Cool picture huh? I was recently in Humboldt, SK where a friend of mine and myself fixed up a trailer. This is the highway #5 just outside of Humboldt where a lake has flooded over the road. When driving through it, I had the sudden urge to hang my phone, which cost me in excess of $800, over the water to get a shot of the front tire churning water. I’m just glad I didn’t drop the darned thing.

The problem with this is not limited to instances as pictured above. If it were, it would be easy to rationally dismiss my own negative feelings toward police because it’s nonsensical to paint everyone with such a broad brush of condemnation. In any case, the actions of one do not dictate the character of the rest. So if I claim to understand that individual instances of ill judgment in the execution of one’s duty don’t indicate the overall character of police, why do I have such a jaded view of the blue brotherhood?

The above is a picture of police arresting police and later proving that none of them had much in the way of theatrical skill set. The story behind it is shocking, comical and stupid enough to make one wonder if police brass value freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. In this case, the police brass with Surite du Quebec specifically.

In Montebello, there was an SPP summit in 2007 and predictably, protestors descended upon it. Police were deployed to quell any potential violence and so the stage was set for a stand off between police and protestors. The three people getting “arrested” above were dressed as anarchists and had been milling about in the crowd before approaching a group, coordinated by union leader Dave Coles. Coles’ line of union members was in immediate proximity to a police line and had not acted violent in any way. While many clusters of people in a general demonstration are unorganized, this was a group of union members with clear leadership. This group had a strong case to be made for being able to quell any violent acts among the people present as this wasn’t the aim of the leadership present at the time. So what happened to lead to the three “arrests” pictured above?

The three police dressed as anarchists found incredible resistance from the union members they were mingling with. They were being yelled at to drop rocks and uncover their faces. All in all, they were being fervently condemned by protestors. Things didn’t get any better when one of them shoved Dave Coles in what I can only interpret as an attempt to get him to strike back. In short, an attempt to incite violence. While there may be an argument to be made that one of the police officers dressed as an anarchist was shoving David Coles in response to him trying to keep the guy away from police (Coles and his membership desperately wanted to keep violent acting people away from police for fear of them causing a confrontation between police and protestors) It doesn’t matter anyway because of what one of these officers in anarchist attire did moments later. In video taken of the event, one of them is seen not only gently striking a riot cop in the face mask but also gently striking a riot officer’s body shield as well with a rock. The only explanation for this is that the disguised officer was attempting to provide a pretext for the riot officers to respond. This is an incredibly brazen act and one that so intensely disgusts me, that this alone would have me question my faith in police but there’s much more that has helped me along the way and I’ll get to more of it here in a bit.

These were incredible acts of provocateurs but one may wonder how we know these three men dressed as anarchists and inciting violence were in fact police. Well, the picture above helps and the admission by top brass that they were police, three days later, helps too. What tipped people off initially though is that oddly enough, the “anarchists” had all chosen not only to buy matching boots among each other, but that the boots matched those of the Surite du Quebec riot officers as well. It also didn’t help observing how the arrests took place. The three cops spoke to one officer in the police line before they were let through the line to be subjected to one of the most gentle and unimposing arrests I’ve ever seen on film or up close. It was incredible how quickly the video of this event spread and of course, police brass came under an incredible amount of public pressure to explain why police had acted this way. Three days later, as mentioned above, police brass grudgingly admitted that the three were police.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

Just the day before, they had flatly denied it, so guess what; people like me can’t ever trust them again because they lied. They even suggested that since these boots are available publicly, the anarchists could very well have bought them. As if it isn’t enough to deny the claims, they even went so far as to try and argue the evidence when they knew the accusations of these people being police were absolutely true. Does it seem unreasonable that they lose all credibility with people like myself?

Of course they insisted that the officers had not incited violence and that they were simply performing their duties. They also made the laughable claim that they were just trying to blend in with the crowd, none of whom were masked or dressed as black bloc anarchists and all of whom were yelling “Drop the rock!” at the three officers. Coles has pushed a complaint of multiple counts of misconduct which has gone before a police ethics committee which overrode a commissioner’s finding that the complaint was without merit. Yeah, that would be the Surite du Quebec commissioner, not that I’m surprised.

But as I said, even this alone isn’t enough to bring me to the incredibly jaded viewpoint I maintain now…though before moving on, I should mention that compounding this issue in Quebec, is that the reaction from police hasn’t been a reflection on why sending provocateurs into a crowd is a violation of our charter rights; rather that next time perhaps they should include women and employ other tactics that may make them less visible. This would be fine if it was accompanied by an attitude indicating that they understood that provocateurs shouldn’t be employed and that surveillance should not include acts to incite violence but nope, it’s simply a “how do we keep from getting caught next time” kind of approach.

But yeah, moving on.

The track I’m on, you knew the battle in Seattle was coming up here right? The popularized image above is a strong demonstration of what I think went wrong in 1999 at the World Trade Organization summit. I have said previously and even recently that police were in the crowd as provocateurs but thats actually unproven. This remains uncertain to this day. What is certain is that the Seattle police, led at the time by chief Norm Stamper, lost control of Seattle resulting in the city becoming a battle ground.

I won’t go on at length about Seattle except to point out a few things that make me lose faith in police. Firstly, “the battle in Seattle” was an inadequate fashion of describing the Seattle situation. It was a police riot, not a battle between two sides. After all was said and done, it was estimated that among perhaps as many as 50,000 protestors, the violent police response to protests in Seattle were largely justified by harping on anarchists which numbered no more than about 400. But that’s just a very high level overview issue. What’s worse is that the ACLU found numerous instances where police in riot gear with no visible identification seemed to feel more comfortable in violating civil liberties. Some also targeted cameras to ensure anonymity and many refused to provide a name or badge number upon request. If you’re unaware, they are compelled by law to provide such.

Anyhow, without going on at length about police violence and detailing how police had incited violence in 1999 Seattle before any faux anarchists had damaged property, I refer you to the link below. This is an overview of studies that sought answers to questions raised in the aftermath of Seattle, 1999.

http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Events/Conference%202004/papers/JoeYoung.pdf

There’s more of course. Beyond Montebello, QC, police provocateurs in Greece most recently (yeah, same thing as in Quebec basically) and police incompetence in Seattle, I’ve had some very negative dealings with police on my own. I’ve been threatened with arrest for video taping an officer in a crowded public street. I’ve been threatened with arrest for obstruction of justice when I questioned an officer’s illegal search of a bag belonging to a youth in Saskatoon. I have seen police pull over a hot rod in Toronto at about five in the morning only to laugh and chuckle with the driver before taking the vehicle for a quick spin down a side street, clearly exceeding the speed limit big time. I’ve seen police pull up in front of a condo building, help young scantily clad women out and then use their public address system to beckon the girls’ friends down from their condo. I’ve seen police lie on the stand. I’ve seen police use excessive force and slam a fellow I knew a while back against the hood of a cruiser…while cuffed. See, what he did wrong was ask why he was under arrest. Even though the law days different, I guess in that instance, he wasn’t to be notified of the charges against him. I’ve been flipped off by undercover police because they don’t like being pointed out in a crowd. I can’t help it if they stick our like a soar thumb. I’ve been told by police that I should never protest in public again unless I wanted trouble. The Saskatoon city police smeared the reputation of the now deceased Saskatoon dad because he had a law suit in progress against them.

With all of this in mind, and more as well, it seems quite reasonable to me to consider that it is possible that police incited a lot of the violence that recently occurred in Toronto. Driving police cars for instance into the middle of the street and then abandoning them seems to be a great way of encouraging a minority element within a general protest action to destroy property. Some accounts detail how riot police were present to escort the cars to the street and then to escort the drivers away before protestors descended upon them with riot officers looking on a short distance away.

And oh yes, there’s more than that but let me go back to where I started on this post. These are not people I expect to do bad things. I think the recruiting process for police is generally so selective, that 99.9% of the time, it does indeed find integral people of honour to become police officers. It’s something about policing though that sees these people do things that frankly turn my stomach. As I said recently on John Murney’s blog, the all too common justification for police action is “we don’t make the law, we just enforce the law” and to be frank, that sounds more like an excuse rather than the clarion call of a civic hero to me.

I know most people haven’t lost faith in their police and perhaps the only reason I have is because I’ve been exposed to a disproportionate number of instances of what I perceive to be police misconduct. Seeing an officer lie on the stand years ago was an incredible wake up call, let me tell you.

I honestly do wish very often that I could have faith in police but I just can’t. There’s no way that police organizations can retain their integrity in my eyes, it’s just not possible unfortunately.

I should also mention that I think anti-globalization protestors are pretty flakey and as I watch these protests, I can’t help but wonder how some of these people come up with the world view they have. In short, none of this is written in favour of regressive protestors, rather this is a condemnation of police incompetence both in situations of a massive scale (such as in Toronto recently) and of a smaller scale such as the times I have been threatened with arrest myself as examples. So take it as it’s presented here for your consideration. If you haven’t yet lost faith in police, I’m tempted to contend that you simply haven’t been watching very closely.

Now, I’m not one for lefty, independent media but I’m glad it exists because even though these fools advocate for a powerful and overbearing government, they usually do a good job at effectively utilizing their ideological bias in holding the authoritative state to account. Case in point, this video below from a group called Press For Truth based in Toronto.

I’m really not a fan of this guy’s world view but from where I sit, it’s an incredible demonstration as to why I have trouble thinking of police in a positive light. When police encounter cameras, the reaction is almost always the same. It’s either “please don’t film me” or “stop filming me now or I’ll take your camera!” of course police have the right to ask that some one stop filming them but so long as they’re in a public space, if the person behind the camera keeps rolling, they gotta deal with it. It’s like this in almost any instance these cases go to court and yet police either remain uninformed, wilfully ignorant or decide that a slap on the wrist in the courtroom is worth violating some one’s right to film.

Even though she never follows through, officer Cochrane in this video seems to assert at1:51 that she can just take a guy’s camera until she’s done talking to him and at 1:42, she assaults the guy by moving his camera. If you think that’s overblown, let’s have a chat about being charged with resisting arrest when you voluntarily go limp under the knee of an arresting officer. She forcibly moves the camera again at 2:33 and at 3:12, again makes an impotent threat to turn the camera off.

It’s clear that either these police don’t know the most basic rights of the cameraman or are willing to at least threaten to violate those rights. Either way, there’s no honour in it. Does this piss me off? Yes, yes it really does but this is just the light stuff.

This guy was walking about with a camera to document what he saw as abuses of power either on the part of police directly or on the part of government through their agents on the ground. He was present at the arrest of some one who refused to show ID. This is exceptionally upsetting because it says something terrible of police and government. It says that a government can pass a controversial law by order in council when the legislative body is in session thereby bypassing any debate in the house. It also says to me that thousands of police can be bought to an area, told that temporarily, a constitutional right has been suspended in a certain area and that seemingly without exception, none of them bat a gad danger eye! I’m sorry, these are smart people deserving of a firearm why? This shouldn’t have me seeing red why?

But wait there’s more!

The cameraman walks about some more and is right at cherry beach when he’s asked to produce ID again. The claim that he’s more than three kilometres outside of the “security zone” is truthful. I know because I’ve actually stood in the same spot he was filming. It’s waaaay outside of the security zone. While you can be asked for ID under the sketchy law mentioned above up to five meters outside of the zone (I still have major problems with that of course) the temporary law absolutely didn’t extend three and a half kilometres outside of the zone. The harassment where the cameraman Is followed and then asked for ID again by the same police who had him present ID a block away doesn’t really engender that feeling of admiration and respect so many police seem to think they deserve either.

You know, I understand that people don’t like being filmed. I mean shucks, I had a little bit of a problem with it as an entry level worker in some businesses. Of course, I actually understood the right of the employer to film their own property and the people on it. I also understand the right of others to film me if I’m in public. You know all those news reels with chunky people’s heads cropped out? News organizations could make a really good argument for keepin’ those puffy cheeks of yours in full view so…just saying. But without straying too far, let’s just point out that if I understand these rights as afforded to me as a Canadian citizen, shouldn’t my publicly provided protectors know how those rights work too? I kinda figure they should and why should I respect them if they don’t?

So yeah. I’m kinda pissed. I suppose I could focus on the idiots who destroyed private property during protests in Toronto and why I’m suspicious of police even in that regard but blogging on an iPad takes a little getting used to and overall, I think this is a slightly more important topic. Maybe the rest can be blogged about tomorrow.

So what’s the deal?  The deal is that the new law turns a portion of down town Toronto into some kind of protective zone under another law from the 30′s meant for places like a power sub station.  If you come within five feet of this zone, you can be compelled under this new law (effective for about a week) to show your identification to police.  The tricky part of that is that an office building is not a protected public works of some sort and this tricky method of skirting the boundaries of our constitution is just flatly unconscionable.

This law is absolutely unconstitutional but it also exposes such an incredible weakness in our justice system relative to its non-viability as a law.  The government can maintain very little worry that this law will be challenged before it is expired.  There’s almost zero chance that it will be heard in court until long after the law has been utilized and done away with.  The fact that it even takes an arrest for opposition law makers to hear about to attests to how shady the blasted thing is in the first place and so it should be struck immediately but that’s not going to happen.

So to sum up.  The law compels people to show identification to police upon request.  Flatly unconstitutional.  The law was passed by order in council while the legislature was actually in session.  No one (including opposition Members of Provincial Parliament) really knew about the law until some one was arrested under it, prompting the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to challenge it though who knows when a challenge will be heard.

Again, I actually wonder about police that “follow orders” in enforcing these laws.  It’s most certainly a negative character trait in my eyes…though not nearly as negative a development as what goes through the heads of political leaders it would seem.

After the cops got all freaked out by a chick’s office keys, it seems they have decided that announcing an “arsenal of weapons” being found carried by a vehicle with a string holding one of its bumpers on would seem more credible.  As if this is some incredible success, police have been speaking about how a Hazmat team is inspecting a pop bottle found amongst other items such as a cross bow, chainsaw, baseball bat, sledge hammer, pick axe and gasoline container.  Yes, carried atop his car (a 2006 Hyundai GTL) in a makeshift travel container fashioned from sheet metal, he had weaponry that may have put Braveheart to shame…but probably not.

At this rate, I’m actually quite surprised that they didn’t include the gas in his gas tank as hazardous materials…but maybe they’re just getting to that?

So look; if you’re going to go to Toronto any time soon, just remember not to be a weaponized homeless man (HIS SHOPPING CART HAS A SHARP EDGE!) or stray 53 year old disoriented guy in a crappy 2006 Hyundai junk heap with tools being carried in it.  Oh…and don`t carry your office keys either because shucks, you may well be suspected of attempting to burgle the place you have keys for.

Honestly, is none of this cause for clinical studies of arresting officers?  This has to be genetic or something…right?

These summits are kind of a quirky deal anyhow.  I understand the value of meeting world leaders face to face and the flexibility in negotiation and discussion that type of meeting affords, but I’m led to wonder why none of these high profile meetings are done via telecommunication.  Here and there you may get an instance of satellite conferences but from the outsider’s perspective, it seems like this is the exception rather than the rule.

An inability to provide a virtual platform for global meetings of significance is horribly disappointing in this day and age.  The president of the United States maintains one of the world’s most advanced communication platforms on a flippin’ jet and yet, it seems that in order to have a two day meeting with every one, leaders can not even just once, stay at home to do it.  It seems to me that perhaps the only thing politicians seem to get done when they meet with each other is a gigantic waste of money each and every time.  But then, that could be the overpowering cynicism talking…wonder why it would be so prevalent.

It’s interesting that this was done so suddenly.  everything the Sask’ Party government has done recently regarding the SCN seems to have included very little public consultation or even consultation with the folks over at the SCN.  Also, I haven’t really been subject to much discussion on the issue so admittedly, I’m not overtly well informed on this though I wish now that I were.

On its face, I see this as a positive move.  I don’t believe that government should be in the business of maintaining media networks and so I hope that the SCN in its new form does well and provides a cornucopia of new content for the consumer.

I don’t mean to be insensitive here and I think that’s possibly one of our greatest concerns, criticizing without warrant, those who have experienced a great deal in life and deserve our respect for the sake of their wisdom, but I think the victim here was terribly irresponsible.  Without knowing all of the details, I would assert this type of scam is very very easily scuttled and the scammer can be very very easily caught so long as the target is even slightly clever about it.

In this case, a person poses as a bank inspector and comes up with a story that convinces the mark to withdraw a large sum of money and hand it over to them in a public place as part of an investigation.  A major red flag is that the mark is told to lie to the bank if questioned about the withdrawal.  It would seem that the mark also fails to verify any possible identification they may have been shown so that they could contact the government dept’ which employs the inspector.  This is where the mark could help us all by being slightly clever.

All one need do is call a government department if the scammer claims to be from that dept.  Don’t let the scammer know you’re doing such a thing or they’ll surely cut off all contact with you.  Instead, call and verify and then notify them of what’s going on, after which they’ll tell you that this is certainly a scam.  They will likely advise you to call local police or a sheriff’s office or simply to cut off contact with the scammer.  Cutting off contact though simply moves them to the next victim so I would hope you would instead be a responsible citizen and help us all by getting the scammer nabbed by the cops.  I would say you should then call the police and propose that they allow you to withdraw the money and meet with this person in public as the scammer has planned.  Propose that you let them take the money and that police arrest them after you are a short distance away.  Of course, all of this can only be achieved if the victim spots the scam and this one has so many holes, you could drive an overloaded semi-truck through it.

I do sympathize with the woman who lost her money and it kills me to hear of scams that people (particularly the elderly) are caught up in.  This is all quite terrible but for crying out loud, after 81 years on this earth, either you must admit that you are no longer able to independently rule your life or accept that you have acted irresponsibly.  I’m not saying this women hasn’t admitted such, I don’t know either way but there are an innumerable number of people who really do seem absolutely willing to gloss over this part of the story.  I feel terribly for people who are robbed but some robberies are as easily prevented as it is to make a cup of tea.  It helps no one in our society to allow yourself to be taken in such a way, least of all yourself.

Now, even though I’m Jewish, I am perhaps more vulnerable to the label of “self hating Jew” than those who have had more foreknowledge of their heritage than I.  It doesn’t help that I am non-observant on the religious side and often quite critical in my views of Israel and the history of that entire region.  When I look to the Middle East and that area in particular, I think it has been a dark and disappointing black mark on the history of humanity as a whole.

In my eyes, there is no legitimate dispute resolution in this area of the Middle East currently underway and whether it be Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise, none of the players in the Israeli-centric Middle East conflict are viewed positively by me.  whether driven by ignorance fuelled by poverty and religion, ideology fuelled by greed or megalomania or otherwise, I am not in favour of Middle East policies from most any nation currently involved.  As is clear here, this includes Israel.

So why blog about this now?  Well, I’m becoming concerned about the propensity for media and individuals alike to jump on critics of Israel’s domestic policy as anti-semites.  It’s always been a problem of course.  Israel has done very little to make any type of distinction between policy criticism and criticism of Judaism.  Israeli leadership has very often used this to their advantage calling on critics of a nation as critics of an ethnic and religious group.  It is possibly one of the most disingenuous types of argument one can make on the world stage and rightly offends a great many people.  No one likes to be called prejudiced when they are likely not.

John posted recently on his blog about Helen Thomas being hurled from the White House Press Corps for making remarks that many viewed as strongly anti-semitic.  I didn’t view them that way and though I wasn’t surprised at the virulent outrage that followed her statements, I was expectedly disappointed.  At first glance, Thomas’ comments did seem very strongly biased against Jews in particular but it’s so easy to remember that this is frankly because Israel bills itself as the world’s Jewish state.  I should say here that as a Jew, I do not see any reason why I should ever exercise my right of return under Israeli law and identify as an Israeli. I have no desire to associate myself with the state of Israel in its current form.

Thomas said that the Jews should “Get the hell out of Palestine” and continued shortly after by saying they should go back to “Poland, Germany [...] and America and Everywhere else.”  Perhaps it’s the identification of Poland and Germany as a homeland that got everyone’s knickers in a twist but on it’s face, I don’t think those views are anti-semitic.  There is a valid and very spirited debate around the world as to whether or not the Jewish state is even legitimate in how it was established.  It was the British that essentially created Israel and began the Jewish state, forcing one group upon another.  It was like tossing powdered garlic on an exposed ulcer.  But this blog post isn’t about history, it’s about the debate of that history and our perception of it.

So in short, I don’t believe that Helen Thomas expressed anti-semitic views and her later release of a statement insisting that she regretted her comments were almost certainly (I think) a result of public pressure.  In this case, I think that the label of antisemitism and the public outraged resulting from such a label set a tone for debate that left Thomas no choice but to recant or face endless condemnation rather than dissenting discussion.  This does not strike me as an attempt at seeking the truth but rather a mission to make some one express themselves in a manner that makes us more comfortable.  Shielding ourselves like this does not help us develop intellectually.

Perhaps responding to the public momentum created by Helen Thomas’ remarks, a Canadian New Democratic Member of Parliament has recently been under the gun as well being called an anti-semite.  Libby Davies, deputy leader of the New Democrats in the House of Commons has been attacked as anti-semitic after making comments supporting a boycott of Israel and indirectly questioning the very legitimacy of the Israeli state.  In the video of her comments, she actually goes on to say near the end of it that people are often afraid to speak to their views because criticism of the Israeli state often results in accusations of being anti-semitic.  Lo and behold, Libby Davies is being accused of exactly that.

Now I don’t necessarily support a boycott, divestment from the state of Israel or sanctions and I’m not actually opposed to a two state solution despite my position that the legitimacy of Israel is indeed a valid point upon which to cast doubt.  I think the debate needs to be clear and honest but with so much ideological emotion involved in the debate, it hasn’t come close to being that.  You have multiple sides to the argument and fractured view points on those sides.  some are motivated by reason, some by a particular interpretation of history, some by an interpretation of a religion and others by simple prejudice.  Ah yes, it’s not like antisemitism or racism in regard to Arabs doesn’t exist, it simply doesn’t wash over all view points as some may assert.

I get awfully saddened when I observe the debate regarding Israel.  I stopped attempting to really get into that debate because I found constantly, a want to argue motivation, religion and ideology rather than historical evidence, facts, moral grounds or what is simply fair to the people in the region outside the context of religion.  There is so much incredible suffering and ill treatment of people going on in the Middle East within this conflict and, as mentioned above, I don’t find any one particular player to be morally superior to any other.  I see mountains of ignorance, greed, hatred, violence and essentially the worst attributes of humanity at play in this region.  I see very little peace, love, consideration of neighbours and so on.  I have to wonder if it’s not just a hopeless thing of which to think.

I am Jewish.  I strongly believe that I have a right to identify myself as such.  I am not anti-semitic nor am I inclined to racial discrimination against Arabs or any other ethnic group.  I am saddened by the States of Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and others who participate in the massacre of what could possibly be referred to as stable living.  It is in this region that I see so little hope for normalcy and honour.  Again, I fault no one for being Jewish, Arab or otherwise, but rather I fault so many for being horribly ignorant and ill-minded in causing so great an amount of needless conflict and suffering over so many years.

The fact that the debate of Israeli statehood has been so mired in bias from all sides is a very sad commentary on the human condition of our times.  It is why I remain largely an observer of the debate and not a participant.  It is why I am so concerned about those who do participate, that they must tread lightly and avoid complete and honest intellectual positions that may help us all to understand this situation that for some is so many unfathomable miles away and for others, so unimaginably close.

All I want is for the people of this embattled region and those around the world to simply step back, take a breath, attempt to look into the eyes of their fellow human beings with whom they have so much in common and be honest with each other.  Sadly, I don’t think that’s about to happen any time soon.

I was exceptionally put off by the following quote from Teneycke from this Canadian Press story.

To the pot heads who keep sending me crazy, profane emails: I hope  Marc Emery enjoys group showers as much as he enjoys pot. Three cheers for the DEA.

You know, there is a great deal of debate about whether or not marijuana legalization activist, Marc Emery deserves time in prison or  extradition to the United States.  I’m of the mind that he deserves neither but I don’t mind hearing an opposing viewpoint.  There is something more than simple dissension in Teneycke’s quote though and that’s the disgusting and malicious implication that he would be happy in knowing that some one may be raped in prison.

That’s actually quite horrible isn’t it?  I mean, you can wish prison time all you want upon some one for committing a crime I suppose.  To me, even that’s far too common a mind set but wishing forced sexual violation on some one?  Whuu?

I’ve blogged here and there about the case of Canadian seed seller, Marc Emery and his extradition to the United States for selling viable marijuana seeds to Americans.  The LA Times recently picked up the story as Marc plead guilty in an American court and proceeded to edit the ever living hell out of the journalist’s draft after she had expressed with great confidence that such a thing had never happened to her in her entire journalistic career.  Guess there’s a first time for everything.

In this Cannabis Culture blog, it’s explained that the LA Times decided that a press release (unusually removed from the DEA’s website) that explained a political motivation behind Emery’s arrest, the fact that he paid taxes on his earnings and that Health Canada sent medical marijuana patients to him were all unimportant facts.  None of these facts that were included in the journalists initial draft were included in the final article put to print and if a paper were doing a story on this topic, one has to wonder who decided that these facts weren’t important to the context of the story.  Certainly, the fact that the press release put out by the DEA after Emery’s arrest expressed clear political motivations for his arrest and then afterwards, that it was removed from the DEA’s website in an obvious attempt to whitewash it from history was important all on its own but it was edited out?

Yes.  The LA Times, just as much of the dead tree media today, is irrelevant and agenda driven.  Why would anyone want to read agenda driven journalism when its being marketed as a factually driven information source?  Isn’t opinion editorializing supposed to be called editorializing and opinion based writing rather than news journalism?

The video shows a protest in which Jacob Hunter (director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association) was arrested in Niagara Falls, Ontario for assaulting a police officer.  I think that if you look at the video objectively, it was in fact Jacob Hunter who was assaulted by the police officer and not the other way ’round.

But that’s not the only thing in the video that makes my blood boil.  There are some incredibly stupid things in here.

Firstly, a constituency office appears to be closed during regular business hours in the middle of a Wednesday.  It’s actually locked when protesters arrive and have made no threatening actions.  It’s incredible to me that a space, paid for with federal public funds, would be locked up by staffers paid for by the tax payer.  Let’s be clear; this is a constituency office, not a conservative party branch.  It’s clear in the video that staffers are inside…because they asked for ID.

That brings me to infuriating slab of idiocy #2.  Jodie Emery was asked for identification upon showing up at the door of a member of parliament’s office actually established to interface with the public.  For those of you out there thinking that this is for constituents only, that’s rubbish.  I’ve been to several MP and MLA constituency offices outside of my own riding to speak with staff or politicians and I’ve never been told to bugger off…until after a meeting.  constituency offices are a place where an MP or MLA may interface locally, not necessarily with only their own constituents.

It is absolutely astounding to me that the staffer inside would have the gall to ask for ID.  What on earth would have prompted the need for such a demand?  Jodie emery in this video walks up to a locked door, presents her ID as requested and then the staffer just walks back into the office, leaving the door locked.

When police arrive, Jodie Emery attempts to have the police officer assist her and the others present in accessing the constituency office, a space paid for by federal taxes.  If you’re looking for context, think of a public park with a gate.  The gate is expected to be unlocked and people are expected to have access to the park because the public pays for it.  Anyhow, to get back on track, the officer says that a camera being used to film him may be seen as a weapon.  This is more rubbish.  As stated by Jacob hunter in the video, the BCCLA has challenged the police on this count before and handily won that court battle.  Camera are not reasonably interpreted as weapons by police.

Grating at my nerves, the officer then assaults Jacob Hunter at about the 6:40 mark in the video as he tries to follow the officer into the now unlocked constituency office.  Again, like a public park with locked gates, a member of the public is allowed to access the park so long as it’s unlocked.  If you’re about to cite bylaws like the one in Saskatoon that prohibits entry into a public park after a certain hour, ask some Alberta municipalities about how those types of bylaws stood up in court.  The Niagara Police officer clearly instigates the assault by grabbing Hunter’s phone in an attempt at tossing it to the ground.  He then grabs Hunter’s lapel and shoves him back.  Hunter at this point stumbles off balance, likely due to a compromised knee joint and the officer then finally slaps his phone out of his hand.  I honestly believe that an objective view point renders this to be an assault on Jacob Hunter.

It’s later noticed that Hunter’s hand cuffs are restricting his circulation to his hands.  There is no need for this type of excessive harm to be done to an arrested individual.  Protesters do give officers plenty of space to lessen the restriction of the handcuffs but likely, those with firearms at their side and tactical gear feel unsafe around sign wielding protesters, upset that a friend of their has just been assaulted by some one sworn to protect their rights.

One more thing gets me angry as well.  Uniformed police officers fail to give out both their names and badge numbers upon request as required by law.  You’ll notice that they do later on in the video if you watch through but only after many repeated requests to do so in most cases.  In stark contrast, the RCMP officer who shows up in the latter portion of the video gives both his name and Badge number without any hesitation at all.

I still don’t trust police and I likely never will.  From where I stand, policing is a difficult job often made much harder by officers trying to do it.  Rank incompetence and a failure to be diplomatic often lands police officers in situations where dispute is often favoured over diplomacy.

It would seem that civil servants aren’t to be trusted either.  As a small group of cowardly morons, it seems they are much more apt to lock up their offices and call police when angry members of the public (being peaceful mind you) show up at their doors.  The staffers at Rob Nicholson’s constituency office are nothing more than petty little cowards and the manner in which they conducted themselves is anything but that which would engage the public.

Protesters were headed to Justice Minister, Rob Nicholsen’s office to continue on with this action and news is coming in off of facebook that arrests have taken place.  Apparently, lead protester and organizer, Jacob Hunter, a long time supporter of Marc Emery, was arrested for assault.  At first, the details were hard to come by but it seems that arrests have also been made for trespassing.

The trick is that the protesters didn’t even get any further than the sidewalk out in front of Nicholsen’s constituency office which was inexplicably close this Wednesday during normal business hours.  There was some one of staff however, but apparently this person’s job was simply to tell the protesters that the office was closed and not to tell them why.

About an hour ago, the following was posted by Jodi emery, Marc Emery’s wife.

We showed up at the office (me, Jacob, Nicole, Goodwin) and the door was locked, I was the front runner, she asked for my ID and I complied. She said “we’re not open”. A cop on a motorcycle showed up. I explained the situation. He said to put the camera away, “it’s a weapon”. He went to the door, woman … See Moreopened for cop, Jacob said “I want to come in … See Moretoo”, cop grabbed Jacob by the lapels nd shirt, pushed him, threw phone/camera to ground, placed him under arrest for assault, waited for backup, the bus with about 20 other protesters showed up and they ran over, other cops came, hug power was attempted, then stopped when they began arresting (Eric Compton), very abusive, Jacob’s hands were immediately purple, much worse now I assume. 9 police, 7 cop cars, an RCMP and two suit cops too. Threatened to arrest more of us for trespassing though we’re outside (locked out) so we’re on public space now in a green space (park) next door/out front.

I’m curious to know how the police will explain this.  I don’t know Jacob Hunter well but it’s difficult for me to believe that he would initiate violence.  He’s never done such a thing at protests before and where police have elected to not escalate these situations, no trouble has been made.  If the account is true, the police have trampled all over the most basic of civil rights of the protesters and Rob Nicholsen’s office may have their paw prints on this action.

It just seems odd that a constituency office would be closed in the middle of the day on a Wednesday doesn’t it?  As well, it would seem that these legal protest actions have caused some offices to become more closed off an insulated from the public.  Another facebook user posts:

Dana they are locking their offices now. They are putting signs that say “knock for entry”. Did that at Harpers office and at Warawa’s in Langley. Also when they see us coming they take 2-3 hour lunches. Apparently they are scoping me out on facebook because they managed to catch our earlier (cancelled) plans and had two cops guard the Langley office all day.

UPDATE Jun 10th, 14:14
whyprohibition.ca has a press release on the incident.

UPDATE Jun 10th, 14:31
Apparently, no one has been arrested for trespassing.  There have been two arrests.  One for assaulting a police officer and another for obstruction of justice.

I have a very hard time believing that the particular individual (Jacob Hunter) charged with assault would ever have done such a thing even in his most bent out of shape moments.

UPDATE Jun 10th, 18:40
Niagara This Week has an article in which Jodie Emery says she was asked by constituency office staff for ID.  And why on earth would they think they have a need to see Jodie’s ID?  Whatever the reason, after seeing it they informed her that the office was closed and then locked the door shut.  There is still as yet, no apparent legitimate reason given for having the office closed during normal business hours.

Also in the article, an RCMP officer makes no arrests.  It was a Niagara Police Dept’ officer that made the arrests at the beginning of this incident.

Normally it’s fun to see politicians who are afraid of people…this time it’s kinda aggravating to me.

UPDATE Jun 10th 13:00
Niagara police put out a presser for newspapers and such.  You can read it here.  The part that stands out for me is:

at approximately 1:12pm in the city of Niagara Falls, police responded to a call from the staff at the Office of Rob Nicholson, MP for a report of a group protestors attending the constituent office.

So, it’s not the bad grammar on the part of the constable writing the presser that gets me…I’m bad for that myself.  Just look at that ellipsis there.  No need for that!  But yeah, it just seems ridiculous that the staffers in the office would lock the doors and call the police exclaiming “THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEACEFUL CANADIAN CITIZENS IN FRONT OF OUR DOORS!  PLEASE COME HELP!”

That one of the protesters was arrested for assaulting a police officer…that’s also fishy to me.  I’d like to say that the officer should be given the benefit of the doubt but you know what?  I’ve seen far too many times, right in front of my own face, people get slapped with a charge of resisting arrest when they fall limp.  I’m not so cop friendly as to think every charge is automatically justified or even a majority of charges like this.

as a side note here, I felt like updating and keeping my eye on this because it frankly pisses me off.  These protesters had a good gig going, invading and protesting inside offices that were in fact deemed to be public areas across Canada.  The response could have been dialogue but instead, the politicians and their lackeys locked the doors and called the cops.

For shame you goofs.

UPDATE: Jun 11th, 23:00

A youtube video has now been posted detailing how this protest went down.  I have to say, I have never even heard of being asked for identification when wishing to enter a constituency office before.  I have also never seen one closed during regular business hours with staffers still inside.  I’ve also never seen staffers call police simply because i showed up on their doorstep.

Of particular interest in this video is the demand for ID from constituency office staff, a police officer’s identification of a camera as a weapon and of course, an assault on Jacob Hunter, director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association by a Niagara Police Dept’ officer.  Also, as is fairly typical in these scenarios, the unwilling nature of police to give identification they are compelled by law to give.  This would be a reference to name and badge number.  If you watch further on, you’ll notice that the RCMP officer who arrives on the scene gives this information without hesitation upon demand because he knows that he’s supposed to.

I was waiting on baited breath for this video and wasn’t disappointed in seeing exactly what I expected (less the demand for ID part) in it.  Of course, it’s not satisfying generally, rather infuriating.

It would seem to me that police, all on their own, often make their own jobs much more difficult than a protester ever could.

Much in the way a freakish mistake of nature with extra eyes and new mystery organs as yet unseen by human eyes intrigues me, this potential merger intrigues me as well.  It would mean that the NDP which caters in large part to a fringe of voters would disappear and very likely fail to cater any longer to a significant share of them in a new Liberal democratic structure.  Instead, these voters could either run to the green party, try to revive a currently languishing fringe party (Watch out for the Canadian Action Party when this is all over?) or form a new party all their own much in the way that disenfranchised Progressive Conservatives did with the Progressive Canadian party which I used to support myself.

That aside, it’s fun to speculate what a Liberal democratic party would look like if we consider the players in the game today.  Imagine for a moment that key players emerge to lead the new Liberal Democrats.  Who would they be, how would they fair and why?  Let’s take a semi-serious look.

First up, Michael Ignatieff.

Iggy has been heavily criticized as a leadership figure and I don’t think he would manage to become the leader of a Liberal Democratic party unless it was part of a merger agreement in which case he would be turfed after he soured an election against the Conservatives.

Iggy is seen as a dispassionate outsider and far too plain even for moderate voters.  Stephan Dion may have been the great compromise of a Liberal Party in Decline but Iggy was even worse as a desperate blind shot in the dark hoping to hit some one with sway and influence.  As a bushwhacker intellectual myself (HA!) I don’t have anything against academics but as a leadership figure, Iggy has failed to prove himself as effective and the only reason the Liberal Party faithful have held on to him this long is because he hasn’t had the traditional chance to fail in an election before the party can chew him up and spit him out.  With this in mind, I think it would be difficult at best to appeal to a fresh hoard of old New Democrats voting for a new leader of a new party.

Iggy’s chances?  Pretty poor, especially if an election precedes the merger which it almost certainly will on second thought, is likely but not certain.

Next up, Jack Layton.

At 59 and still riding a bicycle to work, Jack Layton is the Wylie kind of spry young spring chicken that can still appeal to moderates that lean left.  He’s no friend of bay street however and appealing to traditional federal Liberal voters could be tricky.  Layton’s chances of becoming the leader of a federal Liberal Democratic party rely on his ability to distance himself ever so slightly from his more left wing views and appeal to the bay street crowd who currently have the federal Liberals stuffed in their back pockets right beside their wallets.

If matched up against Iggy, Layton could do very well in contrasting himself as an energetic and engaging leader paired up against some one who seems more distant and aloof and seemingly unable to engage with every day people on the street.  Layton also has the same kind of staying power as Stephen Harper and this will be a big selling point for a party that’s gone through leaders recently like popcorn chicken.

Layton’s chances?  Not half bad if he wants to throw his hat into the ring.  As a typical politician, he should be able to sell his values up the river just enough to appeal to former New Democrats and moderately minded Liberals alike in a new party.

Next up, Bob Rae.  If you even know anyone from Ontario who was alive in the 80′s, you don’t need a stupid picture to identify Bob Rae.  So disastrous was the former NDP premier’s government that it’s burned into the mind of many an Ontario voter.

Rae has spoken quite openly about the benefits of a merger between the federal NDP and the Liberal party and would likely be the type to throw his hat into the ring to lead what would essentially be one big, wet red tory booze bash.  Having taken two shots at the leadership of the federal Liberal party already however, Rae’s viability as a weighty candidate could come into question.  Having so much baggage as a failed NDP premier from Ontario and having failed to capture the Liberal party leadership twice now, delegates at a leadership convention may be leery of electing him to be their new face.  As noted above, leadership stability is an important part of the political landscape federally right now and Rae doesn’t fit the bill for stable leadership.  In a battle against Harper, he would be easily vilified in vote rich Ontario and discredited across the nation as a one shot wonder that fell flat a long time ago.

So how about Scott Brison?  heh heh heh…ok, so am I posting a beaver picture for Brison because of his charming two front teeth or a touch of irony?

You know, sometimes I think I’m the only one who gets my humour.

Brison hasn’t been bandied about as a leadership candidate for a new party but all the qualities are there.  At the spry young age (politically speaking) of 43, he’s a charming and engaging political animal that has been building up his viability for political leadership in the wings of the federal stage since the beginning of his political career.  Having taken a stab at the Liberal leadership in 2006, he has one failed bid under his belt but in a new and fresh environment after the parties have merged, it could be forgotten and he almost certainly wouldn’t be seen as a perennial failure.

Brison has experience in the private world of business having been an investment banker at Yorkton Securities in Toronto, worked in corporate sales and having run his own small business.  As a former fridge and freezer rental dude, Brison might be able to freeze out the competition.  Ok…yeah that was corny.  Seriously though, Brison has served in cabinet and is a member of the trilateral commission.  He was praised by the World Economic forum as one of the young new leaders years ago on the world stage.  He’s like a wonderful pallet upon which to draw a leadership image and I don’t think it would be a bad image.

I’m actually quite convinced that the only reason Brison didn’t do better in his 2006 leadership bid (he received only 4% of the votes on the first ballot and then withdrew, announcing his support for Bob Rae) is because his image was choked out by the elephantine newcomers on the stage.  With former New Democratic premier Bob Rae there, along with Michael Ignatieff, it would seem to me that Brison simply didn’t get the national exposure even within his party to elect a significant number of delegates to send to the leadership convention.

Brison’s chances were he to decide to run for the leadership of a new Liberal Democratic party?  Hard to say.  On merit alone, probably pretty good.  He has broad appeal to Liberals and moderate New Democrats alike.  Unfortunately, he seems too quick to capitulate to other political personalities at his own expense.  This, after all, is the fellow that gave up his seat as an elected MP to let Joe Clark sit in the house of commons instead.

MMm….ok.  One more.

Well obviously, it’s Gary Doer, currently the Canadian ambassador to the United States.  Some people tell me he doesn’t resemble Jeff Bridges at all but I dunno…I see it.

This is a pretty long shot.  Doer retired from politics and headed south for a cushy ambassador’s office and sweet as pie living arrangements.  I sincerely doubt we would be seeing his name on a leadership ballot but if we did, I would give this guy a hands down win prediction.  He’s everything a new Liberal Democratic party would want.

Often said to be a politician who could have led the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives just as easily as the Manitoba New democrats, Doer proved himself as a fiscally conservative and socially liberal political leader.  Even suffering through scandals such as the Crocus Fund failures, he came out smelling like roses and formed majority government after majority government over ten years as Manitoba’s premier.  He also passed balanced budget after balanced budget in Manitoba boosting his popularity while in office.  He was thought by many to be the most popular premier in all of Canada at several points in our most recent history.

Doer would be the absolute perfect fit for a new Liberal Democratic party and with him in the race, it probably wouldn’t even be any fair for other potentials.  You may as well run a 10 year old with bed wetting problems against Doer in such a situation for all the good it would do.  That being said, it’s almost certainly not going to happen and our days of seeing Doer the prairie powerhouse on the Canadian political stage have likely passed forever.

Doer’s chances?  Very poor considering he probably won’t run but if he’s inspired to do so, watch out!

well, that was fun wasn’t it?  What did we learn?

Well boys, girls and asexuals, it would seem the the federal political landscape is a bombed out wasteland.  With absolutely no inspiring political figures able to take the reigns of our federal parties, we’re stuck with conventional, uninspiring, lacklustre, agenda driven, non-responsive, insulated, uncaring, untrustworthy and misguided politicians for now.

Wouldn’t it be neat if we elected 308 independent members of parliament with no party affiliation?  Shucks, then they would have to find a way to simply cooperate.

Hmmm….

Nahh…that would never work.

No idea how far north “far northern Saskatchewan” really is?  Check it out on this google maps image.

So basically, the last place a trucker wants anything to go wrong.  There’s a single shop up here and the labour is expensive (because it’s hard to come by) and the parts can cost upward of $200 just to ship up here.  A $13 seal up here can cost upward of $180 if the truck shop doesn’t stock it.  Some parts come expedited by plane, some by truck and all with a heavy price tag.  Many parts are double, triple or even more than the cost of what I’m accustomed to.  So of course, it’s with a great deal of frustration that I got out of my truck after uploading some gravel that I saw this.

If you’re wondering what that is, it’s a bear wheel hub.  Basically, there’s a cap and a seal that are supposed to be screwed on there covering that orange thing up.  That cap and seal keep oil in the hub which lubricates the wheel bearings (both inner and outer) and ensure that the axle doesn’t heat up and either seize or light on fire.  In either case, there are potentially thousands of dollars of damage and this far up north, thousands more and no options for immediate or even distant future repairs.  Take a closer look and we can see what might have contributed to this problem.

That orange, spring loaded ring is supposed to lock that giant nut it’s sitting in, into place.  On the lower right hand side, you can see that the orange ring has a little rectangle shaped tab sticking out.  If you look to the bottom of the hub (in the centre) you’ll see a corresponding rectangle notch.  The orange tab is supposed to be sitting in the notch on the hub.  This keeps the giant nut (the nut holds the inner and outer bearings in place) from rotating and backing off.  In this case, because it looks like the orange ring is undamaged at the tab, (or anywhere else) and thusly that it was not installed properly, it failed to keep the nut from backing off and that’s why the hub cap and seal popped off because of all the outward pressure.  Surprisingly, none of the bolts on the hub cap and seal were stripped meaning I was not going to have to have a new stub installed.  Unfortunately, because the bearing and the inner seal (on the other side of the tires) was exposed to dirt and other grit, the bearings were slightly damaged and the inner seal gave way meaning all of the oil in the hub leaked out.  Crazy huh?

When I found this at the pit, I was lost for words.  Here I was, hundreds of miles from anywhere and a wheel axle that was essentially farked.  I couldn’t keep running with the axle as it was, it would have lasted maybe an hour if I was lucky before seizing and becoming ripped apart.  Luckily, the guys working with Asiliy Crushing helped me out with a new hub cap and seal and some gear oil to get me as far as I would need to go to get to the Points North Landing truck shop.  We jacked the axle up and took the nut off and the outside bearing out to clean out as much of the grit as we could.  Honestly, there’s only so much you can do in a gravel pit though.

When I got to the Points North shop, the mechanic took it apart and gave me some good news.  The hub was undamaged and the inside and outside bearings will safely last me until I get back home from this job.  The inside seal and break shoes had to be replaced, but this was the extent of the damage aside from the bearings being badly worn for being only a few weeks old.

The worst part of this is that this hub, seals and everything pictured above (even the steel rims) was completely replaced about 1,000-1,250 kilometres ago because the seal gave way letting all the hub oil leak out resulting in the axle becoming seized.  In case you’re wondering, this should have lasted much longer obviously.  There is more good news though.  I’m not on the hook for the bill.  The shop that replaced these parts is covering my cost of repairs while I’m up north and kudos to them for it.  They’ll also be replacing the damaged wheel bearings.  It’s far too often that you’ll run into a shop where they’ll try and find a way to weasel out their responsibility in a case like this and so I’m not posting a condemnation of this shop nor any information about them because they’ve made good on their mistake.  It would be malicious and terribly unfair of me to single them out now.  When I dialled their number, I was fully expecting resistance but what I found instead was a shop ready to make good on their error without hesitation.  It was honestly refreshing and brought me from being severely pissed off, frustrated and on the verge of panic, (my finances aren’t exactly set up for this kind of repair right now) to a calmed sort of contentment.  It was honestly unexpected and gratifying to know there’s some one out there not trying to screw a trucker out of their dollars.

So, search out some google images for Points North Landing if you like.  It’s a heck of a place and at night, it’s calming and peaceful to be in the middle of nowhere with hardly anyone about within hundreds of miles.  Just for the love of octopus, don’t break anything!  It’s gonna cost you an arm and a leg if you do!

The reason I think this is important is summed up very well in this column from the New York Times.  It’s not overtly politically correct but it demonstrates a very significant problem that besets families living in poverty and this is a problem not limited to the third world but I think in the third world is where the damage done by a failure of people to properly prioritize their spending is the worst.  choosing to spend money on beer when rent is 8 months behind is a demonstration of a house hold head who does not understand the long term benefit of financial responsibility.  It’s easy to say that in the short term, back breaking labour and poverty demand some kind of luxury spending because life is so rough but I can’t imagine how rough life will be for the subject of the New York Times article when his family no longer has a home.

Building housing, hospitals, roads, schools is all an essential part of economic and social growth in the third world and even here at home.  Providing seed for crops, help in farming land or placing teachers, doctors, engineers and others to help others become more self sufficient is also incredibly helpful to impoverished people.  It seems though that financial planning and education is given hardly a second thought in these types of aid efforts.  In a world where we are so familiar with “teach a man to fish…” as part of our cultural back drop, we should be more aware of how valuable that type of reasoning can be to those we want to help.

Volunteer organizations should send a hoard of financial planners around the world to educate those who seek status in their communities as to why having a grip on the household finances is the epitome of a successful and ultimately admirable family.  Having a cell phone today may put you at the head of the pack in terms of status but looking ahead two or three years may see the head of the household at the head of one of the most admirable families in the region.  Surely this can be impressed upon people in impoverished regions!

as a side note, check out the skyscraper banner that, at the time of this post, is placed to the right hand side of this blog.  KIVA is an organization that allows micro-lenders in impoverished areas access funds that come from people like you and I.  Throw in as little as $25 to help spur economic growth in an area that could use it.  Thanks in advance.

You know the most ridiculous “DUUUHH” kind of thing said in the article?

“I think now we’re beginning to understand that we cannot trust BP,” said U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. “BP has lost all credibility … It’s clear that they have been hiding the actual consequences of this spill.”

Really?  you think so?  This didn’t occur to you when BP came up with their “junk shot” proposal to plug the gushing well?

This is pure idiocy.  It’s absolutely incredible that the government hasn’t grown the balls to take drastic action against against BP.  If this were a different world, I would be thinkin’ maybe we should set up a small naval force on the eastern coast of North America.  After the well is finally plugged, boats and a mess o’ shotguns put out to sea and if anything with “BP” or “Transocean” plastered on the side floats by, let fly and fire at will.

Eh, one can dream huh?

I a world where government regulation has failed so miserably to hold private corporations to account and in a world where a private corporation is the in the process of destroying an entire ocean under the eyes of a government in the United States that has never been larger in its entire history than it is today, how can you advocate for a stronger state and increased regulations?

It’s very important to respond to people who explain that this is a result of deregulation.  This is not a case of deregulation causing disaster.  This is both a cause of regulatory incompetence within government and a complete lack of corporate accountability and responsibility within BP’s corporate structure.  The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was set into motion when a government organization (the US Mineral Management Service) took BP on its word that this project was safe and was assured to happen when BP decided that expediting the process of completing the well was more important than acknowledging red flags that had indicated a decreased level of safety.  Really, the MMS didn’t have much of a reason to believe that BP and Transocean weren’t capable of drilling safely but this is how government regulation works the larger government gets.  More and more, as a complicated bureaucratic structure grows, the less potent it becomes.  I contend that the American bureaucratic is so complex, that it’s impossible for itself to remain accountable and effective.  In short, I don’t think the American government is actually capable of keeping an eye on itself and certainly, the American people are either unable or uninterested in doing same.

Those who advocate for further regulation often fail to recognize that regulation is often already in place and impotent.  Despite regulation coming up again and again as completely ineffective in preventing major disasters, there are those who continue to think that more regulation is the answer.  No one in this position has ever told me how it is that they plan to ensure that a government with a rule for everything will be able to enforce the rules.  The best I can get is that a government just has to work right and if you ask me, that’s a fairy tale kind of expectation.

So if further regulation isn’t the answer, how should BP have been handled or be handled now?

The answer isn’t simple.  BP is a large organization and the common space that is being destroyed is gigantic!  Millions of people are effected directly by this ecological disaster and hundreds of millions if not billions around the world will feel the impact of this some how.  BP (as a result of government regulation) will be entirely protected from going bankrupt over this and will continue to be allowed to operate in jurisdictions around the globe.  In a situation where government rules did not protect corporations like BP from bankruptcy, a company that is responsible for ruining a portion of the planet would, I think, cease to exist as a potent force in the business world.

A libertarian outlook requires, demands and necessitates that the population be so much more engaged and passionate about issues that effect them than people generally are today.  I’m not confident that BP would suffer as much as it should in today’s world if it suddenly became devoid of government force but BP certainly won’t suffer even as much as it could in today’s regulatory structure either.  In a libertarian world where government is largely hands off and the population more self reliant, a company like BP would be reviled by the population at large and forced to either put up or shut down or do both in sequence.

People don’t seem to understand that libertarians don’t simply advocate for a technical kind of method of governance; we advocate for public passion in the political realm.  We advocate that people become self dependant, responsible and that we all learn how to stop delegating responsibility for our personal lives to elected representatives.  Again, libertarianism is not simply a method with which to govern, it’s an adopted attitude toward all things political.

There should be no laws in place that allow a company to sue a worker for telling the press about safety concerns on an oil platform.  There should be no law limiting the liability of a corporation in causing a major disaster.  That’s what privately provided insurance is for if any insurer will insure your company.  there should be no government organization that gives legitimacy to safety plans for big oil platforms at sea because those organizations inevitably become ineffective and give us a false sense of security.  There should be no limit placed on the citizenry’s ability to lash out at a company for destroying a portion of our planet on which we all live and depend.

A libertarian world is not about letting companies do what they wish, it’s about holding companies and people to account for the choices they make and doing so independently.  A libertarian will never be satisfied with delegating those responsibilities to a government that claims legitimate authority over a population that largely doesn’t care about it until destructive decisions have already been made.  A libertarian will do their best to take personal interest in problems that plague our society and advocates that others do the same rather than electing some one else to care for them.

In my opinion, BP should be driven into non-existence and all its resources used to cap the leaking oil well by any means and clean up the Gulf of Mexico.  How are we to do that though when the government of the day has rules that protect that corporation from liability and is unwilling to act drastically as the situation demands?  You would think that an oil spill destroying an ocean would demand an emergency meeting of legislators passing new laws to ruin BP and clean up the gulf but no; government is ineffective and unable to solve these problems.

People need to get more in tune with geopolitical problems and take more responsibility is helping to solve them and I don’t think that involuntary government is the answer to that need for cooperative responsible action.

If you haven’t guessed, I have an intellectual interest in the drug policy debate.  I’ve read oodles of information, mostly over the past 5 years, (give or take) about public drug policy in regard to cannabis, heroin, cocaine and several other substances you may recognize as being illegal to possess, manufacture or distribute.  As a lay person, I’ve read an innumerable number of published studies (both peer reviewed and not) on the social impact of public policy regarding the drug trade and pharmacological effects of drugs within the body as well.  In short, I am confident that I am well informed on the subject of drug policy the world over and in North America particularly.  I have invested a great deal of my own life into simply becoming informed and have swung from a soft prohibitionist years ago to a stanch advocate not simply of legalization, but of repealing the state’s prohibition of all drugs.

That being said, that doesn’t mean I’m all for safe injection sites such as the overtly successful “Insite” program in Vancouver, B.C.  No, I am very much against public expenditure for health services and so to me, safe injection sites take us further down a road we should be trying to find an exit from.  So my views are, on their face, at odds with each other.  On the one hand, I’m very much in favour of the state granting us the freedom to put whatever it is we like in our bodies and on the other, not necessarily in favour of a safe injection site allowing injection drug users to shoot up without fear of arrest.  The trick is, in this instance I can be a pragmatist because I know that the public health care system is not about to disappear tomorrow and without a society that functions with a truly free market, injection drug users have only the hope of the state’s help seeing as the community is already tapped out because of some misguided altruistic goal of us all paying for a bloated public health system.  To a purist libertarian like myself, safe injection sites do no make sense financially in a free market system but for those who would accept a public health care system, it makes complete sense both financially and socially.  The arguments against are galling in their ignorance and this is why I’m so blasted angry about them.  I’m so angry that I’m driven to support the public expenditure that would be required to establish and maintain safe injection sites.  Let’s debunk a few myths and be honest with eachother.

MYTH:
Leaving an injection drug user to contract an illness like Hep C or HIV/AIDS eventually solves the problem.  Either they overdose or they die of an illness.  Spending money on these low-lifes to preserve a habit is a useless and wasted expense.

FACT:
A Hep C patient will cost the health care system anywhere from $5,000 to $21,000.  An HIV/AIDS patient, though their life time, will cost the system around $120,000.  If just two cases of HIV/AIDS and 10 cases of Hep C are prevented each year, that results in anywhere from $290,000 to $450,000 saved per year in direct costs to the health care system.  There is no thought given here in this post to indirect costs saved in the economy which by some estimates are as high as ten times the direct costs.  94 new cases of HIV were found in Saskatoon in 2009.  these cases are heavily concentrated among injection drug users and sex trade workers.  Sex trade workers often serve as an unfortunate conduit for these infections to find their way to other pockets of the population and demonstrate a significant overlap in the sex trade/injection drug user demographics.  Diagnosed cases of Hep C in Sask’ were hovering around about 600 or so in 2008 but not only does the illness often spike when HIV rates spike, it’s also dramatically under diagnosed until it’s become a costly illness.

further left unanalyzed in this post are cost savings from safe injection sites treating patients for other ancillary medical concerns such as injection mishaps.  Injection accidents which can later turn into abscesses and other bacterial infections could, over the years, save the health care system added millions as has been the case in Vancouver with just a single safe injection site.

MYTH:
A safe injection site is an enabler of injection drug use.  Giving addicts the means to inject drugs without fear of arrest or other punishment will lead to increased rates of use and further disease and/or overdose deaths.

FACT:
A safe injection site is no more an enabler of injection drug use than a sexual health clinic is an enabler of bondage.  People who assume this are unfortunately missing the point of a safe injection site completely.  with supervised nurses on staff, a safe injection site’s secondary mission is to prevent overdose deaths.  Vancouver’s safe injection site Insite has never once suffered the unfortunate incident of an overdose death.  There have been hundreds of overdoses at the facility over the years, but never a death as a result.  The primary mission of which many people are not aware is referring injection drug users to treatment and educating them about the risks of their habit.  It may seem too obvious to assume, but it’s important to point out that an injection drug user doesn’t even get an opportunity to ask about the dangers of injection drug use when they’re shooting up under a tire swing.

Safe injection sites do not provide drugs though they do provide clean needles, much in the way a sexual health clinic offers up free condoms, no questions asked.  Rather than enable drug use, a safe injection site provides all of the information an injection drug user may be interested in (including how to seek treatment) while also providing an environment where the user does not feel pressured or prejudged.  In this regard, Vancouver’s safe injection site has demonstrated how successful the program can be at referring patients to treatment or at the very least, ensuring they have the information required to avoid preventable risks like needle sharing.

MYTH:
A safe injection site concentrates users in one area and thusly increases crime in that area.  Any neighbourhood having to bear the burden of a safe injection site will suffer.

FACT:
A safe injection site does not increase neighbourhood crime.  there has not been even a single peer reviewed study that has bore this out since Vancouver’s safe injection site was established.  A peer reviewed study has long discredited this claim.  A simmilar study in Sydney Australia came to the same conclusion at an earlier date.  In fact, both studies found a significantly reduced rate of vehicle theft.

MYTH:
A safe injection site leads to more users shooting up in a public areas around the site as they are generally concentrated in this area.  More needles are found in parks and on side walks.

FACT:
This was also studied and found to be false.  The incidences of public drug injection fell and the number of needles discarded fell by almost half in the surrounding area.

The point of all this is that a safe injection site is very effective in its stated goals.  The goals are to preserve life, save money and reduce drug abuse.  It achieves all three spectacularly.  Vancouver’s safe injection site has saved enough money to keep it operating for decades if it suddenly stopped being cost effective for some reason.  If we accept public health care, it’s flatly an ill informed position to rally against a safe injection facility in any urban centre and arguably to a lesser degree in any suburban centre.  Again, this is not about enable drug abuse and if you really think that’s what this does, you’re terribly and embarrassingly ill informed.