Wednesday, December 26, 2001
Fair Hearing Needed
It's important that citizens who feel they've been poorly treated by the police have a forum in which to be heard. But a panel of self-appointed citizens certainly is not such a forum.
Some of the protesters at the fall G20 meetings in Ottawa are upset at how they were dealt with by police. They've made their case to reporters, on the opinion pages of this newspaper, and to the Ottawa Police Services Board. They have very specific complaints about how the weekend of protests was handled: the use of "preventive arrests" and police dogs, and the combative stance of some police officers. City Councillor Jacques Legendre, who is a police board member, says many protesters felt "shafted" when police divided their group as they headed towards the G20 summit site at the Government Conference Centre.
The protesters' group has come forward with two proposed routes to making peace with the police. Councillor Legendre and his colleague, Clive Doucet, proposed to city council that police, business operators and the protesters should sit down together in a "community conflict resolution process," which would mediate the issue, a process that would cost between $15,000 and $20,000.
City council rightly rejected this idea. A mediation suggests almost a civil process between equal parties. This is no such issue; it's a case of citizens questioning the conduct of powerful law-enforcement officials. These issues are properly dealt with by the Police Services Board and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
Having failed to get a mediation process, the protesters have turned to a citizens' panel to be heard. This panel was formed after the police services board declined to hold a general review of the force's conduct. The panel includes former mayor Marion Dewar and Anglican Bishop Peter Coffin.
But this panel isn't the answer either. Since when do we allow self-appointed groups of citizens to conduct major investigations of vital public services? Mr. Doucet says some citizens feel the consideration of elected city officials was "not good enough." But surely enlisting sympathetic unelected officials is not as good as having truly accountable elected officials hear the issue. Mr. Legendre says he has much confidence in Ms. Dewar, but that's not the issue. She is a highly respected community figure, but she's not elected and she's not even a police services board member. She shouldn't be sitting in judgment of the police.
What should take place is a thorough, healthy hearing of the issue at the Police Services Board. So far, the police department and the board have defined the process very narrowly; they've heard five-minute submissions from upset citizens and said that specific complaints will be dealt with through the established procedures. And the police are conducting their own review. But that's not good enough. There are legitimate questions about general tactics of the police, which deserve to be discussed at length in public. Under the force's written complaints procedure, a public meeting can be held. One is definitely warranted here.
As for the substance of the protesters' complaints, our city police, the OPP and the RCMP did a good job. They suited up for the worst, yet only responded with force when necessary. The preventive arrests and use of dogs are worth examining, but overall the police were astute and disciplined.
The protesters misjudged the situation. Many didn't seem to realize that a huge crowd of shouting protesters marching through the streets of the capital might be viewed as a potential threat to public order. They came to within throwing distance of the world's financial leaders and then were surprised by a line of riot police who wouldn't let them go any farther. Perhaps their conduct should be publicly debated as well.
© Copyright 2001 The Ottawa Citizen