New Face of Community Policing
Dr. Mike Webster, interviewed by Global TV News, warns that all is not well in the Olympics militarization team with its $1 billion budget. He is worried because, he says:
RCMP operates in an ethics-free environment.
Oh Oh. Webster has a record for being correct when talking about this organization. And, his warning follows the disquieting TYEE series by Geoff Dembicki and Bob Mackin about a terrorist force willing to use explosives, gunfire, violence, pepper spray and false arrest to impose their version of an orderly society. Hell, they even shot a Labrador retriever that was running away from the truck they blew up with an IED.
The genuine Canadian police shown here learned a lesson:
Change your boots when you’re police working as a provocateur.
Categories: RCMP
IN-SIGHTS 
Cool guns and uniforms, too bad they are not Canadian. Couldn't find any Canadian jackboots Norm?
(Original comment edited)
LikeLike
Nice reworking of the post and the the column Norm. I thought your post was about the RCMP originally, now its Canadian Police. How convenient. Cant make out the badges there Norm, if you can make out the manufacturers of the boots maybe you can tell me the shoulder patches origin to? I am shocked non Canadians could wear our products.
You edited my comments …? Why? Friend of yours? I guess the following does not apply to you eh?
“The common thread within this blog is my interest in ethical behavior of public and quasi-public bodies.”
Interest in it, but not enough to abide?
—————————————
RESPONSE:
I will not post comments that make negative personal statements that I do not know to be accurate. I take responsibility for my words but not for yours or those of any other persons, particularly anonymous ones.
Also, I employ a double standard in evaluating potential defamation. A public figure, particularly a politician, deserves less protection than others are due.
LikeLike
… my comment is not a negative personal attack. And as I pointed out in the post you conveniently refuse to print, your response second paragraph is inaccurate and self serving in definition. Your “double standard” is discriminatory and unsupportable. If a person chooses to enter public life, his or her actions are subject to scrutiny in word and deed, however, “A public figure, particularly a politician, deserves less protection than others are due.”, in respect of defamation or libel is not compatible with civil society and the rule of law. Although you provide a forum for interesting topics from time to time, it behooves you to adhere to some recognizable standards. A lack thereof places you squarely with the mainstream media you so dislike.
————–
RESPONSE:
Libel law is complicated and I will not give anonymous commenters license to express negative opinions of other people if I do not not know those to be fair comments.
In Canada, a defence of “fair comment” protects expressions of opinions that relate to matters of public interest and are based on some fact that can be proven.
The unpublished comment you made may be fair comment but I don't know it to be that nor do I care to research the issue. Therefore, I will not take responsibility for repeating it. I measure my own words when I write them and I publish opinions that others may find disagreeable. However, I believe them to be fair comment because they relate to public issues and I base opinions on fact, not fiction.
You may follow the same standard and are perfectly entitled to add your voice to the blog world. But, if you publish a blog, no doubt you will establish your own guidelines for what appears.
LikeLike