The post-g20 fog has descended. Or maybe it’s just me.
[rssbreak]
Thousands marched again Saturday (July 10), calling for a full independent public inquiry into the actions of G20 cops.
But everyone involved, from the police to government officials, seems to want to forget the mayhem and mass arrests, to bury the questions posed by a concerned public and civil liberties groups. Funny how that happens.
The feds could care less. Meanwhile, the province is playing hide and seek. The premier’s office has welcomed, at least publicly, a probe announced by Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin into the now infamous 5-metre rule used by police to search hundreds of people, most of them unlawfully, far from the G20 fence.
And David Miller has endorsed the Toronto Police Services Board’s “independent civilian review.”
But already that review is being criticized by the Toronto Police Association for allegedly overstepping the board’s legal authority. The board, says the union, oversees matters of policy but has no say on police operational decisions. True, mostly, depending on which lawyer you’re listening to.
But there are those for whom the board’s proposed review does not go far enough.
Board chair Alok Mukherjee has spoken in recent days about the scope of the review going beyond the policy questions initially outlined in his report to the board. He wants to find out who among the RCMP, Toronto police and OPP made what decision when, and hopes the reviewer will track every call made between policing authorities as events unfolded.
This would certainly shed major light. But the terms of reference for the board’s review have yet to be written, and it’s doubtful they’ll be sweeping enough to lift the veil entirely on G20 policing decisions, especially during those crucial times when it all went wrong Pete Tong.
The board is engaged in a fine balancing act. There’s huge public pressure to act there might not have been any review at all had it not been for a concerted push by the board’s more progressive members.
As well, members are trying to save Chief Bill Blair added embarrassment while being careful not to piss off rank-and-file cops who may have stepped over the line. By the same token, the province is keen on keeping labour peace with police it has asked to hold the line on wages.
The crucial question is who will be appointed to lead the board’s review. He or she will need not only the confidence of the public and the respect of the police, but also the courage to ask the tough questions and not be discouraged when doors are slammed shut. (Bad omen: word is, the board had a choice it was prepared to announce a week ago, but that individual opted out at the 11th hour.)
The board’s authority in a situation like the G20, which involved police services from municipal, provincial and federal levels, is unclear – one of the stated reasons for its review.
While the Police Services Act clearly states that civilian oversight boards “shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force,” police boards also have a duty to provide “adequate and effective” police services.
Over and above the responsibility for policy, there’s a legal obligation to ensure that policing services meet community standards.
That notion was established in 1992 by the governing body of police boards, the Ontario Commission on Policing Services (OCCPS) after the famous sex-for-pay scandal involving former Toronto cop Gordon Junger. Remember him? Internal Affairs had cut a deal with Junger, who was moonlighting as a prostitute, to allow him to resign from the force quietly.
OCCPS set a powerful legal standard in that decision.
It reads, in part, that “because of this obligation to monitor and because police investigate allegations against their own members, expectations for scrutiny by the Police Services Board, as representatives of the community, are high. It is imperative that Police Services Boards understand their role and are held accountable to the public.”
It shouldn’t be this complicated. Chiefs of police are directly accountable to their boards. And boards have overall responsibility for the operation of police forces. At least that’s what the Police Services Act says.
But if the G20 taught us anything, it’s that there’s a thin line between what’s legal and what’s not when it’s the actions of police that are under scrutiny.
All the more reason for a full public inquiry.
news@nowtoronto.com
