News Media an Exclusive Playground for Pro-Police Lobby

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14 percent of all people know that.

Homer Simpson

The word “news” is a misnomer that really ought to be substituted with more appropriate language such as, propagandists, advertorialists, fear mongerers , cheap salespersons.

The word “cheap” aptly describes the so-called reporting transmitted in newspapers and airways across Canada, and in particular, in Calgary, Alberta. A daily read of Calgary’s local media highlights the complete lack of investigative reporting by second rate authors and purveyors of misinformation or half-truths.

Reporting about budget cuts to the Calgary Police Service underscores my point.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/14/calgary-police-budget-ad-cuts-letter-herald-penn-west.html

Following this story like shark’s tracking a chum line, the news media has appropriately informed Calgarians about anticipated budget cuts to Calgary’s Police Service, but in so doing, it has apparently been baited by self-serving informers who use news as a platform to advance their particular cause. Rather than providing a balanced perspective, replete with information so that citizens can determine whether their tax dollars ought to be slashed from the police budget, the “news” has seemingly become a near exclusive medium for the police lobby to campaign for public support. A daily read of Calgary’s local newspapers – the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald – supports the argument that these mediums are little more than sounding boards for various preferred lobby groups such as the CPS.

Now, I am not saying the news should stop speaking with these various groups. Rather, I am saying they should stop blindly reporting information without conducting a measure of real investigative journalism.

For example, if one was to blindly accept Police statistics that the reported 32% reduction in property crime was solely due to increased numbers of beat patrol cops it would be easy to feel trepidation about the impact budget cuts would have on public safety. These statistics, however, could be highly misleading.

Just for a moment, let’s rewind the clock to December 9th, 2008 when the City of Calgary revoked the business license for the downtown Cecil Hotel. Now fast-forward just a little more than a month, to Mayor Dave Bronconnier’s comments reported by the CBC on January 22nd, 2009 where he informed us that since the City’s 10.9 million dollar purchase of the Cecil Hotel, crime in the area dropped by 85%.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/01/22/cgy-cecil-hotel-crime-down.html

In that same article, Louise Gallagher, a spokesperson for the Calgary Drop-In Centre aptly commented that since the Hotel’s closure drug dealing and other crime may not be “as visible” but it’s still there. To be fair, Police Chief Rick Hanson also recognized the “visibility” issue when he said, “we’re not naive enough to think the crime has gone away”.

For the purpose of this exercise, let us begin by looking at Mayor Bronconnier’s use of statistics.

Essentially, he lauds the City of Calgary’s decision to revoke the notorious Hotel’s business license and then justifies the 10.9 million dollar use of municipal tax dollars to purchase the property by suggesting the expenditure was worthwhile because it resulted in an 85% reduction in crime in the area. This is certainly a prima facie compelling statistic.

During this same period, the Calgary Police Department was lobbying for more public money to fund additional manpower and police initiatives for 2010 and 2011.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/rick_bell/2009/08/14/10459661-sun.html

This lobby continued in 2010 with the CPS ringing the public safety alarm in response to a looming 5% budget cut resulting in a 14.8 million dollar shortfall to police coffers. According to police, this cut will result in 120 fewer police, tabulated as 55 current positions and 65 positions in 2011.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/07/calgary-police-budget-cuts-council-hanson-beat.html

A recent ad “in support of the Calgary Police” argues that increased police presence has resulted in a decline in drug activity and other crime on Calgary streets. The ad suggests a 32% reduction in property crime, a 21% reduction in person crimes (whatever that means) and a 26% reduction in disorder events. The purpose of the ad is to garner public support to protect the police budget.

Again, on the surface, these statistics are compelling, but in the words of Homer Simpson, “statistics can be used to prove anything, 14% of all people know that”.

Well, I am not saying these statistics are incorrect or even necessarily inappropriate. What I am saying is that on the information provided, I cannot reasonably decide for myself whether these statistics are misleading or inappropriately used. For example, I have a difficulty reconciling a reduction in drug crimes or a 32% reduction in property crimes with the alleged 85% reduction in crime in the area of the former crime hotspot, the Cecil Hotel.

As a lifelong resident of Calgary, I take “citizen’s notice” that the Cecil Hotel was nothing short of a visible cesspool where a plethora of criminal offences were committed in plain view of anybody who stood and watched for long enough. In fact, when my mountain bike was stolen from outside the epicentre of Calgary’s Red Mile on 17th Avenue south west – Melrose – I simply attended at the Cecil Hotel and within about 15 minutes of scanning the inhabitants, found the bike at the liquor store in the parking lot. It was in plain view. I didn’t need Magnum P.I., Starsky and Hutch or any other brand of super detective to locate my stolen property.

While merely walking the area, I observed a number of individuals who were clearly intoxicated in a public place (a possible “disorder event”); other persons possibly dealing drugs or engaged in what appeared to be prostitution (a possible “person crime”).

This leads to my second point: eliminating a plain view crime hotspot provided an easy mechanism for claiming crime reduction, for the alleged criminal activity is no longer visible and thus not as easily tabulated. Put another way, the alleged reduction in certain types of crime, such as drug trafficking, may be closely connected to the elimination of a high crime hot spot where such activity was easily observed.

Doubtless, police patrolling in District 1 (downtown) conducted a high number of criminal investigations and arrests in the area of the Cecil. In a sense, despite the Cecil’s reputation and the problems associated with the area, it acted as a kind of crime containment where investigations were logically directed and arrests often made. The activity ordinarily conducted in the neighbourhood of the Cecil Hotel has likely distributed elsewhere, and in so doing, may be more difficult to detect.

The point is, there is a close connection between crime statistics, crime reporting and crime detection.

The Cecil provided fertile grounds for crime reporting and detection, the reduction of which logically corresponds to a statistical reduction in criminal activity.

To say the reduction (or the level of reduction) is necessarily caused by increased police presence may be just about as specious as saying the existence of limestone on City streets protects citizens from being invaded by wildlife.

Again, dialogue in a Simpson’s episode illustrates the point.

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”

Lisa Simpson responds: “That’s specious reasoning, dad. By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.”

Confused, Homer responds: “Hmm; how does it work?”

Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!”

Homer: “Uh-huh.”

Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

The point is, increasing the police budget has not necessarily resulted in decreased crime (at least to the extent claimed by the police lobby), just as eliminating the Cecil Hotel has not necessarily decreased the total amount of overall crime in Calgary – for the Cecil crime has probably re-distributed to other communities. But eliminating a visible hotspot may have impacted the number of crimes “reported” thus creating a fallacious statistic pertaining to the number of crimes committed; thus begging the question: has increased police presence really resulted in a meaningful decrease in crime?

In a 2009 article titled “Credit where credit is due: lobby for more police truth ruse” I mused over the police lobby for additional officers.

http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/credit-where-credit-is-due.html

To that end, I stated:

I think it is important for citizens to understand a couple of realities. Many years ago, I was a Crown prosecutor, working out of an office in Rocky Mountain Plaza. From my 15th floor vantage point, City Hall was to the South, the old Provincial Courthouse was across the street to the east, and just a couple blocks west was the district 1 police station and the Andrew Davidson building. The epicentre for criminal justice was located within just a few blocks of the Cecil Hotel. I have no trouble saying, the area where my office was located was definitely one the seediest areas I have EVER been in.

From my 15th floor vantage point, I could actually observe a lot of rather suspicious behaviour -- both on the sidewalk beside my building, in Olympic Plaza (right across the street from City Hall) and on the streets just one block east of the District 1 police station.

What is my point?

Despite the sheer presence of law enforcement officials and police, there is little doubt that crime was exceedingly high in that area. Exceedingly high within a couple city blocks of Calgary’s biggest police station, where the numbers of police either patrolling streets, attending the district office or going to court was monumental. I am sure anybody who worked in that area before the closure of the Cecil would not disagree. From this I surmise that the sheer numbers of police, government and law enforcement apparently had little impact on the criminal element.
So, back to the question: is crime really decreasing in Calgary’s downtown because of a higher police presence?

To be fair, I think the answer is probably yes. But the next question is how much? How much of it is attributed to a heightened police presence and how much is attributed to other things? Is Calgary’s top police lobbyist taking credit where it’s not due?

Suffice it to say, I continue to have difficulty resolving the question.

Unfortunately, our Calgary media is so devoid of meaningful investigative reporting that we cannot count on it to inform us in any meaningful way. I am left to feel as if we are in an informational abyss where fast food reporting by indolent news agencies leaves us susceptible to being duped by lobby groups using statistics out of context to advance their agenda.

Speaking about context, the message about police cutbacks has been delivered in a rather interesting way. Phrased by Chief Hanson et al, the 5% reduction will result in 120 lost positions, including 65 positions slated for 2011. Analyzed properly,however,of the alleged 120 positions in jeopardy, only 55 of those positions directly pertain to the time period of the so-called crime reduction; for the 65 additional officers budgeted for 2011 had yet to start walking the beat. So, the police haven’t really lost 120 positions; they have lost 55.

This begs the question, how many of those 55 officers how many were assigned to beat patrol? How many of those officers were placed on City streets to allow others to engage in administrative duties? How many officers currently on administrative duties or engaged in special projects could be re-diverted back to City streets?

As a citizen, I can say in no uncertain terms, the Calgary Police appear to be using their additional resources to conduct a form of armed tax collection; for the sheer number of speed traps and traffic patrols appears to have increased dramatically. In my experience our police department appears to be highly concerned about traffic safety in areas outside Calgary’s jurisdiction, for the police conduct speed trap enforcement on the borders exiting the City on a quotidian basis. Is there really a connection between controlling traffic exiting the City and public safety “in" Calgary?

How many of the 65 new officers were slated for traffic duty? How many were slated for beat patrol? How many were slated for other tasks not associated with street presence?

The point is, the police lobby tells us they are “losing” 120 officers, when in fact, they are really only losing 55.

Now I see that a lobby group has actually paid $10,000.00 for an advertisement in the Calgary Herald “in support of the police”. Let’s take a look at the group responsible for paying for the ad.

Calgary Crime Stoppers is an agency sponsored by a number of groups, including Penn West Energy and the Alberta Government.

http://www.calgarycrimestoppers.org/sponsors/

The ad was also funded by the Calgary Downtown Association (CDA). The CDA is a group consisting of downtown businesses interested in supporting the vitality of Calgary’s downtown core – certainly a laudable objective. For the purpose of this article, it is interesting to recognize that Keith Luft of Penn West Energy sits on the board of directors. The CDA’s partners consist of the Calgary Herald (the newspaper where the ad was posted) and the City of Calgary (the municipality whose Mayor is presently advocating to increase the police budget).

http://www.downtowncalgary.com/about/partners.html

By the way, Penn West Energy also funded the ad.

I am not a reporter, let alone an investigative journalist, but I was nevertheless able to find a number of rather incestuous connections between the various groups funding the advertisement in support of the police. I located this information in just under 15 minutes.

The point is, the news media has arguably become so tragically dependent upon scraps left behind from its various primary sources (such as the Government or as some of us like to call it, "the Regime") that it either fails or declines to engage in even a minimal amount of true journalism designed to inform public debate.

It would be interesting for somebody to more fully investigate the police budget. How are funds really being used? Are they being spent on police officers or on other projects not highlighted for public attention. By way of example, in recent months the Alberta Government has dramatically decreased Legal Aid funding and in response, Legal Aid has changed its financial eligibility requirements and significantly cutback on certificates for funding lawyers to represent citizens in need. The Government has underscored an approximate 30% increase in lawyer costs associated with certificates, but they have not highlighted the fact that Legal Aid infrastructure (such as costs for leasehold improvements) increased by in excess of 1500% percent; that special projects increased by upwards of 120%; that there has been stupendous increases in other departments within Legal Aid having little or nothing to do with lawyers or the people Legal Aid was designed to help.

What if the Calgary Police Budget was managed in ways similar to Legal Aid? What if the police spent millions of tax dollars engaged in special projects or buying expensive motor vehicles and other equipment not reasonably required to conduct either good or efficient police work?

I mean, it was reported that the Calgary Police Department sent 150 officers to the G-20 in Ontario for the purpose of providing security. They sent 75 officers to the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia. But when it comes to spending tax payer dollars to police our growing metropolis, the Chief claims the alleged loss of 55 officers is going to have an impact on public safety?

A convenient commment.

Though I appreciate what I am about to say suffers from its own logical frailties, if Calgary can afford to send 150 officers to Ontario, they arguably do not really need the 120 officers purportedly slated to be cutback to a reduced budget.

It is worth recognizing the Calgary Police Service represents the single largest expense for the municiplaity, so why should they be any different than any other Government department required to cutback in tough times?

Will there really be any meaningful impact on public safety? I am sure in 2011 the police lobby will present statistics to claim it so.

Unfortunately, it appears we cannot really count on our news media to expose these types of issues or to inform public debate.

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyers
www.calgary-law.ca

A Token Non-Apology by Immoral Fraudsters

The Access to Information request confirms the R.C.M.P 'apology' for the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski fits squarely into the category of apology type: "I'm sorry you are offended" -- meaning, not really sorry at all.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/RCMP+apology+linked+actions+Mounties+Memo/3162099/story.html

When juxtaposed against the April 1st, 2010 feeble attempt at an apology by R.C.M.P Deputy Commissioner, Gary Bass, it has become perfectly clear that the members of Canada's national law enforcement agency are prepared to lie about just about anything.

On March 13th, 2009, I wrote an article titled, "The Wrong Way of Worldmaking: One Lawyer's Opinion about the Dziekanski Inquiry"

http://www.calgarydefence.com/resources/

At this time, concerns were expressed about apparent lies told by Kwesi Millington and his fellow R.C.M.P officers about the tasering death of the Polish immigrant. There was little correspondence between the concoction offered by the R.C.M.P. and the shocking video captured by a citizen at the Vancouver airport. As was concluded in the Wrong Way of Worldmaking article:

If police can avoid meaningful responsibility by creating misleading reports, then what deters any law enforcement official from simply doctoring notes, tainting an investigation or disclosing nothing at all? Surely shifting the cost-benefit pendulum to favour the creative use of fiction as a means of avoiding meaningful accountability cannot be condoned? After all, a system of justice that does not seek justice against itself is no justice at all.

The captured email of Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass highlights the fact that when the R.C.M.P is expected to seek justice against itself, it will do so in the most disingenuous way -- a manner that actually perpetuates lies, insults the intended recipient of the purported apology and offends the integrity of our justice system -- which expects its law enforcement officials to act with integrity, not like immmoral fraudsters willing to say just about anything to cover their collective behinds.

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
Calgary Defence Lawyers

www.calgarydefence.com

Sometimes "Real" Justice Feels Really Bad

Criminal law is a field where it is difficult to feel good about, well... much of anything.

Our society is saturated with incidents of alleged criminal behaviour, ranging on a long spectrum from relatively minor infractions by ordinary citizens, to the most disturbing kind of conduct committed by people apparently acting far outside the moral boundaries of everyday society. To our chagrin, we even see law enforcement officials -- police officers -- charged with committing criminal offences. Sometimes, these allegations occur while the officer is actually on duty.

See for example: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/06/09/14327851.html

As a practitioner in criminal law and indeed as a citizen, I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of the Strathcona teen who was assaulted and seriously injured. Doubtless, the family received little consolation from the trial of a pair of teens charged with assaulting and seriously injuring their teenage son. The two teenagers ultimately plead guilty to reduced charges, "causing a disturbance" and "possession of a weapon dangerous to the public". The more serious assault allegations were withdrawn.

See Calgary Herald: "No Assault Convictions in Swarming Beating of Calgary Teen":

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/assault+convictions+swarming+beating+Calgary+teen/3153889/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

I extend my deepest regrets to the teen, Blair Palmer, who sustained serious injury as a result of the incident.

What a terrible toll for this young man and his family.

In light of everything that happened, I would understand if the Palmer family blamed the criminal justice system for the outcome -- but I am so impressed they do not.

In the words of Robert Palmer,

"I'm not going to blame the system, the police or the Crown. The system is an awfully easy target . . . If you're going to blame someone, put it squarely on the shoulders of the people who did this and did nothing to stop it. And put it squarely on the shoulders of people who were there and witnessed it and didn't say a word. They know who they are and they have to live with this for the rest of their lives."

Indeed, the system is an easy target, but in this case, not a warranted target.

Doubtless the police and crown did everything to prosecute those it believed responsible for Blair Palmer's injuries. Doubtless, the Crown made a very difficult, yet highly ethical decision to withdraw the more serious allegations based upon the evidence available.

Though this is not a feel good outcome, in our society which prosecutes criminals according to the rule of law and adheres to the presumption of innocence requiring the Crown to present evidence of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", this was the right outcome. For I firmly believe, if there was better evidence in this case, the Crown would not have made the decision it did.

At the end of days, when there is a reckoning and the fabric of the universe is unspun, perhaps real justice will be served; but for the purpose of our human system, there is no fault in adhering to axioms designed to ensure the propriety of criminal convictions.

That is what the Crown did in this case. That is what police did in this case.

I have always said that in criminal justice it is easy to charge everything; prosecute everything; seek the highest penalty for everything; give the highest penalty for everything; but the mark of courage in our justice system is to evaluate a case in difficult circumstances and apply a truly principled approach.

Sometimes such an approach means not to prosecute at all....



David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
Molle Roulston Chow

www.calgarydefence.com

Appearances Deceiving? Or just a little too Casual

Rarely have the writer of Calgary Criminal Lawyer Weekly and I disagreed. We have hitherto never openly disagreed in opinions voiced on our respective blogs.

I suppose there is a first for everything -- or at least a partial first.

"Real Life is Not Hollywood" -- by Michael Bates: http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/06/real-life-is-not-hollywood.html

At the outset, let me mark a point of agreement.

Did Cst. Lind "let" the 18 year old die, or somehow contribute to his demise as a result of indifference? No.

I agree Lind is not responsible for the young person's death. I agree, there is no evidence the officer was driving dangerously (in fact the reported evidence is to the contrary); that he rammed the SUV off the road or that he did anything else to cause the crash other than do his job. He did not even pursue the vehicle with emergency lights and sirens. A prudent decision in the circumstances.

I agree, the person may have in fact been dead already.

Overall, I agree with Mr. Bates and others: this is real life, not Hollywood.

But when faced with a burning SUV, an allegation that the vehicle "fled" police and a probable criminal investigation, I would expect -- even in real life -- the investigating officer to act with a little more urgency than what was reflected in the video. The officer's rather lackadaisical saunter from the front of his marked police unit, to the trunk, to the burning SUV and around the car struck me as simply just too casual an approach in the circumstances.

Even if the passenger was already dead, one might think removing the presumptively lifeless body from the wreck would have been a priority? Surely paramedics are not going to administer emergency treatment whilst the body remains in a burning vehicle? Surely preserving what was left of the person inside of the motor vehicle from the possible scorching effects of a spreading vehicle fire is important?

I certainly appreciate the passenger may have been involved in some kind of illegal activity (though since he/she was not the driver, one might still wonder about that); but even criminals, or ordinary persons who exercised a period of incredibly poor judgment ought to be spared the indignity of having their remains potentially desecrated by fire. Let us remember, these people have family too. In my mind, removing the body deserved greater priority than what was displayed; for it seemed to me, that in four minutes, the fire could have spread. And just what if -- what if -- the passenger could have been saved by timely emergency medical treatment?

Now, I am not saying Cst. Lind sauntered his way to the vehicle and then declined to immediately remove the passenger because he was carrying out some kind of street justice, or was operating with some kind of "you get what you deserve" attitude. I am not saying he was even obligated to remove the body or that its removal was even the most immediate priority. Afterall, I am not a policeman. I wasn't at the scene. But even though I want to be cautious acting as an armchair cop, the situation in my mind demanded more urgency than the energyless exhibition displayed on what Mr. Bates correctly characterized as a poor quality homevideo.

See CBC News article, "2 Die Fleeing Calgary Police": http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/09/calgary-suv-dead-crash-house-asirt.html


Though I wonder about the frequency of car thieves setting vehicles ablaze when pursued by police, Calgary Police Association President John Dooks makes a logical point: "The officer's duties are first of all to check on people in the area, the residents of the building ... even determine if there's anybody in the vehicle...".

Indeed, this makes sense.

However, merely "checking" is not enough; for the entire purpose of making the determination is so appropriate action can be taken. If the situation calls for it -- ensuring a person does not remain in a potentially harmful situation potentially entails quick and decisive action where it can be safely taken by emergency responders.

Now I am not saying Cst. Lind ought to have placed himself unreasonably in harm's way. Indeed, though the video certainly clearly shows a smoldering fire, there is nothing depicted to suggest imminent explosion. What I am saying is that it appeared a little more urgency would not have been unreasonable. At the very least, it might have mitigated concerns that the approach was just a little too casual in the circumstances.

Let me end by saying, this is not about superhero antics, or running around at the expense of keeping a level head; it is about the responsiveness of emergency responders. It is difficult to deny a cautious initial approach within the first minute, but in the other three?

Unfortunately, viewing this case from the outside, we do not have all of the information. Viewing this case through the eyes of this poor quality home video, however, and I cannot fault those for their opinion that the response lacked the degree of urgency required....

I agree we should be concerned about the family, friends and loved ones who are doubtless presently experiencing tragic loss. Viewing the situation through their eyes -- coupled with potential "what ifs" -- I sincerely hope three minutes would have made no difference....


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/09/calgary-suv-dead-crash-house-asirt.html#ixzz0qeNXPpmM

David G. Chow
Calgary Defence Lawyer
Molle Roulston Chow

www.calgarydefence.com

Does our Government Fear the People?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Question: Does any branch of Canadian government, whether it is Municipal, Provincial or Federal, truly fear the people?

Given Canada purports to be a country of free people, where its Government acts on behalf of its citizens, this question, as juxtaposed against the powerful statement by Thomas Jefferson, is important. For if our Government does not fear the people, one is left to wonder whether Canadians really exist in a free and democratic society, or whether such belief is becoming more illusion than reality.

Now, I am not saying Canada is not a wonderful place to live; or that citizens in our country do not exist as relative free people. What I am saying is that we need to be ever vigilant in asking questions that enliven the collective consciousness so that our Government remains honest and our liberty does not become illusory.

In querying whether our Government fears its citizens, it is productive to apply this basic question to everyday events identified in the media and elsewhere.

For example:

When our elected representatives refuse to make transparent spending the hard earned money of Canadians, do they fear the people?

See "Harper Sidesteps Audit Fray": http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=3060917

See "Opposition to Spending Audit could bite MPs in the Wallet": http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/expenses+under+microscope/3061268/story.html

It is important to remember, the Government does not earn its own money. By operation of law, it takes money from its citizens and presumably spends it in the best interests of the people. And it is not just about spending the money of Canadians, it is about spending dollars that have been extracted from the labour of Canadians. So when the Government has become so indifferent to its citizens, where it simply declines to reasonably disclose Government spending -- and in particular -- expense accounts, it is questionable whether it fears those from whom it is collecting its revenues.

When our Government enacts laws to pillage the private property of its citizens or uses such laws to pursue citizens without grounds to do so, does it fear the people?

See "Restitution Act does a Nifty End-Run around Civil Liberties: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Restitution+does+nifty+around+civil+liberties/2696207/story.html

In the Thompson case, the Alberta government pursued the legitimately owned private property of a law abiding senior citizen. But for the efforts of Ms. Thompson and her lawyers, Michael Bates and Karen Molle, it arguably would have done everything in its power to claim her property. In any event, there was no evidence to the contrary.

In pursuing Ms. Thompson, the Government was not contrite; it offered little or no care for a Canadian who did nothing in her life other than work hard, obey the law and make Alberta a better place to live. It was only after a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled against the government that it offered a token apology.

Does this conduct strike anybody as a Government acting in fear of the people?

When Government is in the business of creating and enforcing criminal and quasi-criminal offences for the purpose of generating additional revenues, does it fear the people?

See: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html

When Government uses fear to legitimize the expansion of police powers to intrude on the private lives of citizens, does it fear the people?
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+hopes+warning+stickers+Calgary+payphones+will+discourage+criminal+activity/1790663/story.html

When Government is prepared to make everyday citizens charged with crimes the local pariah by publicly denouncing them in the press, but keeps secret the identity of law enforcement officials who have offended the law, does it fear the people?

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-as-rick-and-alison-saynot-as-they-do.html

When Government actually proposes a bill making it illegal for citizens not to vote, does it fear the people?

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/03/it-ought-to-be-illegal-to-dowell.html

Arguably, the everyday conduct of various levels of Government suggests that it does not fear the people. That said, whether citizens are afraid of the Government or not, the next question is, should they be?

Of course, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "People should not be afraid of their Governments. Governments should be afraid of the people".

In this writer's view, Government acting without fear of the people, is Government acting on the edge of tyranny.

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
Molle Roulston Chow
www.calgarydefence.com

Robber Barons

You might recall an article posted on this blog last year titled "Proof that Traffic Enforcement is Really Tax Collection:

http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-that-traffic-safety-enforcement.html

Though our local constabulary will justify detaining drivers on the basis of traffic safety, today's article in the Calgary Herald "Calgary Police Budget Takes 4M dollar hit as fines drop and Overtime Increases" is further proof that Joe Citizen's opinion about the purpose of traffic enforcement is true: the Boy's in Blue are not really concerned about safety -- they are worried about the bottom line.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Calgary+police+budget+takes+fines+drop+while+increases/3096301/story.html

Hiring police and extra police is costly.

Paying pensions and overtime is costly.

Driving Dodge Chargers, Ford F150 pickup trucks, Harley Davidson Road King Motorcycles, SUVs and host of other vehicles (including Airplanes and Helicopters) to supplement the fleet of Crown Victorias is most certainly expensive.

With this in mind, do some of these vehicle purchases smack of a complete lack of utility?

Seriously, motorcycles in Calgary? Really?

It seems difficult to justify a two wheeled vehicle purchase considering the weather in this City seldom permits their operation.

From a dollars and cents perspective, if a new Road King sells for over $20,000, it is not difficult to imagine a tricked out model, equipped with sirens, special compartments, navigation gear, along with other devices costs more. In my opinion, that's a very frivolous use of tax dollars for single occupant motor carriages capable of operating only about 5 months per year.

It's no wonder when the Sheriff of Nottingham comes knocking, many Canadians -- including this writer -- wish for a modern day Robin Hood.

Of course, the cost of employing and equipping our local constabulary is but a fraction of the cost Canadians pay to fund the veritable gaggle of other Government services. As a taxpayer in private industry I am often outraged about paying half my income in various taxes, only to see my dollars hard at work with three government workers watching another government worker leisurely do his job.

Worse, I practice in an industry where Government workers constantly tell me how much more money I make compared to them. Lets set the record straight, I probably bill more money than the highest paid Crown Prosecutor, but trust me when I tell you, the Crown's employer ensures I do not get to keep those earnings. Private industry pays Corporate Tax, personal tax, municipal tax, rent, staff, professionals to assist us in paying our taxes, along with a frightening number of other business expenses. Everyday expenses such as parking or filling the photocopier with paper must be closely monitored. Calgary Prosecutors get funded to park in heated underground ground garages to the tune of approximately $427.00/month. So where my monthly parking is $457.00, the Prosecutor lamenting his or her miserable salaried existence pays just $30.00. So my cost is fifteen times that of the Crown for the pleasure of attending the nightmare otherwise known as the Calgary Court Centre. Did I mention people standing around?

Of course, every full time Government employee has a pension, health benefits, flex days, paid holidays and a myriad of other unappreciated advantages. Private industry certainly gets write-offs, but it's important to remember, given the average corporate tax is 14%, every justiable write-off only really saves fourteen cents on the dollar. And just so people aren't confused, even if the savvy businessperson keeps money in the corporation, upon retirement the government will simply take 36% of whatever is drawn personally. Bottom line, Government always gets paid.

And it must always get paid, for wasting money doesn't come cheap. Paying pensions for Members of Parliament who abused their expense accounts requires plenty of quan.

And when Government doesn't get enough from robbing Canadians at tax time, it simply steals more by justifying penalties through various criminal, quasi-criminal and regulatory infractions.

So when I read an article that police are 1.4 million dollars below their budgeted annual ticket revenue of 33.9 million dollars, I simply can't help but wonder whether the consistent lobby for more cops is so they can pillage more dollars from the general public. I fear that as the Calgary Police Department scrambles to generate the revenue shortfall, our streets will be laden with no tolerance armed tax collectors, stopping hoards of motorists for questionable infractions.

After all, where is the money going to come from? Though I imagine City Hall will simply approve further tax increases, I am quite certain they would rather use the extra money to top up their expense accounts, build decorative bridges and continue work on the neverending construction debacle otherwise known as Glenmore Trail.

Again, I pose the question: is traffic enforcement really about safety? More importantly, one might wonder whether our Government is in the business of criminalizing (or quasi-criminalizing )conduct so they can meet the bottom line.


David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
Molle Roulston Chow

wwww.calgarydefence.com

The House that Zuck Built - Privacy in a Social Networking Age

As a defence lawyer, all I can say is finally - it’s about time people started becoming aware of the importance of their personal privacy and the need to protect it.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=3084666

For years I have been scolding staff at my office and others about the dangers of social networking sites such as Facebook. I have even gone so far as to implement policies prohibiting the use of such sites on company computers and absolutely forbid any discussion or posting about me or my business on any social networking site (including Facebook). Of course, a concern was that social networking sites distracted staff from their duties, but that was not the actual reason for the policy implementation. The policy was initiated to stop the potential breach of my privacy interests where even an unintended blunder leaked in a most innocuous way could create a problematic privacy or confidentiality issue.

When it comes to informational privacy, it seems to me most citizens conceptualize the dangers in terms of identity theft or fraud scams designed to drain wealth from unsuspecting victims. But the reality is, insight into a person’s private life is highly viewer dependent. For example, as a criminal defence lawyer, it is not unusual for me to investigate those involved in a particular case by conducting surveillance on their social networking pages. Most of the time, the information gathered supplies nothing more than useful insight into the person, but given that social networking sites are a hotbed for users to vent frustrations or chat about personal issues, it is not unusual to obtain information directly related to the Prosecution’s case – or to the defence of it, for that matter.

Let me put it this way, if information collected from social networking sites is used by me, what about the police, Government, Corporate America, internet predators or others?

I am certainly not a Luddite. Unlike many of my elders, I do not find computers to be so foreign that I am instantaneously defeated by a mouse pointer and a keyboard. I generally understand how to navigate the internet – and am reasonably confident that I do so in relative safety.

That said, I sometimes find the internet to be a rather unsettling place. Like the ocean, I can’t see what’s around me. Like my motor vehicle, I do not truly understand its inner workings. Like many plebeian internet users, I navigate “the web” with a kind of blind faith that information on my computer is protected by the virus scanner and spyware detector running surreptitiously in the background, and that my firewall will repel any unwanted intruders. But the truth is, other than to say these programs are “ON”, I really understand nothing about them.

I know the internet is populated by hackers and techno-wizards capable of ripping through a basic firewall in seconds. I know my greatest protection on “the net” comes with the fact that I am online with a million other users, so the risk of being specifically targeted is diminished by the mere fact of the herd. Privacy in numbers!

With this in mind, however, I do not think it is overly dramatic to say: to be online line is to do so “at your own risk”. In other words, let the user beware!

Knowing this, I feel it is even more important to make best efforts to keep personal information private.

The internet is a tool of convenience – and just like I operate with a kind of blind faith that software on my computer is doing its job, I certainly operate with a kind of blind trust that the companies I do business with on the internet will do their level best to protect my privacy interests.

Social networking sites, however, are in the business of transparency, not privacy. Stated mildly, it seems to me the corporate interests of social networking sites are to promote the ultimate disintegration of the right to privacy, not to protect it.

It is one thing to provide information to your bank or to Canada’s online passport renewal – but it’s completely another to release it to social networking sites such as Facebook for the mere pleasure of having digital friends.

In the National Post article, “Matt Hartley: Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg to be Blamed for Privacy Mess”, it was suggested that the “big mess” surrounding Facebook’s privacy issues should fall “squarely on the shoulders” of the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

Though I certainly do not agree with Mr. Zuckerberg that an open world is necessarily a better world, I do not think the privacy mess falls squarely on his shoulders. Rather it falls on those who gave their personal information to the social networking giant.

Facebook always struck me as a kind of Orwellian product designed to transcend privacy barriers. However, to say its creator is responsible for the privacy fiasco is to scapegoat a shrewd businessperson by deflecting the blame away from the 500 million Facebook users who gave up their personal information to have friends. Sadly, the closest contact many will have with their so-called Facebook friends is a live camera shot, a lot of typed transmissions and perhaps a conversation communicated over a digitized data stream, played through speakers on a personal computer.

In criminal justice, notions of privacy are evolving. In cases such as R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized privacy was a protean concept. In R. v. Tessling, [2004] S.C.J. No. 62, the Supreme Court wrestled with the distinctions between personal, territorial and informational privacy. Informational privacy was at the forefront in R. v. Patrick, [2009] S.C.J. No. 17 (S.C.C.). Though the Supreme Court acknowledged in Patrick the importance of informational privacy, they refused to recognize it to the extent of limiting anybody (including the State) from simply sifting through and taking a citizen’s garbage, even while it remains on his or her own property. Recently, in R. v. Morelli, [2010] S.C.J. No. 8 the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada recognized privacy interests in data stored on a home computer. In excluding the evidence seized due to a lack of police reasonable and probable grounds to search, the Court characterized the search as occurring in the most private place within the home. In the words of Fish J.A. at paragraph 105:

...it is difficult to imagine a more intrusive invasion of privacy than the search of one's home and personal computer. Computers often contain our most intimate correspondence. They contain the details of our financial, medical, and personal situations. They even reveal our specific interests, likes, and propensities, recording in the browsing history and cache files the information we seek out and read, watch, or listen to on the Internet.

To understand privacy is something we should not easily part with, it is important to understand that privacy in our modern world encompasses more than merely being left alone in our own home sanctuary. Perhaps the Facebook fiasco is a fortuitous reminder of the importance of protecting individual privacy interests – the need for broad thinking about the scope of such interests – and the need not to become complacent about caring for them.

Protecting privacy is not only about defending against identity thieves, government, police or Corporate America from using our personal details; it is more broadly about defending the interest as a fundamental principle intrinsic to living in a free and democratic society. Accordingly, defending the right necessitates undying and perpetual vigilance, which might mean foregoing guilty pleasures in favour of preserving the long term integrity of the interest against minute incursions over time capable of eroding it altogether. For the risk of giving up a little privacy here and selling a little there may be to risk losing it completely.

With this in mind, perhaps it is to time to topple the house that Zuck built?

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com