Last week, I sent this email to the Mayor of Ottawa, my Councilor and the Head of the Ottawa Police Services Board, expressing my dissatisfaction with the failure of Ottawa Police to police the demonstration protesting Ann Coulter’s appearance. This failure to police was so severe that, at the ‘strong suggestion’ of the Ottawa Police, the event was canceled.
My main point of was that it is inappropriate for the police in general, and Ottawa Police in particular, to dictate (through either direct action or through inaction) who does or does not have the freedom of speech!
Mr. El-Chantiry – the Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board – was the only one to reply. Here is his response – in full:
Hi Ms. Belaire,
This event was not cancelled by the Ottawa Police. This was a University of Ottawa event. Please contact them for clarification.
Regards,
Eli El-Chantiry
Chair, Ottawa Police Services Board
Councillor, West Carleton-March
Here is my reply to Mr. El-Chantiry:
Dear Mr. El-Chantiry,
thank you for your prompt – if brief – reply to my letter of concern. I will be posting it on my blog.
It has now been a full week and neither Mr. O’Brien, the Mayor, nor my Councilor, Mr. Hunter, have replied. So, I do appreciate that you, sir, do care!
Still, your letter did not address my concern…
If my poor wording had misled you into thinking I was complaining about insufficient security at the University of Ottawa event where Ann Coulter had been invited to speak, I apologize and clarify: the University of Ottawa did indeed provide sufficient security to ensure the people attending the event (all of whom had to pre-register) did not breech any laws or bylaws. No problems or complaints there.
It was regarding the failure to provide sufficient ‘supervision’ and/or security at two additional events – both protest demonstrations (one opposing, one supporting Ann Coulter’s right to speak) – that my complaint is about. Neither of these two outdoor demonstrations were organized by Ann Coulter, her sponsors or the University of Ottawa.
This would be comparable to, say, you hiring an entertainer to come to your home for your child’s birthday party….and, for some reason, this entertainer had earned the wrath of some people who gathered outside your home to protest this entertainer’s presence. Would it be your responsibility to provide the ‘supervision’ and ‘security’ at the protest gathering outside your home, against your will?
Your response would suggest that yes, it would be the homeowner (or the event’s organizer) – not the protest’s organizer – who is responsible…
With whom does the responsibility really lie?
From the official City of Ottawa website (the emphasis is mine):
Definition: For our purposes, a demonstration is a spontaneous or planned collection of people using the road allowance as a place to express an opinion. This type of event can be stationary (confined to a specific location) or one which moves from one point to another (commonly referred to as a “march”). Both types of demonstrations are subject to the criteria outlined in this section.
This seems clear enough: both of the protest demonstrations were indeed ‘demonstrations’, as defined by the City of Ottawa. As such, they were subject to very specific rules and regulations.
The City of Ottawa imposes very significant limitations (I might even argue these rules and restrictions are ‘unreasonable’ and ‘counter to common-sense’ – but, as long as they are the law of this land, we must all abide by them… ) on both organized and spontaneous demonstrations. Through imposing these limitations, the City of Ottawa unequivocally claims the sole jurisdiction – and thus responsibility for – over all outdoor demonstrations – for the Ottawa Police alone!
Point #9 of the bylaws governing ‘demonstrations’ states:
- Police supervision is required for a demonstration. It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision. The demonstration organizer may be responsible for any costs associated with the provision of this service.
Let’s take it one sentence at a time:
Police supervision is required for a demonstration.
This one single sentence states that it is the police – the Ottawa Police – who has the sole responsibility for the ‘supervision’ of any and every ‘demonstration’ within the City of Ottawa.
What is more, this one sentence also quite unequivocally denies the University of Ottawa the right – yes, the very right – to ‘supervise’ any ‘demonstrations’ which take place outside the walls of its buildings!
This one sentence, Mr. El-Chantiry, also puts the failure to provide adequate security at these ‘demonstrations’ squarely onto the shoulders of Ottawa Police – the civilian oversight board of which you, sir, are the chair!
If this is insufficient to convince you, let us consider the next sentence of point #9 of the City of Ottawa bylaw:
It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision.
If nothing else, this clearly states it is the organizers of the demonstration and the police – not the organizers of the event which sparked it – who are responsible for the ‘security’ at the demonstration! And, it places the responsibility solely onto the Ottawa Police.
On the night of the ‘Ann Coulter’ fiasco at Ottawa University, the Ottawa Police were either unable or unwilling to fulfill their part of our social contract. Therefore, it is essential that the Ottawa Police Services Board investigates this failure in governance and ensures that it does not occur again.
What is even worse, the context in which this happened – forcing the cancellation of a speech by a speaker whose views are known to be unpopular with many labour unions, including the one Ottawa Police officers belong to – opens the Ottawa Police to charges of ‘selective policing’ to further the political interests of their labour union. I very much hope this is not so! Still, this issue must also be thoroughly investigated, if only to remove the cloud of suspicion which is currently marring the reputation of the Ottawa Police even more that the simple failure to act did.
Mr. El-Chantiry, please, find out what happened, and let me know. Fix the problems – and restore the good reputation of the Ottawa Police!
Sincerely yours,
Alexandra Belaire
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
April 2, 2010 at 14:25
Xanthippa:
Okay, now I’m confused. Who, exactly, gave the order to cancel the event?
The police say it wasn’t them. So who was it?
Was it the University of Ottawa?
Was it the International Free Press Society?
Was it Ann Coulter herself?
Xanthippa says:
The cops did not cancel the event – directly.
They simply told the evet’s organizers that they were going to do nothing to stop – or even restrain – the angry mob of protesters outside (some of whom had started throwing rocks). Then, they ‘strongly advised’ that, for their own safety, they cancel the event and leave the venue. (Ann Coulter herself never made it into the hall.)
So, it was the person who was the go-between between the University, where the venue was, and the IFPS, who organized the whole 3-city tour, who made the official call to cancel (to the best of my understanding) after being ordered to cancel it by the police, who said it was not their responsibility to arrest the people outside who were breaking the laws and threatening violence against Ann Coulter and the people attending the event.
The way Ann Coulter puts it, the Ottawa Police ordered them to pull the plug on the event, so they did…
The way Ezra Levant puts it, the Ottawa Police told them they were not safe there and that they (the cops) would not protect them – so canceling the event was the only course of action open to them.
The IFPS people I know told me the Ottawa Police ‘strongly suggested’ (in an intimidating manner) that they cancel the event or face violence, which is when the ‘official’ cancellation of the even was issued.
So, claiming that ‘the Ottawa Police did not cancel the event’ is either a very ufortunate misunderstanding of what happened that night or a half-truth designed to decieve. Neither of these is a good thing from the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board…
April 2, 2010 at 23:23
Xanthippa:
Okay, then, who was this go-between?
Did this person work for the University of Ottawa? Or was he an officer of the International Free Press Society? One or the other must have been the case, otherwise he would have had no say in the matter.
So who called it off? The university or the IFPS?
The reason I keep asking is because the picture I’m getting is very different from the one that’s being painted all over the blogosphere. The picture I’m getting is that the police said “we can’t guarantee your safety” and the IFPS just tucked their tails between their legs and ran away.
In which case, it was neither the university nor the police who took away the freedom of speech of the IFPS. It was their own timidity.
You can’t have it both ways: you can’t demand freedom with one breath, and holler for protection with the next. It spoils your credibility.
If there were people in the crowd throwing rocks, and the police refused to restrain them, then indeed, the police were in dereliction of duty — for reasons that have nothing to do with supervising demonstrations and everything to do with keeping the peace.
The correct response is to grab one or two representative rock-throwers by the scruff of the neck, using no more force than necessary to drag them out of the crowd and dump them at the feet of the indolent police. Then you proceed with your planned event and complain to the police commissioner in the morning.
Of course, the optics of that response wouldn’t play well in Canada. Recall how disgracefully the people of Ottawa vilified that guy who chased down that rapist. In view of which, one is perhaps forced to adopt the stance, not only that discretion is the better part of valour, but that it’s more politically savvy as well.
And that is a very sad comment about Canada.
It seems that the IFPS has set itself the thankless task of defending the freedom of people who would rather be protected.
Xanthippa says:
Of course, you are referring to the quote most often attributed to Franklin, about people who trade freedom for security not deserving either….
Still, I do think there are aspects here that are important. As for who cancelled the speech, here is what Ezra Levant said:
Yes, you were right to recall the ‘Good Samaritan’ who saved 2 lives in one evening: the one of the girl he wrenched from the claws of the evil man who wanted to live out his rape-murder fantasy – and, by catching him, the life of the person whom the evil man could not snatch off the streets when his first victim got away! He had been vilified as a ‘cowboy’ and a ‘vigilante’!
What people seem to forget is that ‘vigilantes’ only have a role when the police/justice system breaks down to an intolerable point….
Also keep in mind that, in Ontario, a man was arrested for trying to simply go home to his house – when violent and threatening (and, clearly acting in breech of the law) protesters blocked his way. The reason? HE was the focus of the aggressive illegal activity – therefore, to diffuse the situation, he was arrested and kept in jail overnight….
This (and way, way more) happened in Caledonia, Ontario….
With legal precedents like these, ‘strong suggestion’ phrased as ‘public safety issue’ means: “cancel and leave or else!”
People are afraid.
Of what the police will do to them if they do not comply with their ‘strong suggestions’.
You could see it as ‘running away’.
Or, you could see it as pointing out to the ‘silent majority’ the depth of fear the police generate to suppress speakers who say things politically opposed to the views of the labour union the police officers who ordered ‘the silencing’ belong to!
However, my major point was not the ‘technicallity’ of who was intimidated into making the official cancellation of the event!
Rather, I was pointing out that according to the City of Ottawa bylaws, the event organizers had absolutely no jurisdiction over the protesters: they were not part of the original event (they had not pre-registered) and they were outdoors. This means that, according to our laws, the University of Ottawa security people had absolutely zero authority to even try to protect themselves (as well as the property of the University, or any of the people on the University’s property) from the violence commited by the protesters, nor the further violence they threatened.
My point – and my only point – was that by CHOOSING NOT TO ENFORCE THE LAWS, the Ottawa Police did IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS were the ones who silenced Ann Coulter. If the organizers had not obeyed the police, they would have been arrested – in order to ‘maintain public safety’ – even though they had not broken any laws and only those who were threatening them were the lawbreakers.
That is ‘selective policing’.
Choosing to NOT ENFORCE the laws at some times, while applying it (and more) at other times, in order to promote a specific political message… Regardless of the technicalities, the Ottawa Police applied intimidation techniques to person their labout union does not approve of. (They succeeded in this instance – but it was the application of the intimidation and ‘selective policing’, not necessarily its success….)
THAT is my problem.
That the intimidation – and refusal to apply the law against the lawbreakers because they were on the same end of the political spectrum as the police labour union – EVEN OCCURRED!!!! And, that the Chair of the civilian oversight body over the Ottawa Police does not even get it, or that he considers it a ‘problem’!
Yes – that is not the same message as most of the ‘free speech’ movement people are conveying. But, I am not much of a ‘band-wagon jumper-on’! I think this criticism of the Ottawa Police has been completely missed by just about everyone involved…..and that is wrong!
Which is why I am harping on it…
April 3, 2010 at 14:38
Xanthippa:
The last thing the Canadian people need right now is to have their noses rubbed in more fear.
People are quite afraid enough.
Nor do they need to be made aware of the injustice.
People see it very clearly, but they are too afraid to do anything about it.
What they need is an example.
Someone articulate and high profile, like Ezra Levant or Ann Coulter, but with the courage to stand up in defence of our rights and freedoms at any cost. Someone who will not tuck tail and run away the moment things get a little risky.
When the police say “return to your cells for your own safety,” and Levant and Coulter meekly return to their cells, what kind of an example do they set?
Their message is clear: complain all you want, but don’t ever get up off your knees.
This is not what the Canadian people need. What they need is someone who is perfectly willing to defy the police if need be. Someone who considers it an honour to be arrested by a corrupt state. Someone who has no respect whatsoever for oppressive laws.
Someone who will gladly leave the safety of the cells and lead from the front.
Until they get that, Canadians will continue to skulk about like whipped dogs.
And the totalitarian state will continue to grow like cancer.
Xantippa says:
Codeslinger, I both agree with you and disagree with you. I wish things were as simple as you say…
And, back in the 1960’s – they were!
When George Carlan got himslef arrested with Lenny Bruce, it was completely clear cut to everyone what whas happpening – and why!
Now, things are a lot muddier.
I don’t know whom or what to blame….
Is it the educational system, which begins to brainwhash kids with collectivist propaganda from such an early age, most Canadians today think these the ‘normal’ or ‘default’ position?
Is it the mainstream media, which is nolonger composed of working-class ‘reporters’ reporting facts of ‘news’ in as impartial a manner as possible, but is now instead composed of a class on ‘intellectuals’ called ‘journalists’ who ‘bring us stories’ (which really means a very narrow, partisan interpretation of ‘news’ which has been sanitized and analyzed for us), one in each pre-determined category per day, regardless of how many important news events have got to be skipped because that ‘category’s slot’ has already been filled?
Is it the ‘internal polarization’ into triballistic ‘wing-adherence’ which the ‘West’ fell into once it ceased feeling the ‘common threat’ from the outside of their borders? The ‘self-identification’ with ‘right’ or ‘left’ wing, ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ self-label which causes people to examine the ‘affiliation’ of any figure before assessing their message instead of listening to the message itself and assessing IT?
Perhaps it’s a combination of all these, plus some more….
BUT!!!
And this is a very, very important ‘BUT’!!!
At this time, if a ‘right wing’ person, whether Ezra Levant or Ann Coulter or anyone perceived as ‘associated with them’ were to get arrested for the cause of ‘freedom of speech’, I am convinced that the overall battle to re-win this inherrent right of ours would actually be hurt!
Far from the 60’s, where people would challenge the authorities and see others making such challenges as populist heroes, if a person perceived as ‘right-wing’ in Canada today were to get themselves arrested in the cause of freedom of speech, most of the ‘non-right-wing’ – whether mainstream, left-wing, or just apolitical – would use this to score cheap political points against ‘the right wingers’…..throwing freedom of speech under the bus in the process!!!
If a left-wing person were to do it – it wold be a different story.
But, in order to affect the necessary legal changes, Canadians must be united in the cause. Slowly but surely, we are beginning to build some sort of an uneasy realization among the ‘mid-stream’ and ‘left-wing’ segments of our population that something is wrong, that our freedom of speech has become so eroded, we must act now – or forever our ‘peace’ will be held for us.
Still, these tribalized ‘wings’ have great mistrust of each other – and this ‘divid-and-conquer’ approach is the only thing currently holding the HRCs in place…
There are elements in these ‘tribes’ who are perfectly happy with the lack of free expression imposed on Canadians! And THESE are the ‘bits’ that would sieze upon any ‘right-wing’-perceived person’s arrest to twist the issue and smash the still fragile bridges which are being built…..
And THAT would re-divide us back into little tribes, easily cowed and manipulated.
Therefore, I think that it would actually be counterproductive NOW for Ezra Levant or Ann Coulter to have been arrested standing up for freedom of speech….
Perhaps 6 months from now, it will be better…perhaps it’ll take longer, hopefully not.
Selecting the ‘right timing’ of a battle is one of the most important factors which affect the battle’s outcome.
For anyone perceived as ‘right wing’, that ‘right time’ is not now!
April 4, 2010 at 15:08
Xanthippa:
Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said the optics of that response might not play well in Canada. I must say, you’ve given an excellent summary of what that means and why it is so.
To be honest, I can’t claim with certainty that now is the right time. But I can tell you this:
I’ve been talking to people about this and related issues for decades. Throughout most of that time, people told me I was crazy. But, increasingly, they say, “you’re right, but nothing can be done about it.” Nowadays, that’s how most people respond.
So is this the perfect time? I don’t know. But I do know that there has never been a better time.
If we keep waiting for the perfect time, we risk waiting too long.
In particular, we must not wait until the whole right-wing agenda can be dragged along. It’s pointless to wait for Canadians to swing much farther to the right, because that’s not going to happen.
The issue is the suppression of individual rights and freedoms by the bloated unnatural union of big business and big government. It would be a mistake to make it into an issue of left versus right.
The main reason people tell me nothing can be done is they have been betrayed repeatedly by both the left and the right. Conservatives, Liberals, NDP… doesn’t matter. They’ve been screwed by all of them.
So left versus right does not motivate Canadians any more, and probably never will again.
But the loss of their rights and freedoms resonates strongly with the ordinary, everyday people of Canada; they’re feeling it right now. Waiting until they get numb to it will not help the cause of the political right, but it will hurt the cause of individual rights and freedoms.
Don’t let the vocal left or the vocal right fool you: they don’t speak for the bulk of Canadians. What Canadians want is a party that is not for the left, and a party that is not for the right, but a party that is for the people.
Meaning, a party that stands for individual rights and freedoms.
That would get their attention. That would give them hope.
I know this because of the uniformly positive response I get from people when I tell them:
It’s not left versus right.
It’s the state.
Versus YOU.
Xanthippa says:
Yes, exactly!
But, let me back up a little.
Last night, after responding to your comment, I came across post by George Jonas (I stopped reading him regularly after he expressed a sentiment along the lines that extraditing Polanski now to serve the sentence for the rape he was convicted of is silly) where he actually expressed – in two sentences – clearly, understandably and eloquently, what I had been trying to in all this time: in the post, in my replies to you, and so on…
The whole article is here.
As for the timing: it is the crux of the matter.
IF it were a person perceived to be on the ‘left’ of the political spectrum who would stand up, the timing NOW would be perfect.
But, whether we like it or not, the majority of the media is still polarizing it into a righ-left thing – which it is NOT!!!
Still, there is an awakening beginning to happen.
As I said (or, at least attempted to say, somewhere along the line), as long as it is perceived as a left-right issue, there is no hope of winning. And, there are still enough opportunists/naive idiots on the left who, if the person who is arrested ‘Lenny Bruce-style’ is perceived as ‘right wing’, are willing and eager to twist the issue into a political advantage for ‘their’ side…. In this, they are egged on – often actively manipulated – by those who wish to ‘control speech’ the way they wish to control every single aspect of our lives!
So, either the person doing the ‘standing up’ NOW MUST be from the ‘left’ OR we must wait just a little longer – till enough journalists are made to understand the essence of the problem….so that attempts at twisting that event will not go unchallenged in the mainstream media channels.
Getting it ‘wrong’ now would be a serious setback that might take years to correct.
Still, the moment is ripening….
April 5, 2010 at 05:29
[…] rape victim's execution is being reported'THE' question about Michael Jackson: was he a castrato?Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board: "It's not our job to 'police'!" Aspergers: not just 'extreme male brain' syndromeADD, Aspergers and the 'cannot-put-weight-on-foot' […]
April 5, 2010 at 23:32
[…] Is Guy Earle the 'next George Carlin'?How a 13-year-old rape victim's execution is being reportedChair of Ottawa Police Services Board: "It's not our job to 'police'!" 'THE' question about Michael Jackson: was he a castrato?Aspergers: not just 'extreme male brain' […]
May 20, 2011 at 13:21
[…] such as Ann Coulter’s raucous reception and cancellation in Ottawa; where the local police failed through their capitulation to the mob. That the pendulum of preparation should swing so far in the […]