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.)
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.”
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.
I finally managed to get my photos from the February 13thanti-Olympicprotest off my cell phone. They aren’t very good pictures, but this one is pretty interesting: These police officers are not displaying names or badge numbers. There’s only one reason why they would do that: to avoid being held accountable for their actions. If you’re a cop, you don’t need to hide your badge number unless you want to be able to use excessive force without facing the consequences. And this was a deliberate strategy: it’s not like these guys just happened to all show up without their badge numbers that day. The officers in this photograph know that as long as they don’t get caught on camera, they can beat up protesters and get away with it; their superiors have made it implicitly clear that they will cover for them.
What we have here is a recipe for tacitly sanctioned police brutality.
As a BCCLA member and a friend and ally of the anti-Olympic protesters, I was extremely disappointed to hear about David Eby’s comments to the media regarding Saturday’s protest:
David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was “sickened” by images of Black Bloc members smashing windows and tossing newspaper boxes into the streets.
Eby, who’s been outspoken against what he considers police intimidation of Olympic dissidents, said protesters were prepared for civil disobedience, such as sit-down demonstration to block an intersection.
Eby said there was a hint that the protest would turn violent when his group was asked by a faction of the protesters not to send legal observers to the march, saying they were worried they’d been infiltrated by police and could have their video documentation used as evidence in court.
This is completely unacceptable for exactly the reasons outlined by Lawrence A. Hildes, a member of the U.S. National Lawyers Guild whom I saw at two separate anti-Olympic protests in the past few days:
I don’t expect Eby or the BCCLA to condone the black bloc’s actions. But as Lawrence Hildes says, it’s not the job of either Eby or the BCCLA to decide which protesters are “good” and which are “bad” — it’s their job to ensure that the civil liberties of all protesters, peaceful or not, are protected. Talk of being “sickened” by a few broken windows protects no one’s rights; on the contrary, it lends legitimacy to the authorities’ ongoing efforts to repress dissent by sowing division among the dissenters. It also raises questions about the ability of the BCCLA to provide adequate and unbiased legal counsel to protesters who face charges over acts of civil disobedience.
This problem is compounded by Eby’s decision to reveal that some protesters asked BCCLA legal observers not to attend Saturday’s protest. Not only could that information be extremely damaging for those who are facing charges related to the protest, but clearly those who sent the email had placed a certain amount of trust in the BCCLA in matters like that. It’s no secret that there was at least some communication between anti-Olympic activists and the BCCLA in the months leading up to the Games, and it was the BCCLA’s phone number that was circulated to protesters so they’d know who to call for legal representation in case of arrest. (It speaks volumes that the Olympic Resistance Network, which did not even organize Saturday’s protest, has begun distributing a different number instead.) I have no idea whether Eby’s statement was a violation of attorney-client privilege or of BC’s Canons of Legal Ethics, but I do know that it was a shameful and profoundly disrespectful breach of trust.
I have a great deal of respect for the work that the BCCLA and David Eby personally have done over the years, Olympic-related and otherwise, and I hate to see their reputations tarnished. Nor do I want to undermine the Olympic-related work that the BCCLA still has ahead of it — like holding the RCMP accountable for the fact that many riot cops did not display their badge numbers on Saturday. But so far at least thirteen people in this province have faced charges over their opposition to the Olympics, in a climate of intense official and popular hostility to their views. They — and all of us who confront the threat of repression when we choose to dissent — deserve better.
