Thoughts on the police

This post does not claim to have all the answers, or any answers, nor to be a comprehensive, or any kind of analysis, but is simply some thoughts on a subject that our society has finally been forced to deal with.

One's attitude to the police is clearly shaped by the reality one lives in. Unfortunately for too many people that reality is that the police are people who at worst kill them or their family members and at best treat them unfairly and discriminate against them. To others the police are people they depend on to protect them and in some cases to protect their privileged status in society.

Some will say this is an issue that we have imported from a racist United States. We know that to be untrue. Even those that say that know it to be untrue and the best they can argue is that it is relatively worse in the United States. Not being as bad as America is hardly a standard we should want to be judged by in Canada, particularly when strong arguments can be made that this is not true anyway, we just all wish it was.

Many will argue that abolishing or defunding the police are simply ideas that are too radical.

Indeed for untold decades suggestions for community building and crime prevention as an alternative to policing and incarceration have been met with support in principle without funding being provided, while police budgets have increased exponentially with little restraint. Indeed there seemed to have be an unspoken argument that we will find money for crime prevention when we no longer need it for the police because crime has disappeared.

We could of course reduce the need for the police by orders of magnitude if we stopped criminalizing what is a public health issue – drug use and abuse. We have done that for years with alcohol and tobacco use and cannabis just recently. There is no rational reason why all non-medical use of drugs should not been treated in the same way as a public health issue.

The funds are available to provide proper drug rehabilitation programs, sitting there in police budgets being wasted on treating a health matter as a criminal one. We could also use that money to provide mental health workers to deal with mental health crisis so the individuals receive treatment rather than being killed by police.

I dare say we have a huge amount of room to defund the police and put that money to better use.

We could put traffic enforcement in a separate organization with a greater emphasis on road safety rather than collecting fines,

What we have left within the police for traditional policing, crime investigation and law enforcement would still require major reforms. Reforms of the extent that could justifiably be argued would be best done by abolishing the police as they now exist and starting all over.

We Must Stop Stephen Harper and the 20% from Destroying Canada

There has been lots of discussion about how Stephen Harper's majority only represents 40% of voters because of the way our electoral system works. But, in reality, his agenda has much fewer supporters.

We must remember that the Conservative Party is a coalition. It is not a coalition in the sense that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition (with an accord with the BQ) was. That proposed coalition was the product of compromise and an agreed to written common program.

This Conservative coalition is a coalition of perceived necessity where the old Progressive Conservative Party supporters have been convinced that the only way to keep the Liberals out of power is to support a Reform Party Canadian Alliance dominated Conservative Party. It is clear that Stephen Harper's agenda does not represent the values of the former Progressive Conservative Party, but it did get elected with the votes of it's supporters.

So now we have a ReformaTory government dominated by the 20% of Canadians who support the extreme right wing American-centric Reform Party Canadian Alliance ideology of Stephen Harper.

And they want to turn Canada into a mirror of our American neighbour, clearly a failed state if there ever was one. Have no doubt about it. Stephen Harper was not lying when he said we would not recognize our Canada when he was finished with it.

Stephen Harper's values are not Canadians values.

Canadians chose Tommy Douglas as the Greatest Canadian because he gave us Medicare, our public health care system, and we have consistently stated (as documented by public opinion polls) that public health care is the most important Canadian value and the most important thing that defines us as Canadians.

Stephen Harper wants to destroy our national health care system. He is on record as wanting to eliminate the Canada Health Act provisions that require provinces to meet national standards to receive federal funding. The next step will be to eliminate all federal funding, likely under the guise of trading tax points for direct federal funding. He has stated, using constitutional provisions as a justification, that the federal government should turn health care completely over to the provinces. We all know he wants to do that to promote more privatization and weakening of the public system and it's deterioration into a two-tier system, or worse.

Stephen Harper and the 20% do not represent Canadian values and what the vast majority of Canadians want when it comes to our cherished public health care system.

Stephen Harper believes that there are Canadians whose lives are less worthy of protection than other Canadians. He believes this because he believes in dividing Canadians into good people and bad people and those that are addicted to drugs are bad people that should be punished rather than provided with the treatment they need.

He opposes harm reduction measures (more properly called lifesaving measures) for addicts such as safe injection sites and needle exchange programs, even though they have been proven to save lives and even help rehabilitate addicts, because these programs may inconvenience or offend "good Canadians". He knows the "bad Canadians" these programs serve do not vote Conservative, because they do not vote.

But this is all part of the ReformaTory Conservatives war on drugs and tough on crime agenda that has been proven to be such a failure in the United States that even right wing governments and politicians in states like Texas are abandoning it. But Stephen Harper likes it because it fits in with his anti-science anti-fact ideology-based strategy that preys on peoples fears.

And even though crime is declining in Canada, the reporting of crime in the media is increasing, as is it's depiction on American television shows, and some Canadians do fear our country, and especially our cities, becoming the crime-ridden places they see portrayed in the media.

Of course logic would say that if you were really concerned about crime your policies would emulate those countries where crime is lowest, not the country where crime is highest. But facts and logic are not part of Stephen Harper's ideology. Fear and the desire for revenge are better vote-getters, so Stephen Harper thinks.

Stephen Harper and his 20% of supporters are clearly out of touch with Canadian values. What we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If he is elected to another majority, no matter how phony a majority it is, he will see it as a mandate to finish the job of destroying the Canada that we all know and love.

Stephen Harper and his 20% must be stopped. We must put our political differences aside to save our country.

We need a one time electoral coalition agreement for the next election that provides that Liberals and New Democrats do not run against each other in any constituencies that the Conservatives have any chance of winning.

This coalition agreement should be short term only to allow for the election of a government pledged to undo the worst of the Harper ReformaTory measures and bring in democratic and electoral reforms that will see the next election run under a form of proportional representation.

Because it will be short term, with an agreed to program, and will be followed by an election under proportional representation, neither the NDP nor Liberals need worry if the candidate selection process is not perfect. There is no need to let partisan protectionism come before the necessity of saving our Canada from Stephen Harper's desire to destroy it. That is what it is about and we must put all partisan differences aside to save our country.

The next election will then be run under proportional representation and will be the first to elect a truly representative House of Commons. I have my own ideas on how such a proportional representation system should be structured which I will write about in a future post.

This election will, in all likelihood, not produce a majority government because all Canadians do not think the same way, but most do share similar values and the elected representatives will reflect this.

This new way of electing governments will require parties and Members of Parliament to work together. It will eliminate one party, and more importantly one despotic leader, from having complete authoritarian control of the government. Indeed it will, no doubt, reduce the powers of all party leaders and increase the powers of individual Members of Parliament.

We have, not only a chance to not only save our country from Stephen Harper, but a chance to reform our electoral system so that 20% of the people that want to destroy our country will never be able to seize power again.

We must seize that opportunity or our children and grandchildren will never forgive us.

Only in Celebrityland

Only in Celebrityland would there be any debate or controversy over whether a 44 year old who had sex with a thirteen year old after giving her alcohol and drugs should be held accountable for his crime, especially when he was in a position of authority over her.

It just amazes me that people are defending him, including the victim, who at the time certainly was in no position to consent, especially after being drugged, and who since has received a financial settlement from the rapist.

His crime was against society and society has a right and responsibility to hold him accountable in the name of all the other victims and potential victims of such crimes.

References:

CBC News: Polanski to fight extradition

Ottawa Citizen: Polanski held on decades-old charge

Saving the World With Cheap LSD

“LSD acted as a unifying force, an equal opportunity enlightener. It was a bargain at $5 a hit in the 1970s; still is.”

According to an op ed article in the Ottawa Citizen LSD can enlighten and save us all.

Millions of people have experienced transcendence through LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide). The creative energy unleashed by Mr. Hofmann's chemical catalyst has had a tremendous impact on our world.

Acid's effect on Western culture was profound, although most of the other associated elements were already in place. The peace movement, ecology, civil rights, changing gender roles and rock and roll - all of these things were well under way by the time LSD escaped the laboratory and hit the streets. There was already a counter-cultural drug scene; Allen Ginsberg had already written Howl. By 1962, when recreational or "street" acid became available in North America, psychedelic research was already causing chaos within the ivory tower.
...

For most, however, it was like pushing a big reset button on the backs of their heads: suddenly they could see life with a childlike wonder again, and be thrilled at the thought of it. LSD made people happier, better at their work, better citizens and parents.

LSD honours, exhilarates, and empowers the majority of trippers by allowing them to see past the patterns of everyday life and into a deeper level of meaning. It clarifies the big concepts such as love, family, and purpose; but also the little things: leaves and fingerprints. The heartbreaking beauty of a smile. LSD is a joyful surprise.

So why are the police not handing it out to solve all our crime and social problems. The United Nations should be distributing it worldwide to finally bring us world peace.

Indeed, the article even states “No one has ever died of an LSD overdose.” This statement is immediately preceded by “Although the odd person still jumps off a building thinking he can fly, that sort of thing is far less common nowadays.” But I guess that’s acceptable because those deaths were not caused by overdoses, but just the normal dose.

The article also states “Some who used LSD did have horrible experiences, or "bad trips." For a few it was the wedge that broke their grip on sanity once and for all.” But a few people going insane is a small price to pay to enlighten and save the planet.

Timothy Leary once said that LSD causes fear and anger - in the minds of people who have not taken it. Today as in Leary's era, most opposition to the use of psychedelics comes from those who have no experience whatsoever of their effects.

With those “wise words” I will leave it to you to judge. After all, only junkies have a right to comment on the effects of drugs.

The Supreme Court Rules !

As my daughters would say “The Supreme Court Rules”. And just why does the Supreme Court rule. The Supreme Court rules because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in “R. v. A.M.” that young people do not lose their constitutional protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply because they are in a school.

According to a CBC report:

The first case involved an unexpected police visit to St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, Ont., in 2002. During that visit, students were confined to their classrooms as a trained police dog sniffed out backpacks in an empty gymnasium.

The dog led police to a pile of backpacks, one of which contained marijuana and magic mushrooms. A youth, identified only as A.M, was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

But police admitted they didn't have a search warrant or any prior tip about drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials.

In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a previous trial judge's decision to exclude the drugs as evidence and acquit the youth. The court referred to the incident as "a warrantless, random search with the entire student body held in detention."

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that while "a warrantless sniffer-dog search is available where reasonable suspicion is demonstrated" in this case, "the dog-sniff search was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper justification."

The court wrote that students' backpacks "objectively command a measure of privacy."

"No doubt ordinary businessmen and businesswomen riding along on public transit or going up and down on elevators in office towers would be outraged at any suggestion that the contents of their briefcases could randomly be inspected by the police without 'reasonable suspicion' of illegality," the court wrote.

Indeed, the Supreme Court does rule. Young people are slowly gaining the recognition that they deserve the same constitutional rights as anyone else and should not be discriminated against solely because of their age.