I agree with this. In my own little head (which can be scary sometimes!) I often make a parallel between extremist union attitude (meaning those unions that feel the ‘company’ is always in the wrong and owes the union ‘bruthas’ no matter what the ‘bruthas’ do - including breaking the collective agreement) and many members of the RCMP. Even if some officers don’t agree with how things were handled or what is being said, a lot of them will ‘toe the line’ and stand next to their ‘bruthas’ in solidarity. I might have that completely bass ackwards, but it can appear that way from the outside. While I am all for the union ideology that members stand together so that they don’t get treated unfairly, I am completely against members standing together no matter what. Illegal actions should have consequences, period. It shouldn’t matter if someone is a housewife or an RCMP member - if the illegal action is the same, then the consequences should also be the same.
Bakerwriter you must get a lot of first hand info where you are at. But enjoy your views and I ask you to keep it up.
[quote=“BakerWriter”]
I get that some believe this is a poison coursing through the whole RCMP body. I don’t agree. I do not believe every police officer wants bad things for their community nor do they want to sit idly by and be tarred with the same brush these four have. [/quote]
I don’t believe every officer wants bad things either. There’s a bunch of great RCMP officers, even many who have helped me with various things in Rupert.
What I’m saying is that the instinct to cover up and protect their own is part of the culture of the RCMP.
I disagree with you that they don’t want to “sit idly by and be tarred with the same brush as these four have.” Clearly they are sitting idly by and being tarred with the same brush as the Vancouver Airport 4, because they refuse to distance themselves from them.
RCMP officers of every rank have spoken publicly in support of the 4 officers. Like I said, they’ve even posted on HTMF.
Now they are, as you say, “Sitting idly by and being tarred with the same brush” because they choose to be.
No, they’ll just “sit idly by and be tarred with the same brush.” Nobody is asking them to slag off the RCMP. But how about expressing the same opinions in the negative that they seemed to have no problem expressing in the positive?
Or, could be considered a form of “sitting idly by and being tarred with the same brush.” Right?
If I was an RCMP officer, I’d have no problem saying that the Dziekanski affair has been mishandled, that crimes were committed by RCMP officers, and that I though that those officers brought the entire organization’s reputation down.
Now I’m not saying that I disagree here, I definitely agree. But - do the RCMP have to get permission before talking to the press about anything? Maybe they have been told to not say anything, whether or not they disagree with the actions of fellow officers?
Like I said, not saying I disagree here, but do we know if there are extenuating circumstances that are keeping some of these ‘good’ officers from speaking out? I’m honestly asking the question, not trying to set anyone up - I don’t know the answer.
You really need to distinguish between members, whatever their rank, speaking on behalf of the RCMP and individual members expressing opinions in a personal capacity. You seem to be construing statements of “support” as necessarily being the personal opinions of those members. Media relations are tightly controlled by the RCMP. They have a list of designated spokespersons who have standing authority to talk to the media, while individual members may be authorized to speak on behalf of the RCMP in particular circumstances. No one is authorized to give their personal opinions while in uniform. Under the RCMP Act there is a duty of impartiality. Similar rules apply to federal and provincial civil servants.
My point is that when speaking officially the RCMP all to often takes positions that strain credibility. Usually they say that have investigated and found that there was no wrong doing. If they acknowledge a mistake, it is only the individual member that got it wrong, not the institution that trains them, sets policies and procedures, and issues orders. I don’t agree with what the four mounties did, but their lawyers have a point when they say that their clients were following their training. I think that it is a mistake to reduce all issues to some kind of “bad apple theory”. The institution should also be held responsible, accountable and in some cases liable.
That is exactly what I am saying. If they appear to be criticizing the RCMP they risk being disciplined for contravening the Code of Conduct “41 A member shall not publicly criticize, ridicule, petition or complain about the administration, operation, objectives or policies of the Force, unless authorized by law.”
Say that in public and you should expect to be in serious trouble.
But actually kill a guy with a taser, and the entire force comes to your aid with coverups, character assassinations, outright lies, etc. Criticize the killing of a guy with a taser, and you’re in serious trouble.
Now you see why there’s a serious problem with the RCMP? The culture of the RCMP is broken.
Time for civilian oversight, or better yet, time to disband.
And then what? I don’t think disbanding is the right answer by any means.
And then we have a true federal force doing federal police work. And the provinces do the policing that is theirs, constitutionally. Works just fine in Ontario and Quebec. You also don’t have the problem of a province ordering the RCMP to do something and having them say “you’re not the boss of us.” When in fact, they are.
BC is the province that depends the most heavily on the RCMP to do contract policing. Take a look at the rest of Canada to see how they handle things.
Perhaps forming a federal force that doesn’t have paramilitary roots, and has civilian oversight? What’s wrong with that?
And people forget, or don’t know, that B.C. used to have it’s own provincial police force.
Yes, there was a BC Provincial Police from colonial times until 1950 when the provincial government gave the contract to the RCMP and disbanded the provincial force with most of its members being rebadged as mounties. The RCMP became the police force in most municipalities in the province as well.
Until 1920 policing of federal assets (buildings, docks etc) in the province and policing on Indian reserves was not the responsibility of the RCMP, which was largely concentrated in the Prairies, but the Dominion Police, which had a presence on the North Coast. The latter, which was also the ‘secret service’ of that time, merged with the RCMP.
Speaking with “unnamed source who knows a lot about the RCMP”, it seems that the RCMP once had a stellar international reputation for international and federal crimes, especially in the commercial crimes sector. The FBI and others would frequently come calling for RCMP assistance.
But now the RCMP is increasingly focussed on contract policing, since a large majority of Mounties aren’t actually doing federal police duties, but rather contracted out to do community and provincial policing. And a majority of those are in BC.
I think it’s time to look at how other provinces handle provincial policing, and to let the RCMP return its focus to its federal duties.
Meaning that they would set free an run loose? Is that not kina dangerous?
No, I think that the point is that perhaps the RCMP should be a federal force that is largely dedicated to more serious offences and the most complex investigations like the FBI. For those who are skeptical of American examples, while the RCMP was patrolling the Prairies and far north on horses and with dogsleds, the more specialized Dominion Police set up the first fingerprinting lab in the country, dealt with counterfeiting, undercover work, counter-espionage and so on.
The establishment of CSIS is also a relevant example. After a royal commission investigated wrong-doings by the RCMP Security Service (illegal break-ins and so on) CSIS was set up as a specialist civilian agency to deal with national security.
The most troubling issues involving the RCMP seem to start out as rather innocuous events where they are acting as contract police for the province or local government - an immigrant lost in an airport being tazered to death, a young guy drinking a beer at a ball game ending up shot in the head in a police interview room, a search warrant served at the house of a former premier but the media given advance warning to ensure maximum political effect, and so on.
When controversies arise the RCMP essentially investigates itself - the RCMP complaints commission is not truly independent - unless, as in the Dziekanski case, there is such an outcry that the premier (thank you Gordo) does the right thing and commissions an independent inquiry. There seems to be little else that can be done to hold the RCMP accountable when they are acting as provincial or municipal police.
If more or most general duties policing was done by provincial and/or municipal police there may be greater potential for genuine civilian oversight when there are concerns. If citizens are dissatisfied with how the provincial complaints commission, which oversees municipal police forces, operates, provincial politicians can change the law. In contrast, provincial politicians cannot do anything about the RCMP complaints commission because it is under federal jurisdiction like the RCMP as a national police force.
Plain and simple: an independent citizens watchdog organization with full sanction powers under legislation.
The laws that govern this group should be air tight, black and white with very little left to interpretation (no watering down of their mandate). Then, when the police think they themselves are above the law, you have a legitimate group that not only penalizes such arrogance but also reinforces the officers who are doing a good job to continue on doing so without having to stick their necks out to sheriff the Cowboy Officers.