[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

So Sloly has resigned and is going straight under the bus.

Perhaps for good reason?

Sloly's resignation comes as sources tell CBC News he's been accused of bullying and volatile behaviour that has damaged relations with senior leadership and compromised the force's ability to cope with the truck protest.

Multiple sources have told CBC News that Sloly allegedly belittled and berated senior Ottawa Police Service officers in front of their colleagues, and has failed to put forward a solid operations plan to end the crisis.

Sources say he allegedly has come into conflict with members of the OPP and RCMP tasked with assisting the city's law enforcement efforts during the crisis.

Sources both inside and outside the police service said Sloly has a short fuse and is quick to yell at members of his senior leadership team.

Since the protest and subsequent occupation of downtown Ottawa began, at least three incident response commanders have been reassigned after working with Sloly, the sources said.

One incident commander who was reassigned described Sloly as having no rationale for his decisions.

"This will all come out in a review," another reassigned incident commander told CBC News. "I can't say any more."

Police and provincial sources have told CBC News that the Ottawa Police Service's failure to provide the OPP and the RCMP with a firm operational plan for the 1,800 officers it has asked for has delayed the arrival of those extra officers.

Sources within and outside the OPS say they are concerned the force's leadership is burned out and has reached a breaking point.

"Right now the Ottawa Police Service is paralyzed," one source told CBC News. "They are paralyzed at the front line. They've been waiting for directions from the senior leadership team and are frustrated with how they're being viewed by the public because of the spectacular failure of their leader."

[Malthus]

It did seem odd that Ottawa could not handle the protests, yet several other Canadian cities could and did.

Though to be fair, Ottawa was hit first and presumably hardest, so the other cities could learn from its unfortunate situation.

I do worry that invoking the Act is overreach. Right now it is welcomed by many, because the protests are largely unpopular, and are seen as inspired by foreigners to troll us, and the local government in Ottawa (and other levels of government at border crossings) seems to have been unable to deal with it. Problem is that it sets a low bar precedent.

[crazy canuck]

It also strikes me as odd that the Ontario government and the Feds are taking the position that a local detachment, already stretched has to come up with a comprehensive plan; rather than working collaboratively on that plan.

Looks like a complete failure of leadership of senior government.


An apt analogy is a community is hit with a natural disaster, seeks outside aid, which is refused because the community does not have a comprehensive plan for how to use the aid.  Normally the people giving the aid have a good idea how to best deploy their own resources.  But apparently here, a municipal police chief is supposed to be the knower of all things. 

[Jacob]

It also strikes me as odd that the Ontario government and the Feds are taking the position that a local detachment, already stretched has to come up with a comprehensive plan; rather than working collaboratively on that plan.

Looks like a complete failure of leadership of senior government.


An apt analogy is a community is hit with a natural disaster, seeks outside aid, which is refused because the community does not have a comprehensive plan for how to use the aid.  Normally the people giving the aid have a good idea how to best deploy their own resources.  But apparently here, a municipal police chief is supposed to be the knower of all things. 

I think there's definitely room for analysis and criticism, but there's a whole bunch of things that are not clear to me. I think, in general, the criticism probably lies more squarely with the provincial governments than with the federal given policing is - as I understand it - a provincial matter. I think, too, it's instructive to see that different provinces have handled the protests with fairly different degrees of success.

To me it looks like the situation in Ottawa is primarily the result of some level of incompetence from Sloly combined with a lack of desire to engage by Ford. It seems appropriate to me that Trudeau stayed out - as policing is a matter of provincial jurisdiction - but as the situation remained out of control the Federal Government did step in, and it looks like things are beginning to wind down almost immediately afterwards.

There's definitely an argument to be made about whether it should've been done sooner or later.

There's most likely arguments to be made about whether the Federal government used the correct tools. What I am curious - and know very little - about is what other tools the Federal government had (or has available) to it.

I am also curious about the nitty gritty of what the various provincial governments could have done differently. What authority and powers do each of the governments have available? How were those powers used appropriately (or not used, or used inappropriately)? I know even less about that topic. Can a provincial premier direct the police to - say - clear a blockade at a border crossing? Or is that operational and thus something politicians should/ can not do?

[Jacob]

Another thing I'm curious about - there's a couple of somewhat conflicting narratives out there, and I'm wondering how real they are.

One is that the protestors are a bunch of yahoos and the police is actually friendly with them (selfies, letting them walk by with jerry cans etc), and that it's simple to get rid of them (give them tickets, just tow the trucks, just drag them away one by one). They're a bunch of doofuses and the reason the police isn't acting is some combination of incompetence, lack of proper direction from above, and/ or sympathy.

The other narrative is one of a core of hardened agitators who've dug in. Some of them may be armed. Some are (current/ former) police and military. If the police push too hard it may turn into a full scale riot or worse. The police is often frightened by the protestors and are loath to light a powderkeg that could explode much more than other protests.

I'm not completely sure how to reconcile those two narratives, and I think our analyses are significantly influenced by which one we hold to be correct (and occasionally, by holding apparently mutually contradictory things from each set as true).

[Sheilbh]

Is it not possible there's a bit of both?

It's different but I've certainly been on protests which are peaceful and probably naive - but then there's a Class War group who'll run out of the crowd and try to smash up an estate agent. As a whole it's got both doofuses like me and hardened agitators, you can normally tell who's who by the end when it's either finished and there's a hard core hanging on or you've been told to disperse.

[Jacob]

Is it not possible there's a bit of both?

It's different but I've certainly been on protests which are peaceful and probably naive - but then there's a Class War group who'll run out of the crowd and try to smash up an estate agent. As a whole it's got both doofuses like me and hardened agitators, you can normally tell who's who by the end when it's either finished and there's a hard core hanging on or you've been told to disperse.

Not "class war" but alt right boogaloo types. But yeah there are probably both elements involved. The question is, to what degree does/ did that inform the enforcement options?

I don't think it's fair, for example, to lay thick "why didn't they take care of the doofuses with this one simple trick" criticism at the police if they were seriously worried about boogaloo types escalating to serious violence. Were they walking around on a metaphorical pile of explosives and did their careful management avoid a critical conflagration that could've gone massively out of control at the slightest misstep?

Conversely, did the police overreact to a bunch of poseurs who'd have backed down if the police had shown a little more spine? Did the police let a bunch of doofuses party it up and think they'd be overthrowing the government with god's help and the support of the country because Ottawa Police think white guys with trucks and saunas are more dangerous than First Nations or environmentalists? Or is there something to the criticism that the police are more gentle on the white guys in trucks because they identify more with them?

I think all three scenarios are potentially plausible, and I'd like more insight on the subject.

[Malthus]

I dunno if it goes by province - it seems more to be an individual municipality sort of thing. In that other cities in the same province haven't had the same difficulties in dealing with the protests.

Ottawa has had it much worse than, say, Toronto, which seems to have dealt pretty effectively with them.

Though Ottawa had some unique challenges, as a smaller municipality dealing with them first, and probably with the biggest crowd of them.

[Malthus]

Also, I've seen the narrative repeated a lot that if they were say natives protesting, the cops would have dealt with them more summarily - but not sure if this is right: it seems the modern policing trend has been to allow protests to continue for some time, rather than sending in the riot cops right away. For example, a couple of years ago there were indigenous rail blockades that were in place for a while. 

[Jacob]

Also, I've seen the narrative repeated a lot that if they were say natives protesting, the cops would have dealt with them more summarily - but not sure if this is right: it seems the modern policing trend has been to allow protests to continue for some time, rather than sending in the riot cops right away. For example, a couple of years ago there were indigenous rail blockades that were in place for a while.

Yes. But we also have images of police tearing down protest camps (and homeless camps) and carrying non-cooperative protestors away, which are not something we've been seeing here.

Though it may be that each of those direct actions were preceded by longer periods of "letting them get away with it" than the convoy protesters have been getting.

[Malthus]

Also, I've seen the narrative repeated a lot that if they were say natives protesting, the cops would have dealt with them more summarily - but not sure if this is right: it seems the modern policing trend has been to allow protests to continue for some time, rather than sending in the riot cops right away. For example, a couple of years ago there were indigenous rail blockades that were in place for a while.

Yes. But we also have images of police tearing down protest camps (and homeless camps) and carrying non-cooperative protestors away, which are not something we've been seeing here.

Though it may be that each of those direct actions were preceded by longer periods of "letting them get away with it" than the convoy protesters have been getting.

Allegedly, the arrests have started.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6350120

https://globalnews.ca/news/8620959/bc-border-trucker-protest-arrests-pacific-highway/amp/

To my mind, it's a similar pattern - protests are allowed to go on for some time, various legal methods used to contain it (injunctions and the like), then arrests of the non-compliant.

The major difference, at least so far, is the invoking of the Act against the latest protestors - presumably justified by the scale of these protests.

Also, the freezing of the funds sent to them. That is different. Though other protests didn't have the same type of funding, far as I know.

[crazy canuck]

It also strikes me as odd that the Ontario government and the Feds are taking the position that a local detachment, already stretched has to come up with a comprehensive plan; rather than working collaboratively on that plan.

Looks like a complete failure of leadership of senior government.


An apt analogy is a community is hit with a natural disaster, seeks outside aid, which is refused because the community does not have a comprehensive plan for how to use the aid.  Normally the people giving the aid have a good idea how to best deploy their own resources.  But apparently here, a municipal police chief is supposed to be the knower of all things. 

I think there's definitely room for analysis and criticism, but there's a whole bunch of things that are not clear to me. I think, in general, the criticism probably lies more squarely with the provincial governments than with the federal given policing is - as I understand it - a provincial matter. I think, too, it's instructive to see that different provinces have handled the protests with fairly different degrees of success.

To me it looks like the situation in Ottawa is primarily the result of some level of incompetence from Sloly combined with a lack of desire to engage by Ford. It seems appropriate to me that Trudeau stayed out - as policing is a matter of provincial jurisdiction - but as the situation remained out of control the Federal Government did step in, and it looks like things are beginning to wind down almost immediately afterwards.

There's definitely an argument to be made about whether it should've been done sooner or later.

There's most likely arguments to be made about whether the Federal government used the correct tools. What I am curious - and know very little - about is what other tools the Federal government had (or has available) to it.

I am also curious about the nitty gritty of what the various provincial governments could have done differently. What authority and powers do each of the governments have available? How were those powers used appropriately (or not used, or used inappropriately)? I know even less about that topic. Can a provincial premier direct the police to - say - clear a blockade at a border crossing? Or is that operational and thus something politicians should/ can not do?

Alright, I will try it again a third time.  At any time, once a request for aid is received, the Federal government is fully within its jurisdiction to grant that aid, whether it be people, money, equipment or any other resource.  I am not sure what the unknown is here.  The federal government received such a request and said, "No, we have determined you have all the resources you need on your meagre municipal budget to deal with this completely unexpected influx of protestors that are here because of us.  Never mind that Parliament and all other federal grounds in Ottawa are outside our jurisdiction and are only a federal matter, deal with it city."  "Oh, and how dare you ask for aid on short notice without a fully detailed plan."

[viper37]

Another thing I'm curious about - there's a couple of somewhat conflicting narratives out there, and I'm wondering how real they are.

One is that the protestors are a bunch of yahoos and the police is actually friendly with them (selfies, letting them walk by with jerry cans etc), and that it's simple to get rid of them (give them tickets, just tow the trucks, just drag them away one by one). They're a bunch of doofuses and the reason the police isn't acting is some combination of incompetence, lack of proper direction from above, and/ or sympathy.

The other narrative is one of a core of hardened agitators who've dug in. Some of them may be armed. Some are (current/ former) police and military. If the police push too hard it may turn into a full scale riot or worse. The police is often frightened by the protestors and are loath to light a powderkeg that could explode much more than other protests.

I'm not completely sure how to reconcile those two narratives, and I think our analyses are significantly influenced by which one we hold to be correct (and occasionally, by holding apparently mutually contradictory things from each set as true).

they are not mutually exclusive.

Generally speaking, the Ottawa police* seems to have been told to not intervene, to not do anything that may be construed as provocation.  There's a lot of evidence about police standing by silently, even telling the protesters they were responsible for security now as they were dismantling barriers.

There is also anectodal talks of Ottawa police acting friendly with protesters, but I have seen no pictures of this, and I doubt any protester taking a selfie with a cop wouldn't immediatly post it on his FB/Instagram/Twitter.  I have read that the new Ottawa Police chief has promised consequences for the officers who were overly friendly with the protesters, so there might be truth to that.  But it is not generalized.  Maybe a dozen officers out of hundreds have had this behavior.  Like you'd hear sympathy from RCMP agents forced to repress leftist hordes during G7/G20 protests.

There was incompetence from the Federal government to beging with, than from the OPP.  Ottawa is in the center-east of Ontario.  If you come from the West, you have to cross an entire province to get there.  No one noticed some huge ass convoy traveling to the city before they get there?  No one coordinated with the local police force?  That's inter-provincial travel to stage a possibly violent protest.  What was the RCMP doing? 

It's pretty clear that the RCMP was told by the Feds to not move, to not do anything.  Trudeau has been using the vaccines and the sanitary measures as a political tool to discredit his adversaries, and he's doing the same thing with the protest.

Besides, even though it's a provincial responsibility, the OPP and the local police force would never act in Ottawa for something like this without consulting with the higher echelons of the RCMP and Public Safety Canada.

Our government has caved in to the protesters demand, he has invoked the emergency powers act, but he's still doing nothing.

Certainly, he doesn't want to be the one being accused of endangering children's life.  But that's on the protesters if they use human shields, not on the government.

Anyway, they should have acted immediatly when they had the chance.  Now, there's a radicalized core group with weapons, and if the police storms the barricade, it'll be like Oka in 1990 when the SQ did just that.


*As of before the resignation of the former police chief

[viper37]

Also, the freezing of the funds sent to them. That is different. Though other protests didn't have the same type of funding, far as I know.

they usually do, and various socialist organizations will cover all of their legal fees.  But according to most medias and at least 2 political parties in the House of Commons, before this year, suspending international funding for protests was an act of censorship and dictatorship, threatening freedom of expression.  

That's what was said when the Conservatives attempted to legislate on the issue, at least.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As an American with no firm grasp on Canadian law, I don't understand why the Prime Minister of Canada needed to use a never-before-used emergency enabling act piece of legislation to clear a bunch of trucks out of a city center. Does Canada not have typical ordinances and laws on the books already empowering the government to clear out such obstructions? It seems strange to me it would not.

I understand the financial aspects of the law that allow them to do some things with access to funding--but I'm not even super comfortable with that concept, it shouldn't generally be illegal in a free country to donate to a political cause you support. Especially not when they had made no good faith attempt to clean out the protesters before using this enabling act law, it's easy to claim the "well-funded" nature is why they haven't been able to dislodge them, but even a casual observer can note no real attempt had been made to dislodge them from Ottawa in the first place. Where attempts have been made in other parts of the country, they seemed to mostly be successful.