A Commission that has lost the plot
Thursday, September 29, 2011 by David Eby
As I was enjoying my morning coffee, it was hard not to talk back to the radio. The Missing Women Inquiry's lead lawyer, Art Vertlieb, Q.C., was on CBC talking about the Commission and the concern expressed in a recent letter by every group, including the family members, that the Commission has lost the plot.
My first concern was, obviously, a concern about accuracy. However, I do understand the realities of live radio and the difficulties of summarizing big points in sound bites, so I won't harp too heavily on that point, as annoying as it can be.
For the record, all but two of the lawyers listed as "participating" on the sides of sex workers, DTES women, and others on the radio this morning, are doing so for free, off the sides of their desk. Working part time, for free, is noble, but is not the same as the full time teams of lawyers working for the police and government, and the Commission should not pretend it is the same.
Further, the groups participating have not been "given all the latitude to ask questions just like anyone else." In fact, Indigenous, Women's and Human Rights groups have specifically been given "limited standing," restricting them to only asking questions if the Commissioner gives them permission. You may note that "limited" suggests that there is a "full standing", which is what the police get, apparently just by showing up, as in the case of Cst. Doug Fell.
The two issues I really want to press are these: First, what is this inquiry really about? Second, can the Commission get at the truth without the groups who have dropped out and who are likely to drop out?
According Mr. Vertlieb, QC, the purpose of this inquiry is as follows:
"Remember, at the core of all of this, is an inquiry into what the police were doing… So when you look at the really big issue in this case is about, it’s about what the police did or didn’t do.”
Let's assume that this is the issue.
How could you possibly know what the police did at this time without speaking to the people the police were working with, or who they were (supposed to be) taking complaints from? WISH, PACE, SWUAV, three major sex worker organizations, along with the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre have said that they can not participate. Can not. Full stop. They don't have the resources, they're too busy feeding, housing and supporting women living in the streets to sit in on months of hearings and ask any question they want.
What the police did 20 years ago is not the extent of the issue, but a mere fraction of it. Some of this exercise is, of course, a finger pointing and accountability exercise. But when you look at the "really big picture," this Inquiry is about protecting women going forward. How do we prevent these needless deaths. How do we investigate disappearances. How can this Commission figure that out without hearing from the women they're planning on protecting?
If the Commission firmly believes that the big issue is about what the police did, or didn't do, and that the Commission can construct that from police notebooks and case notes, and memos, and without talking to the person who actually had the interaction with the police officer, then it's easy to come to this conclusion:
"So when you look at it that way, well you want to make sure you’ve got the right people there to ask the right questions. And I can tell you I’m totally confident with the skill of the lawyers involved, the Commission will be successful."
This answer really encompasses the gap between what the community is saying and what the Commission is hearing.
If the Commission believes that lawyers, one of the most privileged groups in our society, can understand the realities of living in the DTES without hearing from the women who live there every day, and without hearing from those who work with them every day, with respect, the Commission is mistaken.
In fact, this mistake repeats the exact mistake of the police who thought they knew the transient lifestyle of the DTES woman when they ignored the concerns of that community that there was a serial killer on the loose. When they ignored the "bad date sheets" that outlined brutal attacks on women in their policing efforts as just part of the life of a hooker. When they ignored people they thought they didn't need to get the job done.
In the sign off of the interview, the interviewer asked the final question: "Are you concerned about the groups who have dropped out though?", and in reply came the remarkable answer:
"Well, no, my belief is that we're going to get the job done."
The job cannot get done without the community. I have no idea why the answer was not, "Of course I'm concerned, we gave these groups standing and advocated for them to be funded on an equal basis to police and government because we need them at the table."
As a final aside, it was interesting to hear the spokesperson for the Commission say that if the community is not happy with the Commission, that he's sure the Commission will hear about it:
"I'm sure if people don't like what we're doing, we'll hear about it."
Let me put it plainly: People don't like what this Commission is doing.
21 of the 22 groups participating wrote to the Premier asking her to intervene. 17 of the families. I'm not sure what it will take to get this Commission's attention on these issues, but if that's not sufficient, it's likely nothing will be.
My first concern was, obviously, a concern about accuracy. However, I do understand the realities of live radio and the difficulties of summarizing big points in sound bites, so I won't harp too heavily on that point, as annoying as it can be.
For the record, all but two of the lawyers listed as "participating" on the sides of sex workers, DTES women, and others on the radio this morning, are doing so for free, off the sides of their desk. Working part time, for free, is noble, but is not the same as the full time teams of lawyers working for the police and government, and the Commission should not pretend it is the same.
Further, the groups participating have not been "given all the latitude to ask questions just like anyone else." In fact, Indigenous, Women's and Human Rights groups have specifically been given "limited standing," restricting them to only asking questions if the Commissioner gives them permission. You may note that "limited" suggests that there is a "full standing", which is what the police get, apparently just by showing up, as in the case of Cst. Doug Fell.
The two issues I really want to press are these: First, what is this inquiry really about? Second, can the Commission get at the truth without the groups who have dropped out and who are likely to drop out?
According Mr. Vertlieb, QC, the purpose of this inquiry is as follows:
"Remember, at the core of all of this, is an inquiry into what the police were doing… So when you look at the really big issue in this case is about, it’s about what the police did or didn’t do.”
Let's assume that this is the issue.
How could you possibly know what the police did at this time without speaking to the people the police were working with, or who they were (supposed to be) taking complaints from? WISH, PACE, SWUAV, three major sex worker organizations, along with the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre have said that they can not participate. Can not. Full stop. They don't have the resources, they're too busy feeding, housing and supporting women living in the streets to sit in on months of hearings and ask any question they want.
What the police did 20 years ago is not the extent of the issue, but a mere fraction of it. Some of this exercise is, of course, a finger pointing and accountability exercise. But when you look at the "really big picture," this Inquiry is about protecting women going forward. How do we prevent these needless deaths. How do we investigate disappearances. How can this Commission figure that out without hearing from the women they're planning on protecting?
If the Commission firmly believes that the big issue is about what the police did, or didn't do, and that the Commission can construct that from police notebooks and case notes, and memos, and without talking to the person who actually had the interaction with the police officer, then it's easy to come to this conclusion:
"So when you look at it that way, well you want to make sure you’ve got the right people there to ask the right questions. And I can tell you I’m totally confident with the skill of the lawyers involved, the Commission will be successful."
This answer really encompasses the gap between what the community is saying and what the Commission is hearing.
If the Commission believes that lawyers, one of the most privileged groups in our society, can understand the realities of living in the DTES without hearing from the women who live there every day, and without hearing from those who work with them every day, with respect, the Commission is mistaken.
In fact, this mistake repeats the exact mistake of the police who thought they knew the transient lifestyle of the DTES woman when they ignored the concerns of that community that there was a serial killer on the loose. When they ignored the "bad date sheets" that outlined brutal attacks on women in their policing efforts as just part of the life of a hooker. When they ignored people they thought they didn't need to get the job done.
In the sign off of the interview, the interviewer asked the final question: "Are you concerned about the groups who have dropped out though?", and in reply came the remarkable answer:
"Well, no, my belief is that we're going to get the job done."
The job cannot get done without the community. I have no idea why the answer was not, "Of course I'm concerned, we gave these groups standing and advocated for them to be funded on an equal basis to police and government because we need them at the table."
As a final aside, it was interesting to hear the spokesperson for the Commission say that if the community is not happy with the Commission, that he's sure the Commission will hear about it:
"I'm sure if people don't like what we're doing, we'll hear about it."
Let me put it plainly: People don't like what this Commission is doing.
21 of the 22 groups participating wrote to the Premier asking her to intervene. 17 of the families. I'm not sure what it will take to get this Commission's attention on these issues, but if that's not sufficient, it's likely nothing will be.
RSS
Email
Twitter