Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

Most of these are common-sense changes, and I will likely introduce an amendment to further neuter the bill in due course.

Let's go through the senator's amendment point by point, just because I think it will shed light on how uncontroversial most of these changes should be.

The first change concerns the make-up of an oversight committee. The sponsor wanted to ban anyone related to a police officer from serving on these committees, but the fact is, we want these committees to resemble the makeup of the general civilian population. Like it or not, many people have family ties to police officers. Our communities value police officers. Having someone who might look at law enforcement in a more favourable light than someone else is going to happen no matter what; it's the nature of having diverse voices on the panel. I don't think people should be cut out of the loop just because of who happens to be in their family.

The second change has to do with the powers of the PORCs. The sponsor wants the PORCs (panels of civilians) to control the hiring and firing of officers. These civilians may not have any idea how a police force operates or what is sometimes necessary to be successful in this line of work, and, let's face it, they are easily influenced by sensationalized media stories. Frankly, I think the amendment's override is too weak, but regardless, I see it as necessary (I think it's interesting that the sponsor seems to want to make it easier to fire cops despite strongly supporting unions in most other circumstances).

Having a requirement that lethal force be authorized by the committee beforehand is asinine, so I'm glad that's out.

The proposal on officer pay is an interesting one, and I think setting arbitrary caps weakens the collective bargaining rights of workers. Cops are not being paid too much; everyone else is being paid too little. The solution is not to bring people down. As an aside, this same section stipulates that police officers must live within the communities they serve. As someone who has close ties with Mississauga's Fire and Emergency Services in Ontario, I can say that it is extremely difficult to find people in the local area willing to do these kinds of jobs. People come from all over the GTA and Southern Ontario to work in Mississauga, and it's not a problem because these are good people doing honourable work.

As for the section that bans unmarked police cars... well, I'm not sure I understand. It's the job of law enforcement to enforce laws. The expectation is that the citizenry will be abiding by a region's laws regardless of whether police officers are or aren't in the vicinity. Unmarked cars are one way to keep the population safe.

Entrapment is one that I'm iffy on, but if a person commits a crime, it's a crime as long as it's got the mens rea (?) and actus reus (?) components, right? Whether there was some form of "entrapment" or not is kind of beside the point.

Anyway, that's where I stand. Bills that target women and men who put their lives on the line to save people aren't ones I'm fond of.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, I tend to think it's more bullsh**t to gallivant around the senate and call the people who risk their lives keeping our communities safe "pigs," but that's just me.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".

Except this bill is not just about dealing with bad behaviour among our police forces. It's about punishing every Atlasian police officer just because they're cops.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If someone breaks the law, they break the law. Being "egged on" (by anyone!) is not a defense. Nor should it be. That's where I stand on so-called entrapment. I mean, we can argue about the morals of the tactic, but there actually shouldn't be any argument as to whether the person actually committed a crime. And if they committed the crime, they've got to live with the consequences.

That being said, if we agree to set out some reasonable conditions like the ones Senator Polnut and President bore have mentioned, so be it. But this debate is not about softcocks and pigs. It's about the safety of our communities. If you aren't inciting insurrection deliberately, Senator Griffin, I'd suggest rethinking the way you speak to others in this chamber. People might take you more seriously.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

More thoughts to come when I'm back on my computer.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Anyone can become a cop if they are deemed qualified and hired. If they are gay-haters or racist pigs, they can become cops. I believe these people sadly have the right to be free from the type of discrimination that would say otherwise.

What I don't believe, however, is that these officers have the right to discriminate against others based on these beliefs. That would be malpractice and grounds for firing. If the hiring team has reason to believe that a candidate is very likely to exhibit discrimination, then by all means do not hire that person. But the federal government should not be creating a dangerous litmus test like the one we just kept in the bill. I am a gay person. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church, which until recently (I think) was officially against same-sex marriage. Would I, a person who I hope is accepting, be barred from becoming a cop because of my affiliation with the Church? I sure hope not, but unfortunately I think the current language is too ambiguous for me to be confident one way or the other.

I guess that's what I really mean here. It's exceptionally risky territory. And as Senator Polnut has pointed out, it's territory that we may not be constitutionally allowed to occupy. So I think we ought not to be so specific with what we're saying our police forces can and cannot do. Obviously there's a standard that must be upheld, but we need to be very careful to find an appropriate balance. Telling officers what they should believe in their personal lives goes too far.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And, indeed, the "best" legislation would not be unconstitutional.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I obviously support the amendment and encourage Senator Polnut to keep it in play and see where the chips fall. I believe we can find the votes to get this thing passed without doing damage to the lives and reputations of our first responders. So far, this is the most workable amendment to bring the bill back into the realm of reality.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Perhaps these are all wishy-washy suggestions that deviate so much from the original bill because the entire spirit of the original bill was an unfortunate insult to public heroes.

Just maybe.

To be totally frank, I don't think we should pass anything. But this version is much better than what we were working with before. And I was happy to play even a small part in getting the original version off the table.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I object to the amendment.

Mostly just because it's a complete re-write. There's some stuff in there I like and other stuff I don't, but I believe all big changes like these should go through a vote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Poor Griffin.

My intentions haven't exactly been secret. You want it clear? I'll make it clear: I believe in our law enforcement officials. I would like the final version of the bill to be as friendly to them as possible. If we're going to open the can of worms where we're regulating the beliefs cops hold in their personal lives or exposing them to dangerous situations by limiting the selection of tools at their disposal (see Section 4, Clause 1C), I'm not okay with it. That's what this amendment does. I prefer Polnut's. Since I see where things are going, I'd rather stop with what we've got. Whether Senator Polnut's version of the bill fails or passes, I can rest easy knowing that these people will have our respect and support, not our evil eye. I don't know whether I'd support Polnut's version if it reaches a final vote; I do know I'd have a ton of trouble supporting Senator Blair's.

There you go. Read it and weep. And then grow up.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I do what I think is best for the country, yes.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I commend the Vice President for making a sensible decision on this matter.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

It's not a huge change, though I suppose it does slightly blur the line between what we can and can't do as an arm of the federal government.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

I see a number of issues in the bill that make me uneasy. In general, I support the spirit of the work unions do in protecting employees from unjust termination of employment; this bill does not engage them whatsoever. I am nervous of the authority we will be giving potentially uneducated, untrained civilians over police officers. The members of these PICs could be completely unfamiliar with police work. Plus, the intent of the PICs is not exactly ambiguous: These are the bodies that will be digging up dirt on officers. There's nothing about when an investigation would be appropriate and when one would not be. I am afraid that PICs would attract individuals who want to smear officers... and now they'd have the authority to do just that. It is true that the PICs only have the power to recommend persecution, but the ability to subpoena individuals and documents is quite a big muscle to be able to flex. A slanted investigation, which the PICs now have the ability to conduct (basically they're extra-judicial witch-hunt panels) could do serious damage to innocent officers.

Sometimes officers have to make hard decisions in the line of work that, when politicized and made the subject of sensational investigations, could be construed as criminal. In reality, the hard decisions they make are often necessary at the time. I have a hard time handing the power to condemn these individuals to popularly-elected anti-police activists. How can they know what a police officer should or shouldn't do when lives are at stake?

In fact, I believe we should look into passing a Good Samaritan Act that makes clear the protections first responders have in the line of work. If a firefighter breaks someone's ribs when saving them from a burning building, a lengthy trial, the possibility of being fired, and criminal proceedings aren't something that person should have to face.

Anyway, I digress. I urge my fellow senators to think more carefully about what this bill, particularly the establishment of PICs, would mean for our law enforcement.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I will say Police Integrity Commissions (or differently named bodies) exist in many places around the world without the world falling apart and anarchy being released upon the community.

And they are probably more strictly regulated than they are here, unfortunately. As Senator Yankee said, there are no protections and no way to ensure that the PICs actually operate with any kind of integrity or professionalism.

I hope the president will consider these points when he takes action on the bill. Otherwise I fear our country will become less safe.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain