The role of the Mayor and police in Occupy Vancouver
Friday, October 14, 2011 by David Eby
A tweet from mayoral hopeful Suzanne Anton just drifted across my Hootsuite, and I couldn't let it pass. Nor could I reply in 140 characters.
Here it is:
I know it's hard to communicate in 140 characters. It's also hard to figure out where to start in pointing out what's wrong with this tweet.
First of all, for context, Anton is trying to make the policing around the riot a political issue for the mayoral race. The implication is simple. Robertson, as head of the Police Board, and Mayor, should have seen the riot coming and ensured there were enough police. Or that windows were boarded up. Or that there were stilt walkers. Or what have you.
Fair enough, enjoy the debate and the election. But let's not lose track of the facts.
Whether it is a riot or a protest, in our system, the Mayor is a figurehead on the Police Board, with the majority of appointees coming from the Province. Even if the Mayor were the functional head of the Police Board, responsible for the majority of appointees to the Board (which in my view is a reform long overdue), the Police Board's sole job is policy and choosing a police chief. Operational matters like riots and protests are the purview of the police chief, not the Police Board.
This separation of church and state is intended to ensure that the momentary winds of political whim don't dictate whether or not, for example, people can gather downtown and protest.
So in this situation, whatever would the Mayor have to say about tomorrow's Occupy Vancouver protest to demonstrate leadership? Perhaps "Don't come out," "Please don't block traffic," "Don't forget our park bylaws," "Drivers, find alternate routes," "I've met with the Police Chief, and he's aware of the situation"?
The Mayor must rely on the Chief that has been hired to do the job the Chief has been hired to do, namely, ensure the rights of the protesters to protest are respected, and ensure public safety generally. Political interference, with the Mayor ordering the clearance of a park for example, or introducing new no protest rules for parks, or threatening protesters, or something similarly bizarre and reactionary would certainly result in constitutional litigation which would be expensive, pointless, and a sure loser for the city.
Remember the Olympic "Free Speech Zones"?
Anything the Mayor could say about Occupy Vancouver would be simple posturing, and everybody would know it. He can't stop the protest, he's not responsible for policing it, and he shouldn't try to do either job. Where is the Mayor? Doing Mayor stuff, and not police operations or anti-free speech stuff, which is not his job, nor should it be.
Here it is:
I know it's hard to communicate in 140 characters. It's also hard to figure out where to start in pointing out what's wrong with this tweet.
First of all, for context, Anton is trying to make the policing around the riot a political issue for the mayoral race. The implication is simple. Robertson, as head of the Police Board, and Mayor, should have seen the riot coming and ensured there were enough police. Or that windows were boarded up. Or that there were stilt walkers. Or what have you.
Fair enough, enjoy the debate and the election. But let's not lose track of the facts.
Whether it is a riot or a protest, in our system, the Mayor is a figurehead on the Police Board, with the majority of appointees coming from the Province. Even if the Mayor were the functional head of the Police Board, responsible for the majority of appointees to the Board (which in my view is a reform long overdue), the Police Board's sole job is policy and choosing a police chief. Operational matters like riots and protests are the purview of the police chief, not the Police Board.
This separation of church and state is intended to ensure that the momentary winds of political whim don't dictate whether or not, for example, people can gather downtown and protest.
So in this situation, whatever would the Mayor have to say about tomorrow's Occupy Vancouver protest to demonstrate leadership? Perhaps "Don't come out," "Please don't block traffic," "Don't forget our park bylaws," "Drivers, find alternate routes," "I've met with the Police Chief, and he's aware of the situation"?
The Mayor must rely on the Chief that has been hired to do the job the Chief has been hired to do, namely, ensure the rights of the protesters to protest are respected, and ensure public safety generally. Political interference, with the Mayor ordering the clearance of a park for example, or introducing new no protest rules for parks, or threatening protesters, or something similarly bizarre and reactionary would certainly result in constitutional litigation which would be expensive, pointless, and a sure loser for the city.
Remember the Olympic "Free Speech Zones"?
Anything the Mayor could say about Occupy Vancouver would be simple posturing, and everybody would know it. He can't stop the protest, he's not responsible for policing it, and he shouldn't try to do either job. Where is the Mayor? Doing Mayor stuff, and not police operations or anti-free speech stuff, which is not his job, nor should it be.
RSS
Email
Twitter
Statement from Mayor Gregor Robertson on Occupy Vancouver
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson offers this statement on Occupy Vancouver:
"This Saturday, citizens from across Vancouver and throughout the Lower Mainland will gather downtown for the Occupy Vancouver event being held in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery.
"We have seen the Occupy Wall Street movement grow and spread to dozens of cities across North America. In these turbulent economic times, I recognize and appreciate the concerns and angst that people, especially young people, feel about the economy, rising inequality, the environment, and state of the world right now. I fully support the right of people to demonstrate those concerns publicly and peacefully.
"The vast majority of those planning to participate in Occupy Vancouver have expressed openly their desire to do so peacefully and lawfully. The City of Vancouver has a long history of protecting free speech and the right to protest peacefully.
"However, we know from our experience with the Stanley Cup riots and the protests that marked the start of the Olympic Games that large gatherings can sometimes attract small groups of people determined to use these avenues for their own violent ends.
"Violence, whether against people or property, will not be tolerated and will only detract from those who wish to legitimately express their opinions. Senior City staff are working closely with the VPD and stakeholders across the community to ensure we are positioned to support a lawful and peaceful protest.
"The issues of economic instability and inequality are important, and our citizens are free to voice their concerns and protest peacefully as they see fit.
"However, there will be police presence in and around this protest, as there is for any large event downtown. This is to ensure the City is doing what we can to ensure people have the ability to be heard safely, and that this protest is not undermined by violence or destructive behaviour of any kind."