David Eby - Blog

Will the Missing Women Inquiry have enough momentum to finish?

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:23:00 +0000

Brian Hutchinson needs a journalism award for his coverage of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

The dogged journalist broke the story that many have been talking about in low whispers for the last few months, that disgruntled former staff at the Inquiry have some serious grievances.

Despite the notorious talk around the water cooler, I don't think anybody outside the Commission had any idea how serious these staff members' allegations were.

Stories of sexism, dismissive attitudes to vulnerable witnesses (who themselves were dismissed by police in the same way when they came forward about Pickton), and threats of retaliation for complaints made publicly are just a few of the allegations chronicled by Hutchinson.

Some of the lawyers I've spoken to tonight think the Inquiry is finished, done. I tend not to think so.

This Inquiry has steamrolled the Women's Memorial Marchers and their demands to be heard - if the women of the Downtown Eastside couldn't slow it down, it's hard to figure that anything could stop it. Especially so close to the end, and especially with family members asking for an extension.

I, and many others, continue to look on in awe, as the wheels fall off this bus. It wouldn't be so terrible if this inquiry weren't about society's most vulnerable women and how to keep them safe.

But it is about those women.

This was a bus that was supposed to finish its route full of community members and cross the finish line to cheers in a land of better policy, improved safety, and increased public confidence. Instead, we're all wondering if this bus has enough momentum to slide, sideways and smouldering, across the finish line without injuring any bystanders.

What a debacle.

Missing Women Commission lawyers still trash talking Gervais

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:01:00 +0000

The gang up at the Missing Women Commission is still after lawyer Robyn Gervais who told it like it is, and left the Inquiry.

Yesterday morning Darrel Roberts, Q.C. went on the CBC Early Edition to say what a great job Robyn had done, but how she misunderstood the terms of reference and what a lawyer's job is.

In the interview, Mr. Roberts alleged that Robyn had a single-minded focus on systemic racism in her issues analysis, and as such had failed as a lawyer to do her job properly:

I have a bit of a different view about the role of counsel [from Robyn] when you're on a proceeding. And her role, like the role of any counsel, is to be there to pry into, to inquire into, all issues. Robyn has appeared to want to focus entirely on issues that might relate to a systemic bias against First Nations people.

However laudable that is, and it is indeed an important matter, nevertheless you have to remember that the first order of business of this inquiry is to inquire into the conduct of the police investigations...that's term of reference #1, and we haven't finished that business. I wanted to be more free to deal with that issue...

It's important to note that, until the end, Robyn was assisted by Brian Baynham, Q.C., himself a respected senior lawyer in Vancouver. The odds of her failing on the scale identified by Mr. Roberts while being assisted by Mr. Baynham, failing to comprehend what lawyers are supposed to do and what the terms of reference of the Inquiry are, is difficult to imagine.

Mr. Roberts then went at Gervais again, undermining her by labelling her as a "very" junior lawyer who is good, but still narrow minded, and making the wrong decision in pulling out:

I've been before the bar since 1965. Robyn is a very junior lawyer, and she's good by the way, and she's doing a good job. It'd be good if she could broaden her perspective, that's all. I'm actually even hopeful she might reconsider and come back.

One might expect to hear comments like this from a lawyer for the other side at the Inquiry, but Mr. Roberts started the Inquiry as Robyn Gervais' lawyer, assisting her with Bryan Baynham in preparing for the hearings.

This means he's going after his former client, in public, on the radio, to attempt to rehabilitate the Inquiry, something that would benefit his current client who has decided to stay in the Inquiry.

Remarkable. Hang in there Robyn.

The Commissioner splits the baby, orders book censored

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:24:00 +0000

Commissioner Oppal finally ordered the Shenher book disclosed at the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. But first, he's given the lawyer for Shenher the chance to go through and remove all of the "private thoughts" of the author and thoughts about what she would do differently.

I have a feeling I know what the final product is going to look like:

For those of you not familiar with it, the Shenher book is the tell-all book written by the lead VPD investigator about the Pickton investigation expressly for publication by a major Canadian publisher, McLelland and Stewart.

Private thoughts? You've got to be kidding me. She must have the most remarkable lawyer available in Canada to convince the Commissioner she wrote thoughts she didn't want shared in a book she surely hoped would be a best seller.

She also wrote a script for TV. Which I assume was for private screening in her living room, as her one vanity press copy of the book printed by Canada's largest book publisher sat on the coffee table.

I don't want to harp on this, but as this has turned into an Inquiry about how police do investigations, having little to do with the missing women, the first term of reference of the Inquiry has assumed a remarkable and overriding importance.

That term of reference is as follows:

To conduct hearings, in or near the City of Vancouver, to inquire into and make findings of fact respecting the conduct of the missing women investigations.

I'm no Commissioner seeking truth, but if the lead investigator of the missing women investigations wrote a book about the conduct of the missing women investigations, her so-called private thoughts about the players, and what she'd do differently, I'd like to have a look at it.

It took the Commissioner three months to order the book released. Now he doesn't even want the useful information the book contains from the person who lived the investigation every day. Come on.

Missing Women Commission can't let lawyer leave unscathed

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:41:00 +0000

The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry was busy last night building their case against lawyer Robyn Gervias, who had announced her intention to quit the Inquiry yesterday afternoon.

Gervais was one of the two lawyers appointed by the Commission when the ratio of 25 publicly funded police/government lawyers against 2 publicly funded family lawyers became a bit too embarrassing to bear. Her role, although she had no clients, was to represent the voices of Indigenous women at the Inquiry.

This morning, Gervais gave her moving account of continual frustration with day after day of police witness testimony and an absence of any First Nations witnesses there to speak specifically about Indigenous experiences reporting to police. She recounted the straw that broke the camel's back: A refusal by a lawyer for the Commission to give her just four days for her witnesses on the subject matter of the Inquiry.

Here is the text of her remarks.

She was then met with not one, not two, but three long speeches about what a jerk she was for pulling out.

"I am very disappointed," said Commissioner Oppal, who reminisced about the time he gave Ms. Gervais career advice, and told her he had always supported her. He reminded her that three of the witnesses to date had incidentally been aboriginal, two family members and sex worker advocate Jamie Lee Hamilton, who is Metis. Gervais' reply that no witnesses were called to speak specifically about Indigenous experiences in reporting to police was not met with enthusiasm.

Commissioner Oppal then said that her suggestion (although she had suggested no such thing) that police witnesses not be called, or be barred from the room, was not how the Inquiry process worked.

Commissioner Oppal then finished, without irony, saying all Gervais had to do was to make an application to him for her witnesses.

He didn't mention the application by the families for the various witnesses they wanted, which he still hasn't ruled on months after receiving it, unless you count the leak a senior commission lawyer made to the National Post that none of the witnesses would be called.

A junior Commission lawyer then came to the mic and expressed her shock and surprise that a lawyer purportedly representing Indigenous women's interests could be dissatisfied with the process. She then pulled out a personal e-mail from three weeks ago sent to her by Ms. Gervais, read one sentence from it, and suggested it reflected broad satisfaction for Ms. Gervais with the process to date. She noted she was well versed in aboriginal interests, as she had herself practiced aboriginal law at one point.

Joining the pile on, Darrel Roberts, Q.C., who it should be noted is a white, wealthy, and well respected senior personal injury lawyer, then said that the Indigenous lawyer in front of him was wrong, as were the Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs who had already pulled out, in that they didn't know what First Nations people wanted, but he did. He knew that Canada's Indigenous peoples wanted the Inquiry to continue.

He didn't mention that he'd originally been on Ms. Gervais' team early in the inquiry, and had been fired by Ms. Gervais for reasons unknown, which may or may not have coloured his remarks.

But the most telling point of all was when Ms. Gervais had clicked off her microphone and turned to the back of the room. Without missing a beat, junior Commission counsel said, "We'll pick up where we left off yesterday..." and the Commission kept rolling.

Because Commissioner Oppal insisted on the last word at the Inquiry, I'll put in Robyn's words that resonate the most with me and will lead the news tonight, as I think she's in the best position to know these things, with all due respect to Commission Counsel, Commissioner Oppal and Mr. Roberts, Q.C.:

"Aboriginal interests have not, and will not, be adequately represented in these hearings...Given that these hearings were about missing aboriginal women, I didn't think I would need to fight to have their voices heard."

The Commissioner rules (sort of) on document disclosure

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:55:00 +0000

At the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Commissioner Oppal issued his long, long awaited order on document disclosure. Read the order here (PDF).

He decided not to order any documents.

Issued on a Friday afternoon, the order had a decidedly judicial "get lost" tone and refused to order the RCMP and VPD to hand everything over, perferring, instead, to let police hand things over slowly, and hope for surely.

What was most remarkable was that the order didn't deal with the most important document to date, lead VPD Investigator Shenher's book that she wrote on the exact topic of the Inquiry: the failures of the police investigation into Pickton.

The Commissioner was asked months ago to order the release of the book by the lawyers for the families.

The Commissioner has not hesitated to strip the survival sex worker who was stabbed by Pickton of her anonymity and to set her up for cross examination by 25 police and government lawyers. However, his lengthy consideration of whether or not to order the book disclosed appears to suggest he is concerned that the privacy rights of those named in Shenher's book (which was to be published by a major Canadian publisher) might be violated if the book were released to lawyers at the Inquiry.

While the Commissioner has not hesitated to set aside the rights of this incredibly marginalized woman to continue to recover from being almost killed by Canada's worst serial killer, he declined to order that the provincial prosecutors hand over the "missing" file that explained why Pickton wasn't charged for stabbing her.

Order a marginalized women to be cross examined; don't order a female police officer to disclose books she wrote on the topic she had a publishing deal to print.

Order a survival sex worker to disclose her tortured personal history in front of 25 lawyers who aren't there to protect her interests; don't order the Criminal Justice Branch to hand over a government file.

Privacy is not a two way street at this public Inquiry.

Talk on Missing Women Inquiry for Petcha Kutcha

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:09:00 +0000

My remarks from last night's instructive, inspiring, creative and bizarre Petcha Kutcha night at the Vogue Theatre. The premise is 20 slides, 20 seconds each. 10 different presenters.

This is what I said to accompany the slides I displayed, with hyperlink references to the facts and/or relevant transcripts from the inquiry.

Thanks to Steve and Jane from Cause and Affect for organizing this wonderful event, and to everyone who came; it was standing room only. Amazing.
----------------------

For every Valentine’s Day since 1991 the women of the Downtown Eastside have marched to demand justice for their missing and murdered sisters.

In 2002, 11 years after the first march, and 4 years after receiving credible information about Pickton, the RCMP searched his farm and found the remains of 33 women.

The women of the Downtown Eastside, and the whole community, demanded a public inquiry into why it took so long to end the killing.

This is a six minute briefing on what has happened since then. A briefing on what lawyer Cameron Ward, acting for the families, calls a cover up… and a whitewash.

19 years after the first march, an inquiry was finally called. But the marchers were not satisfied, for 3 reasons.

First, the terms of reference did not ask why these murdered women were survival sex workers. There would be no witnesses about housing, drug addiction, exiting the sex trade, or harm reduction.

Second, the government appointed Wally Oppal the Commissioner.

When in government, Oppal had cut services for vulnerable women. He supported the decision to cancel 20 of the 27 criminal charges against Pickton. He opposed a public inquiry, saying that not much would be learned from it.

Third, it wasn’t a fair fight. 25 lawyers would be publicly funded to represent police and government interests. 10 police officers would be represented by 10 publicly funded lawyers.

No lawyers would be funded for the women who had demanded this inquiry. Two lawyers would be funded to represent 25 mourning families.

Embarrassed by a ratio of 25:2, the Commission quickly hired two more lawyers. One lawyer to speak for aboriginal women. One to speak for the Downtown Eastside community.

While both are good lawyers, the Commission did not give either of them any actual clients from either of those communities.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre responded by filing a complaint with the United Nations [PDF Link] and pulling out of the inquiry. The media reported that the women’s groups pulled out because they weren’t funded.

Behind me are photos and portraits of the women whose DNA or body parts were found on the Pickton farm.

In setting procedural rules, the Commissioner decided police and government lawyers could ask any questions they wanted.

But public interest groups like the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Pivot, and Amnesty International could only ask questions if the Commissioner gave permission first [at page 17]. He called it “limited standing”; an efficiency measure.

The decision meant that the public interest lawyers would have to give advance notice of their questions to the police and government lawyers. But the police and government lawyers would not have to give notice of their questions to the public interest lawyers.

The remaining public interest groups then also pulled out.

The lawyer for the Downtown Eastside asked for a blanket order for vulnerable female witnesses to be protected [at page 43] by default.

The Commissioner then gutted the proposal. If these vulnerable witnesses wanted protection, he held, they could have a lawyer defend them against requests to waive the privilege. It was the legal equivalent of “let them eat cake.”

The lawyers for the VPD then argued that sexual predators named in the Inquiry documents should be protected by default, even if they’d been criminally convicted.

The Commissioner agreed, the police obtaining the blanket protection they had opposed for survival sex workers for people convicted of assaulting those same sex workers.

For example, a volunteer for the Chinatown community policing office [at page 51] was stopped driving the stroll by the VPD during the height of the disappearances.

He was wearing his mother’s nylons, but also a balaclava with the mask rolled up. In his trunk: handcuffs, duct tape, and a large butcher knife. He refused a polygraph and was not investigated further. His name is protected.

Even though they are the only two publicly funded lawyers with clients, requests by the lawyers for the families have been ignored.

Four months after the families first asked, the Commissioner still hasn’t ordered the VPD’s lead investigator to produce a book she wrote about the VPD investigation, exactly the topic of the Inquiry.

In 1997, Pickton stabbed a woman in his trailer at 2 a.m. She escaped wearing handcuffs on one wrist. The Crown dropped the charges, and Pickton never went to trial.

When the families’ lawyers asked for the file that explained why the charges were dropped, they were told the file had disappeared.

In December, the lawyer for the families asked for new witnesses to be called. 2 months later, Commission staff leaked to the National Post that none of the family’s witnesses would be called.

The families had asked for Bill Hiscox and Russ Caldwell. Both had gone to the RCMP with tips on Pickton in the late 1990s, and both were ultimately dismissed as not credible.

They asked for David Pickton, the brother of Robert Pickton. And Pat Casanova, whose DNA was found on the bodies of murdered women at the farm.

Not one of these men is on the witness list.

Three months on, there has still been no formal decision by the Commissioner about whether these witnesses will be added.

Issues of corruption are not being pursued.

An off-duty RCMP officer who visited Pickton and gave him the names of police informants is not on the witness list.

The RCMP officer who agreed to David Pickton’s request to put off an interview of his brother for six months is not on the witness list.

Issues of organized crime are not being pursued.

Anthony Terazakas worked the door at “Piggy’s Palace” during parties that off duty police officers attended, across the street from a Hell’s Angels clubhouse.

Terezakas was arrested for torturing people at the American Hotel and is in jail. He’s a Hells Angels associate. So is David Pickton.

When the lawyer for the Downtown Eastside community asked a police witness if the Hells Angels presence on the farm may have deterred women from reporting Pickton to the police, the Commissioner stopped the lawyer and invited a lawyer for the RCMP to stand up and object [at page 54].

When she didn’t, he then said the issue was not relevant.

This is the last picture. It is a police composite of Jane Doe, her remains were found on the farm.

Like her, the women at risk in the future because of the failures of this Inquiry have not been identified.

Even if we cannot yet identify the victims, we are witnessing yet one more tragedy for these missing and murdered women, and their sisters who march for them.

Support reasonable liquor laws for movie theatres

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:01:00 +0000

I think it's crazy that you can't have a beer while watching a movie, especially if everybody in the theatre is 19 years of age or older.

I'm not sure what the moral logic is that says stripping and drinking, ok; opera and drinking, ok (but just in the lobby); rock 'n roll dancing and drinking, ok; but movies and drinking, that's where we draw the line. Let's shut down that highway to moral decay.

If you agree with me, I have an invite for you. Incidentally I was asked to host a Cinema Salon at Vancouver International Film Festival Theatre (Vancity Theatre) (the theatre so nice, they named it twice) on March 6 at 7:30 p.m.

I chose classic 1990 youth angst film Pump Up the Volume, which inspired me off to college radio to "steal the air" for my two listeners. The movie made a lifetime independent radio fan of me, and at the same time delivered a lifelong appreciation for Samantha Mathis, who played Nora and for Leonard Cohen. The film also inspired a healthy caution about government regulation of free speech and media concentration, and the controversial idea that those in power may need to be accountable to those they serve.

The movie is notionally about independent radio, but the ideas transition so well to the Internet, which in 1990 was nothing but a twinkle in Al Gore's eye.

Although I picked the movie for countless reasons, I'd like the screening to be a quasi protest of the absurd liquor laws which have caused endless confusion for the Rio and for the VIFF, as well as endless expense for "consultants" they must employ to try to figure out how they can let people have a drink while enjoying a movie.

BCCLA has issued a press release about the issue, but I'm hoping you come to the VIFF on March 6 to sign a petition, enjoy a classic film, (maybe?) enjoy a drink, and bring yourself up to speed about how you're being protected from yourself at huge expense for no obvious reason.

Tickets available here, regular movie prices apply.

Ward pushes for an answer on his witness application and leak

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:32:00 +0000

I've been forwarded (anonymous sources abound) an e-mail sent out by Cameron Ward to lawyers at the Missing Women Inquiry who work for the Commission, and who represent various interests at the Commission, to ask what happened to his application to have critical witnesses like Bill Hiscox and David Pickton called to the Inquiry.

Cameron Ward and Neil Chantler represent the families of the women who were murdered on the Pickton farm. Here's a PDF of the Application itself, if you're curious.

The questions Ward asks in his e-mail seem reasonable given that the National Post has now published three times that:

the application has been decided;
the Commission will not call these critical witnesses;
all of the lawyers acting for non-police / non-government interests I've spoken to weren't notified of the decision and nothing has been said in the hearing about it; and,
most recently, that the information that the application was decided secretly and not announced was leaked to the reporter from a "senior commission counsel."

One can understand how the lawyers for the families in this mess might be wondering what had happened. Here's Cameron's e-mail, for the record.

--------------

From: Cameron Ward [mailto:cward@cameronward.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:01 AM
To: 'Tobias, Cheryl'; 'Harman, Malea'; 'Armstrong, Sarah'
Cc: [Internal Commission Staff e-mails deleted] 'Boire, Sandra'; 'Brongers, Jan'; 'Bryan Baynham'; 'Bryan Baynham'; 'Chantelle Rajotte'; 'Cindy Brandes'; 'Claire Hatcher'; 'Darrell Roberts'; 'David Crossin'; 'E Greenspan'; 'Elizabeth France'; 'Greg'; 'Heather McLellan'; 'Hoffman, Judith'; 'Irwin Nathanson'; 'Janet Winteringham'; 'Jason Gratl'; 'John Boddie'; 'Judy Thompson'; 'Kevin Woodall'; 'Leonard Doust'; 'Mark Skwarok'; [Internal lawyer e-mail deleted]; 'Michael Feder'; 'N Adams'; 'N Adams'; 'Neil Chantler'; 'Ravi Hira'; 'Richard Peck'; 'Robyn dean Gervais'; 'Salima Samnani'; 'Sean Hern'; 'Seth Cooper'; [Internal lawyer e-mail deleted]; 'Tim Dickson'; 'V Christie'

Subject: RE: MWCI - National Post article, February 17, 2012

Dear Counsel;

As you know, we spent some effort in attempting to bring an oral application for additional witnesses, and then by complying with the Commission’s direction to submit the application in writing, which we did before Christmas. The National Post is today reporting, for the second time, that, “Mr. Oppal has yet to rule on [the application]; however, a senior commission counsel has told the National Post it will be denied.” See:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/17/david-pickton-sightings/

The first time this statement was published, we hoped that the reporter was mistaken. However, this most recent report compels us to request an explanation from Commission Counsel.

Has our application for additional witnesses been denied? Has a senior commission counsel indeed made the statements attributed to them? If so, who is responsible for this apparent lapse in judgment?

Please respond in writing.

Regards,

Cameron Ward
A. Cameron Ward & Company
Barristers & Solicitors
58 Powell Street
Vancouver, BC
V6A 1E7

No hunt underway for leak from Commissioner's office?

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:54:00 +0000

I'm finding the Commission's treatment of the most recent leak from their office quite puzzling.

Lawyer Cameron Ward filed a ten page application to have critical witnesses like Bill Hiscox (who worked on the Pickton farm) testify at the Inquiry. A staff member from the Commission told reporter Brian Hutchinson from the National Post that Ward's application would be rejected, which was repeated by the reporter in articles on February 6 and a week later on February 13.

This information was passed by a Commission staff member to the reporter before the application had been "officially" decided on, let alone ruled on in open court, by the Commissioner. I'm advised nobody knows when the decision will be coming.

The whole notion of someone other than the Commissioner telling selective media outlets about decisions before the lawyer who made the application is told, or the public is told, undermines the independence and authority of the Commissioner and the Commission. Leaks like this lead to questions like: Has the Commissioner lost control of his staff? Is the Commissioner even running the inquiry, or are his staff making the decisions, telling the media, and then telling him?

Beyond the simple issue of the Commissioner's authority and role, depending on when exactly it happened the leak opens up the Commission to a possible judicial review on the most basic administrative law fairness principles.

And yet there's no comment yet from lead Commission Counsel Art Vertlieb, Q.C., or the Commissioner, in relation to the leak. It's like it didn't happen. The silence is deafening given the remarkably loud pronouncements made by the Commissioner and lead Commission Counsel in relation to an earlier leak.

Here's the Commissioner's lead lawyer, Art Vertlieb, Q.C., on the importance of privacy and the undertaking (promise) signed by all lawyers in the Inquiry, including, one assumes, Inquiry staff and staff lawyers, in relation to the leak of the "Evans report" from parties unknown to the media [transcript here]:

Needless to say, it's a matter of great concern because so much of what we do in our profession is based on an atmosphere of trust, and a breakdown of trust is a very serious and distressing and disappointing matter. We have a long way to go in these proceedings, and if we lose trust in the room, it's obviously a great problem. It's, it's embarrassing to our profession. It's embarrassing to the process.

And the comments of the Commissioner, who was visibly personally upset by the leak:

Any wilful leaking of a document, in contravention of the, of an undertaking, of course, is reprehensible and I, I just wonder how someone can be that ethically challenged that they find it necessary to leak documents in contravention of, of the undertaking and agreement. It's an affront to, not only the inquiry, but to all counsel and all participants in the, in the inquiry. [...] Setting the ethical considerations aside for a minute, I don't, I don't know why people find that they can somehow curry favour with the media by leaking them documents as though that will garner them some respect or some inside track, or whatever reason people have for leaking these things, but it's, it's upsetting.

The only distinction I can see between the two leaks and the apparently wildly differing response from the Commission is that one leak came from the Commissioner's office, and the other most likely came from a non-police/ non-government lawyer.

So imagine this dynamic if you can. In a leak where the lead suspects were counsel for the families, the Downtown Eastside independent counsel, and independent counsel for Indigenous women, the benchers are called in (these most senior and respected members of the Law Society were allegedly asked to do a special investigation into the leak), and denunciations were made from the highest levels of the Commission.

In a leak where the lead suspect(s) is/are in the Commissioner's office, and the leak is about how little consideration is being given to a serious application being made by the family's lawyers to have critical witnesses heard, there is silence.

Who knows? Maybe in the backroom Commissioner Oppal has his staff under the bright lights answering difficult questions, but somehow, I'm skeptical. In any event, the silence from the Commissioner on this matter of public trust in the Commission and the Commission's integrity is bizarre given the earlier reactions. Compounding this is that the leak was on an issue critical to the families, the only party the government saw fit to fund with counsel that isn't a police officer or government agency, and the leak suggests the utmost in disrespect to them.

Now is not the time for silence.

Inquiry holding ears, humming, to avoid hearing family questions

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:39:00 +0000

Working for years in the Downtown Eastside, I've had countless e-mails, as I'm sure have many journalists, alleging a highly organized group that ran a snuff ring at the Pickton farm, and that something more than just racism / discrimination / incompetence inside police agencies defeated the Pickton investigation. That "something more" alleged is police corruption on a large scale.

I've never put much stock in this conspiracy theory, as it would involve a level of organization and sophistication that would be near impossible to keep quiet, but I did think the Inquiry would be addressing and finally putting to rest this long-running issue that clearly troubles so many.

In any event, with $80,000 per day going primarily to police and government lawyers (20 of 24 lawyers), the least this Commission can do is hear the matters that are important to Downtown Eastside residents and family members of the victims.

Lawyers Cameron Ward and Neil Chantler are finally having their application heard for all of the relevant RCMP documents to this continuing and pernicious rumour / theory that clearly concerns their clients, the families of those women who died on the farm. Among other things, media reports that the application asks for all of the RCMP documentation that connects Pickton with the Hells Angels and "Piggy's Palace", the after-hours drinking establishment run by the Picktons allegedly frequented by Hells Angels, off duty police officers, and city officials.

The theory that women did not tell police more than they did because they were intimidated about the organized crime connections at the Pickton farm is a serious issue, and should be explored. The ongoing concern that connections to the Hells Angels delayed or interfered with the police investigation should be explored and settled. That's the purpose of a public inquiry. Ask the tough questions, get the answers, make recommendations, and move on.

Consider these pieces of information when evaluating whether or not these issues are "relevant". I agree that these facts could be coincidental or reflect general incompetence, but they also fairly consistently reinforce the corruption / organized crime theory, and show that it's more than just an "Area 51" type hypothesis:

an RCMP officer went to Pickton on a "personal visit" and told him the names of informants and what the informants had told the RCMP;
Tony Terezakas who made bizarre torture videos at the American Hotel, and was a Hells Angels associate, worked the door at the Piggy's Palace parties;
a man who worked on the Pickton farm and went to the RCMP with details of bloody women's clothing on the farm, offered to do an undercover sting that the RCMP first took up, and then suddenly and unexpectedly refused to pursue (police say they "couldn't find him" despite the fact that the witness says he was on probation at the time and regularly reporting to a probation officer, as well as regularly calling the RCMP to ask for updates);
an RCMP investigator, Connor, was aware of the Hells Angels connections with the Pickton farm and had raised them with the VPD, including that there was a Hells Angels clubhouse across the street, and that Hells Angels were hanging out at the Pickton farm.

Unusually, and likely as a result of an artificial deadline the Commission has placed on itself after wasting months hearing book reports from officers not even involved in the original investigations, the Commission has engaged in bizarre handstands to avoid going into these issues.

First, Commissoner Oppal invited a government lawyer to object when Jason Gratl asked his first question about the Hells Angels. According to media (as the transcripts are not yet posted), Gratl asked a question about the Hells Angels; "However Oppal cut in, telling Gratl he did not see the relevance of the Hells Angels questioning, and asked a government lawyer if she would like to rise to object."

Then, in a remarkable, and as far as I am aware, unprecedented "leak" from a quasi-judicial institution, an alleged "source" in the Missing Women Inquiry staff told media that Ward and Chantler's application to have information about Hells Angels connections and Piggy's Palace would be refused - even before it was argued by the lawyers at the hearing.

Just so you know, these kind of leaks are incredibly rare for Canadian courts and judicial processes. They just don't happen. Double the disbelief when the leak is that an application will be refused by a Commissioner even before it is argued by the lawyers involved. Double that disbelief when the leak is about an application made by lawyers outnumbered five to one and representing the most vulnerable parties at the Inquiry. Seriously.

Here is the exact line from the National Post article: "While Mr. Oppal has not ruled on the requests, a senior inquiry source says they will be rejected."

The worst.

According to Ward, who published this list on his blog, the family's document request application includes requests for:

Crown Counsel’s files relating to the charges of attempted murder, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising from Robert Willy Pickton’s March 23, 1997 attack of a Vancouver women at the Port Coquitlam property he shared with his brother, charges that were stayed in 1998;
The book written by lead VPD investigator Lori Shenher about the investigation, which was apparently submitted to McClelland & Stewart for publication in 2003;
Shenher’s own investigative file, delivered to the RCMP-controlled Project Evenhanded in 2001 and then apparently withheld from her and from the Commission ever since;
Police emails about the investigations; and,
Police officers’ notes of a “brainstorming session” held at VPD headquarters a little over a month later, May 13, 1999, when, according to Shenher’s testimony, Pickton’s likely role as perpetrator of the crimes was discussed “at length” by the 18 police officers in attendance. One of those was VPD Deputy Chief Doug LePard, who wrote the VPD’s internal internal investigative report.

Hells Angels or no Hells Angels, that's a list of documents that the lawyers for the family shouldn't have to make application for, and have it refused before they even get a chance to argue it in front of the Commissioner, if that's in fact what happened.

That's a list of documents that the Commission should be demanding, and now, in order to fulfill their mandate and get to the bottom of this mess.

Railroading these vulnerable groups and shutting down their questions and theories, in the face of a phalanx of 20 publicly funded police and government lawyers, after the government refuses to pay for lawyers for Downtown Eastside women and survival sex workers to be represented, doesn't just look bad, it looks awful. It also reinforces the conspiracy theorists, undermines public confidence in the police, and adds fuel to the very fire that this Inquiry was meant to put out.

Pretty soon people are going to be calling for an inquiry into this Inquiry.

David Ho, sex workers, and the Vancouver Police Foundation

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:59:00 +0000

The David Ho case illuminates the challenges sex workers face in going to police, including during the period of the Pickton case, and well after. Well, it illuminates a lot of things actually, some of which raise serious questions that go beyond even the traditional barriers to sex worker reports of violence.

In a nutshell, David Ho pled guilty to an incident that involved him breaking the ankle of a sex trade worker who was trying to get away from him. He is a billionaire that lives in Vancouver. The woman escaped by scaling a 2.5m fence in only her underwear. Please note, this incident took place in late December, 2008, more than three years ago.

Merry Christmas.

Police appear to have declined to recommend charges against Ho in relation to an earlier, and undated, incident where he allegedly repeated the same behaviour with another sex worker, according to the Province newspaper, as described by David Ho himself:

“In one of the incidents, police were called to his downtown suite on Seymour Street. A woman was in his apartment. She had called police and said Ho was holding her.”

I imagine she may have a more detailed version of events.

Here’s the big question, and it’s one of the big questions of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Why is it that predators appear to be given a free pass on allegations made by sex workers against them? Pickton stabbed and almost killed a sex worker, but walked free.

Ho refused to let a woman leave his home on even his own version of events (he was trying to convince her to get help), but no charges were recommended. So then, apparently, he did it again, but this time he broke the woman’s ankle. What else was planned for her if she hadn’t managed to escape?

Layering this case with complexity is the fact that David Ho is a former Police Board member, a contributor to the Vancouver Police Foundation and the Odd Squad (VPD video production team).

Will this guilty plea cause speculation, (as it has for me) about whether or not the police were reluctant to recommend charges in the original incident, and possibly other incidents, because Ho was such a powerful person, closely tied to the Police Board and Police Foundation? That the nine month delay between the December 28, 2008 incident and the September 29, 2009 charges was related to Ho’s status in relation to the police department as a donor, and the sex worker’s, well, non-existent status as a donor to the Police Foundation? Probably.

Will this revelation lead to the suspension of a dubious program in which police solicit donations from private citizens raising concerns exactly like this? Hopefully, but unlikely.

Willey case: Everything wrong with RCMP oversight in a nutshell

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:31:00 +0000

You'd be forgiven if you wondered what all the fuss was about after reading the Commission for Public Complaints (CPC) press release about the Clayton Alvin Willey death.

A guy dies of a cocaine overdose. He wasn't treated as respectfully as he could have been. The investigation took 14 months. Well, that's life.

While this summary is notionally true, it neatly ducks the fact that Willey entered the Prince George police detachment garage fully hog tied. He left with shattered ribs, with multiple bruises and cuts, and having been Tasered repeatedly. He was unconscious. He died on the way to hospital. The fifteen minute video of most of the incident is here (temporarily removed by CPC, working to restore it, hang in there!).

And this all happened eight and a half years ago.

Is this case really about a cocaine overdose?

The CPC actually found a litany of offences in relation to RCMP conduct towards Clay Willey, but don't bother looking for it in the press release. It's in the hyperlinks. Despite the multiple findings, the CPC doesn't recommend the file be forwarded to Crown for consideration of criminal charges.

As is typical for the CPC, they ignored the history of violence (starting at paragraph 133 in the link) of one of the arresting officers, Constable Graham. They ignored the history of destroying videotape (starting at paragraph 290) around incidents involving these very same officers at the same detachment, holding that inexplicably "missing frames" and "technical" failures in the video record of Willey's death are irrelevant.

Instead, they recount, breathlessly, the statement Constable Graham prepared with a lawyer 36 hours after the incident as authoritative, and found statements by two civilians without a criminal record for assaulting prisoners "lack[ed] any credibility" in comparison.

The fourteen-month delay ever so gently criticized in the press release is a drop in the bucket in an eight and a half year investigation. Fourteen months is only the length of time the RCMP took to "review" this file and return it to the CPC. It would have taken longer, but the BCCLA issued a press release to shame the RCMP (PDF) into releasing it, or shame the CPC into reminding the RCMP to send it back, or both.

The CPC criticism of the RCMP delay of more than a year is hard to even read as a direct criticism thanks to creative use of the passive tense that avoids assigning responsibility to the RCMP: "The CPC maintains that these delays are inappropriate and impede the public complaint process."

The failures of the CPC let down the RCMP as much as any individual member who breaks the law does. I can't imagine what it's like to work as an RCMP officer with integrity beside an officer who destroys videotape, or who has been criminally convicted of assault for kicking in the face of a prisoner, breaking bones and teeth. Is it scary? Depressing? Disheartening? No big deal?

What is it like to work in the CPC and find your research turned into a press release that calls shattered ribs "disrespectful" and insults civilian witnesses, instead preferring the evidence of discredited police officers unless there's irrefutable video tape? More of the same? Enraging? No big deal?

The CPC has failed everyone, and will continue to fail everyone, the family of Clayton Willey included, unless the Federal government acts to reform them, and now.

B.C. physicians issue report on drug policy and law reform

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:17:00 +0000

It's hard to imagine an area more difficult for politicians talk about than drug policy reform.

Maybe raising taxes.

Today, B.C.'s Health Officers council gave the politicians some breathing room by issuing a report that calls for a provincial dialogue on reforming drug law in Canada and B.C. Not exactly a group of flaming radicals, the Health Officers Council is the professional association of public health physicians in B.C. They issue reports on the health impacts of, for example, driving while using your cell phone.

Ten years ago, few people could have imagined a functioning facility where nurses would supervise addicts injecting heroin, morphine and cocaine to make sure they didn't kill themselves in the process; that it would be supported by the health authority, municipal government and provincial government.

Similarly, ten years ago, few people could have imagined a study that looks at the outcome of prescribing heroin and hydromorphone to people who have failed at drug treatment. There has been one already. The second study is underway. Both in British Columbia. Both in Vancouver.

Today the majority of Canadians support Insite. British Columbians support drug policy reform that makes us safer and healthier, and have linked our endemic gang violence to the drug trade. But that hasn't been enough so far to open the door to even a discussion of reform and decriminalizing drug addicts. If anything, our drug law is going the other way, with tougher penalties and more jail time for addicts, despite the American experience.

There is now a little more space for those in positions of power to take up the Health Officers' call for a public discussion about what's working, and what's not working, in our current drug policy. Just a discussion. Hopefully, in ten years, we'll look back and shake our heads at the inability of our society to even discuss how we could improve our drug policy's effectiveness to increase safety, reduce harm, and reduce costs. Talk about reefer madness.

Hoping for a peaceful outcome at Occupy

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:15:00 +0000

Vancouver lawyers Jason Gratl and Michael McCubby have negotiated short-term relief for Occupy Vancouver with some tight timelines and restrictions. It seems that the full injunction application won't be heard until November 16 at 10 a.m. In the meantime, OV needs to abide by the Fire Department's strict conditions.

From all reports, the Occupy near-death experience appears to have awakened a can-do spirit at the camp, with Occupiers re-constructing the site to comply with the Fire Department's order.

The City, of course, does not need to wait for the injunction to send staff in without a police escort to seize the tents on the site. However, city staff are likely unwilling to take that enforcement step without a police escort, and Chief Chu has been clear that he would prefer a situation where an injunction and enforcement order are in place.

Chief Chu could certainly change his mind at any time and decide to escort city staff without an injunction, or issue bylaw tickets to all of the campers, but it appears he, like all of us, is hoping that this matter can be resolved without the risks that come with confrontation between police and protesters.

Unsolicited Legal FAQ for Occupy Vancouver

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:37:00 +0000

There's been lots of chat and considerable misinformation on the Occupy Vancouver Twitter feed about the state of the law. Consider this an unsolicited legal FAQ on some key protest legal issues.

This is general legal information and a good dose of speculation. Those in legal jeopardy should consult a lawyer and provide the lawyer with all the background facts his or her lawyer will need to advise appropriately.

Is there a right to have political structures like tents?
Yes. The B.C. Court of Appeal held in the Falun Gong case that a complete prohibition by the City of Vancouver on structures with expressive political meaning was unconstitutional. The City's redrafted bylaw is now subject to a second constitutional challenge as too restrictive and not being rationally connected to the stated goals of public safety and public access to property.

Does that mean that the Occupy Vancouver tents are legal?
Not necessarily. Key to the Falun Gong decision was that the Falun Gong were not blocking the sidewalk and that the structure presented no structural safety issues. Without commenting on the obvious challenges of making this case, the Occupy Vancouver tents would need to be demonstrated to be presenting no or limited public safety issues, and not unduly restricting pedestrians and/or other uses of public space in order for them to meet the fact pattern of the Falun Gong case where the structures were permitted by the Court.

If OV can't demonstrate that the tents aren't a risk and aren't restricting access to public space, does that mean that OV has to remove all their tents?
A situation like that would mean that the Court, on an injunction application, is very unlikely to refuse the City's request that the tenters be removed. This injunction can be enforced by police. Refusal to adhere to the injunction, including returning to the site after an initial arrest, could result in criminal contempt of Court findings, which could result in imprisonment. See Cameron Ward's comments on that process here. This was the exact mechanism used to detain and imprison activists around the Sea to Sky Highway expansion. In short, OV would have to remove all the tents or have the tents removed for them, or, ultimately, face jail.

However, for many reasons, including likely political support for some of the goals of the Occupy movement generally, as well as a strong desire to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, the City is willing to go beyond their bare constitutional requirements and appears willing to permit political structures on the site that could interfere with some other uses of that public space, including permitting various organizational structures like the "media tent" and "food tent" and so on. The core concern from the City appears to be the residential tents.

In summary, and without wishing to impose my own views on OV, there appears to be a clear choice for OV right now between some compromise and continuing to hold the site (negotiation), or no compromise and arrest(s) as a political statement (City injunction process).

What would likely charges be?
Most of the charges those arrested at OV would face after the injunction would be related to criminal contempt of Court. This would likely be a last resort by the City, as the City would have to ask for these kinds of charges. The penalties for contempt are serious and usually involve jail for people who refuse to refrain from returning to a disputed site.

"Assault by Trespass" charges are restricted for those who actively resist being removed from a site. Passive resistance (going limp and being carried off site) does not qualify under the case law for these charges, and these charges are not common. (Section 41(2))

"Mischief" is always a popular charge, and involves preventing an individual from using his or her property. (Section 430)

"Assault Police" is very common in the melees around mass arrests, and is a very serious charge. Legal Observers often go a long way to disputing allegations of assault police when the "assault" is demonstrated not to have taken place through video. (Section 129)

"Breach of the Peace" is also very common in protests. This is not a chargable offence, so there is never a trial or formal criminal record; however, it is an arrest power that allows police to arrest those breaching the peace or those imminently about to breach the peace, and hold them until the breach is resolved, but not longer than 24 hours. (Usually a period of one to four hours, including processing at the jail.) (Section 31)

Chief Marilyn Baptiste of Xeni Gwet'in condemns Fish Lake mine

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:27:00 +0000

I enjoyed this open letter about the environmentally damaging Fish Lake "Prosperity" Mine proposal written by Chief Marilyn Baptiste of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations.
-----------------

Dearest Mike Pederson, Regional Manager, Ministry of Forests and Lands and Ken Vanderburgh

Tsilhqot’in Statement of Commitment to protect the land that sustains us and our future generations
Williams Lake, BC, November 2, 2011:

Today marks the anniversary of the Federal Government’s decision rejecting the Prosperity Mine proposal and protecting the environment, waters, fish and fish habitat, grizzly and grizzly habitat and our constitutionally protected rights as First Peoples in our homelands. Once again, we thank the Minister of Environment Jim Prentice and the Federal Government for protecting the public interest and for upholding the rights of First Nations under the Canadian Constitution.

Unfortunately, this dire threat to our people, our lands and our way of life as Tsilhqot’in people continues to this day. The proponent has already submitted a proposal for “New” Prosperity, a mine alternative that it has described in the past as even more environmentally damaging. At the same time, British Columbia recently issued approvals that authorize the proponent to extensively drill, build roads and clear trees throughout this area of such critical importance to our people.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation considers the approvals issued by British Columbia unlawful because of the Province’s failure to meaningfully consult or accommodate our Nation or to justify the impacts on our proven Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap throughout those lands. We remain confident that the Federal Government will continue to do the right thing and once again reject this clearly unacceptable mine proposal.

On this, the anniversary of our successful defence of the lands and waters that sustain our people and our culture, the Tsilhqot’in Nation stands united in its sacred commitment to our ancestors and to our future generations – we will honour and we will protect the lands that give us life.

TEN REASONS WHY THE PROSPERITY MINE BID WILL FAIL
Tsilhqot’in National Government

Investors hoping to cash in on Taseko Mines Ltd’s second Prosperity Mine bid should think back a year. Despite assurances from the company and its president that it would proceed, the company’s original bid was soundly rejected by the federal government and share prices plunged.
Once again, there is a proposal before the federal government’s Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the company’s president is saying he is confident it will be approved.

And once again the federal government has no choice but to reject it. Here are 10 reasons why.

1. The company knows its new option is worse than the one that was rejected last year. Here are just two quotes that show it knows it cannot save Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) – only prolong its death throes:

``Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake. We wish it were otherwise. We searched hard for a different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine. But there is no viable alternative. The lake and the deposit sit side by side. It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other.”
- Brian Battison, V.P. Corporate Affairs, Taseko Mines Ltd. Opening Presentation at the CEAA Review Panel Hearings, March 22, 2010

“What happens to the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it’s close.”
- Scott Jones, V.P. Engineering, Taseko Mines Ltd. Panel Hearing Transcript, CEAA Reg. Doc#2253, v.29, p. 5450

2. The CEAA review panel report was not almost the same as the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Not even close. The CEAA review panel report found irreparable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. The problems were so serious that then Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as “scathing” and “probably the most condemning I have ever read.”

3. This is not a new proposal and does not address the issues. It is Mine Development Plan 2, which the company reject lasted year, and which the federal review panel rejected in its report: “The Panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.” Federal Review Panel Report, p. 65

4. TML states on page 20 of its new project description that it is submitting the previously rejected second alternative. Quote: “Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed.”

5. The new $300 million in spending is not for previously unheard of mitigation to make this alternative acceptable. TML states in its Project Description: “The new development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.”

6. The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This resubmitted plan places even more onus on the federal government to live up to these duties.

7. To approve this mine would show the EA process is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations made clear this summer in a national resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.

8. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now, nor does the Ministry the Environment, which, as the federal Panel report notes, found last year that Option 2 would be worse than the original bid.

9. In our view, the project cannot get federal approval. The question is will it be rejected on Nov. 7 when CEAA announces next steps, or will be first have to go through a pointless, costly and divisive new review.

10. Natural Resources Canada estimates there are $350 billion - $500 billion worth of potential projects on lands that involve aboriginal Title, claims and rights. It makes no sense for governments, industry and investors to back this bad, confrontational proposal and rebuff efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system.

Marilyn Baptiste, Chief
Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government
Nemiah Valley, BC

Dwayne Koe: Activist, carver, musician, gone too soon

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:24:00 +0000

A friend of mine from the DTES passed away a couple of weeks ago. I was in denial about the whole situation; I got the flyer for his memorial ceremony and then didn't go. Blocked it out. Sorry Dwayne.

Dwayne Koe was a great guy, a proud Inuit man named Haluk, who faced struggles few of us can imagine. He was one of our two plaintiffs in the litigation to keep the Main Street tent city open. His co-plaintiff, Noah, passed away months ago. Both of them remained homeless or near homeless until their last days.

Dwayne is an example of a guy who would have hugely benefited had the province implemented the Frank Paul Inquiry recommendations around sobering centres and identifying and treating chronic, street involved alcoholics. He would probably be alive today if those recommendations had been implemented. They have not been.

So what we're left with are memories of Dwayne's guitar playing and improvised songs at every major housing protest, every Curtis Brick memorial. At the last one I recall, and the one mentioned most frequently online, he sang a song called "We are One." He's left some carvings too, here's his "Drummer Singing with a Shaman" carving, currently selling online for $695.

Here are his words to UN Special Housing Rapporteur Miloon Kothari during the Rapporteur's visit to Vancouver: "Its not people, it’s the system. Because of the residential school system, I have suffered. My dad’s been there, my mom’s been there. When I was eight years old I watched my dad kill my mom because he felt powerless. When people talk about shame, I feel it every day."

Despite that inter-generational trauma, Dwayne managed to be cheerful, happy and loving, a man who died far too soon and who carried a burden few of us can imagine. We miss you already Dwayne.

Tasering of 11 year old no-charge decision explained, sort of

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:41:00 +0000

The West Van PD has finally released some details in relation to their "no charge" decision for the RCMP officer who Tasered the 11 year old boy in Prince George.

The objectively discernible facts from the summary are that the boy was involved in an incident with a staff member where a staff member was "stabbed." The injury is not described. The boy was spotted in the house and had several interactions with police. The police decided to intervene. When the boy exited the house the boy was Tasered. The attending officers say they reasonably believed the pen the boy was holding was a knife.

The remainder of the document is made up of the various impressions of witnesses of the level of danger represented by the boy to the police and to himself. It reads like a defence lawyer's summary as prepared in response to a criminal trial.

To begin, in relation to this statement, at the very least the WVPD should be thanked for ending the months of rumours that the boy was holding everything from a syringe to a spatula to a knife.

Now, on to what's important.

Was there really no other option for the officers involved? Did they reasonably believe the boy had a knife when he in fact had a pen? Can we know from the summary of a police investigator?

No, unfortunately, we can't. We'll never see the investigation file, the witness statements, the interview transcripts. It's all protected from Freedom of Information requests, and there is unlikely to be any public hearing related to this incident.

This may have been the best investigation of police by police in all of B.C.'s history. It might have been the worst. But we'll never know.

Unfortunately for both the officer involved and those concerned with the welfare of children in B.C., this investigation summary can't be relied on for much given the two public inquiries we've now had into police accountability in B.C., both of which recommended ending police self investigation.

All we'll know is that B.C. police investigations get worse, the more serious the incident is, according to an audit of the police complaints system in B.C..

We know that B.C. has the highest rate of police-involved deaths in Canada.

We know that this boy had a pen, and not a knife.

It's hard not to think that we don't know close to enough about this file yet.

Where is the $5m for Vancouver's poorest women?

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:38:00 +0000

The Provincial government has made its decision. It would "rather spend resources on the front line helping women who are still there [in the DTES], instead of more lawyers [at the Missing Women Inquiry," said Premier Christy Clark at the First Nations Summit on June 9.

How much more would it rather spend? According to Attorney General Penner, in a number widely disputed everywhere else, the Government estimated the cost of lawyers for community groups was $4.6 to $6.5 million.

Let's split the difference and call it $5 million.

If the Province truly would rather spend the resources on the front line, where is the $5m program for the women of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside?

You'd be right if you had trouble spotting it, it doesn't exist.

The one van, the MAP van, that provides support to survival sex workers in the DTES was off the road for three months in 2009 when the government refused to renew funding. After an extended campaign, a three year funding deal was reached that expires next summer.

Municipal political parties are campaigning on a promise to campaign for funding for, yes campaign for funding, because it doesn't yet exist, a 24/7 drop in centre for women in the DTES.

While the Inquiry about missing women continues without them, surely the Province is going to make good on spending the dough they would have spent on the women participating and reallocate it to services that these women desperately need to keep them safe.

Police try to seize the human microphone

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:50:00 +0000

Ugh. The police are already out to frame the Occupy Vancouver movement as a threat to Vancouverites. Nobody knows what this protest is going to look like, including the police, but there are some pretty good clues from other cities.

Occupy Vancouver appears to be part of a leaderless, large-scale, international, mass non-violent demonstration against corporate greed and the destruction of our planet.

From the police perspective, apparently there is no better time than a large-scale, international, mass non-violent demonstration against corporate greed and the destruction of the planet than to remind citizens that:

"Experience has all shown us that any large gathering of people can serve as a cover for those with a different and unlawful agenda."

Right, like the large gatherings of executives on Wall Street and Bay Street.

Given the cover that a large gathering of people provides to criminals like Stan Grmovsek, the VPD is asking that, "For everyone’s safety, the VPD is encouraging participants not to wear masks and discourage anyone around them from doing so."

I guess I've just never seen the press release from the RCMP or VPD that talks about the threat presented by insider trading and corporate malfeasance to Canadians' pensions and retirements. Or how a large gathering of corporate executives can act as a cover for 1% to pay themselves absurd rewards at the expense of the rest.

Hey, no mask required!

Don't wear a mask, says the VPD release. "We need to identify you because your protest is a threat to the public," is the implicit message.

Protests are dangerous. Dissent is a threat. Police should properly comment on every assembly of citizens and potential crimes that could be committed there, especially if the gathering disagrees with the disaster that is our current global economic order.

Perhaps all citizens should simply have to identify themselves to police with their BCID or a Passport if they decide to voice opposition to the 1%. The 1% are apparently welcome to wear disguises, not that they want to or need to.

Police have no idea what the protest will be, because nobody does. How about we let the citizens gather, police can do the job they always do and prepare for what they need to prepare for, and we can let this thing be what it will be?

The role of the Mayor and police in Occupy Vancouver

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:11:00 +0000

A tweet from mayoral hopeful Suzanne Anton just drifted across my Hootsuite, and I couldn't let it pass. Nor could I reply in 140 characters.

Here it is:

I know it's hard to communicate in 140 characters. It's also hard to figure out where to start in pointing out what's wrong with this tweet.

First of all, for context, Anton is trying to make the policing around the riot a political issue for the mayoral race. The implication is simple. Robertson, as head of the Police Board, and Mayor, should have seen the riot coming and ensured there were enough police. Or that windows were boarded up. Or that there were stilt walkers. Or what have you.

Fair enough, enjoy the debate and the election. But let's not lose track of the facts.

Whether it is a riot or a protest, in our system, the Mayor is a figurehead on the Police Board, with the majority of appointees coming from the Province. Even if the Mayor were the functional head of the Police Board, responsible for the majority of appointees to the Board (which in my view is a reform long overdue), the Police Board's sole job is policy and choosing a police chief. Operational matters like riots and protests are the purview of the police chief, not the Police Board.

This separation of church and state is intended to ensure that the momentary winds of political whim don't dictate whether or not, for example, people can gather downtown and protest.

So in this situation, whatever would the Mayor have to say about tomorrow's Occupy Vancouver protest to demonstrate leadership? Perhaps "Don't come out," "Please don't block traffic," "Don't forget our park bylaws," "Drivers, find alternate routes," "I've met with the Police Chief, and he's aware of the situation"?

The Mayor must rely on the Chief that has been hired to do the job the Chief has been hired to do, namely, ensure the rights of the protesters to protest are respected, and ensure public safety generally. Political interference, with the Mayor ordering the clearance of a park for example, or introducing new no protest rules for parks, or threatening protesters, or something similarly bizarre and reactionary would certainly result in constitutional litigation which would be expensive, pointless, and a sure loser for the city.

Remember the Olympic "Free Speech Zones"?

Anything the Mayor could say about Occupy Vancouver would be simple posturing, and everybody would know it. He can't stop the protest, he's not responsible for policing it, and he shouldn't try to do either job. Where is the Mayor? Doing Mayor stuff, and not police operations or anti-free speech stuff, which is not his job, nor should it be.

Government and police leaking information to undermine Vancouver's poorest women

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:57:00 +0000

The protests of the women out front of the Missing Women Inquiry must be gaining traction. Government and police spin doctors have been feeding information to friendly journalists like CKNW commentator and Province columnist Michael Smyth to undermine the demands of Vancouver's poorest women to be heard at their own inquiry.

The theme of the leaks to the media is the perverse notion that the Commission is stacked in favour of the women of the DTES, who just happen to be excluded from their own inquiry. Down is up, and up is down. The public, caught in the middle, will assume that the whole thing is a mess and ignore what's really happening.

In his most recent column, Smyth reveals that the police have been in contact with him:

"They are still furious over comments he [Oppal] made suggesting they were partly to blame for Pickton's rampage."

Putting aside the weirdness of the supposed police anger, because both the RCMP and VPD issued reports saying that they were partly to blame, I don't doubt for one second that the well-connected Smyth has been speaking with high level RCMP and VPD officers and spokespeople "off the record," and that they are pushing the idea that the police are the victims of this Inquiry. They're just trying to fend themselves off from baseless attacks from people with nothing to lose and co-conspirator Commissioner Wally Oppal.

Second, members of the provincial government have been speaking to Smyth, and possibly even provided him with a copy of what would ordinarily be a confidential legal opinion they supposedly obtained. What did this mysterious legal opinion, from Ottawa, suggest? Well, of course, that Commissioner Oppal is over the top in favour of the missing women, those same women Mr. Oppal's lawyer is saying he can conduct the Inquiry without.

"I'm told the government even obtained an independent legal opinion from University of Ottawa professor Ed Ratushny, an expert in public inquiries, about Oppal's controversial remarks. Ratushny concluded the cops and Crown could end up suing Oppal for bias in an inquiry that's bound to get more controversial and — of course — more expensive."

This remarkable conduct of the government and police, leaking information to try to undermine impoverished aboriginal women, survival sex workers, and the most marginalized members of Vancouver's poorest neighbourhood, is all in an effort to deny these women the legal support that they reserve for themselves and their bureaucrats.

I think that's absolutely appalling.

On the bright side, however, it means the protests are working.

Impoverished Indigenous British Columbians don't count now, if they ever did

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:00:00 +0000

It's remarkable how little the lives and voices of impoverished Indigenous people appear to matter to British Columbia's government these days. Assuming that their lives and voices did count at some point.

As Assembly of First Nations National Chief Sean Atleo stood outside the Missing Women Inquiry speaking to the media, in his role as leader of Canada's national Indigenous organization, he was too gracious to mention that his request that the Commission be adjourned until the government could fix the inquiry was completely ignored.

Ignored like he is not the elected National Chief of a group of people towards whom the provincial government has a constitutional duty of consultation and honourable conduct.

But it's not just Indigenous people that are being ignored, it's also those who make recommendations on their behalf.

Ignored like the unprecedented ignoring of Wally Oppal, former B.C. Liberal Cabinet Minister, who recommended that Indigenous women be supported to participate in their own inquiry. That response must have been a surprise for Mr. Oppal, especially after finding out that his was the first ever recommendation for funding by a Commissioner that the province had completely ignored.

But also ignored like Commissioner William Davies' recommendations in the Frank Paul Inquiry. Paul, a homeless aboriginal man, froze to death in a back lane after being dropped there, semi-conscious, by a rookie VPD officer.

Key recommendations in the Frank Paul Inquiry included the establishment of civilian-run sobering centres, which would save lives, as well as police time and taxpayers money, by shifting responsibility for those arrested for being drunk and high in public out of jail and into facilities where people trained in responding to alcohol overdoses could ensure safety.

Another recommendation was a managed alcohol program where homeless chronic alcoholics are engaged in a way that eliminates their use of what is euphemistically called "non-beverage alcohol" like hand sanitizer, mouthwash or rice wine. Ontario has three of these programs, and they're hugely successful.

Where the Robert Dziekanski Inquiry led to the Province announcing, within minutes of the Commissioner's report being issued, the full implementation of every recommendation, the Frank Paul Inquiry has led to years of nothing following the March, 2009 issuing of the original report.

Today, the Province proudly announced a number of technical amendments to how charge approvals around criminal investigations of police are done to respond to the Frank Paul Inquiry report. Where are the sobering centres? Where are the managed alcohol programs?

Commissioner Davies was ignored, and not just ignored, but insulted by being asked to make recommendations that the Government clearly had no intention of implementing. Perhaps Commissioner Oppal is just being saved some time by the government.

Surely it's just a coincidence that aboriginal women in the DTES happen to be the poorest of the poor, happen to have been disproportionately represented in Pickton's victims, happen to be the same voices excluded from their own Inquiry? That their funding happens to be the one legal funding package refused by the Provincial government, after funding Basi and Virk for $6m in legal fees?

It's surely coincidence that the government voice ignored by the provincial government happens to be the elected leadership of Indigenous peoples in Canada?

A coincidence that Frank Paul, too, was an aboriginal man?

That the recommendations from his Public Inquiry are substantively ignored while every Dziekanski Public Inquiry recommendation is implemented without question?

So many coincidences. Coincidences that give the appearance that the lives and voices of Indigenous men and women mean just about next to nothing in this Province. Thank goodness we all know better.

DTES women refuse to be silenced at Missing Women Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:31:00 +0000

This morning there were more than 150 women from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside standing in the middle of the intersection of Granville and Georgia Streets, demanding that their voices be heard at their own Inquiry.

It was simultaneously heartbreaking and amazing.

Amazing, because of the power and voice of these women who have been ignored, abused, silence and shut out, some of them since birth.

Heartbreaking, because their Inquiry, the one they've been demanding for twenty years, was starting seven floors up, in an anonymous black office tower, without them. The Inquiry that is meant to be one step towards ending the violence they face every day was demonstrating exactly how little the voices of these women mattered to the agenda of getting through the scheduled police paperwork and witnesses.

Supporting these women in the street was National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Sean A-in-chut Atleo, who pledged to make the fact that marginalized aboriginal women have been shut out of their own inquiry an international issue. His organization had asked for, and been refused, an adjournment until the issue of the participation of DTES women was resolved.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs expressed his frustration that the Inquiry was proceeding without the women of the Downtown Eastside by calling for the resignation of Commissioner Wally Oppal. The crowd of women began a chant of "Oppal resign," along with other chants like "We want justice" and "Enough is enough."

At one stage the Vancouver Police were lined up at the front door of the Federal Court building, apparently concerned that the women would attempt to attend their own Inquiry en masse. The images of police physically barring the women of the DTES from their own hearings was probably not a photo op they were hoping for. In the end, the police were very laid back, cordoning off a one block radius around the demonstration and keeping well away from the action, and the news cameras.

Those attending the opening statements at the Inquiry said that the demonstration could be heard in the hearing room, and that it was having a major effect on the tone of the hearings. What will also have an impact, and not a positive one, is that the voices of these women who live in Vancouver's poorest neighbourhood will only be heard at this Inquiry, as it is currently structured, from the street.

The protest is scheduled to take place again tomorrow morning (Oct. 12, 2011), 9:30 a.m., 701 West Georgia.

These women must be heard, and they will be heard. They made that much very clear this morning, and I expect the same will happen tomorrow.

Five reasons to show up at Tuesday morning's Inquiry protest

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:23:00 +0000

With 14 groups having now pulled out of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, a protest is scheduled for 9:30 at the Federal Court Building at 701 West Georgia Street. Here are five good reasons to think about getting yourself downtown to join the protest, even if you haven't ever protested before:

Reason One: Senior lawyers who have been hired at a rate of $1,500 per day after twenty years of protests by the poorest women in society, and whose jobs only exist because of the protests of those women, now say they don't need those women to participate to hold a successful inquiry.

When the Provincial government was asked to intervene in the Inquiry to fix it, they used blandishments from the senior Commission lawyer that everything was just fine in order to justify not intervening. "We understand that counsel to the Commissioner has said he is satisfied that the Commission's mandate can be fulfilled in this light."

Commissioner Oppal is earning a reported $1,500 per day. It's hard to imagine anyone on the senior management team earning significantly less. They got these jobs because women who live on $235/month or less protested for years, demanding this Inquiry. For these lawyers to now say they can do the job without these women is remarkable, shows no understanding of the history of this process and is simply wrong.

Reason Two: It's not a fair fight.

A minimum of 14 publicly funded lawyers for the police and government are arrayed against two lawyers for the family members, and two independent lawyers "representing" the community interests. The Commission deemed itself to need 9 lawyers. The provincial government keeps insisting that some other senior lawyers are volunteering some time to help, but until I hear that anybody in the DTES has had any interaction with them, I'll have trouble believing it.

Either the police and government should get together and make do with two independent lawyers who represent their interests, or a fully funded 14 lawyer team should be handed over to the Community. Fair's fair.

Reason Three: The police want to protect sex offenders, not victims and prospective victims.

The police have advanced a suggestion that sex offender names should be removed from documentary records before they become public, automatically. No lawyer needed. They don't even have to ask.

However, the police suggest that women should be able to "apply" for the same protections sex offenders get automatically.

What does apply mean? Women simply need to get their lawyer to compile evidence about why they need protection and hand it over to the Commissioner, and then the police can argue for, or against, the women being able to protect her identity. Her lawyer will argue for her being able to protect her identity and the Commissioner will make a decision. Spotted the problems with this plan yet?

The women have no lawyers. The police, who may be the targets of information these women want to provide, will decide who should and shouldn't be fighting for the right to provide information anonymously. A bunch of privileged lawyers who have never been in a dark lane by themselves at risk of murder because they have no other choice will decide whether these women's safety issues are valid or not. Not that any women would come forward anyway to subject themselves to this process.

Reason Four: Only non-police groups with no chance of getting lawyers without funding were given the right to ask whatever questions they want.

Human rights groups like Amnesty and BCCLA, women's rights groups, and Indigenous leadership groups, were given "limited standing" which means they can only ask questions of witnesses with the permission of the Commissioner. These are also the groups who, in the absence of funding, would most likely still be able to have lawyers show up. Amnesty wasn't even asking for funding.

Groups given full standing, and the right to ask questions on cross examination, like the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, have no chance of full time lawyers on the Inquiry without funding. Police, of course, can ask whatever questions they please.

Reason Five: Special rights and privileges for police, not for women

The police, including current and former police officers, got automatic full standing without any public hearing. A police officer who joined the hearing just four weeks ago got full standing and two fully funded lawyers paid for from the public purse. Public interest groups had to make submissions at a public hearing to get partial standing. No lawyers have been provided to represent the direct interests of any one group or coalition other than family members.

Police are in the back room advising the Commissioner on the meaning of various documents. Police in the front room have the most senior and respected lawyers in Vancouver on bottomless retainers. The women, who this inquiry is about, and for, have been shut out.

See you Tuesday morning.