Missing Women Inquiry: Police questions only, please
Thursday, September 22, 2011 by David Eby
Today, Commissioner Wally Oppal announced that another police officer, with another lawyer, will be joining the Commission as a "full participant." This was surprising to many given that there was no notice, prior to the decision, that standing for this officer was even being considered by the Commissioner.
At the beginning of this process, a full hearing with submissions took place on who got to participate as a "full participant" and who got to participate as a "limited participant." The key difference comes down to the right to cross examine witnesses (full standing), or the absence of that right unless the Commissioner says you can ask questions (limited standing). Another key difference was to be the level of financial support for groups granted standing, but that has since, notoriously, proven to be a moot point for anyone other than police or government or family members.
There are two key questions that arise from this appointment of "full participant" standing to a police officer, whose interest appears to be that he was treated badly in the Doug Lepard, Vancouver Police Department, report on the debacle of an investigation that allowed 30 women to be murdered before Pickton was arrested.
First, who is paying for the lawyer? If it is some arm of the government or police, and don't be surprised if it is, that puts just one more fully paid lawyer on the side of "nothing went wrong" or "what did go wrong has been fixed."
Second, if one police officer's reputational interest is sufficient to give him "full participant" standing, why are the interests of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, in representing their membership's interest in not being murdered or disappeared, not equivalent to result in "full participant" standing? Especially now that funding is no longer on the table?
Just like these Indigenous leadership groups, a coalition of 11 women's groups, the Women's Equality and Security Coalition, was granted limited standing. Or they had limited standing, until they pulled out saying they had no confidence in this process.
In short, the police get to ask all the cross examination questions that they want. The Indigenous groups and the women's groups and the rights groups (Amnesty/BCCLA/Pivot), don't, or at least don't without the Commissioner's permission.
And people wonder why groups are pulling out of this process.
At the beginning of this process, a full hearing with submissions took place on who got to participate as a "full participant" and who got to participate as a "limited participant." The key difference comes down to the right to cross examine witnesses (full standing), or the absence of that right unless the Commissioner says you can ask questions (limited standing). Another key difference was to be the level of financial support for groups granted standing, but that has since, notoriously, proven to be a moot point for anyone other than police or government or family members.
There are two key questions that arise from this appointment of "full participant" standing to a police officer, whose interest appears to be that he was treated badly in the Doug Lepard, Vancouver Police Department, report on the debacle of an investigation that allowed 30 women to be murdered before Pickton was arrested.
First, who is paying for the lawyer? If it is some arm of the government or police, and don't be surprised if it is, that puts just one more fully paid lawyer on the side of "nothing went wrong" or "what did go wrong has been fixed."
Second, if one police officer's reputational interest is sufficient to give him "full participant" standing, why are the interests of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, in representing their membership's interest in not being murdered or disappeared, not equivalent to result in "full participant" standing? Especially now that funding is no longer on the table?
Just like these Indigenous leadership groups, a coalition of 11 women's groups, the Women's Equality and Security Coalition, was granted limited standing. Or they had limited standing, until they pulled out saying they had no confidence in this process.
In short, the police get to ask all the cross examination questions that they want. The Indigenous groups and the women's groups and the rights groups (Amnesty/BCCLA/Pivot), don't, or at least don't without the Commissioner's permission.
And people wonder why groups are pulling out of this process.
RSS
Email
Twitter