“We manage risk. Our goal is the safety of every person in this
community — and not doing something that we think would
jeopardize that. We think there is optimism for resolution.”
That was Regina police Chief Evan Bray, explaining why RPS
will not end an occupation of Wascana Park by activists despite
four requests to act by the Provincial Capital Commission.
From the operatic sentiment 150 years ago, that “a policeman’s
lot is not a happy one,” no one ever said that policing is easy.
Like a good referee, cops need to know when to look the other
way and when to enforce the law without favour, preference or
prejudice.
Chief Bray’s explanation is understandable, but incorrect in
refusing to eject Indigenous protesters from Saskatchewan’s
most famous park surrounding the Legislature. While sources
at Regina police headquarters say that the Wascana issue
“
is just some bylaw,” the chief knows that modern policing has
undergone significant changes that make it a hybrid of social
work and political gymnastics, lest a cop ever offend a growing
list of entitled and noisy activists.
The earliest principles of policing, from Sir Robert Peel in the
1820s, still resonate today: policing’s purpose is to prevent
crime and maintain order; its goal is to achieve voluntary
compliance with the law in the community. And, according to
Peel, the police must be unwavering in their duties and
adherence to the law, maintaining impartiality and not being
swayed by public opinion. Peel first coined the creed
“
serve and protect.”
Surely, the Provincial Capital Commission and the
provincial government bear some responsibility. Back
in February, on the day that a group of squatters with
an ill-defined and fuzzy Indigenous rights message
arrived, they should have been accommodated with a
meeting and then summarily packed up after their
tents and teepee spent the first night illegally erected
in the park.
Now, more worried about “
risk” (precisely what risk is
not explained) and implying that police action would
actually jeopardize public safety, the police refusal to
enforce the law sends the message that it’s OK to
flout laws as long as someone feels strongly enough
about their protest issue.
Oddly, the police are also engaging in a hierarchy of
grievances, which should be explained to the
community. If Indigenous rights warrant a police
non-response in an iconic park, what about other
causes in the same park and other locations?
Recall marijuana activists who were dealt with
firmly — arrested and charged, their premises
raided and closed by RPS, all in the interests
of enforcing the law. This was done despite
the fact that within a few months existing laws
against storefront medical marijuana sales will
be rendered moot when all cannabis can be
publicly purchased.
The disturbing part of the Regina police position
is that it strains the fabric of community support
and respect for the rule of law and for the police
we trust to enforce it. If the police pick and
choose which protests and grievances are
acceptable, why have restrictions at all in
Wascana or any park?
Just think, from politics to poverty, disability
rights to children’s issues, racialized concerns
to unions, reproductive choice and a range of
other activism, tents should be able to set up
in Wascana Park at any time, interrupting
Canada Day or other events.
And none of this should concern the Regina Police
Service (or us), so long as they “manage risk,” keep
people safe and remain optimistic that everything
will eventually work out.
From:
SP Gormley: Regina police owe better explanation on non-policing | Saskatoon StarPhoenix
rofile and Map
