David Eby - Blog

Coleman takes a swing on CBC

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:01:00 +0000

Thanks to everyone who gave me the heads up earlier, just got around to listening to Rich Coleman on CBC where he takes a shot at yours truly, which makes my day.

"David Eby has never delivered a social program or a housing unit for anybody in Vancouver ever, he’s ever critical whatever government wants to do."

Zing. And almost entirely true given his government's record to date and my lack of interest in delivering social programs or joining his department.

Coleman also notes that he's (1) in the DTES about once a week, where he (2) finds that service providers tell him "It's better down there than it's ever been."

Can we get fact check on those last two statements please?

Save the DTES women's march from VANOC and the cops

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:39:00 +0000

The world's most heavily publicly funded mega event is headed for a confrontation with what may be close to the world's least heavily publicly funded neighbourhood event.

In what may be the flashpoint for police/protester confrontation, or at the very least increase the ever growing stack of bad feelings about how VANOC has blown every single inner city inclusive commitment they've ever made (and some they didn't make but would have three years ago), the Downtown Eastside murdered and missing women march that takes place every February 14 is being asked to relocate to make way for Olympic traffic lanes.

Yes, you heard correctly.

The women behind the march have a description of the issue and their concerns, along with an online petition you can sign if you wish. Check it out here.

Community Court refuses to dish the dirt on its first year

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:37:00 +0000

The Community Court has declined to dish the dirt on its first year. Did it actually shift anyone out of a criminal lifestyle driven by poverty and desperation and into drug treatment, mental health treatment or housing? Who knows! But you'd never guess that the results had been anything less than totally awesome given recent media reports.

"Recidivism? We totally meant to track that, I guess we just forgot. Hey, we did get 209 people into housing or shelter though. Which one, housing or emergency shelters? Oh, guess we didn't track that very well either."

Check out my blog post on the Community of Interest blog on the issue.

VANOC's PR only thing that is transparent for Olympics

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:17:00 +0000

VANOC has just released a story to the media saying that counterfeit Olympic goods production is on the rise.

Oh, indeed? That's weird, because I haven't exactly seen 2010 Olympic materials flying off the shelves of my local store. Those must be some desperate counterfeiters. Increased by how much?

Bill Cooper, who's in charge of managing commercial rights for the Games . . . didn't have statistics of the total number of cases. . .

Oh, I see. But wouldn't that, um, near total absence of stats make it difficult for the media to conclude that conterfeit merchandise is on the rise, other than just because VANOC says so? I mean, the media would look to some kind of objective measure before just reporting whatever VANOC says, right? Like criminal charges or civil suits or injunctions?

However, despite dozens of significant seizures, Cooper says there have been no criminal charges associated with manufacturing or selling fake Games merchandise.

Dozens of significant seizures. Really significant. Trust us. On the rise. Big time. No further questions, please.

Just as a side note, the release of this non-story has nothing to do with the CBC's exposé of the volunteer VANOC brand police just two days ago.

I mean, just because that was super embarassing and VANOC needs to justify volunteers marching through the streets looking for brand violations and attempting to seize non-compliant materials [large PDF file, see pages 95 and 96], doesn't mean they'd just make up some crap story about a huge influx of counterfeit Quatchi dolls, right?
------------
Post script: Sigh, as much as I hate to admit that I'm wrong, I was wrong on this one. I'm advised by a reporter who I respect that this media event was in the works for a bit, and well before we issued our "check out this craziness" about the VANOC brand police. The point remains that it was a pretty crap story without any facts, but the timing was just a coincidence.

Battles in LA and DTES remarkably identical

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Here's a great article I got from Ann Livingston about the struggles of the people who live in L.A.'s poorest neighbourhood. The parallels between this 'hood and the DTES are eerie: SRO conversion, police handing out thousands of jaywalking tickets, battles against discrimination. . .

Check it out here.

Crap complaints system continues to amaze

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:50:00 +0000

Picture this friends.

A male police officer on patrol in the DTES, Mark Steinkampf, stops a woman on Hastings. He reaches into her bra, yes, her bra, and removes a glass crack pipe he can see there. He then crushes it under his boot, leaving glass shards on the sidewalk.

Following that remarkable display, in uniform, and on duty while working for you and me, he then goes on a tirade against Insite, the safe injection site, and harm reduction, both of which his department and the municipal council endorses as saving lives.

Oh, did I forget to mention?

This whole show is for the benefit of a journalist, Margaret Wente from the Globe and Mail, who duly reports the goings on in her own unique style. At no time in the article or since is correction or clarification given that these Mark's personal opinions, and not those of the VPD. In her article, Wente says that Steinkampf "heads the Downtown Eastside detail", which he sure doesn't and didn't at the time.

I, taking exception to the critique in the public uniform and in the publicly funded position of authority, file a third party complaint.

So what happens? The investigation takes a year. More than a year. I filed a third party complaint related to this on July 18, 2008. Here, today, in September of 2009, 14 months later, I'm told that in fact - aside from crushing the crack pipe under his foot - the officer acted entirely properly. It just took us fourteen months to figure that out.

As if.

The reaching into a woman's bra to pull out the crack pipe?

Even if Wente's recollection was accurate, 'the search was minimally intrusive and did not require Steinkampf to touch the woman or her clothing.'

This guy must be a master at the game Operation. What about the misrepresentation as the officer in charge of the DTES detail?

Ms. Wente advised that Sergeant Steinkampf had not misrepresented his role in the Downtown Eastside (DTES); she simply wanted to indicate that he had a position of some authority and supervisory responsibility.

Yes, I suppose it would have been a better story if he actually was what Wente said he was. Not that anybody cares about facts anymore when there's a good story to tell, or if it makes one sound more important than one actually is. Hence, no correction by Wente or Steinkampf.

What about the tirade against harm reduction while in uniform and on the clock to a journalist?

Sergeant Steinkampf's expression of what were clearly his personal views did not constitute a disciplinary default under the Police Act [. . .] there are many examples of members publicly expressing opinions at variance with VPD policy.

Clearly his personal views? Clearly? I guess nobody read this paragraph of Wente's piece:

The police - and many others - argue that well-intentioned but misguided social policies have turned this place into a vast enabling industry. Contrary to popular belief, the police have no desire to throw addicts in jail. They want to help them kick the habit and escape.

Yes, oh, it's so very clear that the Police, I mean, um, the head of the DTES detail, er, I mean Mark, has simply shared his own personal opinions. In uniform. While working.

At the very least, we can all agree that he shouldn't have stomped the glass crack pipe creating a hazard on the sidewalk and improperly disposing of evidence and/or property, right? Well, actually...

Considering all the circumstances, and in particular that the drugs (if any) consisted of residue on a piece of glass, the breach of policy is so minor that it falls within the de minimus doctrine and should be dealt with by way of managerial advice . . . the addition of a crushed crack pipe was a minimal contribution to the existing debris and garbage on the sidewalk, which included broken glass and dirty needles.

In short: Thank you for filing a complaint. Get bent, and have a nice day.

VPD recruiting blog straddles the blue line

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:36:00 +0000

In November of 2008, the VPD introduced a recruiting blog called Behind the Blue Line.

Narrated in the first person by Cst. Sandra Glendinning, now of the Dog Squad, the blog started awkwardly, with "official" communications of the VPD pasted verbatim into the blog text. From those tentative beginnings, Cst. Glendinning's blog has rapidly matured into a cutting edge example of the best practices of corporate social media: personal and professional blur, and the reader feels privy to inside, uncensored information about "what it's really like" in policing.

In the most recent blog posts, readers are exposed to the reality of shift work, the ethical dilemmas of policing poverty and addiction issues, the high action drama of a car chase, and humourous anecdotes involving children and the reality of remembering basic things like putting your car in park during the charged atmosphere of a high-action arrest.

Behind the Blue Line is a far cry from the painfully awkward "Beyond the Call" corporate newsletter that otherwise represents the public face of the officially infallible Vancouver Police Department.

Yet for all of the positive things about this blog humanizing the face of the local police, it remains challenging on a number of ethical levels.

First, it is impossible to ignore that freedom of expression is not a right generally enjoyed by police officers. Despite its informal feel, the blog and its author would quickly meet with the ignominious fate met by the Translink bus driver who blogged off script and without permission if the Constable's "musings" weren't officially sanctioned by a VPD official with a rank other than Constable.

Ironically, it is the blue line that is played on in the title of Cst. Glendinning's blog that represents this notorious cultural tendency to keeping secrets inside the policing family. What happens behind the blue line, stays behind the blue line. In one of her first entries, the Constable promises, quite honestly, that at best she will "blur" that line, not ignore it.

Despite the sense one gets comparing the historical entries and the current entries that the censor's leash (no pun intended for a dog squad officer) has been loosened, there is no acknowledgment, anywhere in the blog, that the site is an official publication of the Vancouver Police Department. Perhaps this provides cover for the brass if Cst. Glendinning goes too far off script and the error isn't caught by the communications department, but more likely the blog's planners felt an official acknowledgment of the blog's departmental oversight would ruin the reader experience.

Second, the blog reveals, between the blurred blue lines, troubling insights into what appear to be shared cultural beliefs and practices within the VPD. Witness the Constable, in an off-the-cuff manner, calling the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood "the Skids" in an otherwise quite compassionate August 17 entry about sex trade workers.

The Skids? Really?

See too the "amusing" anecdote about Cst. Glendinning's police dog keying on a fellow constable instead of the suspect. While this entry may have them rolling in the aisles at HQ, the humour is likely lost on civilians who are bitten by off target police dogs, and the question of the outcome of this serious error is left unanswered.

As heavily internally (at least) and externally (most likely) censored as Behind the Blue Line is, and as poorly as it reflects 90% of the true nature of policing in Vancouver - the investigation and prosecution of the rather unglamorous "crimes" of poverty, alcohol abuse and addiction - the blog represents a valuable insight into police culture. As the author acknowledges, the view is blurred, very blurred, but offers a baby step towards a true dialogue about the reality of police work in Vancouver.

Paul Boyd family, friends, cops, left adrift by CJB

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:04:00 +0000

More than two years after shooting a mentally ill man to death on Granville street, involved Vancouver police officers are still waiting to find out whether they will be criminally charged.

After promising a final decision in the early August 2007 shooting by the end of August 2009, the Criminal Justice Branch (CJB) of BC has said that they're not deciding yet, and there's no date set for a decision.

The file remains open.

The clock keeps ticking.

Last time I spoke with the CJB in early August, the delay was due to the file being really big. Not when I spoke to them today. Today an expert report has yet to be received that was expected by the end of the month. In August 2010, the office dog will be blamed for eating the CJB's file, which was totally done, and they were so just about to make an announcement, but that darn dog.

Boyd, an animator, died after being shot multiple times by VPD. He apparently had a chain with him, and accounts vary about whether the chain was a bicycle combination lock or the chain that attaches to a crank on a bicycle.

We don't know how many times he was shot.

We don't know how many police officers shot him.

We don't even know what the official version of events is, was, or is expected to be beyond the VPD media lines released at the time of the shooting.

There has been no coroner's inquest, despite the fact that one must be held, by law, because there has been no decision on the criminal aspects of the case. An inquest hasn't even been scheduled.

Witnesses who saw the incident two years ago will be expected to testify at both the inquest and any criminal trial that might need to be scheduled, whenever that would happen, if they can even remember what happened.

There has been no discipline for the involved officers, if that were required, because that too depends on the criminal assessment being complete. The involved officers are surely still on duty, including the police officer(s) whose conduct was so bizarre that it has taken two years for highly trained senior government prosecutors who specialize in criminal law to decide whether or not to proceed with criminal charges. Not a good sign.

Boyd's family is now past the two year limitation period to sue the involved officers personally, if that were appropriate and there were any point under B.C.'s archaic wrongful death laws.

The Crown is now eighteen months past the six month summary offence limitation period to charge any involved officers with a less serious offence (the Canadian equivalent of a misdemeanor). That option is gone. Just the big sticks, indictable offences (Canadian felonies), remain as charging possibilities.

The Crown assessment in these matters is always: (1) Whether it is in the public interest to prosecute; and, (2) There is a reasonable possibility of conviction. Kind of undermines one's confidence, doesn't it, to know that delay on the part of the Crown could form part of the basis for deciding not to go ahead?

Would this ever, ever happen to a member of the public? All of the witnesses are known. All of the shooters are known. All of the ballistics are available. What, pray tell, what, is the problem here? How much coin flipping can be going on at CJB HQ?

Heads is charge, tails is don't charge.

Ok, flip.

Wait, what did you say heads was? Let's start again.

Does the VPD need an action movie star?

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:31:00 +0000

So every once in a while, something crosses my desk that is just so mind blowing, it's hard to comprehend. This link is one of those things. It has absolutely zero local connection, but I had to put it up. Let's file it under "Policing issues" and call it a day. Thanks to Kevin Kennedy for the heads up.

If you don't have time to watch the clip, action movie star Steven Segal has, for the past 20 years, apparently been working as a police officer in Jefferson Parish, Florida. No joke. A&E is making a "COPS"-esque series out of his "work" on the "streets."

Now that you surely need to view the clip, here's their promo.

I've objected in whatever media would listen to the RCMP making action movies out of their policing the social issues created by government underfunding welfare, criminalizing drugs, denying access to drug treatment, not building social housing, and failing to provide adequate mental health support.

I've never found much entertainment value in the misery of others.

But what is left to say when policing isn't being made into an action movie, but action movie stars are being made into police?

With more and more cameras on police, I guess it's not unreasonable to see police as movie stars, but something rubs me wrong about this, even if Segal seems like a better cop than the rest of the crew in the J.P., which isn't saying much. Witness, at 0:12 in the clip, "Tase him, tase him," at which point Steven says, "Everybody, calm down." Just ignore the part where he bashes the guy's head into the car door.

On second thought, maybe we should get our own action movie cop in B.C. I hear that Jean Claude Van Damme bought a penthouse in the Shaw Tower. Maybe he could work nights?

Surrey anti-homeless plan stinks

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:35:00 +0000

Here's the link to my latest post on the Sun Community of Interest blog concerning Surrey's implemented plan to move the homeless out of various areas by using raw chicken crap.

You could not make this up.

Or, at least, I couldn't.

Watch the video of the crap and read the Surrey Leader story here.

Read my blog post here.

Park Board manager promises name will remain "Pigeon Park"

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:17:00 +0000

Yeah, so, in a bizarre coincidence (thanks likely due to park board Green Stuart MacKinnon who read my complaint on Facebook), a parks board manager told 24 Hours reporter Matt Kieltyka that the park at the corner of Carrall and Hastings will remain Pigeon Park, and will not be renamed, cough, Pioneer Place, as is listed on the construction site.

Let us remember, and recite out loud together, the various promises made by parks board project manager Alan Duncan in the article:

Promise #1:
"Nowhere will it say Pioneer Place. People know it as Pigeon Park and it'll say that in the park. It won't be called anything else."

Promise #2:
"There will be a lot more seating than there is now. We want it to feel like a living room."

Swell. Now let's make sure the police want it to feel like a living room too.

Meet Pioneer Place, also known as Pigeon Park

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:03:00 +0000

Maybe I read this sign all wrong.

Maybe I'm oversensitive. But that's OK with me.

The DTES only has so many things to call its own, and oversensitivity tends to come with the turf sometimes when a whole segment of society wants to bulldoze another segment of society.

You know what I mean? OK, so stay with me here.

There's this park, a crappy little triangle of a park, located at the corner of Carrall and Hastings Streets in the DTES. Nothing much to speak of. Some interlocking brick, some concrete planters, a large wall of plywood beside an empty building, and several benches.

Such is Pigeon Park.

It is probably, per square foot, the most heavily used park in Vancouver. There's always lots of people hanging out. Some are drunk. Some are high. Some are not. All are sitting, or standing, or talking, or whatever the hell they want. It's a park for the people of the Downtown Eastside.

Everyone knows it's Pigeon Park, and for a park name, it's probably the most fitting park name in the world. Pigeons are birds that have managed, despite all odds, to survive in the urban environment. Pigeons are survivors.

Pigeons are also hated. Called nuisances. Fenced out, chased out, kicked when they're down. Probably a story that, good and bad, sounds all too familiar to many of the folks that use that park.

So when a park with the most appropriate name ever, recognized across the DTES and embraced and appreciated, is completely closed and then relabeled with its "official" name, a name that is probably very offensive to the disproportionately aboriginal community that uses the park, a name that is also perfect in its own awful way in that it speaks of a history of colonialism, oppression, and the leading edge of a wave of a new kind of people arriving to displace the locals, it kind of sucks.

Maybe whoever made the sign figures Pigeon Park is now the place for upper class pioneers who look a lot more like me than like Frank Paul, but it's a bit brash to put that on a sign, don't you think? Or maybe the sign maker just didn't think about it at all.

I can't tell what's worse.

[Thanks and appreciation to Steph S. and Stuart M. for their thoughts and input]

VPD officer finds Crab Beach to be best location for homeless

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:17:00 +0000

Video from this morning, taken by me. Note that there is no bylaw against sitting or sleeping on the sidewalk in Vancouver, which is the main defence to the lawsuit Pivot has filed against the city for making sleeping outside illegal when shelters are full.

Matthew was sitting on the sidewalk, literally reading the bible, when Easypark security asked him to leave. He wasn't even sitting in front of the Easypark facility, but at the property line between Easypark and a furniture store on Water Street in Gastown, on the furniture store side. The security guard got police response in 5 minutes.

This guy, Matthew, homeless for three years, has given me permission to post the video of the interaction on YouTube and to use his name. The following is a rough transcript of what happens daily around our fine city, at the complete discretion, apparently, of the police:

VPD OFFFICER: How come you can’t just move along when they ask you to?

MATTHEW: Because, because I’m not doing anything though.

VPD OFFFICER: There are lots of spots. Allright?

VPD OFFFICER: [Inaudible] Crab beach is five minutes that way.

VPD OFFFICER: Right?

MATTHEW: There’s a law [inaudible].

MATTHEW: Jeeze, you know, this is a public area, public space. This is like...

VPD OFFFICER: You know what, you’re blocking the sidewalk, you’re impeding people.

MATTHEW: I’m not, I’m not. That’s bullshit.

VPD OFFFICER: You are. There are lots of tourists down here.

MATTHEW: Well yah, but there aren’t any down here now is there?

VPD OFFFICER: There’ll be lots in an hour or two.

MATTHEW: You guys are too much.

VPD OFFFICER: No bikes on the sidewalk Mr. Eby.

EBY: How are you?

VPD OFFFICER: Good.

EBY: Good. I’m not, ah, not riding my bike.

VPD OFFFICER: I know you’re not driving, you’re on it, no bikes on the sidewalk sir.

EBY: I’ll get off it. There we go.

MATTHEW: That’s bullshit.

VPD OFFFICER [TO MATTHEW]: Have a good day sir. Go to crab beach.

MATTHEW: You go there.

VANOC sucks and blows on transportation plan

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:33:00 +0000

Recent street closures released by the BCCLA are "not accurate and they are out of date," according to VANOC spokeswoman Lizette Parsons-Bell.

Fair enough.

The BCCLA was working from documents that come from mid-2008 because of excessive foot dragging on releasing the info by the Integrated Security Unit.

Given the BCCLA's disclaimers about accuracy that appear everywhere, Parsons-Bell wasn't exactly blowing the lid off of a conspiracy.

See spokesperson Carmen Cheung for the BCCLA: "Only the ISU knows completely what the closures will be around the Games and the restrictions for home care workers, employees and residents inside security perimeters."

So, then, what are the accurate street closures VANOC?

VANOC says the current road closure information is 80 per cent complete, and the final details are due to be released in September or October of this year.

"It's the final tiny details and tweaks," Parsons-Bell said.

Um, well, 20% of them have yet to be released. Six months out from the Games. The ISU is still figuring out what streets to close apparently. Just be patient. The details will be out. Eventually. Perhaps, if you're lucky, on a map that has street names. Perhaps, if you're lucky, you won't be part of the new 20%. Just stay tuned, release is imminent.

In September.

Or, October.

Or, whenever VANOC and the ISU feel like it.

Newsflash: Bad time to be poor

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:58:00 +0000

Media today was filled with stories about the illegal and threatening acts of the homeless and the panhandlers. Yikes.

Inconveniently, neither group was actually implicated in any illegal activities, but nobody let that get in the way of a good headline.

Thanks to an exposé by the Globe and Mail, the homeless people who were recently displaced by Metrotown security were identified as the #1 suspect in the pipe bomb that was left behind the mall recently.

The conclusive evidence? A security guard thinks that it could have been them. I directly, and I mean directly, quote from the story that gives us the headline (and you could not make this up) "Security guard suspects homeless behind pipe bomb" in Canada's national newspaper:

The pipe bomb found near Canada's second-largest shopping centre, Metropolis at Metrotown in Burnaby, B.C., may have been put together by homeless people who have recently been chased away from the area, says a security guard who has worked in the neighbourhood.

[. . .]

He said he had no idea who would have left the pipe bomb, but he had some thoughts about the incident. “I'm thinking, hey, maybe they were just making a statement. Someone [among the homeless] was saying, ‘You bastards did that to us, we'll do this to you,' ” Mr. Hall said.

Cough.

Then various news outlets reported that the guy who has been randomly punching women downtown is a panhandler.

The original CBC story headline (updated since the "Panhandler"'s arrest) was "Panhandler slaps woman at Waterfront Station".

News 1130 reported he was an "aggressive panhandler" as in their headlines "VPD arrest man in connection with aggressive panhandler incidents" and "Surveillance image of suspected aggressive panhandler."

Why would media use the label panhandler? Because police said this guy reportedly asks his victims "for assistance of some kind" before punching or slapping them.

Right.

Crazy acting + Asking for assistance = Panhandling. I missed it there at first, thinking the crazy punching part was the point of the exchanges, because the guy is crazy, but fortunately the media caught that the asking for assistance bit was the point of the exchanges, because the guy is obviously poor.

We all know that the rich and/or middle class don't randomly punch women (see 1, 2, 3).

Why use "Man" in your headline when everybody knows the guy is a "Panhandler"?

Damn panhandlers. What would we do without our aggressive panhandling legislation, without which the police would have been powerless to stop him?

Olympic non-transparency (opacity?) extends even to street closures

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:14:00 +0000

Here's my latest blog post on how if you tolerate free speech being shut out of the 2010 Olympics, then your businesses and homes may be the next on VANOC and the ISU's list. Not that they'd tell you about it.

A tale of two papers: Olympic bylaw coverage

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Whether or not the Olympics are properly covered in mainstream media outlets appears to be coming down to personalities, and the willingness of journalists and editorial boards to take a risk or roll up their sleeves, rather than whether or not a paper is an Olympic sponsor.

That's the conclusion I've come to after two very different experiences in trying to communicate the importance, and significance, of the 2003 contract signed by Larry Campbell waiving Charter rights in Vancouver for the Games, and the bylaws passed recently by Vancouver city council giving that contract effect.

Recently, I've been blown away by the willingness of Sun columnist Daphne Bramham to go after the issue of free speech and assembly and the Olympics, and the interest of the Sun in this issue generally. [See Bramham's column in response to the bylaws here, her response to criticisms of that article here and her latest column on the 2003 Charter-free contract here.]

Word on the street is that Mayor Gregor Robertson was, following the Vancouver Sun op-ed duel between Councillor Meggs and myself, asked to meet with the Sun Editorial Board to discuss a number of issues, one of which was free speech and the Olympics.

Following this meeting, the Sun ran an editorial cautioning the RCMP not to try to enforce free speech zones as they did for the APEC protests as it may cause international embarrassment, and Bramham was given space to run her column today blasting the signing of the 2003 anti-free speech contract.

The second experience, the compare and contrast moment, comes courtesy of the Globe and Mail, where in his coverage of the BCCLA's concerns, journalist Rod Mikleburgh echoed similar concerns to the original Geoff Meggs Vancouver Sun editorial in the back half of his own column , criticizing the BCCLA's position on the bylaws.

[The original wording of the preceding sentence in this post could have been read to suggest that the two articles (Meggs' and Mickleburgh's) were directly related. The sentence was a sarcastic comment not meant to be read literally. I have changed it to ensure clarity and apologize to Rod Mickleburgh for any interpretation that would suggest he didn't write his own column, as incorrect as the column was. DE]

He did so without contacting the BCCLA for comment, clarification or response. Who knows why he didn't call us, but the important outcome is that his decision resulted in him publishing absurdly, and embarrassingly, incorrect statements like:

"If you want to protest against the Olympics or espouse any other cause (the world will be watching, so the Olympics may be the best thing that ever happened to those with something to say), you will be able to do so, almost anywhere."

Not true. At least for the 40+ city blocks covered by the new City bylaws.

Mickleburgh himself offered me a partial explanation for the column, although he advised he was pressed for time and it wasn't his full response. Here's a selection:

in general, I think the Olympics are the Olympics…some stuff comes with the territory ….and the police have said anything legal now, will be legal during the Olympics….this is only a brief reply to a lot of complicated matters [. . .] and you’ll be relieved to know that Councillor Meggs assures me you will be able to hold up a Free Tibet sign at Pacific and Carrall…

When I e-mailed the Globe to ask for equal space to reply to the Mickleburgh column, I had contact with a lot of people, none of whom were able or willing to give the BCCLA reply space. When I e-mailed the Sun to ask for the same thing after the Meggs editorial, I got a response in 20 minutes with a word limit and deadline.

Funny that.

Tweeting

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:27:00 +0000

I'm now tweeting on a regular basis, for those of you who are savvy, @dave_eby. For those of you just getting in, like me, it's twitter.com/dave_eby .

Sen. Larry Campbell gave away your Olympic speech rights in 2003

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:00:00 +0000

A new article by me for the Sun Community of Interest blog on how then Mayor, now Senator, Larry Campbell gave away your free speech rights at and around the 2010 Olympics.

Olympic sized problems with free speech for 2010

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:36:00 +0000

Here's my response, found in today's Sun, to Vision Councillor Geoff Meggs' editorial that suggested the BC Civil Liberties Association's free speech concerns around 2010 are "going too far".

City staff want to blast homeless out of parking lots

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:05:00 +0000

In a new budget to be heard by City Council on Tuesday, city staff are apparently proposing blasting homeless with noise at city owned parking lots.

And I quote, from the staff materials:

Other major projects proposed [include] purchase of noise makers at several locations which have proven successful in deterring vagrants.

As usual, if you want to speak to this at Council about the inhumanity of this proposal for people trying to shelter themselves from the rain, or just generally want to sound off on this, send an e-mail to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca with your thoughts or a request to speak and it will likely be bumped from Council on Tuesday to committee to hear from the public, probably on Thursday. None of the parties has taken a position on this proposal yet.

See Bob Mackin's article for details, hats off to him for investigative journalism.

Here's the agenda, it's item #8.

Here's the supporting materials.

Holy crap

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:33:00 +0000

From today's Georgia Straight, read to the chorus of Handel's Messiah:

City hall has cracked the whip on the owners of three Vancouver single-room-occupancy hotels by ordering them to repair their buildings under threat of court action.

According to the article, enforcing the Standards of Maintenance Bylaw is already working.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Explanations from the VPD

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:10:00 +0000

Here are the official explanations from the VPD for the last two incidents posted on this blog, from Superintendent Warren Lemcke:

This morning I received an email from one of my Sergeants with regard to the issue you presented yesterday involving the throwing out of some property on Cordova Street. The Sergeant informed me that you had actually videotaped the interaction and posted it on you tube under the searchable heading “VPD throws out homeless belonging". I watched the video and I noted that at the end you seem to indicate that you located the person who owned the property in question but your video cut off before you identified him. If you have a name for this person please have them contact our Professional Standards Section. The names of the police officers involved are Constable 1764 Thouli and Constable 2657 Rodriguez.

I also received an email just now from Constable 2387 David Steverding. He self identified as the person who dealt with the people at 334 Carrall Street. The Constable did move these individuals on but it was only after a complaint from the owner of the building. We normally do not move people on unless their activity is unlawful or they are on private property and we have a complaint. This as is easily verified every morning in the DTES as despite the most positive affect the HEAT shelters have had, there are still, regrettably, some homeless sleeping outside.

And an excerpt from my reply:

I don’t mean to be dismissive of this Constable’s version of events, but there’s not a chance you had a complaint from the absentee landlord of the vacant 334 Carrall Street on the morning I witnessed this conduct, or from the methadone pharmacy whose clients these likely were, unless it is some kind of standing complaint where the person complains once and it’s good forever to justify conduct of officers. Also, this explanation fails to justify the intimidating threat of a mischief charge for sitting on a sidewalk, which is conduct that, as I understand it, is at best a violation of municipal bylaws, not criminal laws.

Incidentally, this VPD approach of throwing people’s stuff away without notice and then inviting them to contact PSS for reimbursement is not exactly a policy that seems consistent with constitutional and human rights norms, especially given the limitations of the population involved.

VPD throw out homeless man's belongings

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:42:00 +0000

Another day, another incidental brush with the ongoing crackdown. If I'm catching this stuff just walking through the neighbourhood, two days in a row, you can imagine the scale of exactly what's going down.

A guy had set up a small campsite underneath the overhang of the Stanley Hotel between Carrall and Abbot on the North side of the street. As I was walking to work at about 8:40 a.m., I passed two City of Vancouver sanitation trucks, one of which was a garbage truck. I turned and looked back just in time to see a police car show up.

I stopped and watched as the male police officer asked two bystanders if they owned the shopping cart, tarps and blanket. He then approached me and I told him that I didn't own the belongings. He then made an "into the truck" motion with his finger to the City of Vancouver employees who then promptly began loading all of the belongings into the garbage truck.

I started videotaping immediately after the "into the truck" motion.

See the video for yourself, here or on youtube (it seems to play better on youtube), apologies in advance for the low-fi cellphone nature of the whole thing:

The guy you can see taking the cart away is a friend of the guy whose stuff it is. He told me that "I couldn't just let them throw it all away." The two voices you hear in the beginning are mine and the police officer's.

Homeless couple threatened with mischief charge

dave.eby@gmail.com (David Eby) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:03:00 +0000

This morning, on my way into work, I saw two City of Vancouver sanitation trucks, a garbage truck and a flat bed truck idling at the corner of Hastings and Carrall. Since I was about half an hour ahead of schedule, I decided to relax and eat a breakfast apple at the park and check out the scene.

It was boring. The City workers were just chatting to each other and apparently killing time. I decided to bail. Just as I got on my bike and started heading South, at about 8:35 a.m. I saw a police car turn right off Hastings and stop between Hastings and the lane on Carrall. I pulled a u-turn so I could see what was happening.

So there's some context here, I don't spend my time following police officers around. I find that for myself, larger policy advocacy initiatives are more helpful. However, there have been many reports of homeless folks of police and CoV sanitation workers tossing their stuff, and I thought I might be able to observe this first hand if I stuck around long enough. This is what I thought was taking place.

As I pulled up to within about 10 feet of a stocky white male police officer who had exited his car, license plate 775 JCM, I could hear what he was saying to a couple who were wrapped in a blanket sitting on the sidewalk out front of an abandoned residential building's doorway at 334 Carrall Street.

"This is your last chance," he told the couple. "I told you not to be here. If you're here again, I'm going to charge you both with mischief."

Charge with mischief? For being homeless and sitting on the sidewalk?

For your reference, section 430(1) of the Criminal Code says you commit mischief if you:
- destroy or damage property
- render property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective
- obstruct, interrpt or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property
- obstruct, interrupt or interfere with another person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property

Difficult to see how our homeless couple was committing this criminal offence by sitting on the sidewalk in a blanket this cold morning.

I'm not sure what kind of instructions are coming from the top in terms of clearing the sidewalks of the DTES in time for the Olympics, but this kind of thing is unacceptable. Who needs an anti-sitting bylaw if police will just make up the necessary offences?

I'd file a police complaint, but I could write the report of the officer that would result in the complaint's dismissal myself:

"I was attending at a homeless couple and offering them access to emergency shelter when an individual I identified as David EBY approached and began yelling at me. EBY had a red face and was very agitated. I advised EBY that I would speak to him when I was finished with the homeless couple, but EBY continued to yell. I advised EBY that he was risking a charge of Obstruct if he did not permit me to complete my interaction with the couple. EBY told me he would be filing a complaint, and then backed away. I then advised the couple that they were blocking pedestrian access and asked them to relocate, giving them the location of two different emergency shelters. They agreed to move. That was the end of my interaction."

Guaranteed.