David Eby - Blog

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.

Inquiry about ignoring marginalized women ignores marginalized women

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:08:00 +0000

BCCLA and Amnesty International Canada have now pulled out of the Murdered and Missing Women Inquiry. By my count, that's 14 organizations out.

Important to note that Amnesty was not, and has never, sought funding for counsel to participate in this inquiry - they're pulling out (as is the BCCLA) over concerns for the safety, both legal and otherwise, of marginalized women who need to be at the table for the Inquiry, but will not be.

Say what you wish about blood sucking lawyers, but the reality is that there are 18 government funded lawyers, at a minimum, at this Inquiry. 14 funded lawyers have been given to police, police officers and government. 2 funded lawyers have been given to family members, and 2 have been given to the community. That's a ratio of funded government lawyers to funded community lawyers of either 4:1 or 7:1, depending on where you see the community beginning and ending.

But here's where the real problem lives.

21 organizations and 17 family members got together to write and ask the Premier to intervene and fix the problem, and to write back by yesterday, Oct 5. The letter response came a day late, from the Solicitor General, not the Premier, and says, among other things: "We understand that counsel to the Commissioner has said he is satisfied that the Commission's mandate can be fulfilled in this light."

So, in short, thanks for coming out all you Downtown Eastside residents, sex workers current and former, human rights groups, women's groups, First Nations groups, but the lawyer for the Commissioner says that things are just fine, and that's good enough for us.

Reminds me of a time when women were coming forward telling the Police Board, and others, there was a problem, not with an Inquiry, but with a lack of inquiry into their missing and murdered friends and family members. The Police said there was no serial killer, and that was good enough for the Police Board and government at the time.

Turns out, it probably still would be.

Read a chronological list of what's gone wrong to date in the Inquiry, and why groups are so upset about this process, here.

You can protest the lack of accountability of this Commission of Inquiry to the DTES community, vulnerable and margalized women across BC, and Indigenous communities both on and off reserve Tuesday Oct 11 at 10:00 a.m. at 701 West Georgia out front of the hearings.

A Commission that has lost the plot

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:04:00 +0000

As I was enjoying my morning coffee, it was hard not to talk back to the radio. The Missing Women Inquiry's lead lawyer, Art Vertlieb, Q.C., was on CBC talking about the Commission and the concern expressed in a recent letter by every group, including the family members, that the Commission has lost the plot.

My first concern was, obviously, a concern about accuracy. However, I do understand the realities of live radio and the difficulties of summarizing big points in sound bites, so I won't harp too heavily on that point, as annoying as it can be.

For the record, all but two of the lawyers listed as "participating" on the sides of sex workers, DTES women, and others on the radio this morning, are doing so for free, off the sides of their desk. Working part time, for free, is noble, but is not the same as the full time teams of lawyers working for the police and government, and the Commission should not pretend it is the same.

Further, the groups participating have not been "given all the latitude to ask questions just like anyone else." In fact, Indigenous, Women's and Human Rights groups have specifically been given "limited standing," restricting them to only asking questions if the Commissioner gives them permission. You may note that "limited" suggests that there is a "full standing", which is what the police get, apparently just by showing up, as in the case of Cst. Doug Fell.

The two issues I really want to press are these: First, what is this inquiry really about? Second, can the Commission get at the truth without the groups who have dropped out and who are likely to drop out?

According Mr. Vertlieb, QC, the purpose of this inquiry is as follows:

"Remember, at the core of all of this, is an inquiry into what the police were doing… So when you look at the really big issue in this case is about, it’s about what the police did or didn’t do.”

Let's assume that this is the issue.

How could you possibly know what the police did at this time without speaking to the people the police were working with, or who they were (supposed to be) taking complaints from? WISH, PACE, SWUAV, three major sex worker organizations, along with the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre have said that they can not participate. Can not. Full stop. They don't have the resources, they're too busy feeding, housing and supporting women living in the streets to sit in on months of hearings and ask any question they want.

What the police did 20 years ago is not the extent of the issue, but a mere fraction of it. Some of this exercise is, of course, a finger pointing and accountability exercise. But when you look at the "really big picture," this Inquiry is about protecting women going forward. How do we prevent these needless deaths. How do we investigate disappearances. How can this Commission figure that out without hearing from the women they're planning on protecting?

If the Commission firmly believes that the big issue is about what the police did, or didn't do, and that the Commission can construct that from police notebooks and case notes, and memos, and without talking to the person who actually had the interaction with the police officer, then it's easy to come to this conclusion:

"So when you look at it that way, well you want to make sure you’ve got the right people there to ask the right questions. And I can tell you I’m totally confident with the skill of the lawyers involved, the Commission will be successful."

This answer really encompasses the gap between what the community is saying and what the Commission is hearing.

If the Commission believes that lawyers, one of the most privileged groups in our society, can understand the realities of living in the DTES without hearing from the women who live there every day, and without hearing from those who work with them every day, with respect, the Commission is mistaken.

In fact, this mistake repeats the exact mistake of the police who thought they knew the transient lifestyle of the DTES woman when they ignored the concerns of that community that there was a serial killer on the loose. When they ignored the "bad date sheets" that outlined brutal attacks on women in their policing efforts as just part of the life of a hooker. When they ignored people they thought they didn't need to get the job done.

In the sign off of the interview, the interviewer asked the final question: "Are you concerned about the groups who have dropped out though?", and in reply came the remarkable answer:

"Well, no, my belief is that we're going to get the job done."

The job cannot get done without the community. I have no idea why the answer was not, "Of course I'm concerned, we gave these groups standing and advocated for them to be funded on an equal basis to police and government because we need them at the table."

As a final aside, it was interesting to hear the spokesperson for the Commission say that if the community is not happy with the Commission, that he's sure the Commission will hear about it:

"I'm sure if people don't like what we're doing, we'll hear about it."

Let me put it plainly: People don't like what this Commission is doing.

21 of the 22 groups participating wrote to the Premier asking her to intervene. 17 of the families. I'm not sure what it will take to get this Commission's attention on these issues, but if that's not sufficient, it's likely nothing will be.

A stunning show of solidarity asks Premier to fix Missing Women Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:11:00 +0000

20 of the 21 organizations that are non-government and who have been granted standing in the Missing Women Inquiry, along with 17 of the 18 families granted standing, have signed a letter asking the Premier to intervene and fix the troubled Commission.

The letter says very clearly that these groups want to save this inquiry, and they want it to work. Will the Premier step in to fix the Commission?

Feds play hardball with BC on RCMP, because they can

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:57:00 +0000

It's a tough lesson to learn. The Federal Government says that B.C. can take what it is offering for policing and suck it up, or they're going to pack up their Mounties and go home.

The Province, for their part, has finally broken the silence about the negotiations around the 20-year policing agreement the BCCLA has been sounding the alarm on for more than a year, and suddenly announced that accountability measures are one of the key stumbling blocks.

For years too the BCCLA has been pointing out that 80% of our province is policed by a force that isn't accountable to anyone in the Province, doesn't follow provincial police accountability rules and mechanisms, and doesn't use provincial use of force standards. The BCCLA has been encouraging expansion of regional police, tribal police, and provincial policing responses.

The BCCLA is not unique in this respect, nor is such concern a partisan matter of interest, everyone from former Solicitor General and former West Vancouver Police Chief Kash Heed, a B.C. Liberal MLA, along with former Attorney General and former B.C. Liberal MLA Wally Oppal, have called for reform of how we police B.C.

In fact I understand that Heed, while Solicitor General, asked for a document costing out transition to a provincial police force, and had an audit done of the RCMP's performance. For his trouble, Heed seemed to attract a lot of RCMP attention, including the remarkable step of a search warrant executed at the West Van Police Department Headquarters without any charges being laid to date.

Too bad neither the audit nor the costing document has been made available to the public.

Too bad too that the subject matter of the negotiations of the contract with the RCMP have been secret as well until today, and even now the specific issues aren't clear. The Province apparently doesn't understand that NGOs aren't just a pain when they talk about accountability at the provincial level, but that they can also be a boon in supporting you at the negotiating table - you just have to be transparent about what's going on.

Now there's no plan for policing by anything other than the RCMP, nobody outside Cabinet knows what's been going on at the negotiating table, nobody knows how the RCMP have done in their performance on the contract, and nobody knows what the cost would be to transition to provincial or regional policing or just to reduce some of our dependence on the RCMP.

Could the deck be stacked any more in favour of the status quo for policing in BC?

Missing Women Inquiry: Police questions only, please

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:49:00 +0000

Today, Commissioner Wally Oppal announced that another police officer, with another lawyer, will be joining the Commission as a "full participant." This was surprising to many given that there was no notice, prior to the decision, that standing for this officer was even being considered by the Commissioner.

At the beginning of this process, a full hearing with submissions took place on who got to participate as a "full participant" and who got to participate as a "limited participant." The key difference comes down to the right to cross examine witnesses (full standing), or the absence of that right unless the Commissioner says you can ask questions (limited standing). Another key difference was to be the level of financial support for groups granted standing, but that has since, notoriously, proven to be a moot point for anyone other than police or government or family members.

There are two key questions that arise from this appointment of "full participant" standing to a police officer, whose interest appears to be that he was treated badly in the Doug Lepard, Vancouver Police Department, report on the debacle of an investigation that allowed 30 women to be murdered before Pickton was arrested.

First, who is paying for the lawyer? If it is some arm of the government or police, and don't be surprised if it is, that puts just one more fully paid lawyer on the side of "nothing went wrong" or "what did go wrong has been fixed."

Second, if one police officer's reputational interest is sufficient to give him "full participant" standing, why are the interests of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, in representing their membership's interest in not being murdered or disappeared, not equivalent to result in "full participant" standing? Especially now that funding is no longer on the table?

Just like these Indigenous leadership groups, a coalition of 11 women's groups, the Women's Equality and Security Coalition, was granted limited standing. Or they had limited standing, until they pulled out saying they had no confidence in this process.

In short, the police get to ask all the cross examination questions that they want. The Indigenous groups and the women's groups and the rights groups (Amnesty/BCCLA/Pivot), don't, or at least don't without the Commissioner's permission.

And people wonder why groups are pulling out of this process.

What next after Pivot withdraws from Inquiry?

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:14:00 +0000

Pivot Legal Society has pulled out of the Missing Women's Commission of Inquiry. This may not seem like a big deal to some, for example, to those running the Commission. Here's what Commission counsel Art Vertlieb, Q.C., had to say about Pivot's decision:

“The Commission appreciates that some of the groups that we granted standing do not have the financial resources to hire lawyers to represent them at the inquiry, which is why they have withdrawn.”

“However, it is our understanding that most of the groups that were granted standing will participate when hearings begin in Vancouver on October 11. These include the families of 14 of Robert Pickton’s victims who, along with many other British Columbians, have questions about the Pickton investigation that need answers.”

“The Commission is confident that the evidence it will hear from a range of witnesses and the cross-examination by counsel for the participants will address the requirements of its mandate.”

First, it is important to note that Pivot (in coalition with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International) only had limited standing following the Commissioner's first ruling.

Second, it is equally important to note that this Commission is only partly about the "Pickton investigation" and fault finding for those who failed to take seriously the concerns of family members and friends.

In the big picture, setting aside the petty fault finding exercise, this Commission is supposed to be about restoring the faith of B.C.'s Indigenous populations who live on and off reserve, restoring the faith of B.C.'s marginalized populations including those with addictions and those who are homeless or otherwise on the fringes, and restoring the faith of the population at large that might be on the edge, that if you go missing the police will look for you as aggressively as they look for anybody else.

This Inquiry was to be, as a result, a truth and reconciliation process.

Now the groups that are supposed to be reminded that they matter, that their voices matter, that an apology is owed to them after 30 of their members were killed one at a time, are being told by the Province that, actually, their voices don't matter. That as far as the Province is concerned, they can pull out of this inquiry ten times over and it won't change the approach one bit.

It seems to me that's a problem, that Pivot recognized that problem as terminal, and pulled out.

This "with us or against us" attitude towards marginalized groups also reflects a total misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of this Inquiry. The Province needs to approach the Commission and, together, ask these groups what they need to participate in their Truth and Reconciliation Inquiry, and make that happen to bring these groups back to the table.

The costs of the loss of public confidence of these communities in police, and the reverberations of just one more perceived injustice by government against communities too often ignored or put aside, are far more detrimental and financially costly than the reasonable requests for legal support that they are making - requests that are not different from police and government official requests for legal support, except those official requests are being met with bottomless resources.

There will be no truth and reconciliation if those who are supposed to be reconciled with are not at the table. Pivot's recent departure suggests the Commission and the Province have made no progress since the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Native Women's Association of Canada, and many others pulled out. And that's a big deal.

Jackson Inquest recommendations tell the tale

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:58:00 +0000

There's nothing quite like a list of Coroner's recommendations that start with the controversial idea that police with M16s should also have first aid kits to really give you a flavour of the Jackson Inquest's alarming testimony.

Here's the link to the jury's recommendations (PDF), where the jury politely describes Mr. Jackson's bullet wound to the back, that exited his front, as a "wound to the chest."

Let's start with the recommendation that Emergency Response Team members should be trained in "E.R.T. Tactics." What follows is the recommendation that the RCMP consider using negotiators before sending the boys in with the camo and the big guns. Surely, surely, these already exist as RCMP policy somewhere. And wouldn't it be common sense that the RCMP should have communication systems in northern B.C. that "work effectively in remote areas"?

The recommendation that the RCMP respect the "safety protocol" agreements they sign with First Nations (and the implication that the RCMP did not respect the protocol in this instance), above all, will surely cause the most concern among the Gitanmaax Band and the Gitxsan First Nation given the historical reverberations of the Crown not respecting agreements with First Nations.

But this jury was just getting going.

The jury goes on to demand the province get going on implementing the civilian Independent Investigation Office, and further demand that RCMP investigations be reviewed by an independent civilian body until the IIO is in place.

These recommendations are surely informed by the jury's finding that the shooting member was never interviewed by the RCMP. They address this issue in the recommendation that the RCMP demand an interview with their members who kill people as a job requirement to ensure public safety. No interview, no employment. The jury also considered the issue of protecting the right to be free from self-incrimination for the officer; the interview can't be used against the member in court. Seems reasonable.

And at the end, to show that this jury was as capable of understanding the perspective of the officers involved as they were able to understand what the officers did wrong, a suggestion that the RCMP turn its mind to the impact that emergency response work or police work in general can have on its members - mental health services must be available for police. Of course.

Reading these recommendations as findings by the jury of what didn't happen in the Jackson case results in the following conclusions by the jury: an untrained ERT team armed with M16s, with communications that didn't work and no first aid kit or ambulance, ignored protocols with First Nations and dispensed with negotiators in their efforts to arrest Rodney Jackson.

In investigating what happened, the RCMP didn't interview the shooting officer, and overall did such a bad investigation that the province should speed up their implementation of the civilian body that will do these investigations. The officers involved in this traumatic disaster then had no access to mental health services following the event.

Now that's quite a finding, jury members.

Missing Women Commission in Gitanmaax (Old Hazelton)

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:07:00 +0000

I went to today’s hearing of the Missing Women Inquiry in Old Hazleton, at the Gitanmaax Band Hall. The hearing was night and day different from the Kitsumkalum hearing, likely due to the fact that meeting coordinator Linda Locke, Q.C., a well respected human rights lawyer in the north, lives in the community and has built considerable goodwill and trust there.

At this meeting, community members clearly outnumbered attending RCMP members and Commission staff, and perhaps for this reason, people seemed to feel more open with the Commission and brought forward some very personal information. One woman explained how her sick child and the failures of the medical system left her hitchhiking and desperate for transportation. Another witness explained how “high risk” youth had to be pulled off the highway on a regular basis. It was eye opening.

Again, however, a parked RCMP ghost car greeted all attendees out front, and a uniformed and plain clothes officer were in the front row throughout the hearing. Another plain clothes officer was identified during the hearing as one of the missing women investigators. The vast majority of community members sat along the back rows, silently listening. I don’t understand the strategy of the Commission on this point of high visibility police presence at these meetings if they’re interested in hearing the unvarnished truth from marginalized populations, but I’ll leave it at that. I should note that one participant did say she wished there were more police present in case a predator was at the hearings.

The absolute best witness was, hands down, a woman named Frances, from Moricetown (about half an hour up the road by car, where no study commission meeting was scheduled). While all of the witnesses who spoke today and in Kitsumkalum have had important messages for the Commission, I say “best” because this witnesses’ evidence is exactly what the Commission needs to hear more of – first hand experiences with hitchhiking and violence along the highway.

Frances had to hitchhike to get to this meeting about why women were hitchhiking along Highway 16, and how to make them less vulnerable. She bared her soul in front of the Commission and the police. As best as I could transcribe, here was some of what she had to say:

My name is Frances [last name deleted], from Moricetown, living in the Hazelton area for about twenty years now. I’m a single parent of two. Separated from my ex. My experience on the Highway of Tears started when I was 18. I started hitchhiking, ran away from home, with a girlfriend I thought was a friend of mine. We had goals to travel across Canada. The bad experience started when we hit Prince George.

We stayed about three days over there, underage, sneak into the bar. Stayed there a couple days. Nobody knew we ran away, except our parents. For a whole two weeks I got my mother worrying about me. Wondering where I was. I grew up in a good home. My parents got up to go to church every day.

[. . .]

Once we got a ride from PG with my girlfriend, he [the driver] went the long way to Vancouver, not the short way, the long way. Once we hit Chilliwack, he offered us to stay with him in a small dirty cabin not too far from the freeway. We accepted, it was getting dark. We thought that old guy was nice to give us a place to sleep. We were just about to sleep, when that guy came out of his room, he offered $50 for either of us to go sleep with him. My girlfriend sleeping beside me on a hide away [bed] was scared, said “let’s get out of here, he’s going to come after us. We’ll go make a fast run, don’t stop.”

We didn’t know where we were, but the freeway was right there. The old guy came after us. We hid in the bush, but we didn’t come until until we didn’t see that guy and more. I’d say we were the luckiest to be alive and come home. To this day, I’m still hitchhiking.

I’m staying in Moricetown, I had no ride coming back here [to the hearing]. I had to walk all the way back to the highway without sticking out my thumb to get home.

People see me on the road, they think that I’m stupid or crazy, but if I ask you for a ride to Smithers, would I give you a ride, would you give me a ride? No. If I had gas money? Some would.

[…]

The hitchhiking situation ain’t going to stop, it’s going to continue. This last year, my 15 year old daughter ran away on me, it’s me all over again. She was gone for a whole week, not too far from here. Kilingwa [apologies for spelling], was where she was. A friend who she thought was a friend, was going to get her drunk, have a party. She didn’t want to participate, so they punched her, kicked her, deserted her in Kilingwa.

I tell my story to my kids, hoping that they’ll learn, from my bad experience. Who knows? I’m the one still hitchhiking on this highway.
I can only hope the Commission was inspired enough by Frances’ testimony, and relative success in a community where the key meeting organizer had significant pre-existing relationships she leveraged to benefit the Commission, to ask themselves what they can do to increase the odds that women and men in Frances’ position will come forward and share their experiences and insights.

Unfortunately, I understand that Frances’ evidence, and that of the others who spoke today will not be made available in transcripts, and the audio recordings made by the Commission are only to assist them in their note taking; they won’t be posted.

Day 2 Rodney Jackson Coroner's Inquest

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 01:51:00 +0000

I only caught an hour of testimony at this afternoon's sitting of the Rodney Jackson inquest. Key issues that came up:

The shooting officer, who led and designed the mission, had never led an ERT mission before, was third in command on the ERT, but both senior officers were on vacation. He did not get his plan reviewed by anyone with more experience.
The shooting officer was never, I repeat, never, interviewed by RCMP investigators.
The shooting officer took no notes after the incident. He went back, with the rest of the ERT team two days later, to review the scene, and then left for a hunting vacation where he could not be reached. He filed a written report six weeks after the incident.

So, that's while I was there. Hard to imagine what I missed.

Missing Women Inquiry: What went well, and what didn't

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 01:24:00 +0000

I had the opportunity to observe the Missing Women Inquiry's hearing in Kitsumkalum this morning. Commissioner Wally Oppal is holding the "study commission" hearing section of the Inquiry into matters surrounding the Highway of Tears, or Highway 16 in northern B.C.

Let me start by saying what went well. The Commissioner listened well, and Commission Counsel Art Vertlieb, Q.C. asked useful "clarifying" questions of witnesses that were respectful. The opinions of four elected band council Chiefs were heard, and, presenting on behalf of those that elected them, the Commission heard from these witnesses many concerns about: too many meetings, not enough action; systemic discrimination and the reality of aboriginal life in the north; and, the concern, fear and grief these communities feel about their missing women.

A number of senior representatives of NGOs, including the Kermode Friendship Society, spoke and provided perspectives raising concern about a lack of services and a plethora of waiting lists for women in the area for everything from addictions to mental health to child care to employment training.

I tweeted that one family member spoke, a relative of a woman named Michelle who was missing, and she spoke quite passionately about a lack of information from the RCMP about whether they were still looking for Michelle, or whether they had given up and were just waiting for "a body to turn up." An aboriginal lawyer from Moricetown spoke as well, expressing concern about the design of the commission, and a disconnect she saw between the Commission's work and aboriginal traditions and ways of working. She recommended more aboriginal staff, and increasing the responsibilities of the aboriginal staff working for the Inquiry.

All of that was pretty great. Unfortunately, not everything was great.

Commission staff were unable to prevent themselves from contradicting witnesses when the Commission or its design were criticized, even if the critique was valid. The lawyer from Moricetown heard from the Commission about how "Grand Chief Stewart Phillip" and "Sean Atlio" were involved in designing the Commission from the start. Of course, the Commission was established by a unilateral terms of reference set by the Province, I am advised, without consultation.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that Grand Chief Stewart Phillip heads is boycotting the Inquiry, as are many key aboriginal organizations that had signed on, including the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, the Native Courtworker's Association, and the Native Women's Association of Canada. If you've got four of B.C.'s critically important aboriginal organizations unable or unwilling to participate, perhaps there is something to the concern that can't be dismissed by saying you met with some aboriginal leaders.

When a suggestion was made (by me) that the Commission may hear from more marginalized populations if there were fewer RCMP in the room (by my count there were 3 RCMP in full uniform, and 4 or more RCMP staff or plain clothes officers in the room of an audience of about 40 people) Commission counsel said he would never "bar anyone, no matter their rank" or position in society. He also said that obviously everyone was interested in finding the missing women, so why would he bar police from attending?

All good points if all the Commission wants to hear from are elected band council Chiefs. But if your best witness has an outstanding breach arrest warrant, or was strip searched by one of the officers in the room, or is regularly encountering officers in the room and being arrested, and you want her to testify to explain how police didn't listen when she reported her friend or family member missing, or why she didn't bring information about an assault or near abduction to the RCMP, would you set up the room this way?

I certainly don't blame the RCMP, they are legitimately and appropriately interested in what people have to say. But perhaps there are other ways for them to hear this information. The Commission's decision to not just tolerate, but according to Commission counsel, encourage uniformed officers in the audience of every meeting means that they won't hear from the populations walking the sides of the highway at night directly. They'll have to rely on elected Chiefs and service providers to tell the Commission what they're hearing. And maybe that's enough, but I think the Commission could do better.

Which brings me to the final concern. The opinions of elected Chiefs and service providers and me, for that matter, were heard. What was notably, and disconcertingly, absent from the room was anyone without a decent paying, full time job, anyone who might be desperate enough to hitchhike or put herself at risk, anyone who might be reluctant to call RCMP to report something suspicious.

If the Commission is not going to hear from those people, and is unwilling to examine common sense measures like asking the RCMP to watch the live cast or read the transcripts, instead of showing up in full uniform, or even going so far as to consider holding a private anonymized session for women, facilitated by trusted service providers, then they're not going to get the information they need. Better to just pack up and go home.

Call the Chiefs and ask them the questions over the phone, or just review what the Chiefs told the Murdered and Missing Women Symposium in 2006, because from what I heard from them today, the issues in that report and the recommendations in that report still haven't been addressed.

Rodney Jackson Inquest: Hard to watch

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:48:00 +0000

Rodney Jackson, for those of you not following the case at home, was an aboriginal soverignty activist shot in the bush by the RCMP Emergency Response Team (ERT) outside Hazelton. He had warrants for dealing pot, allegations of spousal abuse, and failing to attend family court which the RCMP were enforcing. His coroner's inquest is taking place now, two years - almost to the day - after death.

It was a difficult day 1 for the RCMP. It was difficult, actually, for everyone. The CBC did some nice coverage here, but for some reason they were the only media outlet present.

First, came the revelation that Jackson hadn't been shot - as the family (and presumably media) had been told - in the chest. He'd been shot in the back. The shooting officer, fifty or sixty meters away, in camouflage and face paint, was hidden in the bush. It remains to be seen what threat Jackson presented at the time to the officer or his colleagues that justified the long distance back shot.

Second, the revelation that the RCMP had not arranged - although every officer involved was convinced this was one of their most dangerous missions ever - for an ambulance. M16? Check. Face paint? Check. Body armour? Check. First aid kit? Uh, sorry. That's right, not even a first aid kit made it onto this mission. Jackson was loaded onto a spine board (that made it) and a stretcher (that made it too) and driven 75 km down a dirt logging road to Hazelton where he was met by an air ambulance. No CPR from a bag and mask, because nobody had one.

Third, and what is hardly surprising for those who follow these cases, all of the RCMP ERT (aka SWAT) officers met two days after the shooting at the scene. You know, to reconstruct things. Try to imagine another situation where the police would get all the witnesses together to share stories and discuss the location of everything.

Oh, and, it was at the exact same time, two days later, that the measurements were taken of the site. What's the rush? Jackson was shot Saturday, and measurements of the location of the body, shell casings, shooter and others, were taken by the RCMP on Monday.

Finishing the day off came the news that the sole civilian, the sole non-suspect, non-RCMP officer there, the Department of Fisheries guy, who hung around the shooting site for 20-25 minutes after the shooting, didn't see the rifle that Jackson was supposed to be carrying. Couldn't see it on the ground. All he could see was a rake. Try to imagine a bunch of ERT members standing around, and nobody making a big deal about the rifle the guy they shot was carrying. The DFO guy said he was paying attention, but didn't see any weapons.

So there you go. Can we bring in that Independent Investigation Office soon?

A race to roll back our rights

noreply@blogger.com (David Eby) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:06:00 +0000

Take transit and empty your pockets and bags for police scrutiny. Go downtown, and be randomly stopped and searched by police. All day, be watched by ever increasing numbers of police surveillance cameras. Young people are prohibited from gathering in large numbers downtown, because young people cause unrest.

Welcome to Vancouver, or at least to how the city would look if it were designed by the Vancouver Health Authority and the Vancouver Police Department in the wake of the Game 7 riot.

All of this sounds eerily like the world that I outlined in an article in the Georgia Straight online before the 2010 Olympics, a vision that mostly (and thankfully) was not realized then, but may be realized now.

Think I'm exaggerating?

Let's start with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority whose spokesperson said yesterday the (appropriately named) Authority wants "random [police] searches of transit users". This would, of course, require a constitutional amendment to roll back the right to be free from unreasonable search, along with about 30 years of court judgments restricting the powers of police.

Not to be outdone in proposals to radically increase police power by the people who run our hospitals, Chief Chu announced a proposal for "airport style screening" at Skytrain Stations during major events. Oh, and he thinks the city should consider ending events for young people downtown.

“When you attract a certain demographic, that’s when the radar has to go on and we have to say, ‘Look, given the number of people that were going to be attracted to this particular event, we’re going to have to think twice about whether we want to have it.’”

That "certain demographic" is noted by the Chief to be the "young hooligan demographic."

Please note that every Thursday through Saturday thousands of drunk young people gather on Granville Street in Vancouver, as part of a bizarre system designed by our city planners. Perhaps the club scene has changed since I was in my early 20's, but I seem to recall the young hooligan demographic well represented. The police do seem to be able to handle that scene in a manner that prevents riots.

In any event, three hours of disorder in the last nine years (Guns and Roses riot, 2002) and our Health Authority wants to roll back the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the police want to monitor us 24 hours a day on expensive CCTV (even though London's 500,000 CCTV cameras were useless for three days of rioting) and empty our pockets into new x-ray machines and body scanners at transit stations even while we're closing schools and increasing class sizes.

No fun city? Sounds more like Beijing or Tehran.

A message to those in positions of political power: Sort yourselves out. Don't roll back hard won rights and chase young people out of downtown Vancouver just because there could have been more cops around for Game 7, or they could have arrived earlier. Seriously. Solve the logistical problems that hampered the police response. In addition to the failures of Game 7, review the successes of the Olympics and how to achieve them again, and let's all move on.