"New Taser Policy"

The Globe and Mail recently discussed a revision to the RCMP's contraversial taser policy. That is, the new policy "allows officers to fire multiple shocks to control people under certain circumstances." The RCMP state that individuals who display 'excited delirium' can be subject to taser treatment. This described as a potentially fatal “state of extreme mental and physiological excitement that is characterized by extreme agitation, hyperthermia, hostility, exceptional strength and endurance without apparent fatigue.” To recognize people of this nature, RCMP officers are now required to take two day twenty hour course.

My Critique
My past postings on the topic of taser-use should give some indication on the direction of my argument. I thought it would be fair to keep readers updated on the issue. Furthermore, the facts prove that numerous people have died as a result of tasers. How far will this policy go? In other words, considering the most recent death of Robert Dziekanski at a Vancouver airport, how many more people must die to support a serious re-evalaution of this policy?

Advocacy of the Devil
Unfortunately, in the media, we only hear about the worst of the worst taser situations. Is it possible that critics of this policy simply overlook the unstable and dangerous situations that police sometimes experience? It is important to understand the notion that tasers are meant for control not punishment. In effect, police need to be empowered to make the best, and somtimes necessary decisions.

"Chomsky Discusses Abuse of Political Power"

In this clip American linguist, professor, and political activist, Noam Chomsky, discusses some detail of his new book - Failed States: the Abuse of Power and Assault on Democracy.

It is very interested how Chomsky defines the United States as a 'failed state' or 'rogue state.' He describes how the Bush Administration, the highest level of U.S. authority, exemplifies the greatest abuse of power both nationally and internationally. For example, the Bush Administration was very aware that the Iraq invasion would increase the probability (by more than 50%) of a future nuclear attack in the United States within the next decade. In other words in relation to the United States, Chomsky argues that "surely its a terrorist state under its own defition of national terrorism." In the clip, Chomsky goes on to discuss instances of 'agressive militarism' displayed by the Bush Administration. The way Chomsky puts everything in perspective is quite chilling; it opens your eyes to what many often overlook.

"Brad Wall Excited About the Future of SK"

Although it is slightly off topic of this blog, I thought it would be interesting to share my most recent political experience. After the recent election, Saskatchewan's new premier, Brad Wall, has expressed a high level of confidence about the future of our province. Today, his view became a little more clear for me. In other words, Mr. Wall came into my place of work and proceeded to shake my hand and discuss a little politics. Most notably, he expressed his great appreciation for the fact that I intend to stay in Saskatchewan as a soon-to-be university graduate. Not only did his attention feel genuine, it made me feel like, as a young professional, I'm going to be part of something important-the future of Saskatchewan.

"Supreme Court has the Power..."

On November 1st, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that police now have the right to interrogate suspects beyond their constitutional right to silence. The decision was not unanimous as four of nine judges were not in favour of the favour of the ruling. According to a National Post article, this rulimg only contributes to more wrongful convictions. In other words, several critics suggest that if criminal suspects lose their pre-trial right to silence, there is a higher probability that more innocents may be convicted.

My Critique
First of all, how much confidence can Canadians have in the constitution if the supreme court can simply overturn individual rights when they feel its necessary? On a political and judicial level, the supreme court has an insurmountable amount of power. As a result, decisions like this need more investigation and review to determine the possible implications. It is chilling to think the supreme court can simply disregard constitutional rights-this notion weakens our constitution.

Advocacy of the Devil
Politics are dynamic and, as a result, our systems need the ability to adapt and evolve. In effect, the supreme court is empowered to make decisions which may not always coicide with older legislation. Maybe these critics should realize how this ruling will only help police in thier efforts to put criminals where they belong.

"B.C. Government Engages in Secrecy"

In a recent west coast article, "An unhealthy culture of secrecy and spin-doctoring," reporter Stephen Hume argues that the British Columbia government has been anti-democratic in their failure to disclose information which should be available to the public. For instance, the B.C. provincial government allegedly removed information from public documents that exposes unethical procurement by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. More specifically, passages were removed that stated how sexually abused children felt "neglected, isolated and short-changed by government." In addition, documents were censored that proved that the ministry recently spent $560,000 "on a luxurious redesign of its executive offices." Hume goes on to discuss several other instances of unethical censorship and secrecy in Canadian politics.

If democracy means that power ultimately lies in the people who elect our leaders, then it is difficult to label Canada as a 'true democracy.' Do our governments not owe us the right to disclose information that directly pertains to not only our tax dollars, but our youth in this case? As a young politically active voter, it makes me second guess the governments we elect.

"Cops Avoid Criminal Records"

How can you avoid a criminal record after driving drunk and assaulting innocent people? Easy, become a cop. In a recent news article, Chad Skelton discusses an instance of 'disgraceful' drunken antics by two Ridge Meadows RCMP officers. Last May around 3am, RCMP Const. Hughson and Frazer left a Maple Ridge bar in truck while being "highly intoxicated." Soon after, they spotted a man, Colin Frederick, walking home quietly. They stopped their truck and proceeded to physically assault Frederick stating they were "police with power." In addition, later that night the two off-duty intoxicated officers stopped another man riding his bike. As a result, they claimed he wasn't wearing a helmet so they threw bike about fifteen down the road.

Although both officers were eventually charged, both avoided registering criminal records. In other words, their punishment was the loss of 10 days pay and simply to attend an alteranative measures program.

My Critique
This is a perfect example of cops who think they are above the law. These two men are obviously power-hungry because if I get drunk, I don't drive around and beat people up. This incident reminds me of the cops in the recent movie: Superbad. Furthermore, this type of police dilinguence is absolutely inappropriate and embarrassing to the Police forces across Canada. The worst part is the preferential treatment by the courts to make the officers didn't get criminal records. What does that imply about our political and judicial systems? Or, in other words, how far can cops bend the system to justify their crimes? Does the law not apply to all citizens?

Advocacy of the Devil
Yes, these off-duty officers were in the wrong and deserve some form of punishment. However, giving them criminal records doesn't solve anything. If anything, it shows a lack of confidence in our policing systems. In all fairness, police are only human.