Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Senator Cris]

My amendment is only a step. There are a lot of things that needs to be changed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think it's pretty unparliamentary behaviour for a Senator to refer to any public servants as pigs.

Let alone the vast majority of police officers who carry out their work, including members of my family, with diligence.

AYE on the current amendment. I can see myself supporting what Senator Cris is proposing, because this Bill needs neutering.

[TNF]

Nay

The police are the enemy of my class. I will call them what they are.

[windjammer]

The results of the votes: Windjammer's amendment:
Aye (6): Cranberry, Windjammer, Cris, Polnut, Talleyrand, Hagrid
Nay(2): Lief, TNF
Abstain (1): Griffin
Non voting (1): SWE,

Windjammer's amendment has passed.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Cris' amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is my amendment. Probably all my changes are not shared by my colleagues, but I hope that it'll pass, in order to have a good start point.

Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Adam Griffin]

NAY

Getting rid of entrapment, promoting nepotism, hiring police officers who haven't finished hormonal pubescence, allowing police officers to pretend like they're not police officers and giving the cops the ability to reject any regulatory decisions placed on them by the community (we all know it's a hivemind in there) are all non-starters.

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

Some of these changes are okay, but a lot of them are really bad. There is no point in establishing police oversight councils if we thoroughly neuter them like this amendment would. The changes to section 3 especially are incredibly egregious; what is the point of civilian oversight if a majority of police officers can just vote to ignore it? What is the point of civilian oversight if those civilians are close relatives of police officers?

Getting rid of the entrapment provision doesn't make any sense to me either. Why are we condoning police departments engaging in entrapment?

[Talleyrand]

NAY

I share most of the concerns Lief brought up. This bill has a lot of sections I definitely could not vote for, but this amendment removes some of the positive things in it.

[windjammer]

I will vote tomorrow. I didn't have the time yet to analyse Cris' amendment.

[TNF]

NAY

I echo the comments of my comrades.

[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.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[windjammer]

Well well,

Section 1 Clause 2: this is basically "corruption of blood"s mentality. I'm glad this is going to get rid by this amendment.

Section 3: Basically what Hagrid has said. The PORCs shouldn't be able to control the firing or the hiring of the police officers. They might know anything about the police.

Section 4 Clause 3: the most insane part of this bill. Basically, police officers should have to get approval before doing anything??? So, if they see a woman being raped, they couldn't do anything until someone told them to do so? What if someone tries to kill the cop? He couldn't retaliate too???

Clause 4: I don't support lowering wages for police officers, period.
Clause 5: police officers are more efficient when they're young because they're physically stronger.
Clause 6: I don't understand the opposition of that. I mean, sometimes, police officers behave like they were just civilians in order to be more efficient for catching the bandits, etc.
Clause 8: I don't understand this clause.


So AYE

And I will support any amendment that will strip this bill even further.

[SWE]

Nay

[windjammer]

The result of the vote:
Aye (3): Hagrid, Windjammer, Cris
Nay (5): SWE, Lief, Griffin, Talleyrand, TNF
Non voting (2): Polnut, Cranberry.

Cris' amendment has failed to pass the senate.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

If I understand correctly, senators objected to changes of Section 3, so I have let this section intact. I will get back to it when Cranberry will be back later

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Adam Griffin]

I object. This amendment basically only removes the least offensive of the former proposals...

[Lief 🗽]

I object as well. The only remaining language in the bill that I would support removing is 4.3: while the idea behind it is an important one, in practice I think it would be unworkable unfortunately.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support the amendment.

[windjammer]

A vote is now open. Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[windjammer]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye