Willow Kinloch, a teenager arrested and hogtied by Victoria City police in May 2005, has been awarded $60,000 in damages for false imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment by a BC Supreme Court jury.
Although I cringe on behalf of local taxpayers, I must ultimately lend my support to Ms. Kinloch, given the outrageous facts of this case. Having observed the proceedings of this trial at the Victoria Law Courts over the past 10 days, I am of the opinion that the police constables involved in this case made all the wrong choices at every juncture.
Ms. Kinloch was arrested at around midnight on May 6, 2005, and freely admits that she was drunk at the time. She apparently provided her address to the arresting officers who could have made the compassionate choice and taken her home (just three blocks away). Instead, they booked her into police cells for about four hours, after which she was described as “calm, cooperative, and sober.”
At this point, police officers drove Kinloch to her apartment, but arrived at the wrong entrance to the building and refused to let her out of their vehicle, then drove back to the police station without giving her access to a police cell phone (which they carried as a matter of necessity, despite our city’s $17.5 million dollar investment in the ineffective CREST police radio system.)
Police constables then re-booked Ms. Kinloch into custody claiming that she was a “child in need.” After expressing her frustration with this, Kinloch was thrown against a cell wall, taken to the ground by two officers each more than twice her size, then handcuffed, bound at the ankles, and tied to the cell door. All of the officers involved finished their shifts a little over half an hour later, then headed for home without so much as a thought for the “child in need” they had tied and abandoned a few minutes before.
One constable later testified that Kinloch was left in a “safe” and “comfortable” environment. On cross-examination he admitted that she remained tied up on a hard cement floor for about four hours, and that this “wasn’t like a sofa chair.”
Police defended their actions claiming that if they hadn’t forcefully restrained the 5-foot-tall, 100 lbs. teenager, they might later have needed shields, riot gear, and pepper spray to control her (within a 7′ by 6′ padded cell.) As a citizen, I would have to say that this doesn’t inspire much confidence in the abilities of our local police officers.
The success of Kinloch’s civil suit was primarily based on s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits any form of “cruel and unusual punishment.” It is clear and apparent from the testimony and video evidence in this case that police did what they did more out of a desire to punish an individual that they found annoying than to ensure the safety of anyone. The jury ruled that this punishment was “cruel and unusual,” in that it was “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency.”
On the evening of May 6, 2005, Ms. Kinloch was drunk on alcohol, but the police officers who restrained her were drunk on something far worse — power. This has all-too-often been the case in the past few years, as is demonstrated by many recent events. The monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society, like any other monopoly, can easily lead to abuse and recklessness. The only solution to this is meaningful personal responsibility.
$60,000 in damages, paid for by the taxpayers, might induce some public pressure on police to be more reasonable, responsible, and honest, but it will also remind those who are mistreated (or think they’ve been mistreated) by police that the courts provide a possible redress. If police officers continue using unreasonable force and abusing their power, citizens should demand changes to the Police Act and other similar pieces of legislation, requiring that officers themselves are more frequently held financially accountable for their actions.
The odd lawsuit involving an innocent mistake might be part of the legitimate cost of policing, but the consistent malicious misconduct of police officers that we’ve been seeing in recent years is not. We the people should not have to pay for the obvious mistakes of those whose salaries we already provide.
We give these people power so that they may keep us safe. But when they abuse this power, we should make them pay. Before they act, we should make them think.
A vital case dealing with the issue of workplace freedom is heading to the Ontario Court of Appeal this Wednesday, as two government employees struggle to avoid punitive fines, levied by their own union.
April Luberti and Jeff Birch, two employees at Canada Revenue Agency, chose to defy the 26,000-member Union of Taxation Employees in 2004 when they crossed picket lines and agreed to work for normal wages, despite a strike organized by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Personally, I applaud the brave actions of these two employees, and take heart in the fact that even some members of our friendly tax enforcers are able to see when enough is enough. They were good natured enough to simply do what they were paid to do (taking our money), rather than nagging the government to let them take more of our money specifically to line their own pockets.
But the bigger issue at stake here is freedom of association in all workplaces throughout Canada. Unions can be a great tool for workers to voluntarily band together and negotiate with their employers in good faith. They exist to ensure equal footing between multiple parties in free and fair marketplace. In short, their purpose is to prevent bullying, and union bosses should be mindful of this in the way they conduct themselves.
In this case, union leaders are seeking to fine Jeff Birch and April Luberti to the tune of $476.75 for each day they refused to picket. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice already ruled against the union, describing the fines as “very unfair,” and designed to intimidate employees. But union bosses are intent on appealing the issue, using their members own dues to attack them in any way possible.
Rather than bullying workers who disagree with their agenda, unions should seek to build consensus amongst employees, and negotiate agreements that make sense to all parties. In the case of a severe dispute or strike, they have no legal or moral authority to enforce unanimity through coercive and punitive fines.
The National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a non-partisan conservative organization that is supporting Birch and Luberti in their struggle, has stated that it will be essentially impossible for the union to win their case on appeal.
“The law supports an employee’s right to work,” said NCC President, Peter Coleman, last month. “The unions are simply levying fines and suing even though they can’t collect in order to intimidate unionized workers who depend on their union. Unions are supposed to look out for their employee’s best interest, but instead they are using intimidation to get money it cannot collect through the courts.”
I first came across this little gem yesterday, and take it as absolute proof that Human Rights Commissions aren’t just promoting censorship in the name of minority rights, but advocating censorship plain and simple…
Maclean’s article ‘promotes prejudice towards Muslims’: Human Rights Commission
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 9, 2008 20:19
LONDON, Ont. - A Canadian magazine article suggesting Muslims pose a threat to North America is Islamophobic and “promotes prejudice towards Muslims,” the Ontario Human Rights Commission says.
Despite strongly worded condemnation of the Maclean’s article, the commission announced Wednesday that under the Ontario Human Rights Code, it could not legally proceed to a hearing on the complaint led by local lawyer Faisal Joseph.
“We are concerned about the content of the article. We think it fosters stereotypes and has a negative impact on the (Muslim) communities,” Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall said.
“It creates tension and conflict, it is contrary to the spirits of the code.”
Hall said the case proves there needs to be discussions “across the country” about freedom of expression.
In Ontario, magazines are not covered under the Human Rights Code, she said.
“We think there needs to be a debate about how broad or narrow does Canadian society want to place limits on freedom of expression and where should that be.”
“If you said these things (in the article) in a workplace, we would certainly take the complaint and it is very possible we could find discrimination in the workplace.”
Maclean’s editor Kenneth Whyte could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley was hesitant to commit to including magazines under the province’s human rights rules.
“I’d want to take a look at that along with any other issues to make sure we can strengthen the strong foundation which is Ontario,” Bentley said.
In October 2006, Maclean’s published “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It.”
Last March, after Maclean’s refused to allow a rebuttal from a group of law students offended by the article, the Canadian Islamic Congress, represented by Joseph, launched a human rights complaint.
The case goes to a human rights hearing in British Columbia next June, where the code does cover publications, this summer.
Joseph said he’s pleased the complaint he spearheaded exposed “a gaping hole'’ in Ontario’s human rights legislation.
“The commission felt it important to comment on the totally inappropriate, derogatory remarks by Maclean’s against Muslims and the damage it has caused.”
First and foremost, I want to thank the Ontario Human Rights Commission for their honesty on this issue. They want their jurisdiction to be expanded so they can audit magazine articles and ensure that they are not “contrary to the spirits of the code.” (You can access their full statement here.)
In effect, they have admitted to being champions of censorship. Like Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator, Dean Stacey, they see freedom of speech as an “American concept” which is not offered under Canadian law. Any speech likely to cause “tension and conflict” must be quashed, and the perpetrators must be either re-educated or imprisoned.
But unlike the (federal) Canadian Human Right Commission, which tried to rationalize its transgressions in a recent interview with the National Post, the OHRC is clearly proud of its mandate, and wants to expand into new vistas of censorship.
Even as CHRC general counsel, Ian Fine, admits that Human Rights Commissions are “creatures of statute,” whose power can be taken away by Parliament at any time, Ontario’s human rights enforcers are lobbying their Provincial legislature for the right to “challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.” They are calling for a “debate” regarding the “limits on freedom of expression.”
But it is Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who should be calling for such a debate, by putting Liberal MP, Keith Martin’s recent free speech motion up for debate in the federal House of Commons. Let Parliamentarians consider the OHRC’s call for increased censorship alongside the Canadian public’s overwhelming cry for freedom of thought.
It’s time to kill these vile monsters of statute, so as to restore our God-given liberties. If we cannot win this battle, we have no right to call Canada a free society.
I don’t usually tout my own horn, but in this case I think it might be justified… As I explained in December, section 13 of the Human Rights Act poses a serious threat to the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. But my recent letter to a local Member of Parliament, Dr. Keith Martin, might have been the first step in killing it.
“Thank you for your very intriguing correspondence regarding section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act,” Martin wrote in response to my letter, which laid out the frightening legal implications of this draconian legislation. “You educated me on this issue.”
Martin promised to “put a motion in to have this clause removed from Canada’s Human Rights Act,” which I though was an improbable course of action for a Liberal. But earlier this week, he actually followed through, introducing Private Members Bill M-446. I am very encouraged that some of our elected representatives are still willing to transcend party lines to stand up for what is right. By taking this action, Dr. Martin has earned my sincerest respect.
At this point in time, I would strongly urge all freedom-loving Canadians to write their Members of Parliament and support this motion. My fairly basic, two-page letter apparently educated Dr. Martin on this issue, but his motion will only do the trick if all MPs understand what is at stake.
Please take a few minutes to ensure that your elected representative understands… (Click here for a guide to writing anti-Section 13 letters, and here to look up the mailing address of your local MP.)
Despite his long-shot status, the libertarian-leaning U.S. Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, is making a good run at the Republican nomination. In the past few days, he’s come second in both the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses, and won first place in a straw poll by the Alabama Republican Assembly, confounding many pundits who expected his campaign to collapse weeks or months ago.
But Paul’s strong base of mostly-young grassroots supporters has succeeded in keeping him in the race with more than $25 million in donations over the past few months. (Were I an American citizen, I likely would have participated and thrown a few bucks his way. )
Now, with Ron Paul among the final five Republican candidates for President, people are starting to ask themselves what might happen if he actually wins the race. Analysts and political scientists have interjected a dose of negativity, suggesting that Paul’s uncompromising, ideological positions would effectively create gridlock in the houses of Congress, and undermine his ability to lead the nation effectively.
“Congress would, to an extent, operate without him,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor from Southern Methodist University. “He would easily be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses. He might be kind of lonely.”
But, as many supporters have said, this campaign isn’t about Dr. Paul as a person (despite his intelligence and refreshing attitude). It’s about the message of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and preservation of the U.S. Constitution (which, by the way, we Canadians should be envious of).
If the “Ron Paul Revolution” is to succeed, it will not be based on one man. It will not be based on a momentary fad. If the thousands or Americans who are diligently campaigning for Dr. Paul today truly want to make a difference, they will need to continue their efforts into 2009, 2010, the next decade, and beyond – whether or not their candidate wins.
If Ron Paul wins the Presidency and his supporters sink into invisible complacency, then yes, it will be a hollow and meaningless victory resulting in years of gridlock. But if the message of freedom continues to echo throughout America and the world, something very different could happen.
If Congress becomes an obstacle, then the ongoing Revolution will have to change Congress by electing pro-freedom candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack-thereof. Nobody is unelectable if enough people vote for them.
Those of us who believe in liberty – whether in America, Canada, or elsewhere in the world – need to stand for freedom and justice in every election year and every year in between.
)