|
|
| The Names | Growing Pains | Reader Comments |
| Links | Actions | Back to Index |
from the Toronto Sun
Friday, December 8, 2000
By HEATHER BIRD
So, is this what happens when you have the temerity to criticize the
Toronto Police? You are publicly accused of committing an assault and your
professional abilities are called into question. Then you are told your
picture will be taken and shown to all members of the force because they
have a right to know what you're "all about." Does this seem like a
reasonable response to some well-founded criticism? Or is it just a teeny,
weeny bit heavy-handed? Intimidating, even?
There was an ugly scene at Old City Hall in late October when the 14-4 -- the four 14 Division officers charged in the beating death of Otto Vass -- made their first court appearance.
To begin with, there was some shoving as journalists tried to claim seats in the tiny room and later, some 30 or so uniformed police officers formed a phalanx around the vehicle carrying the accused men. Cameramen trying to take pictures were roughly pushed aside while one officer urged the driver to "run 'em down." And when a photog complained, he was called an "asshole" and told "go f--- yourself."
Not surprisingly, the incident got some coverage in The Star, The Sun and The Globe. Afterward, Vass family lawyer Julian Falconer demanded an investigation.
"If armed police officers are behaving with open contempt to members of the public in broad daylight, then it's only fair to wonder what is happening to others in the back alleys after dark," I wrote. A smaller item two days later noted that many readers agreed.
There was a response, of sorts, published this week in Tour of Duty, the magazine for association members. Uniform Field Services director Andrew Clarke said that the media, in general, and myself, in specific, were the ones doing the shoving that day. ("Can you say assault?" he wrote.)
There was no reason to be taking pictures at that appearance, he argued. Some had already been taken that morning before the officers got to court and I would have known that, if only I was "smart enough."
"So how about this," he finished. "When next we meet, I'll be snapping your picture. Our members have a right to know exactly who this prophet of public opinion is and what she's all about. I'm sure you'd agree with that agenda because it's exactly the song you sing. See you in the news, Birdy!"
What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? Do the police really have a right to know about me? That I'll find myself in a story instead of writing one? That my picture -- which has appeared in this paper three times a week for six years -- will run in their magazine? To what end? So officers can deny me information or access at crime scenes? So they'll know who I am if I'm stopped in my car? Or is it, as was explained yesterday, merely a rhetorical statement in order to give me a taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end?
Is this really what's supposed to happen when you complain about a show of force? Open your mouth and be bullied for your troubles? (And from this end, it feels like an attempt to intimidate, despite association president Craig Bromell's assertion that it's not.)
It's not like this group doesn't have a history of it. Just ask the politicians who would have been targets for the private investigators the association planned to hire. Or the candidates who had their home phone numbers published during this past local election. Did they feel bullied? You bet. Were they wrong to feel that way?
Clarke misses the point when he argues that the media didn't need any more photos that day because they already had enough. In a democratic society, those who wield force are subject to public scrutiny. They do not get to control how, when and where that examination will take place, despite how much they feel it's their decision to make.
Now, lest I feel lonely, it should be said that lawyer Julian Falconer also came under fire in this issue. Falconer, according to Rick McIntosh, is really out for the money and publicity to be made by condemning the police. Reached yesterday, he noted that the show of force is continuing in this case, despite Bromell's public pledge it would stop.
"Maybe the union should hire a communications co-ordinator since we're getting a very mixed message," he said.
Bromell claims I'm overreacting by taking what Clarke has to say personally. I'm not at all troubled by his assertion that I'm not good enough to write my "drivel" every day. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Although I have to admit I'm hurt by one small thing.
He didn't spell my name right. "See you in the news, Birdy," he wrote. Doesn't he know it ends with an "ie?"
Reprinted under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law.
Send your comments and stories of police brutality to: ruitsdawtah@Hotmail.com
This page created December 18,2000
