Is It Time to Revamp the Vancouver Police Department?

July 25th, 2010 Thomasso

Lets start off with a woman named Sandy. When we talked about this after class on back Thursday, which was fittingly a class about human rights, I was applauded, shocked and embarrassed from both watching and hearing the news about the women in the Vancouver Downtown East Side who was pushed to the ground by a Vancouver Police Officer because she walked into him. The embarrassment escalated when it was discovered that the women has cerebral palsy, and because of this she has difficulty walking at the best of times.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties (BCCL) are an organization of lawyers who volunteer their time that fight for the rights of those who otherwise could not, or challenges our legal and moral values that have being corrupted and that treat people unfairly. They released the video from a street cam that takes video for the purposes of surveillance along Hastings Street where there is no doubt a high concentration of the poor and homeless, and where drug addicts and malcontents gather. Ironically, that same video is what brought justice, the public’s view as in this case, to the forefront.

The public outcry has been deafening in my circles of friends. I have not heard so much outrage about the police since the Robert Dziekanski Tasering murder at the Vancouver Airport back in October 14, 2007 by four RCMP Officers.

The impact that video has is immediate and stands on it own in the public’s mind. Unlike paper that can be censored by government, special organizations and the courts, or testimony that is based on memory that is tainted with objective spin and well rehearsed lines, video is the ultimate eye witness, even when there is no audio to accompany it. It is very difficult for the pubic to see the extenuating circumstances, and to allow legal ambiguous speak to interfere with the actors’ case who is trying to change public’s opinion as the legal system is constantly under attack by the public from all angles.

Does the moral compass of the VPD and other police forces need to be fixed? This was one of the questions that we debated back on Thursday. With the riggers of police training, one would assume that police would be more attuned to the area that they are serving. As one colleague put it, “all it takes is one bad apple…”

Here is the email I sent after class:

Things That Make Canada Questionable in its Stance on Human Rights and the treatment of the Weak and Disabled.

Last night in one of my classes we debated the aspects of what transpired from an incident that occurred along Hasting street in Vancouver, BC on about July 1st 2010. We focused on the communication by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), not what the media is saying. At present, the VPD is saying very little as it seems that the department is still reviewing the case; however, they are satisfied that the officer did apologies, but the three officers have not comment on their conduct before, during and after the incident occurred.

Have an opened mind when viewing this video. Reflect upon it, and then ask yourself these questions, what would you do if you were the police officer, and the person with the disability? How would you react? If you were a bystander, what would you do? There were Good Samaritan’s along the sidewalk, but would you look the other way, or would intervene regardless that it was police offers who started the action?

Courtesy of CBC NEWS

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/22/bc-civil-liberties-police-push-ms-woman-video.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/22/bc-woman-shoved-sandy-police-downtown-eastside.html

Just blowing off of some steam when I see imbalances in power and misuses of authority.

Please go to these links:

CBC New Website -

“Police Shoving Woman On Video Raises Questions.”

“Woman Shoved By Police Says, ‘He Has No Right.‘”

You can watch the video for yourself, and you be the judge, “was it provoked, or a bad move on the officer’s part?”

Sincerly

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice, University classes, Video | No Comments »

Human Rights Maybe Low on the Priority of Some

May 29th, 2010 Thomasso

OK, a little back grounder on for my thoughts on human rights, and why we wave the banner around but no one does anything about it. I am taking this course, as part of my degree in Criminology, and it deals specificity with all subject matter under the umbrella of human rights. We will cover, once the course is completed, everything from domestic and local issues, all the way up to international and global issues that concerns us today, and from the past. The mesh of political views, to cultural dynamics, are the themes that are a constant so far in this course. But this course is more than covering current events, and history texts, it is all about the ideas and solutions that could change the world in the near future.

War is a nasty business, right? When we talk about human rights, it is usually in the shadow of war. Ware is when man kind is at its worse. War teaches that all rules can be thrown out, or ignored, and these times of conflict bring the opportunity of creating exceptions to the rules of human rights, circumventing them in order to wreck complete havoc towards the enemy. However, when the conflict is over, and the wounds begin to heal, the world cries out for accountability, so the Untied National was born, and later on, the World Criminal Court. Venues that try to convict those people who started these terrible things that they did during those conflicts, and hold them to accountability. But the system is weak and, yes, it is very politely motivated.

Sovereignty (hey, I got the “g” in the right spot) is the key issue when thinking globally.  Would we ever consider the UN police marching down the streets of Washington D.C., poised to arrest President George W. Bush for possible war crimes? No way because the U.S. Would not tolerate it, and they have the means of making sure they are in total control of their sovereignty, not the U.N.. It is not the U.N.’s place to do this anyway. But for a class debate, this makes for some very interesting lectures. What right does a nation have for sending in it’s “special” forces to capture and detain a suspect of war crimes inside another country? I can write about this for hours…

In my class, there is a great mix of students from just about every walk of life from around the glob. We have students from just about all of the major organized religions, and about five students who are from the Middle Eastern areas, including Israel. Last week’s class lecture was the best yet. Although the principles of human rights seems obvious, the world that we live in is far to complicated to have every nation adopt in its laws these basic tenants. However, having such a diverse class means that the discussions are as diverse too, so when discussions start tackling issues such as international human rights laws, the brain power really start to crank up among the students.

I am look forward to next class. I think as we dive deeper into the murky world of human rights, my level of enlightenment will also increase.

Sadly, this will be my official last class of Criminology. I only have two courses after this, and they are electives. I will miss these classes after I graduate.

Posted in Criminal Law, Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice, University classes | Comments Off

So, Do You Think Canada is Learning Anything from the Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

May 15th, 2010 Thomasso

So, do you think Canada is learning anything from the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? With the oil spewing into the water from British Petroleum’s doomed Deep Sea oil platform where, several workers died, is it any wonder that people in Canada should be very concerned as oil exploration is top on the list for all three coasts here. The precedence has being set–we now know first hand just how bad off shore oil operation is now, not that we didn’t know from before, but we can see it now right in front of a faces today.

There is a very good chance that the United States could be powerless getting the “full” cost settled from British Petroleum for the clean up. Like any corporation/business, the risk that they go bankrupted, challenge it court, or just refuse to pay is always there. My fear is, the U.S. government could at best meet them halfway and let the taxpayers flip the second half of the bill.

And what about Mexico? Oil must be landing on their shores too? I have heard very little from the other countries who share those waters, and this bothers me as I listen to the media, in particular the CBC, but only little snippets of news that amount to nothing.

In Canada, if such a disaster were to occur, the likelihood of the corporation responsible getting away with cleaning up is very good, and current laws work in its favour. Canada’s track record shows this quite well: look up the Great Lakes, the Love Canal 1976.

Sadly, in my opinion, Canada is ripe for such a disaster to happen on our waters, and with a federal government that is pro corporation, the law will likely get softer on businesses as they can seek exemptions and ask for environmental guild lines to be lifted in lieu of profits. In my group of friends, having cheep gasoline to put in their cars is far more important than the risk of loosing an entire ecosystem, a vital food source. Where the rubber meets the road is fore most top of any voter now-a-days, and no one wants higher taxes either, so they vote accordingly.

I have heard one “self expert” tell me face to face that oil is a perfectly nature substance and nature has a way of taking care of it. The Gulf of Mexico will be back to normal in a matter of a few years he told me. I highly doubt that, but he sure believes it. But he is also one of these people that believes the Earth is only 4300 years old too? Where did that come from? Perhaps I could sell him a bridge over the Fraser River. But this proves that some people will never understand the damage that is taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. Heck, with British Petroleum using huge amounts of chemicals to disperse the oil, a blatant form of the cover-up becuase if the oil stays below the surface then it is out of sight-out of mind, and the media will have search harder to get images of huge oil slicks floating on the water along the beaches. So for my friend, seeing is believing, and if you can’t see it, then it is a conspiracy perpetrated by the government. The oil is still there.

Oh Canada.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

If You Drink and Drive, You Should Forget About Driving Ever Again!

February 20th, 2010 Thomasso

Last night while I was heading home from work, I was passed on the road by a rather rude driver who was just in too much of a rush that everyone on the road was in his way, so he tail-gated, honked his horn and swerved contently to get around you. Finally he passed me going towards Fort Langley on Glover Road, just pasted the 232nd Street turn-off to highway #1. I kept to my lane, gave him some extra room so he could at least have some space to make his manoeuvre before he had a head on collision with the on coming traffic, and then he was gone.

After I got home, I decided to do a little shopping. I hopped back in the truck and headed off to Walnut-Grove, where “low and behold” there was that same rude driver again, stopped by the police getting a breathalyser test. The officer has his stash of beer cans on top of his car, and I could see the look on the driver’s face as he was lead to the police car when I drove by.

I am somewhat perplexed that after all the TV commercials and anti-driving ads, that people still think it is wise to drive while having a few drinks? I mean honestly, you are endangering all the people around you when you are driving intoxicated. You are not in full control of your faculties–even though “you” think so. And with the beefed up laws that we have now, with costly fines and a possible criminal record, not to mention the loss of your driver’s license, you would wonder that people would think twice about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and driving off after having a few belts.

I hope that the system has done its job and has taken one more inconsiderate driver off the road. If anyone wants to argue with me on this one, then I will start with by saying this is a safety issue from all aspects. Unsafe drivers need-not-drive.

Posted in Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | Comments Off

A Mini Crime Wave, or is it Just the Background Noise of a Growing Society: Fort Langley on Video.

February 7th, 2010 Thomasso

Last year the local market had them installed, the Bank had them since I could remember, and I even have one: closed circuit video are everywhere, and more are to come. The local market, also know at the IGA, had them installed just last year after experiencing a record breaking year of theft. It was so bad there that the owner was almost looking at taking drastic measures to curve the financial loss it was incurring on his business. Once the video system was installed, they were able to use the images to show police who was steeling when they fled the store. For me, I had my vehicle broken into three years ago and I had to do something about it. My landlord was unable to offer any solutions, and they certainly did not want to install my camera, but after checking with law enforcement and legal experts, I was able to go ahead with the installation without my landlord’s approval. The camera has stayed ever since, even with many threats of legal sanctions, and a visit boys from the Township By-law office by them, my trusty little camera keeps a vigil eye on my vehicle. Oddly enough my vehicle has not being touched ever since?

Those same people who do not like me having a camera facing my vehicle, just had their “cash to change” vending machine broken into this last week in their laundromat. Guess what, they are now in the process of install the camera in their laundromat facing the vending machine! The thieves attempted to smash into the machine using some crude tools, and they gained access into the build by a flimsy window. Although they did not get any of the money inside the machine, they made a mess of the place.

But there are other lessons to be learned from the IGA and Laundromat experience. These buildings are prone to darkness and hidden sections when closed after business hours, ideal for thieves to lurk around. Environmental elements can be employed to lower the likelihood of thieves looking for “hiding” places like lighting and bars on the windows. A theory that says that thieves only like easy targets means that you must make it as difficult as possible for the theft to be not worth while and uninviting. Where I live, lighting is a big problem, that is, there is not enough of it. In fact, when thieves travel, our section of town seems to be where they prefer to move through becuase of the darkness. On several occasions now I have being awaken by police banging on my door asking me if I heard anyone running through my back yard. “Not since I fell asleep four hours ago,” I tell them.

I wonder if there is a correlation between the economic downturn and the growing population in our little village? Probably not.

I know that if you don’t nail it down, light it up, put a camera on it, alarm it, you are going to loose it. Thieves will “scope it out” and when they find something easy to take, they will waste no time to do it. Opportunity is something that thieves will take on in a moments notice. Timing is everything becuase it may not be there the next day.

So smile–you are on TV. I see cameras going up everywhere in Fort Langley.  But I should caution you if you are deciding to put up a camera in your neighbourhood for yourself. Check the law, rules and local by-laws. You have to post signage that you have a video surveillance system in operation, and you can’t capture audio while your camera is on. And obviously, you can’t aim it at your next door neighbour’s house, or through other people’s windows, only on your property.

Hey, video is changing the way our society looks at itself, and it seems to be crime driven. I can see all of us soon living in a gated community with cameras everywhere, check-points and ID checks leaving to and from our towns. Heck, all it would take is one good terrorist attack in the area to put all of us on high alert and straight in to paranoia. We may see cameras as intrusive now, but after an attack, we may all want one. Too bad though, I really like Fort Langley, and the small town atmosphere it has. I guess that is all changing as the population grows.

Posted in Criminal Law, Criminology, General, Law and Order | Comments Off

The Sue-ability Scale

February 5th, 2010 Thomasso

Lawyers, you may not want to read this, this might be a tough pill to swallow? These are my personal thoughts based on my personal experiences with Civil Court.

Justice is a weird thing. I have studied it to death and it still leaves me scratching my head wondering, asking why-and the answers become as vague as following a white car in the middle of a snowstorm. I have found that justice in Canada is only for those who are rich, or are very clever. That in most cases if you are being sued in civil court, it is better not to participate than it is to waste your time with the process of jurisprudences; and flip side to this, if you are rich, you are an easy target than compared to someone who is poor and homeless. Seriously, of the five people in my life that I have brought to the halls of justice, only one took the pledge and participated. The other four knew the system well enough not to bother, and I found it (almost) impossible to seek my claim, costs, damages and compensation. In fact, the one time that I was the respondent, it was easer to go on with my life than it was to play the game. To this day, the company that I had an agreement with is still out the initial $72.00, but they are also out on their costs too, so it pays not to bother with Canadian Justice if you have nothing to loose. Was it worth my time to show up—I’m still evaluating that?

I now know that there is a scale that the professionals follow when they go out on suing expeditions. They automatically drop anyone who has no money; who is renting; earning a low wage; has no bank account; has little or no identification, i.e., drivers license or birth certificate; uses aliases and moves around a lot. However, for the poor there is this thing called Small Claims Court, or the Pauper’s Court as it is called in my circles, but you still need to pay to use it though. When I studied Medieval legal systems of European cultures, Small Claims Court to me has a reminiscent quality of early continental European courts where the jurist is free to adjust, amend, vary and control all aspects of the hearing and decisions—although you can appeal in today’s court. One day I was helping a friend fight for his money from a debtor, and once it was our turn, the sitting judge read the Statement of Claim, then threw up his arm up with the documents in hand and said, “You expect to me rule on this? I think you should go back and talk to this person and make the effort on collecting your money before you go into my court.” Perhaps it was because we were not wearing $900.00 suites at the time? I’m still in awe to this day about that?

If you do have something to loose like a house, wages, assets, or your respondent has too, then going to court is the way to go. I have also seen the dual effects of court at play many times as the monetary and psychological costs play their toll and all parties. The trouble is, court is not a guaranteed bet. Just when you thought you had the full force of the law on your side, you are hit with a sucker-punch and your case falls like a house of cards. In one case of mine, I filed for a garnishment of wages and the respondent’s employer decided not to cooperate. The business told me that he does not work in their department any more. I found myself having to take extraordinary measures to track down who this person really worked for before I could I proceed with the action. This involved two days of driving by this guy’s work every ten minutes searching for what door he came out of. Then once I saw him walking out to go home, I went into the building and had to do some quick lurking. I asked one of the managers that I was looking for my “friend.” When I confirmed that that was the respondent’s employer, I then went to the manager’s office to serve the garnishment order. I received two out of the five payment to fulfil the debt, but then they stopped as the guy quit his job and moved elsewhere. I just recovered only my court costs in that case. Was it worth it? At least I got to play the psych-game with him.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | Comments Off

I Applaud the BC Court of Appeal’s decision on Insite

January 16th, 2010 Thomasso

One of the greatest contradictions of Canada’s “sheepish” war on drugs as been the connection between the cost of health to our healthcare system and the battle to regulate what the State thinks is good or bad for its citizens. The criminalization of drugs is a recent phenomenon that is just over a hundred years old, and was born out of attacking specific marginal and ethnic groups. Canada has a very deep cultural love affair with illegal narcotics, and none could be more so than with marijuana. But for whatever stance you choose in your ideology, albeit the left or right, the drug culture in Canada isn’t going to go away any time soon, and we have to deal with that.

Insite was born out of long term thinking and the concept of rehabilitation; in other words, having a safe place to be that offers hope is a better approach than by pushing it underground and letting the long term effects eat away at our society. The logic behind Insite is simple: safety and hope. The people who use the facility are addicted to drugs, and are at the bottom of the social ladder. Further criminalization is not going to “fix” them, but rather push them deeper into marginalization.

The nay-sayers seems to start off with the line, “If you prohibit drugs and the use of it, then that will fix the problem… .”

I argue that the nay-sayer, has not found the root cause of the problem, but has only made it even worse than the act of using the drugs in the first place. The nay-sayer needs to ask why that person has chosen to take the drugs in the first place. However, it is easer to criminalize something than to fix it—well, that seems to be Canada’s current model. But to become homeless and drug dependant means that that person has issues that go beyond the act of taking drugs. Then you reach a point where you have no where to go, you become vulnerable, and as a result you become more visible. From Hitler to Harper, the right-wing thinking is to invoke prohibition against specific marginal groups that do not appeal to middle and upper class standards, and to simply criminalize something that does not adhere to those standards seems to be the answer.

What insite does is to give these people the chance to use clean needles to inject themselves with in hopes of stopping the practice of sharing needles. The AIDS epidemic, and many other diseases too, has a direct correlation with this group of people with the sharing of needles, so it would make sense to offer clean needles than to deal with growing numbers of AIDS victims. Safety too is an issue with Insite because if that user needs further treatment, or decides to move towards kicking their habit, then there are people right there on site to offer that help. When the user is in the facility there are staff on hand that can promptly offer help if that person is in distress. I think it is far better than having someone injecting drugs in some back alley in the middle of Vancouver.

I totally agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal on their decision to keep the jurisdiction of Instie with British Columbia’s authority, and thus allowing the facility to stay open without Federal interference. The Federal government should stop wasting our tax money on fighting this. Remember that the majority of Canadians did not vote for Harper!

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

Doomsday Documentaries Are Really Stupid

January 7th, 2010 Thomasso

OK, you have seen them, on the Discovery Channel, stories of prophecies where some dude two or three hundred years ago writes a bunch of letters that says the Earth will end either in some fiery ball, or mankind nukes himself to death and all life ceases. They come in all forms, from biblical predictions, to a crazy guy who might have been severely nuts in today’s standards, all saying the same thing – the Earth will end.

Whether the predictions come to pass or not, it is the people that I run into who make me laugh when they tell me about them. When the air time on television increases the numbers of these doomsday documentaries, the more entrenched some of my regulars become. They become so transfixed that this is the honest truth because of the proliferation of these documentaries that arguing with them that they are just predictions becomes a moot point. From the Mayan Calendar that only tells time up until 2012, to the earth loosing its magnetic field in twenty years, these are just some of the weird things I hear people  saying that will spell doom for the Earth.

The problem is that even the documentaries get it wrong, or they just focus on the out come like fear-mongering, rather than asking the real questions of what the prognosticators are really saying, or not saying. And of course stuff gets lost in the translation. The point I am making here is that all of these predictions are so steeped in vagueness and ambiguity that they could literally translate into anything for anyone, especially if you have an agenda like profiting from doomsday documentary making?

Maybe the real question here is why are people so caught up in these prophets and their prophesies? Wishful thinking that they, the believers, will be only ones left on the planet and it will be up to them to sow the seeds of mankind thereafter. So much for the gene pool.

There is so much scientific observations that proves otherwise that it is so hard not to keep a straight face when hearing the doomsday conspiracies. The predictions are just so absurd to logic that it becomes really good comedy. The man who told me about the Earth loosing its magnetic field said that we will float away, our atmosphere will get sucked into space, and only those who choose to live in underground homes will survive. It is the “no atmosphere” part that throws a ringer into my buddy’s plans. But hey, he supposedly got if from a documentary so who am I to argue!

Posted in Diatribe, General, Humour, Law and Order | Comments Off

Encryption Goodness of Your Data

August 26th, 2009 Thomasso

[I wrote this in June of 2009.] I was amazed when I started my second term doing volunteer work at the crisis/help centre because we now need passwords to send and received emails and access personal e-files of clients. No, this is not your regular log on password, but each file that you create, you will be required to have it password protected so you can send it off to whomever you want. This is a very cool system indeed.

It seems that in the past problems with particular levels of government, administrators and the public, all could have access to these files without any sort of e-lock or physical guard that should have filtered out those who do or  do not have these privileges. It was so bad that in the last couple of years I heard stories that the RCMP could actually walk in and freely take these files without going through the courts seeking warrants. I even heard of one story which involved a well publicised case of a lawyer who was freely given a computer disk containing information of several clients on it because the person who gave it to him did not know about the proper protocols for dealing with private information.

Now, all information is encrypted, and double locked, i.e., needs a supervisor’s password also before it can leave the facility.  All transmissions within the network, behind our server, are encrypted now and the higher up the food-chain you go, the more files you can open with your password. The data storage needs to be logged on now, and logged off. All archived files are no longer stored on site, instead a paid security firm now holds onto that data.

The funny thing is, now that these measures have being implemented, the “nag factor” from all public inquiries have dropped off by 90 percent. As soon as you tell them that the data need supervisory permission and the form is several pages long for the application, no one wants to take the time to collect the information any more. However, you always needed proper authorisation to obtain these records in the past, but there was nothing literally stoping any one from getting these files besides walking into the office and taking them. In the past very few people took the time to go through all the hoops–it was bad as far as having minimal security goes. It was basically up to each worker to insure that their data was safe and well protected.

I still can not believe that it has taken this long for an organization to finally jump on the encryption bandwagon.  It is just silly to have so much private data without any protection on it. It is just stupid. I most certainly would want my private and personal information that is stored one someone’s hard-drive protected—right. Well, do not be surprise, most government organization and private firms are just starting to secure their data—I mean encrypt it.

Posted in General, Law and Order, Social Justice | Comments Off

Hate is Alive and Doing Well In My Own Backyard

July 12th, 2009 Thomasso

I don’t like talking about this, and I know most other people don’t either, but this is something that keeps popping up in a country that everyone here thinks is a utopia of the most tolerant place on earth. I see it, and most of my friends see it as well. We do it without even knowing we are doing it. And worse, we have buried it so deep that we can easily say, with a strait face, we would never do it.

I have read authors who have spent the better part of their lives tracing the root causes of racism, and they try to explain how it trickles in from within our society. They write about how laws and social norms are created to protect the dominant class from the “in pure” creeping into their ideals. How law enforcement seems to use surveillance of ethnic groups more closely with this concept call the “white gaze,” that authors such as Carol Tator and Frances Henry who write about this in their book called, “Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of a ‘Few Bad Apples.’”

Canada is by far no perfect place. All you need to do is look at our legal history to see how deep this ethnic divide is. See one of our current laws, the Indian Act for example, where an entire group, a race of peoples, is effected by status and class, and where they carry cards that identify them as aboriginal, and they have special communities that they can live in that we call reservations of which they cannot own the property individually. A reservation is no grand place to live, and statistically these places have a ten times higher rate of poverty than the rest of Canada.

Then you should look back further into our history of legislation where there were laws that targeted most ethnic groups through exclusion, limited mobility, and even gender. Even though most of our laws today reflect a more somewhat equal society, the deep seeds of racism are still germinating throughout society.

Am I surprised that hate crimes like the Phillips beating in Courtney, British Columbia are happening? No. Education is the key to correcting this wrong.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law and Order, Social Justice, Video | Comments Off