{ texts for nothing }

From a Tyee article about proposed changes to BC’s freedom of information laws:

The government also asked the committee to rewrite the law so it can refuse access to security video from jail cells.

The reason for the request? The BC government doesn’t want to be forced to release videos like this one, from a holding cell in Victoria in 2005:

The fifteen-year-old girl in that video was tied up and tethered to the door of the holding cell for four hours. She later sued the Victoria Police Department and won. How do you think the case would have turned out if she couldn’t get access to the video?

And what does it say about the BC government that they want to cover up incidents like this?

Take a look at this video of police brutality in Victoria. Watch how the cop in the yellow jacket enters the frame, walks straight up to the guy being held to the ground by two other cops, and kicks him twice while he’s down. Watch the cop’s body language as he approaches the guy in the plaid shirt afterwards. Then watch as he orders another man to the ground, and when this man complies, kicks him in the ribs and knees him twice in the back.

Now imagine a cop like that behind the wheel of one of these:

Feeling safer yet?

(You can find more information about the assault here, and about the acquisition of armoured vehicles by BC’s RCMP here.)

Dr. Peter Watts, a Canadian writer and scientist, has been convicted of a felony in a Michigan court for not hitting the ground fast enough after being punched in the face by a US border guard. He’s facing up to two years in prison.

Watts explains the conviction:

The press has frequently characterized the charge against me as “assaulting a federal officer”. The alleged (and discredited) “choking” episode has been repeated ad nauseum. Here at the Sarnia Best Western I don’t have the actual statute in front of me but it includes a lengthy grab-bag of actions, things like “assault”, “resist”, “impede”, “threaten”, “obstruct” — hell, “contradict” might be in there for all I know. And under “obstruct” is “failure to comply with a lawful order”, and it’s explicitly stated that violence on the part of the perp is not necessary for a conviction. Basically, everything from asking “Why?” right up to chain-saw attack falls under the same charge. And it’s all a felony.

What constitutes “failure to comply with a lawful command” is open to interpretation. The Prosecution cited several moments within the melee which she claimed constituted “resisting”, but by her own admission I wasn’t charged with any of those things. I was charged only with resisting Beaudry, the guard I’d “choked”. My passenger of that day put the lie to that claim in short order, and the Prosecution wasn’t able to shake that. The Defense pointed out that I wasn’t charged with anything regarding anyone else, and the Prosecution had to concede that too. So what it came down to, ultimately, was those moments after I was repeatedly struck in the face by Beaudry (an event not in dispute, incidentally). After Beaudry had finished whaling on me in the car, and stepped outside, and ordered me out of the vehicle; after I’d complied with that, and was standing motionless beside the car, and Beaudry told me to get on the ground — I just stood there, saying “What is the problem?”, just before Beaudry maced me.

And that, said the Prosecutor in her final remarks — that, right there, was failure to comply. That was enough to convict.

Both the Port Huron Times-Herald and the Globe & Mail are careful to repeat border guards’ claims that Watts was aggressive and tried to choke an officer. I don’t have access to court records, but Watts (who has vigorously, consistently, and categorically denied the allegations) says above that those claims were shown in court to be lies. And we know from experience that men in uniform will lie, instantly and repeatedly, in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their misconduct.

Watts is lucky: because of who he is, his case has received a little bit of public attention, and the science fiction community donated several thousand dollars to his legal defence. Of course, none of that saved him from being punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, and convicted of a felony for not cringing enough for some bully in a uniform. Now imagine the border experiences of all those impoverished migrants from places like Mexico (or, for that matter, confused and exhausted immigrants from Poland), who lack even Watts’ meager cultural capital and have to deal with racist anti-immigrant hysteria on top of a state apparatus that already feels entitled to treat them like dirt.

Most importantly, think about what it means that this is normal for the society we live in. Watts’ story has made a few headlines, but no one is taking to the streets over this sort of thing (well, almost no one). So, in the end, it’s business as usual. Our borders are policed by petty thugs who, on the least provocation, will feel free to violently attack you, pepper-spray you, throw you in jail, confiscate your stuff, dump you out into the middle of a Canadian winter without your jacket — and then lie about it afterwards, as a matter of routine and with the full cooperation of their superiors. And the so-called justice system will back them up on this. That’s the world we live in.

1. Carlito Pablo, ”Local Government Elections Task Force may allow corporations to vote,” Georgia Straight, 15 March 2010:

Not long ago, corporations were able to vote in municipal elections in B.C. Since that right was taken away in the 1990s, they’ve been trying to win it back….

Earlier this year, the Local Government Elections Task Force released a paper that discussed arguments for and against the reinstatement of the corporate vote. It noted that corporations are not citizens, and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants only citizens the right to vote for members of the House of Commons and legislative assemblies.

“The possibility of constitutional implications from allowing them a vote at the local level but not provincial or federal level should be explored,” the paper stated.

John Winter, the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, argues that businesses deserve the right to vote.

“There’s a principle involved that says if you’re a taxpayer, you have some say in how your tax money is spent,” Winter told the Straight by phone. “The fact that the corporate world in British Columbia is the major taxpayer in terms of property taxes, with no say, is of concern.”

2. Mike de Souza, “Climate-change scientists feel ‘muzzled’ by Ottawa: Documents,” Montreal Gazette, 15 March 2010:

A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent.”

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.

In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview, said the document, obtained in an investigation into the government’s views and policies on global-warming science that was conducted by Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them.

Charles Johnson celebrates the Ides of March.