTIFICATION IS IN MY RIGHT HAND POCKET, I AM COMPLYING”. My statement had gone completely ignored, and with face ground into the pavement, another officer proceeded to kick with vigor into the right side of my ribcage. Seconds later, my hands were cuffed behind my back, and I was pressed firmly against the brick wall that lined University Avenue.
“You cocksucker Black Bloc douchebags”, yelled an officer directly into my ear, “You think you are so fucking tough? How are you now without your faggot friends?”

Seamus Wolfe talks about being kicked, beaten and tortured by police at Queen's Park:

"I was walking calmly off Queen’s Park lawn, with both hands in the air in peace signs when about five officers grabbed me, hit me repeatedly with batons and fists, threw me to the concrete, crushed knees into my cheek bone, back and thighs, dragged me on the pavement and put handcuffs on me.

"I was then transferred to officers who were not in riot gear, who demanded I tell them why I had come to trash their city and with which group I was with. When I responded that I wouldn’t answer any questions until I talked to a lawyer, they said that would only make it harder on myself and painfully tightened the handcuffs to cut off the circulation in my hands. When they were about 20 meters from the University Street intersection area, where I could see other individuals detained lying on the ground, one of the officers very forcefully squished the palm of my hand toward my forearm and squeezed painfully underneath my upper arm, making me double over in pain, while he screamed “Stop resisting arrest asshole! Stop resisting arrest!” repeatedly."

Sexism, homophobia, sadism, arbitrary and authoritarian behaviour, abuse of power.  Have I left anything out?  Nothing new here. All of these things have a common theme: cops with contempt for the people they're supposedly there to serve and protect, and knowing they're untouchable and will never be held accountable.

So where is it that cops get the idea that it's OK to do this? Is it a matter of organizational or occupational culture? Is it a question of personality traits already latent in people attracted to police work? All worthwhile questions, perhaps to be discussed in future postings.

Part of the answer may lie, though, in the class origins of the whole idea of “policing” -- essentially, acting as hired muscle for the elites, mainly to keep the lower classes in line. This is at the heart of a thoughtful argument by Jeff Shantz, ostensibly in reaction to Naomi Klein's call for the police to stop the PR and do their jobs. Shantz points out that the very term “police” comes from the Greek polis – city – and that

"...The institution was created to regulate the working classes and poor (the so-called dangerous classes) who were moving to cities after having been violently displaced from their communal lands (and who were rightly pissed about it and did not want jobs in the deadly factories). Look at the legislation that founded the first modern police forces in France and Germany. The royal edict of 1667 that founded the first modern police under Louis XIV in France stated clearly that the job of police was: “purging the city of what may cause disturbances, procuring abundance, and having each and every one live according to their station and duties.” Procuring abundance simply means ensuring the condition for economic exploitation. Having people live according to their station and duties is as clear an expression of maintaining class inequality as you can get.”

It's an important and troubling observation: the idea that maintaining the lower orders in their station is the very foundation of policing as we understand it. It's one that raises fundamental questions about the assumptions inherent in the expression “law and order.”

In any event, we saw during the G20 what happens when the mask comes off. All the niceties about civil society, all the smarmy talk from Bill Blair about community partnerships, was revealed for the insubstantial window dressing it is. The G20 demonstrated, quite clearly, that when the shit hits the fan, many cops have zero regard for the laws they're sworn to uphold or for the citizens they're sworn to serve and protect. All that goes down the toilet. This is all about power and showing us who's boss. And nothing speaks more eloquently to the quality of a person's character than the way he or she treats people with less power than him/herself. The examples cited above don't even scratch the surface.

What's been especially hard to stomach, subsequently, is the way they then turn around and ask for help from the public – the citizens whose rights they've been violating – in identifying “vandals.”

Once again, recall that thousands of cops, with a billion-dollar budget, with arbitrary arrest powers enabled under imaginary laws, couldn't protect a few vehicles or keep a handful of dickheads from smashing windows. They can't do that, but they're pretty good at beating the shit out of peaceful citizens exercising the rights guaranteed to them under the Charter.





If anything's been made clear, it's the relative weight of elite interests compared to our supposedly fundamental freedoms. No doubt a lot of people are going to think twice about taking to the streets again. And wouldn't that be convenient for Stephen Harper and his G20 paymasters. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.