"Here's 50 years of research and history on policing from five different jurisdictions internationally, including a large number of cases of things going really horribly fucking wrong when the cops didn't do their prep work."
"But Paul, I've got a list of protesters I really don't like!"
Paul, you just don’t understand how uniquely dangerous these particular protestors are. That other protest was a peaceful celebration of democracy. Comparing that particular protest to this particular protest is like comparing apples to razor blades.
That’s why the police should bust skulls at this particular protest and bring coffee to that other particular protest. That protest is a bunch of troublemakers. This protest was noble citizens exercising their free speech rights. Wait… is it the other way around?
I never thought that you, AS A JOURNALIST, would come down on the side of this protest. The Media Bias is strong.
As someone who was involved in both the Fairy Creek Old Growth protests (2020/2021), and the Truck Convoy demonstrations (2022) it has been interesting seeing people on the left and right stick to their tribes and push to deny the rights of commies, dirty hippies, fascists, and Nazis.
I find it interesting that people protesting environmental destruction face police who are essentially hired thugs, and treated with excessive violence, and occupiers harassing an entire region for three weeks are allowed to do whatever they please.
I should probably add this in the comments under the post, but it’s worth making clear that even the hardcore Police Liaison types anticipate cases where the police will have to go in and make arrests, sometimes with broadly-applied force. One of the officers I spoke to called it “dressing up,” as in “If we have to dress up and go in…”
But even (they’d say especially) when that happens, liaison work continues, as it did on the weekend when the police finally cleared out the Convoy. Clear explanation of what’s about to happen. Clear exit behaviours and exit paths (“If you go out the street on your left and keep going, you won’t be interrupted,” or some such). The work of differentiation between peaceful and lawbreaking participants would continue.
The other thing I’d say is that “dressing up” and going in isn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision, so it’s a lousy response to a momentary flare-up like some assholes shouting death threats. My main question when I read about Ian Tomlinson was, how the hell did the centre of London deteriorate to the point where a police driver was wandering around on foot with a baton, looking for targets to whack? I think police forces are trying to get better at staying organized, whether they stay away from physical enforcement or decide it’s time to do some.
"Despite the Inquiry’s conclusion that the actions of the police had undermined public safety, Dohm ultimately exonerated the police department and the Attorney General did not lay any criminal charges against the officers who were involved in the melee (although one constable was reprimanded). "
Holding police accountable for deliberate and premeditated violent behaviour is very difficult.
Almost a year ago, in the context of the "convoy protests", I wrote, in this forum, as follows:
***
About a dozen years ago, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court, had to deal with an aboriginal blockade of a national rail line near Sarnia. There was no genuine land claim involved. It was a purely political gesture, designed to attract attention in Ottawa; and as usual, the people who were being targeted (a railway and its customers), had nothing to do with the dispute, even though they were both losing a lot of money. Because - as is now customary - the police were refusing to enforce an injunction that had been issued in order to bring the unlawfulness to an end.
This is what Judge D.M. Brown had to say about the situation at the time:
"With all due respect to the Sarnia Police, local police agencies cannot ignore judicial orders under the guise of contemplating how best to use their tactical discretion. Such an approach would have the practical effect of neutering court orders. It is not the purpose of a court order simply to initiate talks or consultations between the police and those whom the court has found to have breached the law. A court order is not one amongst several chips to be played in an ongoing contest between the police and transgressors of legal rights. On the contrary, a court order is intended to initiate the process of bringing unlawful conduct to an end in a short period of time so that the harm which the court has found to be irreparable is brought to an end. " [See: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Plain et al. [2012] 114 O.R. (3d) 27 [2012] ONSC 7356]
Once upon a time, long ago, that was both “the law” and the “social expectation” – as it still is in respect of regulating picketing and labour disputes. But that is not the general case any more. Instead, the property and civil rights of citizens and businesses, can now be held hostage by virtually any grievance group that is sufficiently determined to mount a blockade; while, in the meantime, we are told, again and again, that police have an unreviewable discretion to enforce the law, or not, as they see fit.
Regardless the damage that is being caused to other interests, and also, so it seems, despite the Orders of Judges, whom the police believe they are free to ignore.
Thus, it is solemnly intoned, that no one (not even Judges?) must interfere with, or direct, how police do their jobs, (or don’t) because that would be to “politicize” law enforcement – as if non-enforcement were not a wholly political choice!
So Ottawa becomes like Caledonia. Only bigger. And “law enforcement” becomes a laughable misnomer - an oxymoron.
In the result, what was once once regarded as the ordinary “rule of law” and the expectations of civil society, have now been routinely abandoned in favour of the rule of the mob; and what used to be considered the property and “civil rights” of citizens have now become just matters for “negotiation” with the protesters – who, these days, can even count on having cheerleaders in Parliament, where talk is cheap and the established currency is hypocrisy. There is no law; only politics.
Thus, the reality, today, is that if the protesters camp out in your neighbourhood, or take over your local park, or block a bridge or a street, or a rail line, or impede access to a public institution, citizens have no assurance that it will be brought to a timely end. Nor will they necessarily have effective remedies if their interests are affected or ignored. Even if a former Chief Justice of Canada writes a scolding letter to the Globe and Mail!
For example, are the workers and the businesses in the Windsor area, going to be compensated for the unlawful interference with millions of dollars worth of cross-border economic activity? Are the citizens and the businesses of Ottawa going to be compensated for the unlawful nuisance to which they were undeniably subjected? Will the miscreants ever have to make restitution? We’ll see; but I doubt it, because obstruction and intransigence works.
And for that reason, I suspect that we will to see quite a lot more of this kind of thing. Only the locations, and the placards, and the “causes” will change. Because, all that has really happened here, is that populists have adopted the obstructive methods of progressives and aboriginals, and they have learned, like their predecessors, that they can do so with relative impunity. And that is a recipe for imitation and repetition.
That is what I pessimistically wrote some months ago; and just as predicted, we are now seeing yet more examples of illegal behaviour, injurious to personal and economic interests of Canadian residents, that is simply ignored by the police, so that citizens are left in situations where, practically speaking, the law can be broken, and damage can be inflicted and there are no effective legal constraints. Nor - AND THIS IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT -- is there a means of redress or compensation from the usually anonymous mob.
In the result, and in these Charter-infused times, the purported freedom to protest has been extended, with impunity, far beyond its actual legal limits.
So, the question becomes whether this will continue to be tolerated or whether, instead - as began to happen in Ottawa - citizens and property owners (I know the mention of "property" may irritate progressives) will choose to resort to self help and to physical resistance and private security measures. Moreover, if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too. But in the meantime, security companies will prosper and expand. How long will it be before there are burly security personnel in every small business, library, public institution or even school, lest some grieving group choose it as the locus for protest about one thing or another? Because a lot of controversial things, certainly take place in libraries, so any number of groups could be tempted to nuisance or public mischief, if they knew they could get away with it and earn some headlines or on-line notice.
Unless Judge Brown wanted to enforce his own orders, he kind of needed the police to do it. From the Stubbs interview:
"Sometimes, circumstances — and even courts — can constrain police choices. “If there's an injunction by the Supreme Court — and that's often what I was dealing with. There's a [provincial] Supreme Court judge that says there's an injunction here; for argument's sake, that road, that building, that area shall be cleared, so the applicants, usually industry, can do their job. So we have that judicial demand put on us. So that does force our hand.
Only up to a point, however. “I can tell you that, in my experience, with some of this, the industry, when they get these things, you know, they get it on a Monday, they say, 'Okay, go Tuesday, open it up.' And we will take multiple, multiple steps. It could be six weeks before we do anything. And people don't realize that. They think, ‘Oh, they go in there, like, this quick.’ That's not the case. We are lobbying governments; we're working with the protesters; working with industry; trying to get an understanding of where everybody's at, before we go in.
“And again, it's hard to please everybody. It's a no-win situation for police. The protesters are upset. Industry wants it done tomorrow. Government wants this. To have all the stakeholders say, 'perfect job?' Rarely does that happen. So it's an activity, that enforcement activity, that will always come with unhappy people. Generally. “
Hey, if you can quote yourself at epic length, so can I.
"if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too"
Hello MAGA. These are the trends that feed the swing to the right.
He missed the point that judges in Canada aren't political. They can make decisions based purely on points of law and not fear repercussions from politicians.
Yes. The law can be ignored, by those empowered to enforce it, but not without consequences.
And in the case of unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes (which is another form of protest and communication that is Charter protected), there is a sensible balance reached between the institutional interests in play, including the courts and the cops.
Similarly with respect to anti-abortionists blocking access to clinics that supply abortion information or engage in this regulated but lawful practice.
Once upon a time, those were enforced too. But today? who knows?
So, I don't prejudge where that balance is, between tolerating law breaking and restraining it in particular cases.
I merely note that, at some point, those who look to the law to protect their interests, might resort to self help, as the Ottawa communities did, blocking vehicles that were invading their neighbourhoods and causing a legal nuisance despite an injunction restraining the illegal bits.
Or businesses, churches, libraries, etc. who may now have to engage private security; or mobilize their own squad of 'protectors'.
Do we want protesters blocking access to churches and synagogues or Mosques, or Mount Sinai Hospital (!), to send their "message"? What do you think the police would likely do, if Division 52 or Division 14, was blockaded by anti-police protesters (certainly a foreseeable situation).
So I just note that we are on a slippery slope that can lead to a lot of potential grief.
I am unsure about Mr. Wells’ views about dialogue between his readers, but I will answer your question anyway.
***
Peaceful picketing in connection with a lawful labour dispute, for the purpose of communicating information about the dispute, is perfectly OK – at least if the picketing occurs at the location of the employer involved in the dispute (e.g. a factory or warehouse or retail establishment).
Picketing for this purpose – to communicate information about the labour dispute - may entail stopping vehicles or people who want to enter or leave the “struck site” in the course of pursuing their own lawful business dealings with the struck employer. That is their “rights”.
Preventing people from entering or leaving, obstruction for other than the short amount of time necessary for communication, damaging the trucks (broken windows, punctured tires, structural damage, assaulting the drive, spray paint breaking windows, etc. would all be unlawful. So would occupying the building to prevent its operation or assaulting persons who wanted to do business with the struck one, despite the picketing.
But whether the police stop any of this or lay charges is now uncertain, especially if the police are not willing to use force…so does the driver or the trucking firm or the blockaded business just accept the damage and loss? And if there is an injunction purportedly banning or regulating the protest can police ignore it? What are the remedies for citizens or businesses if the police will not stop an ongoing illegality? And so on.
***
Similarly, accosting women seeking to get access to abortion information or services, raises the same kind of question, especially when the women have no interest in being berated or bothered or blocked by anti-abortion zealots. Will police protect them? How?
***
These situations are fact-specific. But if you want to read about some real life instances, go to the google “CANLII” which will take you to a legal search engine, then choose Ontario or BC from the list, and enter “picketing labour dispute” or “picketing abortion clinic”. Or “environmental protest”.
But remember that police now say that they can ignore them, so these efforts to achieve legal protection from the Courts may be in vain.
My point is this: we have to understand that if group action grants practical immunity to engage in illegal behavior, then there is likely to be a lot more of it; because there are any number of groups with grievances about one thing or another or who seek attention for their cause.
Remember the Tamils who closed the main traffic artery into Toronto in 2009, because in their view, the federal government was not vigorous enough in involving itself in the civil war in Sri Lanka?
Maybe we'll have to go back to getting private bailiffs to enforce court orders if the police will not do their job.
Who decided that the police, apart from operational concerns, can exercise their own discretion in the enforcement of court orders and public order laws? The police themselves?
It was pronounced in a judicial enquiry after the Ipperwash occupation in which an aboriginal protester was shot and killed - which, if memory serves, resulted in criminal charges against the cop in question, but also a pronouncement by an enquiry commissioner that public safety was far more important than restraining law breaking or making miscreants pay for the damage they caused - or its corollary: providing compensation to those injured or discomfited by the unlawful interference. And it remains to be seen whether civil actions against derelict police departments will produce financial compensation or governments will cough up cash to assuage angry citizens. And to be clear: none of that is inconsistent with a robust right to engage in public protest. Just not necessarily on University Avenue, in Toronto, blocking access to public hospitals. As I said: there is always a question or balance involved.
The only thing I learned from 30 years covering Montreal riots is that the cops can’t win in the court of public opinion. So off come the badges and bodycams when the matraques and helmets are handed out.
Somewhere along the way, the police services have anointed themselves in charge of the operational aspects of the dispute mechanisms AND whether they will bother with the obligations they are sworn to uphold. This is an obvious conflict of interest that leaves the political masters holding the bag. The police departments must have autonomy to make the operational decisions with available resources, but politicians have to answer to the public and ensure that the law is enforced.
What is unfolding is a police department hierarchy of acceptable lawlessness. The low hanging fruit like DUIs and traffic infractions are eagerly pursued and yet public spaces are allowed to be overrun by encampments, scaring young families away. Hard drugs are consumed in public and drunkenness and drug induced behaviour is normalized. And increasingly, mobs are allowed wide discretion to bring traffic and commerce to a standstill.
This is going to end up badly. Our social contract for peace and order with each other is rotting away right in front of our eyes.
Today, police budgets are going through the roof with generous pay packets and pensions, which can be justified for the dangers of the occupation. But it’s fair to wonder: Is society is getting their money’s worth?
Maybe I've misread you, Mr Wells, but your piece sounds a bit, well, soft (for lack of a better word) on these protesters and the police that's monitoring the situation? I lived through that Ottawa Occupation. It really was psychologically damaging to a great number of people, myself included. That kind of damage takes a lot of time and patience to fix, if ever. I can only slightly imagine what some Jewish Canadians might be going through in those areas of Toronto right now. But with the added layer of a given ethnic hatred to the mix? I cannot possibly imagine what that's like. I don't think it's right for these protests to be near actual Jewish places of business or residences. They need to be held elsewhere; not there. I haven't heard of Jewish Canadians holding protests in majority Middle Eastern Muslim communities. Why is this particular group seemingly getting a pass?
From CTV Winnipeg-"CN Rail has launched a lawsuit against a group of pro-Palestine protesters who set up an hours-long blockade on train tracks in Winnipeg. Now, CN Rail is seeking damages from the protesters, along with a permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing on CN railway lines in Manitoba." It will be interesting to see if this succeeds and if they extend it to other groups who regularly like to block railway tracks.
Unless I have misread or misinterpreted the intent of the article Mr. Wells has captured truly salient points of the significant problems associated with policing democratic freedoms in this complex age. Police have a mediational role in what has become a bivariate distribution on a wide variety of social issues normally charged with well entrenched beliefs. In addition, with regards to the police response, we wish to assign blame, where such issues intersect, dependent upon our perspective. Notwithstanding that obvious observation, and not being, to any extent, an expert on policing, it should be stated that failing selective enforcement of the law in the most conspicuous cases leads to escalation and emboldens those who escape prosecution. While not mentioned in the article the charge of political leanings influencing policing decisions is of increasing concern. It was, in Ipperwash, and is, a concern where Indigenous rights of self-government have yet to be decided and in any other situation where political gain or loss will result from police response. This uncertainty undermines police response and combines with leadership deficiencies to lead to either volatile or ineffective action. The police are simply left with decisions for which there will seldom be support from any level of government and thus tend ever towards no action at all.
This is a good read. I was in agreement 100 percent when I read it, but now I am rethinking it in light of the arrest of David Menzies. What the heck is going on in this country?
Very reasonable. My question is where is the tipping point with groups such as these Hamas supporters. The Jewish population is already wary and hesitant of travelling within Toronto. Elements of this group screaming for the death of all Jews. Lessons learned are from past experiences and one wonders what action and results will be coming dealing with this most recent problem. I suspect that there will be new learnings for the police and for us as Canadians.
An interesting read. Police are the most scrutinized organization around. Cdn police have the right attitude of letting folks do their thing until that starts to become violent. Then that needs to be ended quickly. The pro palestine folk are pushing the envelope of tolerance and soon I hope, they stop.
It is hard to be a police officer. Many in the community will dislike you simply because you are part of the police. Others will treat you as somehow different. It's no wonder that, among police officers I have known, most have only other police officers as friends.
So the police are walking a tightrope. No matter the level of their strictness or complaisance, they will be criticized. It does not help that, like other helpers in our society, social workers, educators, and so on, they are subject to fads, e.g. the "no broken windows" doctrine. Doctrines change and police officers may be caught flat-footed (no pun intended). Add to that, policing is inherently a more dangerous occupation than most, and some police reactions become more understandable, even if not laudable. Situations can be scary.
I expect that the strictness of policing will swing like a pendulum, back and forth.
As to injunctions, I agree that police must have some discretion as to how to enforce them. But that discretion is quite limited, in my view. Many injunctions are issued just because time is of the essence. If so, delay will defeat the entire purpose of the injunction, and irreparable harm may ensue.
Anyway, a difficult subject, and a discussion that will continue indefinitely.
I find your writing on this topic disturbing. Examples of what happens in American cities where everyone has a gun and Canada is like comparing apples and oranges. I agree that French police are over the top in their reaction, but then again France has a long history of tough approach with protestors. Our approach in Canada is one of confusion which leads the average person to think that the police refuse to do their job, side with protestors or are simply incompetent clowns, as in the Ottawa blockade. Protests today are violent, they are nothing like protest of 50 years ago. You have extremist elements who are bent on destruction using a protest as a mere pretext. What happened in Ottawa was unacceptable, the city was taken over by protestors who wanted to overthrow the elected government. So in your argument it is ok for the police to just stand by and taxpayers have to accept it. The media likes this kind of scenario because it makes for sensational news. In the Ottawa situation what we saw was chaos, the police could have apprehended the trucks as they approached city limits. There could have been more enforcement before they entered the city. But no the OPP and Doug Ford refused to budge, Ottawa Police did not know what to do, the chief being more of the bureaucrat than a police officer. The police could not even get a tow truck to move protesters. This idea of dialogue of de escalation is all very nice but in 2024 it simply does not work anymore. Protesters will do what they want and the police can stay in the coffee shop eating donuts on my dime, while the city burns.
I appreciate Paul trying to bring perspective to this issue, and I can even have some sympathy for the nearly impossible position law enforcement find themselves in.
However.
Let's be honest about protesting in 2024. The police will confirm my next points.
Many of today's 'protesters' are paid to do so - it's quite literally a pretty good job for them.
There are also tiers of paid protesters, financed by domestic and foreign interests:
- some are there to make overall numbers look more impressive
- some are there to fire up the crowd and lead chanting
- some are there to mock and intimidate locals, including the police
- some are there to lead and carry out vandalism, looting, and even violence
Among these paid protesters are the usual mix of true believers / useful idiots (many students and unemployed among them) who are there just to be part of 'something-something'. Even fewer are those noble souls who sincerely care and are committed to thoughtful, peaceful, meaningful protest.
So while I have sympathy for the police because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to cleaning up what are increasingly NOT peaceful protests, in the end the businesses and general citizens these protests actually negatively impact ultimately LOSE CONFIDENCE in both the police and the governments that employ them. This simply cannot end well.
It is clear that the "Freedom Convoy" and the "Pro-Palestine" protesters are VASTLY different in tone and intent, yet one was deemed a 'national emergency' necessitating the invocation of the federal Emergencies Act, and the other - well, at least to this point, is apparently not.
I am not suggesting the feds invoke the Emergencies Act again, but my point is the naked inconsistency of approach is noted by business owners and general citizens. This inconsistency will inevitibly lead to a return to the much more aggressive approach favoured by the French - it has to, or the result will be increased vigilantism by a frustrated populace who considers their police & governments to be inept, or worse, corrupt.
A civil society can only hold together when everyone clearly knows where the lines are.
Right now those lines appear to depend on where those crossing them rank in the victim hierarchy.
General public and businesses will quickly conclude in the futility of having hate speech, public obstruction, and vandalism laws when some protesters (or governments - hello Quebec) can violate them with impunity (and often government funding and public moral support) while others are immediately and very publicly demonized and charged.
Civil society will not hold long in this environment. Businesses will close and many citizens, including the immigrants that could help make our country better, will leave. They already have.
Those that remain will increasingly turn to crime and welfare as the only ways to survive.
This is the state of much of the world - just take a look around.
Canada used to be better. We are now sinking towards a future that is bleak, indeed.
If Canadians cannot put aside their cultural, political, and philisophical differences to craft a shared and positive narrative of what this country is, and could be, then Canada will cease to exist.
"Here's 50 years of research and history on policing from five different jurisdictions internationally, including a large number of cases of things going really horribly fucking wrong when the cops didn't do their prep work."
"But Paul, I've got a list of protesters I really don't like!"
Paul, you just don’t understand how uniquely dangerous these particular protestors are. That other protest was a peaceful celebration of democracy. Comparing that particular protest to this particular protest is like comparing apples to razor blades.
That’s why the police should bust skulls at this particular protest and bring coffee to that other particular protest. That protest is a bunch of troublemakers. This protest was noble citizens exercising their free speech rights. Wait… is it the other way around?
I never thought that you, AS A JOURNALIST, would come down on the side of this protest. The Media Bias is strong.
OK, I admit you almost had me there.
It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish satire from the real discourse these days. I appreciate your long view of things.
Excellent point.
As someone who was involved in both the Fairy Creek Old Growth protests (2020/2021), and the Truck Convoy demonstrations (2022) it has been interesting seeing people on the left and right stick to their tribes and push to deny the rights of commies, dirty hippies, fascists, and Nazis.
I find it interesting that people protesting environmental destruction face police who are essentially hired thugs, and treated with excessive violence, and occupiers harassing an entire region for three weeks are allowed to do whatever they please.
More context and further thoughts, from Notes
https://substack.com/@paulwells/note/c-46902663?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1k3eu
I should probably add this in the comments under the post, but it’s worth making clear that even the hardcore Police Liaison types anticipate cases where the police will have to go in and make arrests, sometimes with broadly-applied force. One of the officers I spoke to called it “dressing up,” as in “If we have to dress up and go in…”
But even (they’d say especially) when that happens, liaison work continues, as it did on the weekend when the police finally cleared out the Convoy. Clear explanation of what’s about to happen. Clear exit behaviours and exit paths (“If you go out the street on your left and keep going, you won’t be interrupted,” or some such). The work of differentiation between peaceful and lawbreaking participants would continue.
The other thing I’d say is that “dressing up” and going in isn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision, so it’s a lousy response to a momentary flare-up like some assholes shouting death threats. My main question when I read about Ian Tomlinson was, how the hell did the centre of London deteriorate to the point where a police driver was wandering around on foot with a baton, looking for targets to whack? I think police forces are trying to get better at staying organized, whether they stay away from physical enforcement or decide it’s time to do some.
Here's some fun reading about the good old days when the police did real crowd control. https://activehistory.ca/blog/2021/05/21/gastown2021/
This line says it all...
"Despite the Inquiry’s conclusion that the actions of the police had undermined public safety, Dohm ultimately exonerated the police department and the Attorney General did not lay any criminal charges against the officers who were involved in the melee (although one constable was reprimanded). "
Holding police accountable for deliberate and premeditated violent behaviour is very difficult.
Almost a year ago, in the context of the "convoy protests", I wrote, in this forum, as follows:
***
About a dozen years ago, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court, had to deal with an aboriginal blockade of a national rail line near Sarnia. There was no genuine land claim involved. It was a purely political gesture, designed to attract attention in Ottawa; and as usual, the people who were being targeted (a railway and its customers), had nothing to do with the dispute, even though they were both losing a lot of money. Because - as is now customary - the police were refusing to enforce an injunction that had been issued in order to bring the unlawfulness to an end.
This is what Judge D.M. Brown had to say about the situation at the time:
"With all due respect to the Sarnia Police, local police agencies cannot ignore judicial orders under the guise of contemplating how best to use their tactical discretion. Such an approach would have the practical effect of neutering court orders. It is not the purpose of a court order simply to initiate talks or consultations between the police and those whom the court has found to have breached the law. A court order is not one amongst several chips to be played in an ongoing contest between the police and transgressors of legal rights. On the contrary, a court order is intended to initiate the process of bringing unlawful conduct to an end in a short period of time so that the harm which the court has found to be irreparable is brought to an end. " [See: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Plain et al. [2012] 114 O.R. (3d) 27 [2012] ONSC 7356]
Once upon a time, long ago, that was both “the law” and the “social expectation” – as it still is in respect of regulating picketing and labour disputes. But that is not the general case any more. Instead, the property and civil rights of citizens and businesses, can now be held hostage by virtually any grievance group that is sufficiently determined to mount a blockade; while, in the meantime, we are told, again and again, that police have an unreviewable discretion to enforce the law, or not, as they see fit.
Regardless the damage that is being caused to other interests, and also, so it seems, despite the Orders of Judges, whom the police believe they are free to ignore.
Thus, it is solemnly intoned, that no one (not even Judges?) must interfere with, or direct, how police do their jobs, (or don’t) because that would be to “politicize” law enforcement – as if non-enforcement were not a wholly political choice!
So Ottawa becomes like Caledonia. Only bigger. And “law enforcement” becomes a laughable misnomer - an oxymoron.
In the result, what was once once regarded as the ordinary “rule of law” and the expectations of civil society, have now been routinely abandoned in favour of the rule of the mob; and what used to be considered the property and “civil rights” of citizens have now become just matters for “negotiation” with the protesters – who, these days, can even count on having cheerleaders in Parliament, where talk is cheap and the established currency is hypocrisy. There is no law; only politics.
Thus, the reality, today, is that if the protesters camp out in your neighbourhood, or take over your local park, or block a bridge or a street, or a rail line, or impede access to a public institution, citizens have no assurance that it will be brought to a timely end. Nor will they necessarily have effective remedies if their interests are affected or ignored. Even if a former Chief Justice of Canada writes a scolding letter to the Globe and Mail!
For example, are the workers and the businesses in the Windsor area, going to be compensated for the unlawful interference with millions of dollars worth of cross-border economic activity? Are the citizens and the businesses of Ottawa going to be compensated for the unlawful nuisance to which they were undeniably subjected? Will the miscreants ever have to make restitution? We’ll see; but I doubt it, because obstruction and intransigence works.
And for that reason, I suspect that we will to see quite a lot more of this kind of thing. Only the locations, and the placards, and the “causes” will change. Because, all that has really happened here, is that populists have adopted the obstructive methods of progressives and aboriginals, and they have learned, like their predecessors, that they can do so with relative impunity. And that is a recipe for imitation and repetition.
==============================================================
That is what I pessimistically wrote some months ago; and just as predicted, we are now seeing yet more examples of illegal behaviour, injurious to personal and economic interests of Canadian residents, that is simply ignored by the police, so that citizens are left in situations where, practically speaking, the law can be broken, and damage can be inflicted and there are no effective legal constraints. Nor - AND THIS IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT -- is there a means of redress or compensation from the usually anonymous mob.
In the result, and in these Charter-infused times, the purported freedom to protest has been extended, with impunity, far beyond its actual legal limits.
So, the question becomes whether this will continue to be tolerated or whether, instead - as began to happen in Ottawa - citizens and property owners (I know the mention of "property" may irritate progressives) will choose to resort to self help and to physical resistance and private security measures. Moreover, if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too. But in the meantime, security companies will prosper and expand. How long will it be before there are burly security personnel in every small business, library, public institution or even school, lest some grieving group choose it as the locus for protest about one thing or another? Because a lot of controversial things, certainly take place in libraries, so any number of groups could be tempted to nuisance or public mischief, if they knew they could get away with it and earn some headlines or on-line notice.
Unless Judge Brown wanted to enforce his own orders, he kind of needed the police to do it. From the Stubbs interview:
"Sometimes, circumstances — and even courts — can constrain police choices. “If there's an injunction by the Supreme Court — and that's often what I was dealing with. There's a [provincial] Supreme Court judge that says there's an injunction here; for argument's sake, that road, that building, that area shall be cleared, so the applicants, usually industry, can do their job. So we have that judicial demand put on us. So that does force our hand.
Only up to a point, however. “I can tell you that, in my experience, with some of this, the industry, when they get these things, you know, they get it on a Monday, they say, 'Okay, go Tuesday, open it up.' And we will take multiple, multiple steps. It could be six weeks before we do anything. And people don't realize that. They think, ‘Oh, they go in there, like, this quick.’ That's not the case. We are lobbying governments; we're working with the protesters; working with industry; trying to get an understanding of where everybody's at, before we go in.
“And again, it's hard to please everybody. It's a no-win situation for police. The protesters are upset. Industry wants it done tomorrow. Government wants this. To have all the stakeholders say, 'perfect job?' Rarely does that happen. So it's an activity, that enforcement activity, that will always come with unhappy people. Generally. “
Hey, if you can quote yourself at epic length, so can I.
Key phrase from Richard:
"if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too"
Hello MAGA. These are the trends that feed the swing to the right.
He missed the point that judges in Canada aren't political. They can make decisions based purely on points of law and not fear repercussions from politicians.
Yes. The law can be ignored, by those empowered to enforce it, but not without consequences.
And in the case of unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes (which is another form of protest and communication that is Charter protected), there is a sensible balance reached between the institutional interests in play, including the courts and the cops.
Similarly with respect to anti-abortionists blocking access to clinics that supply abortion information or engage in this regulated but lawful practice.
Once upon a time, those were enforced too. But today? who knows?
So, I don't prejudge where that balance is, between tolerating law breaking and restraining it in particular cases.
I merely note that, at some point, those who look to the law to protect their interests, might resort to self help, as the Ottawa communities did, blocking vehicles that were invading their neighbourhoods and causing a legal nuisance despite an injunction restraining the illegal bits.
Or businesses, churches, libraries, etc. who may now have to engage private security; or mobilize their own squad of 'protectors'.
Do we want protesters blocking access to churches and synagogues or Mosques, or Mount Sinai Hospital (!), to send their "message"? What do you think the police would likely do, if Division 52 or Division 14, was blockaded by anti-police protesters (certainly a foreseeable situation).
So I just note that we are on a slippery slope that can lead to a lot of potential grief.
"unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes"
Like what?
I am unsure about Mr. Wells’ views about dialogue between his readers, but I will answer your question anyway.
***
Peaceful picketing in connection with a lawful labour dispute, for the purpose of communicating information about the dispute, is perfectly OK – at least if the picketing occurs at the location of the employer involved in the dispute (e.g. a factory or warehouse or retail establishment).
Picketing for this purpose – to communicate information about the labour dispute - may entail stopping vehicles or people who want to enter or leave the “struck site” in the course of pursuing their own lawful business dealings with the struck employer. That is their “rights”.
Preventing people from entering or leaving, obstruction for other than the short amount of time necessary for communication, damaging the trucks (broken windows, punctured tires, structural damage, assaulting the drive, spray paint breaking windows, etc. would all be unlawful. So would occupying the building to prevent its operation or assaulting persons who wanted to do business with the struck one, despite the picketing.
But whether the police stop any of this or lay charges is now uncertain, especially if the police are not willing to use force…so does the driver or the trucking firm or the blockaded business just accept the damage and loss? And if there is an injunction purportedly banning or regulating the protest can police ignore it? What are the remedies for citizens or businesses if the police will not stop an ongoing illegality? And so on.
***
Similarly, accosting women seeking to get access to abortion information or services, raises the same kind of question, especially when the women have no interest in being berated or bothered or blocked by anti-abortion zealots. Will police protect them? How?
***
These situations are fact-specific. But if you want to read about some real life instances, go to the google “CANLII” which will take you to a legal search engine, then choose Ontario or BC from the list, and enter “picketing labour dispute” or “picketing abortion clinic”. Or “environmental protest”.
But remember that police now say that they can ignore them, so these efforts to achieve legal protection from the Courts may be in vain.
My point is this: we have to understand that if group action grants practical immunity to engage in illegal behavior, then there is likely to be a lot more of it; because there are any number of groups with grievances about one thing or another or who seek attention for their cause.
Remember the Tamils who closed the main traffic artery into Toronto in 2009, because in their view, the federal government was not vigorous enough in involving itself in the civil war in Sri Lanka?
Maybe we'll have to go back to getting private bailiffs to enforce court orders if the police will not do their job.
Who decided that the police, apart from operational concerns, can exercise their own discretion in the enforcement of court orders and public order laws? The police themselves?
It was pronounced in a judicial enquiry after the Ipperwash occupation in which an aboriginal protester was shot and killed - which, if memory serves, resulted in criminal charges against the cop in question, but also a pronouncement by an enquiry commissioner that public safety was far more important than restraining law breaking or making miscreants pay for the damage they caused - or its corollary: providing compensation to those injured or discomfited by the unlawful interference. And it remains to be seen whether civil actions against derelict police departments will produce financial compensation or governments will cough up cash to assuage angry citizens. And to be clear: none of that is inconsistent with a robust right to engage in public protest. Just not necessarily on University Avenue, in Toronto, blocking access to public hospitals. As I said: there is always a question or balance involved.
The only thing I learned from 30 years covering Montreal riots is that the cops can’t win in the court of public opinion. So off come the badges and bodycams when the matraques and helmets are handed out.
That would be a good opportunity for them to lose in the "court" of their boss firing them.
Somewhere along the way, the police services have anointed themselves in charge of the operational aspects of the dispute mechanisms AND whether they will bother with the obligations they are sworn to uphold. This is an obvious conflict of interest that leaves the political masters holding the bag. The police departments must have autonomy to make the operational decisions with available resources, but politicians have to answer to the public and ensure that the law is enforced.
What is unfolding is a police department hierarchy of acceptable lawlessness. The low hanging fruit like DUIs and traffic infractions are eagerly pursued and yet public spaces are allowed to be overrun by encampments, scaring young families away. Hard drugs are consumed in public and drunkenness and drug induced behaviour is normalized. And increasingly, mobs are allowed wide discretion to bring traffic and commerce to a standstill.
This is going to end up badly. Our social contract for peace and order with each other is rotting away right in front of our eyes.
Today, police budgets are going through the roof with generous pay packets and pensions, which can be justified for the dangers of the occupation. But it’s fair to wonder: Is society is getting their money’s worth?
Maybe I've misread you, Mr Wells, but your piece sounds a bit, well, soft (for lack of a better word) on these protesters and the police that's monitoring the situation? I lived through that Ottawa Occupation. It really was psychologically damaging to a great number of people, myself included. That kind of damage takes a lot of time and patience to fix, if ever. I can only slightly imagine what some Jewish Canadians might be going through in those areas of Toronto right now. But with the added layer of a given ethnic hatred to the mix? I cannot possibly imagine what that's like. I don't think it's right for these protests to be near actual Jewish places of business or residences. They need to be held elsewhere; not there. I haven't heard of Jewish Canadians holding protests in majority Middle Eastern Muslim communities. Why is this particular group seemingly getting a pass?
From CTV Winnipeg-"CN Rail has launched a lawsuit against a group of pro-Palestine protesters who set up an hours-long blockade on train tracks in Winnipeg. Now, CN Rail is seeking damages from the protesters, along with a permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing on CN railway lines in Manitoba." It will be interesting to see if this succeeds and if they extend it to other groups who regularly like to block railway tracks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cn-rail-blockades-lawsuit-hits-wet-suwet-en-gitxsan-supporters-opposing-northern-bc-coastal-gaslink-1.5550893
Teal Jones is doing the same against some of the Fairy Creek protesters.
Any result after almost 4 years ?
I don't know. Do you normally get good results when you order people to do your research on comment boards?
I don’t think Jon was ordering you. He was simply believing in your god-like status of knowing all. 🤓
Thanks Bill , you got it right !
Foolish me I thought my paid subscription included free research!! HaHA !!
I have written to CN asking the result and will advise if they
respond.
Unless I have misread or misinterpreted the intent of the article Mr. Wells has captured truly salient points of the significant problems associated with policing democratic freedoms in this complex age. Police have a mediational role in what has become a bivariate distribution on a wide variety of social issues normally charged with well entrenched beliefs. In addition, with regards to the police response, we wish to assign blame, where such issues intersect, dependent upon our perspective. Notwithstanding that obvious observation, and not being, to any extent, an expert on policing, it should be stated that failing selective enforcement of the law in the most conspicuous cases leads to escalation and emboldens those who escape prosecution. While not mentioned in the article the charge of political leanings influencing policing decisions is of increasing concern. It was, in Ipperwash, and is, a concern where Indigenous rights of self-government have yet to be decided and in any other situation where political gain or loss will result from police response. This uncertainty undermines police response and combines with leadership deficiencies to lead to either volatile or ineffective action. The police are simply left with decisions for which there will seldom be support from any level of government and thus tend ever towards no action at all.
This is a good read. I was in agreement 100 percent when I read it, but now I am rethinking it in light of the arrest of David Menzies. What the heck is going on in this country?
Having worked with Ezra Levant, I suspect both Menzies and Trudeau’s security team sought the confrontation.
Trudeau's team should know better, if that's the case. They ended up looking way worse than Menzies did.
Menzies always looks like a clown.
The test will be whether that security detail
member is reassigned.
Very reasonable. My question is where is the tipping point with groups such as these Hamas supporters. The Jewish population is already wary and hesitant of travelling within Toronto. Elements of this group screaming for the death of all Jews. Lessons learned are from past experiences and one wonders what action and results will be coming dealing with this most recent problem. I suspect that there will be new learnings for the police and for us as Canadians.
Are they actually "Hamas supporters"? What do you base that description on?
An interesting read. Police are the most scrutinized organization around. Cdn police have the right attitude of letting folks do their thing until that starts to become violent. Then that needs to be ended quickly. The pro palestine folk are pushing the envelope of tolerance and soon I hope, they stop.
"The pro palestine (sic) folk are pushing the envelope of tolerance"
How, exactly?
It is hard to be a police officer. Many in the community will dislike you simply because you are part of the police. Others will treat you as somehow different. It's no wonder that, among police officers I have known, most have only other police officers as friends.
So the police are walking a tightrope. No matter the level of their strictness or complaisance, they will be criticized. It does not help that, like other helpers in our society, social workers, educators, and so on, they are subject to fads, e.g. the "no broken windows" doctrine. Doctrines change and police officers may be caught flat-footed (no pun intended). Add to that, policing is inherently a more dangerous occupation than most, and some police reactions become more understandable, even if not laudable. Situations can be scary.
I expect that the strictness of policing will swing like a pendulum, back and forth.
As to injunctions, I agree that police must have some discretion as to how to enforce them. But that discretion is quite limited, in my view. Many injunctions are issued just because time is of the essence. If so, delay will defeat the entire purpose of the injunction, and irreparable harm may ensue.
Anyway, a difficult subject, and a discussion that will continue indefinitely.
They have the power to do serious harm to citizens, and do it legally, so it puts them into a very different category than anyone else for sure.
I find your writing on this topic disturbing. Examples of what happens in American cities where everyone has a gun and Canada is like comparing apples and oranges. I agree that French police are over the top in their reaction, but then again France has a long history of tough approach with protestors. Our approach in Canada is one of confusion which leads the average person to think that the police refuse to do their job, side with protestors or are simply incompetent clowns, as in the Ottawa blockade. Protests today are violent, they are nothing like protest of 50 years ago. You have extremist elements who are bent on destruction using a protest as a mere pretext. What happened in Ottawa was unacceptable, the city was taken over by protestors who wanted to overthrow the elected government. So in your argument it is ok for the police to just stand by and taxpayers have to accept it. The media likes this kind of scenario because it makes for sensational news. In the Ottawa situation what we saw was chaos, the police could have apprehended the trucks as they approached city limits. There could have been more enforcement before they entered the city. But no the OPP and Doug Ford refused to budge, Ottawa Police did not know what to do, the chief being more of the bureaucrat than a police officer. The police could not even get a tow truck to move protesters. This idea of dialogue of de escalation is all very nice but in 2024 it simply does not work anymore. Protesters will do what they want and the police can stay in the coffee shop eating donuts on my dime, while the city burns.
very informed and reasonable. when there's chaos we want to resort to order and strength. That doesn't necessarily work.
I appreciate Paul trying to bring perspective to this issue, and I can even have some sympathy for the nearly impossible position law enforcement find themselves in.
However.
Let's be honest about protesting in 2024. The police will confirm my next points.
Many of today's 'protesters' are paid to do so - it's quite literally a pretty good job for them.
There are also tiers of paid protesters, financed by domestic and foreign interests:
- some are there to make overall numbers look more impressive
- some are there to fire up the crowd and lead chanting
- some are there to mock and intimidate locals, including the police
- some are there to lead and carry out vandalism, looting, and even violence
Among these paid protesters are the usual mix of true believers / useful idiots (many students and unemployed among them) who are there just to be part of 'something-something'. Even fewer are those noble souls who sincerely care and are committed to thoughtful, peaceful, meaningful protest.
So while I have sympathy for the police because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to cleaning up what are increasingly NOT peaceful protests, in the end the businesses and general citizens these protests actually negatively impact ultimately LOSE CONFIDENCE in both the police and the governments that employ them. This simply cannot end well.
It is clear that the "Freedom Convoy" and the "Pro-Palestine" protesters are VASTLY different in tone and intent, yet one was deemed a 'national emergency' necessitating the invocation of the federal Emergencies Act, and the other - well, at least to this point, is apparently not.
I am not suggesting the feds invoke the Emergencies Act again, but my point is the naked inconsistency of approach is noted by business owners and general citizens. This inconsistency will inevitibly lead to a return to the much more aggressive approach favoured by the French - it has to, or the result will be increased vigilantism by a frustrated populace who considers their police & governments to be inept, or worse, corrupt.
A civil society can only hold together when everyone clearly knows where the lines are.
Right now those lines appear to depend on where those crossing them rank in the victim hierarchy.
General public and businesses will quickly conclude in the futility of having hate speech, public obstruction, and vandalism laws when some protesters (or governments - hello Quebec) can violate them with impunity (and often government funding and public moral support) while others are immediately and very publicly demonized and charged.
Civil society will not hold long in this environment. Businesses will close and many citizens, including the immigrants that could help make our country better, will leave. They already have.
Those that remain will increasingly turn to crime and welfare as the only ways to survive.
This is the state of much of the world - just take a look around.
Canada used to be better. We are now sinking towards a future that is bleak, indeed.
If Canadians cannot put aside their cultural, political, and philisophical differences to craft a shared and positive narrative of what this country is, and could be, then Canada will cease to exist.
Excellent & very accurate take, CoolPro.