Comment by Worldwatch Institute researchers, Brian Halweil and Dani Nierenberg on how globalization, economics and poor animal husbandry are responsible for our current animal-borne epidemics.
The spread of mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth across Europe show that no country-including the United States-is immune to the threat of animal borne illnesses. Yet, in the U.S., industry and government officials are singing the same tune as British officials 15 years ago, when the British authorities consistently downplayed news of the emergence of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) or "mad cow" disease.
Globalized trade in goods and services, the movement of animals across borders, and the frequency of intercontinental airline travel means that no country is immune to mad cow or foot-and-mouth or any number of existing-or emerging-diseases. The recently completed Panamerican highway from Colombia to the United States virtually guarantees that foot-and-mouth-already a problem in South America-will make its way up to North America. A Brit with the foot-and-mouth virus hitchhiking on his shoes can board a plane in London and be on a Texas cattle farm in a matter of hours.
Since 1986, the year mad cow disease and its human version were detected in the UK, British meat has been shipped around the world. So have British feed products, which can harbor this poorly-understood illness that is fatal to humans. Mad cows have already shown up in France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, Ireland and Spain-a dozen countries in total. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has declared that all nations should consider themselves at risk, though many seem unprepared. A recent survey by U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that a frightening one in four American slaughterhouses and feed processing plants fail to comply with steps to prevent mad cow disease.
But simply worrying about the rapid spread of foot-and-mouth and mad cow doesn't really help us solve the problem, much less understand it. And to understand it you have to realize that mad cow and foot-and-mouth are related diseases. Not in any biological sense, but in terms of the economic environment that allows them to thrive.
The modern animal farm not only allows, but paves the way for the outbreak of disease. We cram thousands of genetically uniform animals into unhygienic warehouses, generating a virtual frat party for microbes. We recycle animal manure and slaughterhouse waste as feed. We process meat at break-neck speed in the presence of blood, feces, and other contagion. Long-distance transport of food creates endless opportunities for contamination.
The irony is that this model of food production-designed to put economic gain ahead of good animal health-doesn't make any economic sense in the long term. Mad cow alone has already cost Britain over $1 billion and sapped $5.6 million from EU coffers. The price tag for foot-and-mouth is likely to be equally devastating.
And these outbreaks represent just a glimpse of the full toll on society. The mountains of manure that factory farming generates foul our air and water, disrupting ecosystems and sickening rural communities. Antibiotic overuse in factory farms comes back to harm us in the form of newly drug-resistant microbes, including Salmonella, E. coli, and Camplyobacter. A recent study found that America's farm animals consume roughly 10 times as much antibiotics as the human population.
Still, industrial animal farming is spreading. It is the fastest growing form of animal production-responsible for nearly half of the world's meat, up from one-third in 1990. Though concentrated in North America and Europe, feedlots are popping up near urban centers in Brazil, the Philippines, China, India, and elsewhere in the developing world where demand for meat and animal products is soaring.
There is, of course, another way to produce meat, one which treats farms as living systems rather than assembly lines. It's no coincidence that mad cow has yet to be reported on organic farms throughout Europe which prohibit feeding of slaughterhouse waste, give animals access to the outdoors, and emphasize good animal health in general. In countries like Sweden, which have been able to prevent an outbreak with good animal husbandry, farmers have gained public trust and recaptured local markets. Healthy animals will also be the best defense against foot-and-mouth.
In Germany, the food scare has sparked an about-face on agricultural policy. After the first reports of mad cow, the prime minister replaced the agricultural minister with an environmentalist, and declared that agricultural policy and farm practices must resonate with environmental and public health goals. The European Union as a whole is posed for similar systematic reforms that reach beyond quick-fix solutions like animal quarantines and meat irradiation.
It's time American politicians-currently in denial-took the same path. We need reforms at the national level, but in the end, it's a global issue. Trade is global; disease is global, and protecting public health must become global too.
-- END --
Pledging Allegiance
by Tooker Gomberg and Kelly Reinhardt
Nov. 27, 2000
The Hague, Netherlands
On Friday we burned our Canadian passports. We did it in outrage at our country's deplorable performance at addressing the climate catastrophe, a.k.a. climate change. The Canadian government has been woefully lacklustre on the home front, but what set us off was Canada's negotiating position at the World Conference on Climate Change in The Hague, Netherlands.
Of 180 nations attending, the position of the Canadian government was the worst of them all. Bottom of the list, according to the International Non-governmental agencies that awarded "Fossils of the Day."
Day after day the Canadian delegation proposed loopholes to ensure the continued growth of their beloved petroleum industry, until finally the talks ended in failure. Coming to an agreement at the Hague was the first ecological test of the millennium for the governments of the world. Thanks to the intransigence of Canada, the United States, Japan and Australia the global community of nations failed the earth.
As Canadians, we hung our heads in shame amongst the global delegation at the conference. Just as in the 1960's US draft dodgers came to Canada as conscientious objectors, so too have our consciences pushed us to action.
There is a profound feeling of sadness knowing we may not be returning to our native land any time soon. We hope that our families and other Canadians understand that our commitment to the planet transcends borders, just as the environmental problems do.
An emission from a coal-fired power plant doesn't stay in the country it was produced, but travels freely in the atmosphere, creating smog, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Extracting and burning the oil from Alberta tarsands leads to islands disappearing in the Pacific. And the meltdown of the Arctic is well underway, as documented in a new film prepared by Canada's International Institute for Sustainable Development entitled: Sila Alongotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change (http://www.iisd.org/casl/projects/inuit_video.htm).
While the conference in The Hague was underway last week, Epcor, Edmonton's city owned electric utility had the temerity to announce the building of another massive 400 megawatt (million watt) coal fired power plant. Exactly the wrong thing to be doing if you care about the climate.
But the Canadian government has ensured a loophole, a scheme of trading so industry can continue abusing our mother -- just buy her flowers and trees once in a while and everything will be all right.
Alberta, remember, is the province that gave birth to the ultimate "carbon trade". TransAlta Utilities invested in cow farts in Uganda. By funding a switch to a diet that resulted in less methane being emitted by cow flatulence they earn a credit to pump carbon into our atmosphere by burning coal with abandon. Obscene, but true.
The scientific community is telling us clearly that we need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 60-80%. That means phasing out the use of fossil fuels, as Greenpeace urges, over the next three decades. The Kyoto agreement set a target of 5% reduction by 2012. Too small a step. Timidity won't get us where we need to go.
There is a most beautiful book entitled The Home Planet. It is an oversize collection of photographs of the earth from space. The photos and the words of people who have travelled off our home planet are transcendent. We are one people, dependent on one planet. There are no borders.
The photographs of the atmosphere show it as a thin layer, like the skin of an apple that blankets our planet and keeps the temperature just right. As we pump the exhaust from 500 million cars, and an exploding number of power plants, the thermostat is being cranked straight up, and the temperature is rising to dangerous levels.
So we must choose. Continue with business as usual, or get down to the work at hand. What's stopping our country from leading the transition to dramatic reductions in our need for energy, and massive investments in renewables like wind and solar? Only political will.
With little effort Canada could move from the end of the line to front place. Replacing all the windows in Canada with super efficient ones, and turning all our cities' organic waste into biogas, would get us to double our Kyoto target in ten years. So why all the kicking and screaming? According to the David Suzuki Foundation Canada, Canada could cut emissions by 50% and improve the economy to boot (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/energy/index.htm).
For now, we are remaining in the Hague, home of the World Court of Justice, seeking climate justice. Ecological justice. We are talking with lawyers and exploring our options.
When it comes right down to it, if you had to choose allegiance between
your country of citizenship, and the Earth that gives and sustains life,
which would you choose?
--------
Panhandlers challenge Ontario's
law
- Panhandlers and squeegeer's
have launched a constitutional challenge of Ontario's anti-panhandling
and anti-squeegee law.
Below is our "Notice of Constitutional Question" re Safe Streets Act.
Peter Rosenthal
Department of Mathematics
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada
rosent@math.toronto.edu
...................................................
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, (Toronto Region)
B E T W E E N
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent to Motion)
- and -
DAVID GORDON BANKS, DAVID BARRINGTON, JAMES BEACH,
BRUNO BELANGER, JAMES MARK BRODIRICK, KYLE BYE,
KELSEY MARIE CARTER, JESSE JOSEPH COLLINS, ERIC PAUL
COTE, FRANCOIS COUPAL, RONALD CRAVEN, DWAYNE FOLEY,
RICHARD GARCEAU, SHYAN GEORGE, CELINA HAY, TARYN LEWIS,
PATRICK JOSEPH McNEILL, MICHAEL BRIAN MOHAMMED, SHAWN
MORAN, MICHAEL NAUGLE, MICHAEL PILCH, SEBASTIEN ROY,
JAMIE ROBERT SMITH, PAUL NICHOLAS STERNS, JEFFREY
STEVENSON, BRUCE STONEY POINT, BRYAN JONATHAN THERRIEN,
CLINT DOUGLAS WOODS
(Defendants, Moving Parties)
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
The Defendants intend to question the constitutional
validity of sections 2, 3 and 7 of the Safe Streets Act,
Statutes of Ontario, 1999, Chapter 8 and section 177 of
the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8.
The question is to be argued on Tuesday the 13th day of
June, 2000 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, in Courtroom
125 at the Old City Hall in Toronto, Ontario.
.
The following are the material facts giving rise to the
constitutional question:
1. The Defendants are charged with violating various
subsections of the Safe Streets Act and/or section 177
of the Highway Traffic Act; their trials on the charges
are scheduled to proceed at 10 a.m. on June 13, 2000 in
Courtroom 125 at the Old City Hall.
2. The pith and substance of sections 2, 3 and 7 of
the Safe Streets Act and section 177 of the Highway
Traffic Act is the criminalizing of various forms of
begging.
3. The impugned sections are intended to be enforced
against indigent residents of Ontario but not against
others such as persons soliciting funds for charities.
4. Separately and taken together, the impugned
sections substantially restrict the liberty of the
needy to solicit alms.
5. Soliciting alms is a form of expression.
6. The impugned provisions have neither the purpose
nor the effect of increasing safety.
7. The impugned provisions are vague and overly broad.
8. Contravention of the impugned sections provides a
possible penalty of imprisonment for repeat offenders.
9. Such further facts as counsel may advise and this
Honourable Court may permit.
The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question:
1. The impugned sections are ultra vires the Province
of Ontario in invading the power to enact criminal law
which is exclusively reserved to the Government of Canada
under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
2. The restrictions on soliciting alms contained in
the impugned sections of the Acts contravene the rights
to life, liberty and security of the person pursuant to
section 7 of the Charter.
3. The vagueness and overbreadth of the impugned
sections are contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter.
4. The impugned sections infringe the right to freedom
of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Charter.
5. The impugned sections of the Acts discriminate
against poor persons within the meaning of section
15 of the Charter.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of May, 2000.
Roach, Schwartz & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
688 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, M6C 1B1
Peter Rosenthal
Solicitors for the Defendants
TO: The Attorney General of Ontario
Constitutional Law Division
7th Floor
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
Fax: (416) 326-4015
AND TO: The Attorney General of Canada
Suite 3400, Exchange Tower
Box 36, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
Fax: (416) 973-3004
AND TO: The Provincial Prosecutors Office
Attention: Ms. Karen Walker
Old City Hall
Toronto, Ontario
Fax: (416) 327-5787
........................................................
OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty), and possibly
other organizations, have launched this constitutional
challenge to Mike Harris's "Safe Streets Act." Mike
Harris is the right-wing Premier of Ontario who has
cut welfare and abolished funding for social housing.
Peter Rosenthal, who is both a math professor at the
University of Toronto and a criminal lawyer, is acting
for a number of persons who have been charged with
panhandling or squeegeeing under Ontario's
"Safe Streets Act"
I have heard Peter argue other cases on our behalf and
it is always a great pleasure to hear him argue in court.
You may want to be there on June 13, 10:00 am, room 125
at the Old City Hall, Bay and Queen Sts, Toronto.
The basic question is, as always:
"Is it the function of Justice to provide justice?"
Bob Olsen, Toronto
.............................................
Tories Pass
Teacher Code of Conduct Into Law, will Begin Collection of Personal Information
on Teachers
from Rick Jones kale@easynet.ca
The Minister of Education now has the authority to establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of teachers while they are at school. Specifically, "the Minister may establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of all persons in schools", which includes teachers.
In addition, no teacher is to be allowed to "enter or remain on school premises unless he or she is authorized by regulation to be there on that day or at that time", and the Minister may specify "classes of persons who are permitted to be on school premises" and may also specify "the days and times at which different classes of persons are prohibited from being on school premises". (It all happened when Mike's Marauders rushed Bill 81 through the Legislative Assembly, under the guise of a student code of conduct, in two weeks. I believe that Bill 81 is actually intended to control teachers, since there was already legislation in place to control students.)
Now, what is meant by "classes of persons"? Well, this government has been fond of using this term in various pieces of legislation, and it is usually "defined" like this:
"A class may be defined with respect to any attribute and may be defined to consist of or to exclude any specified member of the class, whether or not with the same attributes." (Sounds just a little arbitrary!)
I wonder when (if?) "union bosses" will be allowed to be on school premises? Could those in-school teachers who form their school's OSSTF executive be denied entrance to school premises?
Actually, it's quite scary, if you apply the definition of classes of persons to the section of Bill 81 that deals with suspensions: "The minimum and maximum duration" (of suspension) "may be varied by regulation, and different standards may be established ... for different classes of persons". Different standards for different classes of persons! Wow!
And I find it interesting that they don't specify "different classes of students", but instead use the phrase "different classes of persons", which could include teachers. Does this mean that teachers could be subjected to suspensions at the Minister's whim? But then, of course this government would never do anything to persecute teachers...
As to the collection of personal information, here is an excerpt from Hansard, 13A June, 2000. (13A because this government has deemed that one day may be two days for the purposes of time-defined proceedings.) A government spokesman, during 3rd reading debate of Bill 81 in the Legislative Assembly, said:
"One other area I want to touch!
on at this time is the collection of personal information about
persons and the request under the act to ask boards to collect this information.
It's important for every student to feel safe and secure at school. One
way of achieving this result is to ensure that students and parents know
that they can trust people working in schools. We know that the vast majority
of teachers and school staff have earned and deserve the respect of their
students. Still, as the Honourable Sydney Robins told us, we can do more
to ensure that children in schools are not abused by adults to whom they
are entrusted.
This government is committed to identifying more and better ways to help ensure the safety of Ontario's children. Justice Robins's report, Protecting our Students: A Review to Identify and Prevent Sexual Misconduct in Ontario Schools, recommended that the government introduce mandatory criminal background checks for everyone teaching or working in Ontario schools. In order to make a safer school environment for students ... we will have to collect specific information."
Here is the "specific information" that the government feels that it needs to collect on Ontario's teachers in order to ensure "safe schools":
Information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the teacher,
information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the teacher or information relating to financial transactions in which the teacher has been involved,
any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the teacher,
the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the teacher,
the personal opinions or views of the teacher except where they relate to another individual,
correspondence sent to an institution by the teacher that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
the views and opinions of any other person about the teacher.
Now, under Bill 81, the Minister may specify the manner in which the above personal information is to be collected on teachers. I am aware of two official definitions of the manner of collecting information. One is "directly" (by asking the person); the other is "indirectly" (by any other means). Which method do you think that Janet Ecker will use? (Don't forget that she is the same person who once said that storing an electronic representation (in an electronic database) of the pattern on the tip of a person's finger is not the same thing as fingerprinting.)
Note that this list goes far beyond "criminal background checks", and even includes hearsay (third party) "evidence".
Also note that there was absolutely no reason for including this language in Bill 81 to enable the collection of personal information on students; this government gave itself the right to secretly collect personal information on Ontario's students a few years ago, through the infamous Bill 160. No, it is teachers that they are after this time.
Bill 81 must be repealed/withdrawn along with Bill 74 before a humane work environment can return to Ontario's school system.
Regards,
Rick Jones
kale@easynet.ca
---------
The police union has called off its True Blue political fundraising campaign. Without a doubt the union's expensive lawyers groaned in horror Wednesday night as Craig Bromell and other officials dug a grave for themselves on CBC TV's the fifth estate. A highlight of the show was a shaken deputy police chief Robert Kerr saying he believed the union intended to release dirt on him unless he resigned.
Bully also seemed an appropriate title for the show as much of it was on Bromell's intimidation tactics and claims to be using private eyes to get the dirt on opponents. One key scene was of Mike Harris at his election victory speech referring to Bromell as head of the Toronto Police. Harris and his Tories have been supporters of the union and are really part of that same right-wing, pro police state faction.
Eye Magazine columnist Tom Lyons hit the nail on the head when he noted that politicians only acted when their own rights were threatened. Folks like Mel Lastman have no problem in supporting things like Target Policing that trample on the rights of the poor and ordinary citizens. They also enjoy beating up on squeegee kids and others at the bottom. Yet it's a different story when some of the same medicine is dished out to them.
Most shocking is that the public - as usual - was shut out of the debate. Lastman tried to cut a deal, and the actions of Mike Harris and his Solicitor-General David Tsubouchi could inspire another Fifth Estate show called - LIAR instead of BULLY.
First the Tories passed the fundraising law that led to the mess. Then when it exploded, Tsubouchi said it was a local issue so he wasn't getting involved. Later Harris said he had no opinion on True Blue.
The reason they are LIARS is that they then proceeded to try and cut a secret deal at the Royal York hotel. Craig Bromell, police board chair Norm Gardner, vice-chair Jeff Lyons and Gary Clewley, the union's lawyer, took part in talks set up by Tsubouchi. It wasn't handled through proper legal channels and ultimately got rejected by the Police Services Board.
Lyons and Gardner should resign for arranging and trying to sell a deal that stunk. It is more proof that these people have zero respect for the public they serve. This is just another back room deal to them. With Lyons the dispute with the police association is an odd one. He is a lobbyist for all sorts of corporations, yet sits on the board and doesn't like union political activity. Simply put - why doesn't he end his own lobbying while on the board?
Lastman, Lyons, Tsubouchi and many other councilors and Tories support excessive police powers - but only when they are in control of them and only when they are used against the little guy.
As strange as this sounds, maybe we should thank Craig Bromell. He showed the public the real face of the coming police state. Once they gain power they can't be controlled. Politically motivated police quickly disobey politicians and the corporations and lobbyists they represent.
They take over - and the way I see it they haven't been stopped yet. We really need the public involved in this issue. We should at least get to speak out at a public forum or two. Just as a sort of last gift from the politicians, before they finish in their handing over of society to bully police.
Okay so I'm dreaming again - this is the Megashitty, isn't
it. And there aren't any forums or assemblies for the public. How about
a back room somewhere in . . . .
--------
Lastman and Toronto Council out on Harris'
Limb - Feb.01.00
Imagine being out on a limb with police union head Craig Bromell sawing it off. Further imagine that you must call to Mike Harris for help in order to be saved. Only Mike is asleep in the cornfield - he hasn't heard tenants calling for help, or students or the disabled, etc. So he isn't going to hear you.
What you have just imagined may soon be reality for Toronto City Council, Mayor Lastman and the Police Services Board. This is because they passed a bylaw to block the low-blow political campaigning of Craig Bromell and his police union. Now lawsuits are on the fly and Mel Lastman has been gagged. Seems that Lastman's son Dale by chance works for the law firm representing the union.
Bromell has in fact hired expensive attorneys from a firm stacked with former premiers. And the nightmare he is awakening City Council to is that in their haste they failed to notice that their bylaw may not pass a legal test.
At this point they can't back down and they don't want to admit they are out on a limb. Their key problem is that a provincial law may override the bylaw, making Bromell the big winner. Another key problem or fact is that this whole mess was created by Mike Harris and his horrible Tory Government. In 1998 they changed the rules to allow police associations to hold fundraising drives. Something that never should've been done.
In the USA politically motivated police unions have created a police state. The prison population has shot up 500 percent, police brutality is rampant (LA, Seattle), politicians are regularly ruined by politically motivated police unions - heck, some people even note that prisons are now replacing all other social programs.
It is often said that Rodney King, not Columbus, discovered America. Perhaps if Craig Bromell gets his way, Rodney will discover Canada, too.
I don't think we need that sort of system here - yet I believe that the Tories would love to see it here. Craig Bromell worked in the last election, endorsing and building support for the Tories, and he did it because they share a common police state agenda. Both groups love to push the hot buttons of squeegee kids and juvenile offenders. The union even provided speakers for Harris campaign events.
Some Tories like to say that the political activities of the police union are not any different from those of other unions. And that is a lie. The actions of the police union definitely have a different meaning. The police association has enormous funding and power. If it runs telemarketing fundraisers and participates in electoral politics the way Craig Bromell wants, this enormous power will make police who enforce laws the political force that creates laws. Society will be unbalanced. Other citizens groups won't have the funds or power to be heard - it will be a police state.
City Council really is out on that limb. And so are some of Harris' cronies - keep in mind that police services board members Sylvia Hudson and Emilia Valentini are Tory appointees. And that Jeff Lyons knows his way around the Tory back rooms.
Will Harris sacrifice them to Bromell and his boys of black and blue? My guess is that he will. I think the Tories will sit it out in the cornfield and watch council and the rest holler for help. Mike won't save them with any changes to legislation while he can sit and watch Bromell saw away.
Splat to you all. Mike just loves the idea of the police state too much.
--------
City Hypocrisy in War on Police Union
- Jan.31.00 - Police Chief Boothby, with support from City Hall, now plans
to charge Craig Bromell and the police association over their political
activities. As these activities in regard to Operation True Blue violate
a new bylaw passed by the Police Services Board.
One person who wrote this site compared
Bromell to a bike gang leader. But we shouldn't forget that Mayor Lastman
and his Police Services Board are no friends of freedom and democracy either.
We
have Jeff Lyons, a lobbyist, on the Board aiding in the passing of a bylaw
prohibiting police political activity. And what about the unethical means
by which Toronto's new police chief was chosen. Norm Gardner, Jeffrey
Lyons, Mel Lastman and Tory appointees Sylvia Hudson and Emilia Valentini
suddenly rushed Julian Fantino into the job and rubber-stamped it on a
Sunday night. Two of the key candidates for the job dropped out in disgust
over the tactics used. And what makes it worse is that it was done because
they knew democratic opposition was developing.
It was also Lastman and some of
his councilors who pushed for the harsh laws that were enacted today against
squeegee kids.
Chief Boothby is now saying Bromell and
others will be fired without a hearing. And I suppose council will back
this.
Yet isn't it true that even the
leader of a bike gang deserves a hearing?
And isn't it true that if we don't
watch some of these champions of democracy, we'll all be in jail without
a hearing?
--------
Jeff Lyons - Harris Crony & Lobbyist on
Police Services Board - Jan.31.00 - As
the citizenry of Toronto debates the new Police Service Board bylaw to
halt Police Union political campaigns like Operation True Blue, another
story has appeared in the background.
Today's Toronto Star has an article
about advertisers bidding for space in subway shelters. Mediacom advertises
there now and Jeff Lyons is their lobbyist asking the city to give them
a new contract and forgo granting the space to the highest bidder. It is
revealed that Lyons lobbies for dozens of clients while at the same time
being a Police Services Board member.
Lyons is also the chap who feared
that the police union was using electronic bugs on him. He pushed for the
bylaw against political activity. Now the truth appears to be that a section
prohibiting lobbyists on the Police Services Board should be added.
Lyons is also a known crony of Mike Harris and
his provincial Tories.
Send an e-mail to the mayor at
megamel@cp24.com
his megamel show asking him to make the above
addition to the bylaw.
--------
Editorial - Bylaw Busts Police Union
Telemarketing Campaign
(Balancing of the Democratic Rights of Police is the Solution)
It's Jan.28.00 and the Toronto Police Services Board has just passed a bylaw to stop the Police Association's Operation True Blue. The bylaw bans police telemarketing campaigns and prohibits any member of the police from raising money for political activities. The board also wants the city's lawyers to get a court injunction to shut down the campaign.
This news site was about the first to attack Operation True Blue. And it also had harsh words for the unethical methods the Police Services Board used to choose Toronto's new police chief.
Many of the critics of the Police Association in the Big Media are now coming across as just union haters who want action taken in great haste.
There really are two important things to balance here, and that can't be done with fast injunctions. The first thing is that police officers, when out of uniform, must have full political rights in society. If they don't they won't have respect for the system of democracy they are protecting. A cop should be able to doff his uniform and participate in citizens groups and even raise funds.
The second important principle is that the Police Association is not an individual or citizens group but an institution in society. All institutions have certain limits on their power. The Association has enormous funds and powers at its disposal. If it participates in politics the way Craig Bromell wants, this enormous power would make the Police Association the Lawmaker. Most citizens groups have little money and have to use powers of persuasion to influence politicians. Threats don't work. Yet the police association, when politically involved, can make threats and once operating political campaigns they have the financial powers of a political party. The effect is to totally unbalance society, render citizens powerless and create the union as Lawmaker and Law enforcer - a form of police state.
The simple answer to social peace is a new dialogue to define the limits. Guarantee the off duty officer political rights and at the same time put limits on the association. If this is done the rebellious mood of most police officers will vanish and Bromell's stranglehold will be broken.
Gary Morton
Citizensontheweb.com
--------
Bromell takes Outlaw Stance as Chief and the Mayor Criticize Union's Politics - Jan.26.00
Toronto police union head Craig Bromell felt the heat today as high profile individuals attacked his Operation True Blue. True Blue is a telemarketing campaign that solicits money from the public to lobby and target politicians not toeing the association's party line.
Bromell says he's setting a precedent for other Canadian police unions to follow. In the United States police unions have gone farther than Bromell, doing things like holding non confidence votes on Police Chiefs that try to fight the union.
At today's meeting of the Police Services Board, politicians, activists, citizens, lawyers and police brass were in agreement on their opposition to the union's actions. Mayor Lastman went so far as to call the union political campaign "evil". Chief David Boothby denounced the union for unethical behaviour. Boothby thinks they've crossed the line.
After Bromell's comments it is beginning to look like that line leads to outlaw territory. He sees the Police Chief as having no real authority over the union brass. I use the term outlaw because even an ordinary citizen or a police opponent would negotiate with the Chief on an issue if there was public concern. At times the Chief has lashed out at activists, but discussion continued on issues. No one else wants to shut the Chief out when discussing police issues.
Probably everyone believes Craig Bromell can speak out on issues in public and in the media, as the Chief does. And most people also believe that telemarketing campaigns, stickers, and using money for low blow attacks on opponents is not what the police union should be doing. They should be behaving like police and not like revolutionaries or outlaws.
Mayor Mel Lastman wants a week to negotiate, so the next step is on hold until he is finished. The police services board has the power to terminate the union's campaign if it so chooses.
Gary Morton
--------
Citizens and Politicians Rumble
with Toronto Police Association - Jan.25.00
Mayor Lastman just notified me that he has forwarded a copy of my article Police Association Raids the Grassroots to police association head Craig Bromell.
That article was critical of the association's True Blue fundraising campaign so I guess I have to hope detectives won't be on my ass all the time. The association makes it no secret that it keeps tabs on its opponents by using detectives.
Those opponents are growing in number. Today the association announced it was suing Judy Sgro (she's now a federal Liberal MP) over remarks that she made on The Fifth Estate.
As a city councilor Sgro was on the Police Services Board. A Toronto Sun news report today has Sgro's criticism of a meeting between the police services board and police union officials. She says the union officials spent the time attacking her and that the encounter sent a clear message to the six other board members on how they would be treated if they dared speak out.
The Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Chinese Canadian National Council have questions about that September, 1998 private meeting between the Police Services Board and executives of the union. They fear the board has been unduly influenced by the intimidation tactics of the Toronto Police Association and president Craig Bromell. They have filed a formal complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
Howard Morton is also attacking the police association. He is the former head of the province's special investigations unit, which investigates deaths and serious injury involving police. Morton says the police association has portrayed itself as part of the police department in Operation True Blue. They've tried to shift us looking to the chief and the senior officers, to us looking towards the association as the leadership of the police generally.
The next juicy news item is on the new police-union car decals. Supporters of the association's Operation True Blue fundraising drive get a bronze, silver or gold decal bearing the Toronto Police Association's logo and the words Booster 2000. Judy Sgro says that to a police officer the sticker "means you're a friend." "If a person doesn't have a decal what will that mean?" she asked. "Will people contribute so they don't get a ticket?"
Next up - this evening's television news. I haven't the full facts, but the story claimed the law union is taking legal action against the police association over Operation True Blue. They are beginning by pressuring the police services board to act against the police union. "The direct approach to people by telephone requesting money has the strong smell of a protection racket or a shakedown," the Law Union of Ontario said.
The Law Union and others see the political activity as a violation of policing principles and interference in democracy. As of 1997, the police act specifically banned officers from getting involved in political activities. In 1998 the regulations allowed officers to run in elections as long as they aren't doing it in the municipality where they serve. Craig Bromell and his executives are not considered serving police officers. When elected to the union in 1997 they were ordered to clean out their lockers and hand in their guns, and their power of arrest was taken away.
To end let me say that it seems strange that last night at a speech by the privacy commissioner, I complained to her that no one was speaking out on Operation True Blue. Guess I was wrong because today a lot of people are doing that.
The rumble with the police association is on.
-------
Police Association Raids the Grassroots
- Jan.14.00 - Read the full article.
--------