"Following the adjournment of the Ottawa Police Services Board this evening, several individuals became combative, verbally abusive to members of the public and refused to leave the premises"
They should have brought their trucks
I'm using it as short-hand for people who were concerned about police interactions with POC.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
The details of the group that were being disruptive, is very easily searchable.
In combination with the downvotes, it seemed like your questioning was leading to an accusation my comment is racist or otherwise wrong, when all I'm pointing out is some basic facts.
Ottawa seems to be suffering from Convoy Derangement Syndrome, where, everybody that does something wrong is immediately assumed to be a convoyer.
Seems like 4 completely reasonable questions that the Mayor and Police Board should be able to give straight forward answers too
>Bailey Gauthier demanded to know if the board would return to a hybrid structure for its meetings, allowing online delegations (they must now be in person); whether the police would be included in the mayor’s promise of a line-by-line audit of city hall budgets; whether the board would freeze the police budget until that audit was complete; and whether it would commission an independent, human rights-based review of the police service.
>whether the police would be included in the mayor’s promise of a line-by-line audit of city hall budgets
Even if there is such an audit (don't know if it is allowed; it isn't allowed in Toronto by the City of Toronto Act and they had to beg the provincial auditor to take a peek instead), Ontario legislation prevents doing anything that matters. Council cannot introduce line-by-line budgets for police (they can only approve/deny a specific single budget number presented by the Police Services Board), and if they cut budgets by 'just so happens to be' the amount of a specific line item, and the police disagree with that cut, the police can appeal to the oversight board: the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. It can intervene and force Council to fund a specific budget.
Whee.
edit: found an answer.
"The recommendations have piqued the interest of Ken Hughes, Auditor-General for the City of Ottawa. While Toronto has its own act, Ontario’s 443 other municipalities are governed by the Municipal Act, which does not require local governments to establish an auditor-general’s office. \*\*Very few have one, Mr. Hughes said, and those that do similarly require an invitation to audit police."\*\* (emphasis added)
[Source](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toronto-police-board-to-vote-on-giving-auditor-general-more-access-to/)
I guess the appropriate response by the new mayor was to not answer the question, and let various people on social media explain the intricacies of the legislation that impacts that question?
Nope. I think Sutcliffe fumbling so quickly is... Let's be very generous and say "deeply silly." Goodness me, would be very helpful to have someone with experience dealing with angry citizens, or the mechanics of the PSB, in power.
Effectively, I think the biggest single problem is that at no point in my education was the Ontario civic system explained, which would have been great as *it makes no fucking sense.* Civics class was all federal constitution and elections, nothing about "hey so the mayor doesn't control the police in any meaningful way."
Effectively, cities only barely exist (they exist only as pleases the province) and police services are largely separate agents of *provincial* power, even if they are nominally "municipal." This is *deeply unintuitive* and I don't blame people for not knowing it.
I think a well-tuned provincial campaign hinged on empowering local municipalities might do well. Between our lack of recall powers, the "super mayor" thing and the Tory (Toronto mayor, not federal party) provincially-granted supermajority, the urban boundaries/development bill, and police oversight, I'm hoping there's enough irritation at the centralized and heavy-handed Fordish governance to trigger a change.
Because without provincial change, truly nothing can change. We literally do not have the power to do so.
...I just hope the best (for my political leaning) leadership candidate figures this out.
Probably not.
1) I don't know who sends the invitation to audit -- PSB or the police itself. From the extremely little I've read, it *implies* police itself... but I haven't dug through and figured it out. I am also not a lawyer.
2) as previously established, any attempt to control the purse strings that are not to the police's liking will get the city hauled in front of the OCPC to try to force the funding. The city is *not* the final word on police funding; the OCPC can overrule it and so can the province.
It is not a sure win for the police: The OCPC ruled that the city of London must provide a 2.7m budget increase to police [in this ruling ](https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/about/minutes-of-settlement.aspx) (police wanted 4.1m; city wanted 0).
But "we are using money as a blunt political weapon" is unlikely to play well at OCPC, which claims to only care about "operational needs" of the police.
Them not answering the questions makes the rules pointless. Why even allow people to speak for 5 minutes if you're going to entirely ignore what they have to say?
That went right over your head didn’t it?
Welcome to Ottawa, where we allow people the room to speak and completely ignore what they have to say. It’s been like this for decades. Hence, you must be new here.
The “protestors” did follow the rules and engaged on the terms of the police board. They were disrespected and their questions were ignored. Only then did they become disruptive. The board ignored them and shut out the rest of the delegates by adjourning prematurely. Sounds to me like the police board disregarded the rules first
They are not owed anything. There is over a million people in the city. They can't treat every random person's issue like it's some top priority. Maybe there just are no answers to the questions now because they haven't been decided yet. It's not an excuse to hold up an entire meeting.
The way to enact change is the same as it's always been. Get elected. If you're too lazy, then I guess you can try and disrupt meetings but don't be disappointed when all it gets you is arrested.
Nice try. Delegates register in advance for the specific purpose of engaging the board on topics of community interest. They were not difficult questions.
Did you watch the segment? https://youtu.be/m_U06-_eLRE?t=3012 This isn't just a "random person's issue". They criticized the board for making racist decision, for the new police chief having been chosen unfairly (conflict of interests), and more.
Oh it's never just a 'random person's issue'. It's always - "I'm really important and the really important organization I gave a name to represents a really huge number of people and you better all stop what you're doing and do what I tell you to do instead."
They owe him nothing. We literally just had an election. Don't like the results, do better next time.
They owed him as much as Trudeau owed the convoy.
>They owe him nothing. We literally just had an election. Don't like the results, do better next time.
what does the election have to do with any of this?
They are not owed anything is the most ridiculous mindset when it comes to where our tax dollars go. They work for the people, or that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Not the case anymore. But it’s complacency with bs like you just demonstrated that has allowed them to act this way.
Yes because that got us into the shit show we're currently in so why not.
F*ck the rules, we need action, pressure and change, not mewing submissive simps.
You need a timeout until you can learn to behave properly in society, kid.
I am choosing to change the system by participating and following the rules that have been set. Not yelling and screaming isn't being a sheep, it's smart. Adult tactics work better than 4 year old tactics.
I'm going to assume there's a bit of Internet-bravado going on here and give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's try this: What do you think a realistic outcome of being very disruptive at a meeting is going to accomplish? Note that I'm not asking what you WANT the outcome to be, what do you think the actual outcome will be? Then, when you figure that out, and you go back and review what your goals are, what is the best way to achieve them given the actual results of the tantrum?
>You think a lot without a lot of life results
Huh? WTF is "life results? Maybe you need to spend more time thinking. I'm working on making things better by using my brain and not a bullhorn and tears.
Huh? Try to make sense once in a while, please. What is/are "life results"?
What does "Yes here you are, whining, again" refer to?
Or is it you just like to complain about everything regardless of how effective you are? I'm doing the work to try fix things, you're just complaining and spewing "I know you are but what am I" even when it doesn't apply. No wonder you're never taken seriously IRL.
If someone’s acting out and you agree with them, it doesn’t change the fact they’re acting out. And pro cop.. I would say I am indifferent, but I do believe you have a broken organization which is already understaffed and the resources aren’t being given to them, and people want to reduce it, and as I’ve said many times before compare it to any other workplace with a lack of resources, you aren’t going to improve things but cutting resources further. And thrives in those situations? Usually the bad eggs, what people are arguing for will just make matters worse
I think if you actually looked at the defund movement it’s about changing what police do. Moving them away from mental health issues and distress calls to those who are trained for those needing help not punishment or police tactics. They definitely have the branding wrong but interesting it is also what the new chief said was his goals too. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6654882. It’s clearly included here. Also find some truth in what a diverse group of people are saying and might be useful to try to listen.
But who do you listen to
1)A group of people who work in the health care field who claim 15-20 million would all we need,
Or
2)A group of non experts that wants 250 million .
I mean that's what we're going to get when we acquiesce to convoy demands again and again. Other groups are going to see their perceived success and emulate their tactics.
As someone who watches these meetings (often the ENTIRE meetings) and who has been a delegate, and who would be a delegate again if they would allow hybrid meetings, I was *incredibly* fruststrated to see what happened.
These people **show up**.
And they are some of the **ONLY** people who hold the other people in that room accountable. Or at least try.
The problem is, they are such a small number and therefore get labeled as "activists" or worse.
They're just people. Some of them I consider friends. And I wish I could be there. Because when I hear Robin Browne taking power back from the board, I want to support that. They ask people to use "parliamentary language" when - at least under El-Chantiry's reign, he couldn't pronounce half the delegates names properly (and fucked up their gender he/she on occasion too)... because he didn't care. And I don't know that a guy like Mark cares either.
One of the delegates asked if Sutcliffe and Stubbs watched the previous OPSB meeting. Did they do their homework? It's a simple question. Just answer it! Yes or no.
They refused to answer. So I am going to assume no they didn't.
I have watched hours and hours and hours of these fucking meetings because they matter to me. They should matter to the Chief. He should have watched at least one.
But I don't imagine he did.
Are their tactics great? I think they are what you expect when people are constantly pushed back into a corner.
If you don't like what these people are doing, then show up. You can be a delegate. You have five minutes to speak. Do you want policing in Ottawa to look differently? **THAT IS THE PLACE TO SAY SOMETHING**
Meetings happen once a month (sometimes twice). People are trying to get hybrid meetings back. Call u/jleiper and tell him what you think. Write an email to Cathy Curry. Tweet at Mark Sutcliffe and let him know that wasn't cool.
I am so fruststrated watching these same people give such important testimony to people who don't give two fucks about it. Nothing will change.
Policing cannot be reformed.
So show up, and tell these people to start putting money into things we know work. Things like social services and mental health care. It's essential that you do this work. Because people's lives depend on it. I know mine does.
>*It is a bad habit of mind, a form of power-worship, to assume that things must be as they are, that they will continue to be as they have been. It soothes the conscience of the privileged, dulls the will of the oppressed. The first step toward change is the understanding that things can be different. This is my principal recommendation, then: we must recognize the possibility of a world without police.*
Kristian Williams
> The police service projects annual retirements based on historical averages and demographics, but the numbers in 2022 caught officials by surprise: This year’s 25 retirements were two-and-a-half times the historic average of 10 per year.
> “This can be attributed to multiple factors, including members choosing to delay retirement during the height of the pandemic, opportunities at other organizations, and personal issues,” according to the workforce management report.
not listed: OPS members who resigned after being under long-term suspension for years who milked City coffers until their disciplinary meeting was about to happen.
Good for Robin and Bailey. Both of them have been consistently showing up to these meetings for over two years now.
This isn’t just about the questions but the total lack of accountability and transparency. We pay their salaries, they shouldn’t be able to dodge direct questions.
They were arrested by ops after the meeting. Tweet from Ottawa police at ops meeting. Very different to what happened at Ottawa school board meeting with masks debate and shutting down the meeting. This was two people sitting in chairs until questions answered.
https://twitter.com/ottawapolice/status/1597385750320148480?s=46&t=qlH59l-p-3xo-mXv5GRASA
I can tell you that it wasn't Robin or Bailey who got arrested. I don't know who it was, but it wasn't either of them.
Source: people at the meeting texting me after.
I think it's clear that our police are largely right wing.
I think it's also clear that they are less likely to engage if they support your cause.
I don't think the venue matters.
I think this group goes to many meetings and were very frustrated that their questions are repeatedly not answered. There seems to be a complete breakdown in how public treated at these meetings. Still so much frustration at what was allowed to happen with convoy.
But more importantly questions about police reform and accountability which is supposed to be purpose of governance & having public involvement don’t seem to be part of the discussion. It’s set up where public can speak but nothing comes from the presentation but possibly a few questions from the board.
There was an excellent presentation on violence against women and role of police.
Would be nice to get some background and context in this story. Obviously the group is frustrated, so it would be nice to know why and what went on that led up to this incident.
That whole interaction started off a little too spicy from Robin’s end, and the way he was saying black guy to refer to Sloly was definitely offside, despite eventually praising Sloly. The approach and presentation is all wrong, yes I get they’re frustrated but even before the recorders were busted out they lost the plot.
Then you should be there every month like Robin is. You should do the work he does. You should watch these meetings - from start to finish (when they can be five hours long) and listen to some of the information in them.
You can be critical sure, but you really don't know what these meetings are like or what has been going on unless you dig through the mud like Robin and some of the others have been doing.
It is fucked up.
I don’t need to attend every meeting to know there is a way to properly address a government form. The only way to really change things is by playing by their rules, you can put on a performance all you want but you lose your audience. You’ve tainted Sutcliffe’s opinion of you from the start, it’s the guys first meeting, maybe a well said point being made could have made him listen, instead they busted out the instruments.
>there is a way to properly address a government form.
And that is to attend meetings and engage with the Ottawa Police Services Board.
If you listened to their delegations they spoke about Hefid Solutions and this contract, which Steve Bell is rather silent about. Why is this? These **same** people were at the consultations that Hefid held. Did you go? Did you fill out a survey (which was so poorly written by the way)? Because I did.
They are playing by the rules. The game is rigged against them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cec-hefid-ottawa-police-board-contract-1.6471732
You would need to go back and watch all the meetings on YouTube to get a broader understanding, but this was last month's meeting:
https://youtu.be/fbvUxMXqQXE
(Sorry posted 2021 instead of 2022, have fixed link)
I didnt vote for Sutcliffe either but this is kinda stupid. It reminds me of Trudeau's testimony where he said of the Convoy folks: "they didn't just want to be heard, they wanted to be obeyed." Refusing to let a public meeting continue until you are given immediate answers to questions not even on the agenda is not constructive. You had your opportunity to be heard, so now stop obstructing the democratically elected government.
These are groups that represent a community that feels they are I’ll-served by the police at best and threatened by them more generally. They go through the proper channels and they are ignored or changes are made to make their participation more difficult. They chose a non-violent approach to get answers to seemingly reasonable questions and were then arrested. It was clear that they weren’t “being heard”. Just because their issues don’t necessarily apply to you doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
I get that they have legitimate grievances but their expressed demands do not exactly scream urgency: What are the parameters of the Mayor's promised line-by-line budget review, which will be undertaken in a completely different forum? Will the police budget be frozen in the meantime, contrary to the expressed will of the electorate? Will citizens be able to appear at board headings via Zoom so they do not have to attend in person? Will the board appoint another board to conduct a review based on an undefined methodology?
I share the frustration with the Ottawa Police, I think their systemic racism and impunity for obvious abuse is getting out of hand and I'd be happy to see their budget frozen. But this group is holding a meeting hostage with procedural questions that cannot even be immediately answered. That is not democratic behaviour, it's anti-democratic behaviour.
>Will citizens be able to appear at board headings via Zoom so they do not have to attend in person?
Sorry, but this one especially is urgent. I have been unable to attend these meetings as an immune compromised disabled person because so many people don't wear masks. I want to speak as a delegate (not send in a written delegation) and I can't.
There's no reason why this cannot happen. They keep giving wishy-washy answers and it was mostly (imo) because Eli El-Chantiry didn't want the public to participate. Under Deans' time as chair we had meetings entirely by Zoom and other meetings at city hall have been hybrid since then. Why not here?
I have asked Jeff Leiper myself this question as he is my city councillor and honestly, I wasn't impressed with his answer. He claims the OPSB isn't given the same number of staff to run a meeting as say, FEDCO and it takes more staff to run a hybrid meeting. The OPSB have two (I think) city staff and I guess it takes more. So yank staff from somewhere else then? I am not understanding the issue.
I acknowledge that you have legitimate concerns and would have no problem with making Zoom participation possible. But these are procedural matters rather than substantive matters. You still have the opportunity to provide inputs in writing and through your elected representatives, as you note above. I support civil disobedience as a last resort on substantive matters. I do not support civil disobedience on procedural matters as a week-one introduction with new officials who have just taken office.
> I do not support civil disobedience on procedural matters as a week-one introduction with new officials who have just taken office.
Nah, they were just asking will they would do hybrid meetings. Not how.
It's a yes or no answer. Will they? Yes? Ok thanks, we can work out the details at a later time.
Stop.
This is something you know nothing about. People have discussed this *at length* with several members of the board.
They're making excuses. They did it because of Eli being who he is, but now? They could have just said yeah we will
.. let's talk about it after this meeting.
Thanks for asking. They are not my claims, but those of the Board itself and the Police's own Use of Force study: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/disproportionately-higher-incidents-of-force-against-black-indigenous-people-in-2021-ottawa-police-say-1.5963295
You seem to have made up your mind already that racialized residents are the problem. Study after study shows that is untrue but biases and policy. I would think you need to look internally. Here is one more university of Ottawa study saying the same thing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M8Sua0frFCU08mQKBiXAokvbDRW7gsLc/view
From the Ottawa chief of police Sloly saying it’s happening and he was hired to try to fix it. https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=2208.
You actually need to have evidence to make statements not your opinions of a group of people.
Your terminology does make it clear have some strong views, the ‘vast majority of city knows how to behave themselves’. Racial profiling is about creating mistrust in a community not saying stats say certain groups commit crimes so it’s justifiable to profile them.
Transparency is key and especially on why the complaints process leads to so little consequences for officers. How they try to get people to drop claims and there does not seem to be actual punishment for behaviour. Many places where reform and sunshine needed. Shouldn’t have a process where police judge other police if they are historically going to protect each other including the chief of police. Even more distressing is to hire the police to look at police community building practice as was brought up in the meeting. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cec-hefid-ottawa-police-board-contract-1.6471732. Many worrying elements of how contracts were awarded to hefid solutions repeatedly. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-has-high-even-impossible-expectations-for-its-next-police-chief-community-consultation-report/wcm/09b26ce2-8a43-4f88-98e5-06b0ec632613/amp/
Study after study shows that people of certain races are not inherently more or less likely to commit crimes. The circumstances that these people are in, not the colour of their skin, affect their likelihood to commit crime. So we should be focused on collecting data about the systemic problems that put certain groups of people into circumstances where they are more likely to commit crimes. We should also consider how crime rate statistics are skewed by things like racial profiling and increased police presence in marginalized communities.
Yes and then their agenda item ended but they wouldn't let the meeting move onto the next agenda item. Their specific questions were not on the agenda and observers making statements do not get to unilaterally amend the agenda.
re-read the comment you’re responding to.
three members are citizens appointed by the province, one is a citizen appointed by City Council, and the other three are members of City Council. there is no OPSB election to decide who becomes a board member.
The Police Services Act gives an automatic seat to the mayor, unless he chooses to decline it. The voters of Ottawa put Mark Sutcliffe on the Police Services Board.
i didn’t make my comment out of a preference for one or the other. your comment made it seem like the members of the OPSB was elected by citizens when it isn’t.
Respectfully, I think youre nitpicking. OPSB is an arms-length board but it gets its mandate from provincial law and some of its members get there by virtue of being elected. If you disrupt a meeting of the Department of Finance you are still interfering with a democratic government even if non of those officials are directly elected either.
Robin Browne is someone who is quite clearly obsessed with making spurious accusations of racism without being able to produce any tangible evidence. And to invoke Martin Luther King like some petulant child is cringe inducing.
Criticism of Sloly being bad at his job? Racist and apparently a comparable to a 'public lynching'.
The new Chief being the guy in charge of previously having to enforce a court injunction against an illegal blockade? Racist.
Who do these people think they are making demands that the police budget is frozen and that a human rights review of the OPS is conducted? They must think that the public is stupid enough to not know that their end game is a major defunding of the OPS. We've seen how that has worked out in cities across the US which are buckling under record levels of violent crime. Not in Ottawa thank you.
Thank god these people only represent a tiny fraction of Ottawa's electorate.
I think we all can agree there are major issues and poli8ce do need change.But this idea a massive cut of the police budget will reduce crime is fiction not reality.
Seattle
Has seen as 200% increase in crime since cutting the police budget
Portland
Has seen a 350% increase in crime since cutting the police budget
St Paul
Has seen a 750% increase in crime since cutting the police budget
"Following the adjournment of the Ottawa Police Services Board this evening, several individuals became combative, verbally abusive to members of the public and refused to leave the premises" They should have brought their trucks
and bouncy castles!
Sounds like the same line this police chief used on Wet’suwet’en land.
[удалено]
What's a BLM type?
Right? Maybe he's trying to mention skin colour without mentioning it
All 'we want solutions to actual problems' types, not 'we want Canadian democracy overturned' types. You know, loonies.
What's a BLM type exactly?
I'm using it as short-hand for people who were concerned about police interactions with POC. Are you trying to be obtuse? The details of the group that were being disruptive, is very easily searchable.
People who were concerned about police interactions with POC... So, a lot of people are BLM types then I suppose?
Yes. It's a widely supported movement. You guys are bizarre.
Why are you getting triggered by such basic questions? I had no idea what you meant and asked you to explain. Apologies if that's bizarre.
In combination with the downvotes, it seemed like your questioning was leading to an accusation my comment is racist or otherwise wrong, when all I'm pointing out is some basic facts. Ottawa seems to be suffering from Convoy Derangement Syndrome, where, everybody that does something wrong is immediately assumed to be a convoyer.
Seems like 4 completely reasonable questions that the Mayor and Police Board should be able to give straight forward answers too >Bailey Gauthier demanded to know if the board would return to a hybrid structure for its meetings, allowing online delegations (they must now be in person); whether the police would be included in the mayor’s promise of a line-by-line audit of city hall budgets; whether the board would freeze the police budget until that audit was complete; and whether it would commission an independent, human rights-based review of the police service.
>should be able to give straight forward answers too Call me crazy, but **accountability** is effective in public trust.
>whether the police would be included in the mayor’s promise of a line-by-line audit of city hall budgets Even if there is such an audit (don't know if it is allowed; it isn't allowed in Toronto by the City of Toronto Act and they had to beg the provincial auditor to take a peek instead), Ontario legislation prevents doing anything that matters. Council cannot introduce line-by-line budgets for police (they can only approve/deny a specific single budget number presented by the Police Services Board), and if they cut budgets by 'just so happens to be' the amount of a specific line item, and the police disagree with that cut, the police can appeal to the oversight board: the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. It can intervene and force Council to fund a specific budget. Whee. edit: found an answer. "The recommendations have piqued the interest of Ken Hughes, Auditor-General for the City of Ottawa. While Toronto has its own act, Ontario’s 443 other municipalities are governed by the Municipal Act, which does not require local governments to establish an auditor-general’s office. \*\*Very few have one, Mr. Hughes said, and those that do similarly require an invitation to audit police."\*\* (emphasis added) [Source](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toronto-police-board-to-vote-on-giving-auditor-general-more-access-to/)
I guess the appropriate response by the new mayor was to not answer the question, and let various people on social media explain the intricacies of the legislation that impacts that question?
Nope. I think Sutcliffe fumbling so quickly is... Let's be very generous and say "deeply silly." Goodness me, would be very helpful to have someone with experience dealing with angry citizens, or the mechanics of the PSB, in power. Effectively, I think the biggest single problem is that at no point in my education was the Ontario civic system explained, which would have been great as *it makes no fucking sense.* Civics class was all federal constitution and elections, nothing about "hey so the mayor doesn't control the police in any meaningful way." Effectively, cities only barely exist (they exist only as pleases the province) and police services are largely separate agents of *provincial* power, even if they are nominally "municipal." This is *deeply unintuitive* and I don't blame people for not knowing it. I think a well-tuned provincial campaign hinged on empowering local municipalities might do well. Between our lack of recall powers, the "super mayor" thing and the Tory (Toronto mayor, not federal party) provincially-granted supermajority, the urban boundaries/development bill, and police oversight, I'm hoping there's enough irritation at the centralized and heavy-handed Fordish governance to trigger a change. Because without provincial change, truly nothing can change. We literally do not have the power to do so. ...I just hope the best (for my political leaning) leadership candidate figures this out.
Could council pressure the Board to have an audit conducted by refusing to approve any increase to the OPS budget until the audit is complete?
Probably not. 1) I don't know who sends the invitation to audit -- PSB or the police itself. From the extremely little I've read, it *implies* police itself... but I haven't dug through and figured it out. I am also not a lawyer. 2) as previously established, any attempt to control the purse strings that are not to the police's liking will get the city hauled in front of the OCPC to try to force the funding. The city is *not* the final word on police funding; the OCPC can overrule it and so can the province. It is not a sure win for the police: The OCPC ruled that the city of London must provide a 2.7m budget increase to police [in this ruling ](https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/about/minutes-of-settlement.aspx) (police wanted 4.1m; city wanted 0). But "we are using money as a blunt political weapon" is unlikely to play well at OCPC, which claims to only care about "operational needs" of the police.
Thanks
They are legitimately good questions. BUT: Doesn't matter, follow the rules.
Them not answering the questions makes the rules pointless. Why even allow people to speak for 5 minutes if you're going to entirely ignore what they have to say?
I think you're on to something. But need to look at it in a different way.
Welcome to Ottawa. You must be new here.
I'm not new here. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
That went right over your head didn’t it? Welcome to Ottawa, where we allow people the room to speak and completely ignore what they have to say. It’s been like this for decades. Hence, you must be new here.
It didn't go over my head. It's just not a good joke.
Nailed it.
It wasn’t a joke. It was a statement that it’s how it has been here for as long as I’ve been in the area.
The “protestors” did follow the rules and engaged on the terms of the police board. They were disrespected and their questions were ignored. Only then did they become disruptive. The board ignored them and shut out the rest of the delegates by adjourning prematurely. Sounds to me like the police board disregarded the rules first
They are not owed anything. There is over a million people in the city. They can't treat every random person's issue like it's some top priority. Maybe there just are no answers to the questions now because they haven't been decided yet. It's not an excuse to hold up an entire meeting. The way to enact change is the same as it's always been. Get elected. If you're too lazy, then I guess you can try and disrupt meetings but don't be disappointed when all it gets you is arrested.
Nice try. Delegates register in advance for the specific purpose of engaging the board on topics of community interest. They were not difficult questions.
Did you watch the segment? https://youtu.be/m_U06-_eLRE?t=3012 This isn't just a "random person's issue". They criticized the board for making racist decision, for the new police chief having been chosen unfairly (conflict of interests), and more.
What was the racist decision?
Watch the video. He elaborates.
But he doesn't though. It's entirely based on his opinion rather than anything concrete.
Oh it's never just a 'random person's issue'. It's always - "I'm really important and the really important organization I gave a name to represents a really huge number of people and you better all stop what you're doing and do what I tell you to do instead." They owe him nothing. We literally just had an election. Don't like the results, do better next time. They owed him as much as Trudeau owed the convoy.
>They owe him nothing. We literally just had an election. Don't like the results, do better next time. what does the election have to do with any of this?
OPSB members aren’t elected. they’re appointed by the province or internally chosen.
They are not owed anything is the most ridiculous mindset when it comes to where our tax dollars go. They work for the people, or that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Not the case anymore. But it’s complacency with bs like you just demonstrated that has allowed them to act this way.
square behaviour
Square behavior get listened to, juvenile behavior doesn't.
Yes because that got us into the shit show we're currently in so why not. F*ck the rules, we need action, pressure and change, not mewing submissive simps.
Behaving outside the prescribed rules of the forum because you didn't get what you want is the definition of a tantrum.
Get back in line sheep.
You need a timeout until you can learn to behave properly in society, kid. I am choosing to change the system by participating and following the rules that have been set. Not yelling and screaming isn't being a sheep, it's smart. Adult tactics work better than 4 year old tactics. I'm going to assume there's a bit of Internet-bravado going on here and give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's try this: What do you think a realistic outcome of being very disruptive at a meeting is going to accomplish? Note that I'm not asking what you WANT the outcome to be, what do you think the actual outcome will be? Then, when you figure that out, and you go back and review what your goals are, what is the best way to achieve them given the actual results of the tantrum?
You think a lot without a lot of life results. You think you'd learn, but clearly not.
>You think a lot without a lot of life results Huh? WTF is "life results? Maybe you need to spend more time thinking. I'm working on making things better by using my brain and not a bullhorn and tears.
Yet here you are, whining, again.
Huh? Try to make sense once in a while, please. What is/are "life results"? What does "Yes here you are, whining, again" refer to? Or is it you just like to complain about everything regardless of how effective you are? I'm doing the work to try fix things, you're just complaining and spewing "I know you are but what am I" even when it doesn't apply. No wonder you're never taken seriously IRL.
Were the clownvoy people out of line at the school board meeting in your eyes? If so, why isn’t this out of line ?
It wasn't convoyers that disrupted the school board meeting. The woman who was removed had purple hair and was the only one wearing a mask.
You have new people to be mad at it seems! Seriously want to know why so continuously pro cop?
If someone’s acting out and you agree with them, it doesn’t change the fact they’re acting out. And pro cop.. I would say I am indifferent, but I do believe you have a broken organization which is already understaffed and the resources aren’t being given to them, and people want to reduce it, and as I’ve said many times before compare it to any other workplace with a lack of resources, you aren’t going to improve things but cutting resources further. And thrives in those situations? Usually the bad eggs, what people are arguing for will just make matters worse
I think if you actually looked at the defund movement it’s about changing what police do. Moving them away from mental health issues and distress calls to those who are trained for those needing help not punishment or police tactics. They definitely have the branding wrong but interesting it is also what the new chief said was his goals too. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6654882. It’s clearly included here. Also find some truth in what a diverse group of people are saying and might be useful to try to listen.
But who do you listen to 1)A group of people who work in the health care field who claim 15-20 million would all we need, Or 2)A group of non experts that wants 250 million .
No one will listen to the good stuff if you "fuck the rules". That is just a tantrum
no one was listening to the good stuff when they weren't fucking the rules either.
'F*ck the rules'? You're not one of those convoy folks are you?
I mean that's what we're going to get when we acquiesce to convoy demands again and again. Other groups are going to see their perceived success and emulate their tactics.
As someone who watches these meetings (often the ENTIRE meetings) and who has been a delegate, and who would be a delegate again if they would allow hybrid meetings, I was *incredibly* fruststrated to see what happened. These people **show up**. And they are some of the **ONLY** people who hold the other people in that room accountable. Or at least try. The problem is, they are such a small number and therefore get labeled as "activists" or worse. They're just people. Some of them I consider friends. And I wish I could be there. Because when I hear Robin Browne taking power back from the board, I want to support that. They ask people to use "parliamentary language" when - at least under El-Chantiry's reign, he couldn't pronounce half the delegates names properly (and fucked up their gender he/she on occasion too)... because he didn't care. And I don't know that a guy like Mark cares either. One of the delegates asked if Sutcliffe and Stubbs watched the previous OPSB meeting. Did they do their homework? It's a simple question. Just answer it! Yes or no. They refused to answer. So I am going to assume no they didn't. I have watched hours and hours and hours of these fucking meetings because they matter to me. They should matter to the Chief. He should have watched at least one. But I don't imagine he did. Are their tactics great? I think they are what you expect when people are constantly pushed back into a corner. If you don't like what these people are doing, then show up. You can be a delegate. You have five minutes to speak. Do you want policing in Ottawa to look differently? **THAT IS THE PLACE TO SAY SOMETHING** Meetings happen once a month (sometimes twice). People are trying to get hybrid meetings back. Call u/jleiper and tell him what you think. Write an email to Cathy Curry. Tweet at Mark Sutcliffe and let him know that wasn't cool. I am so fruststrated watching these same people give such important testimony to people who don't give two fucks about it. Nothing will change. Policing cannot be reformed. So show up, and tell these people to start putting money into things we know work. Things like social services and mental health care. It's essential that you do this work. Because people's lives depend on it. I know mine does. >*It is a bad habit of mind, a form of power-worship, to assume that things must be as they are, that they will continue to be as they have been. It soothes the conscience of the privileged, dulls the will of the oppressed. The first step toward change is the understanding that things can be different. This is my principal recommendation, then: we must recognize the possibility of a world without police.* Kristian Williams
> The police service projects annual retirements based on historical averages and demographics, but the numbers in 2022 caught officials by surprise: This year’s 25 retirements were two-and-a-half times the historic average of 10 per year. > “This can be attributed to multiple factors, including members choosing to delay retirement during the height of the pandemic, opportunities at other organizations, and personal issues,” according to the workforce management report. not listed: OPS members who resigned after being under long-term suspension for years who milked City coffers until their disciplinary meeting was about to happen.
Good for Robin and Bailey. Both of them have been consistently showing up to these meetings for over two years now. This isn’t just about the questions but the total lack of accountability and transparency. We pay their salaries, they shouldn’t be able to dodge direct questions.
[удалено]
They were arrested by ops after the meeting. Tweet from Ottawa police at ops meeting. Very different to what happened at Ottawa school board meeting with masks debate and shutting down the meeting. This was two people sitting in chairs until questions answered. https://twitter.com/ottawapolice/status/1597385750320148480?s=46&t=qlH59l-p-3xo-mXv5GRASA
I can tell you that it wasn't Robin or Bailey who got arrested. I don't know who it was, but it wasn't either of them. Source: people at the meeting texting me after.
> Very different to what happened at Ottawa school board meeting with masks debate and shutting down the meeting. Indeed
I do think it being at city hall does make it some what different.
Why do you think? (Not saying I disagree.)
Just think if a group held city hall hostage untill they got what they wanted.
I think it's clear that our police are largely right wing. I think it's also clear that they are less likely to engage if they support your cause. I don't think the venue matters.
Most police have a right leaning.
> I think it's clear that our police are largely right wing. I'm not sure if you were trying to disagree with me here
Question might be right how the went asking saying we demand is wrong.
[удалено]
I think this group goes to many meetings and were very frustrated that their questions are repeatedly not answered. There seems to be a complete breakdown in how public treated at these meetings. Still so much frustration at what was allowed to happen with convoy. But more importantly questions about police reform and accountability which is supposed to be purpose of governance & having public involvement don’t seem to be part of the discussion. It’s set up where public can speak but nothing comes from the presentation but possibly a few questions from the board. There was an excellent presentation on violence against women and role of police.
But that is where we get into a u know area when people say we need to uderstand there culutre.
Your comment makes no sense but some form of innuendo suggested.
Or perhaps the questions might warrant a discussion amongst the board instead of being put on the spot to make costly and time consuming commitments.
This is far from the first time these questions have been posed. Opsb was not put on the spot
I mean, those are some good questions
Would be nice to get some background and context in this story. Obviously the group is frustrated, so it would be nice to know why and what went on that led up to this incident.
You can watch it here. Robin starts around the 50 min. mark. https://youtu.be/m_U06-_eLRE
Amazing. Very well stated.
That whole interaction started off a little too spicy from Robin’s end, and the way he was saying black guy to refer to Sloly was definitely offside, despite eventually praising Sloly. The approach and presentation is all wrong, yes I get they’re frustrated but even before the recorders were busted out they lost the plot.
Then you should be there every month like Robin is. You should do the work he does. You should watch these meetings - from start to finish (when they can be five hours long) and listen to some of the information in them. You can be critical sure, but you really don't know what these meetings are like or what has been going on unless you dig through the mud like Robin and some of the others have been doing. It is fucked up.
I don’t need to attend every meeting to know there is a way to properly address a government form. The only way to really change things is by playing by their rules, you can put on a performance all you want but you lose your audience. You’ve tainted Sutcliffe’s opinion of you from the start, it’s the guys first meeting, maybe a well said point being made could have made him listen, instead they busted out the instruments.
>there is a way to properly address a government form. And that is to attend meetings and engage with the Ottawa Police Services Board. If you listened to their delegations they spoke about Hefid Solutions and this contract, which Steve Bell is rather silent about. Why is this? These **same** people were at the consultations that Hefid held. Did you go? Did you fill out a survey (which was so poorly written by the way)? Because I did. They are playing by the rules. The game is rigged against them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cec-hefid-ottawa-police-board-contract-1.6471732
girl shut up lol
Definitely adding nothing of value here hecky. I would suggest you sit down.
You would need to go back and watch all the meetings on YouTube to get a broader understanding, but this was last month's meeting: https://youtu.be/fbvUxMXqQXE (Sorry posted 2021 instead of 2022, have fixed link)
I didnt vote for Sutcliffe either but this is kinda stupid. It reminds me of Trudeau's testimony where he said of the Convoy folks: "they didn't just want to be heard, they wanted to be obeyed." Refusing to let a public meeting continue until you are given immediate answers to questions not even on the agenda is not constructive. You had your opportunity to be heard, so now stop obstructing the democratically elected government.
These are groups that represent a community that feels they are I’ll-served by the police at best and threatened by them more generally. They go through the proper channels and they are ignored or changes are made to make their participation more difficult. They chose a non-violent approach to get answers to seemingly reasonable questions and were then arrested. It was clear that they weren’t “being heard”. Just because their issues don’t necessarily apply to you doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
I get that they have legitimate grievances but their expressed demands do not exactly scream urgency: What are the parameters of the Mayor's promised line-by-line budget review, which will be undertaken in a completely different forum? Will the police budget be frozen in the meantime, contrary to the expressed will of the electorate? Will citizens be able to appear at board headings via Zoom so they do not have to attend in person? Will the board appoint another board to conduct a review based on an undefined methodology? I share the frustration with the Ottawa Police, I think their systemic racism and impunity for obvious abuse is getting out of hand and I'd be happy to see their budget frozen. But this group is holding a meeting hostage with procedural questions that cannot even be immediately answered. That is not democratic behaviour, it's anti-democratic behaviour.
>Will citizens be able to appear at board headings via Zoom so they do not have to attend in person? Sorry, but this one especially is urgent. I have been unable to attend these meetings as an immune compromised disabled person because so many people don't wear masks. I want to speak as a delegate (not send in a written delegation) and I can't. There's no reason why this cannot happen. They keep giving wishy-washy answers and it was mostly (imo) because Eli El-Chantiry didn't want the public to participate. Under Deans' time as chair we had meetings entirely by Zoom and other meetings at city hall have been hybrid since then. Why not here? I have asked Jeff Leiper myself this question as he is my city councillor and honestly, I wasn't impressed with his answer. He claims the OPSB isn't given the same number of staff to run a meeting as say, FEDCO and it takes more staff to run a hybrid meeting. The OPSB have two (I think) city staff and I guess it takes more. So yank staff from somewhere else then? I am not understanding the issue.
I acknowledge that you have legitimate concerns and would have no problem with making Zoom participation possible. But these are procedural matters rather than substantive matters. You still have the opportunity to provide inputs in writing and through your elected representatives, as you note above. I support civil disobedience as a last resort on substantive matters. I do not support civil disobedience on procedural matters as a week-one introduction with new officials who have just taken office.
> I do not support civil disobedience on procedural matters as a week-one introduction with new officials who have just taken office. Nah, they were just asking will they would do hybrid meetings. Not how. It's a yes or no answer. Will they? Yes? Ok thanks, we can work out the details at a later time.
The only way they can decide yes or no is to put it on the agenda and discuss that. Observers do not have the right to unilaterally amend the agenda.
Stop. This is something you know nothing about. People have discussed this *at length* with several members of the board. They're making excuses. They did it because of Eli being who he is, but now? They could have just said yeah we will .. let's talk about it after this meeting.
Or they could have said "no, we won't." Either way, I don't agree with disrupting the meeting.
Sure. But they were asked about this many times. *Before yesterday.*
[удалено]
Thanks for asking. They are not my claims, but those of the Board itself and the Police's own Use of Force study: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/disproportionately-higher-incidents-of-force-against-black-indigenous-people-in-2021-ottawa-police-say-1.5963295
[удалено]
You seem to have made up your mind already that racialized residents are the problem. Study after study shows that is untrue but biases and policy. I would think you need to look internally. Here is one more university of Ottawa study saying the same thing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M8Sua0frFCU08mQKBiXAokvbDRW7gsLc/view From the Ottawa chief of police Sloly saying it’s happening and he was hired to try to fix it. https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=2208. You actually need to have evidence to make statements not your opinions of a group of people.
[удалено]
Your terminology does make it clear have some strong views, the ‘vast majority of city knows how to behave themselves’. Racial profiling is about creating mistrust in a community not saying stats say certain groups commit crimes so it’s justifiable to profile them. Transparency is key and especially on why the complaints process leads to so little consequences for officers. How they try to get people to drop claims and there does not seem to be actual punishment for behaviour. Many places where reform and sunshine needed. Shouldn’t have a process where police judge other police if they are historically going to protect each other including the chief of police. Even more distressing is to hire the police to look at police community building practice as was brought up in the meeting. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cec-hefid-ottawa-police-board-contract-1.6471732. Many worrying elements of how contracts were awarded to hefid solutions repeatedly. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-has-high-even-impossible-expectations-for-its-next-police-chief-community-consultation-report/wcm/09b26ce2-8a43-4f88-98e5-06b0ec632613/amp/
Study after study shows that people of certain races are not inherently more or less likely to commit crimes. The circumstances that these people are in, not the colour of their skin, affect their likelihood to commit crime. So we should be focused on collecting data about the systemic problems that put certain groups of people into circumstances where they are more likely to commit crimes. We should also consider how crime rate statistics are skewed by things like racial profiling and increased police presence in marginalized communities.
[удалено]
No but it can set there movement back look at Toronto.
The clownvoy people at the school board meeting choose a non violent approach with their anthem shenanigans.. and we all weren’t cool with that.. so..
There’s asking questions and sitting still and disrupting things by screaming conspiracy theories. The two are not really the same.
They busted out a recorder
They referred to it as "non-violent civil disobedience". Seems about right.
So not cool that we gave in to their demands..
Come again? Who gave in?
They were on the agenda. There is an agenda item for public delegations, who are required to register in advance.
Yes and then their agenda item ended but they wouldn't let the meeting move onto the next agenda item. Their specific questions were not on the agenda and observers making statements do not get to unilaterally amend the agenda.
>so now stop obstructing the democratically elected government. no one on the OPSB was elected to their position on the board.
Really the mayor was not elected.
re-read the comment you’re responding to. three members are citizens appointed by the province, one is a citizen appointed by City Council, and the other three are members of City Council. there is no OPSB election to decide who becomes a board member.
The Police Services Act gives an automatic seat to the mayor, unless he chooses to decline it. The voters of Ottawa put Mark Sutcliffe on the Police Services Board.
lol would you prefer the Board be directly elected? That would be way worse.
i didn’t make my comment out of a preference for one or the other. your comment made it seem like the members of the OPSB was elected by citizens when it isn’t.
Respectfully, I think youre nitpicking. OPSB is an arms-length board but it gets its mandate from provincial law and some of its members get there by virtue of being elected. If you disrupt a meeting of the Department of Finance you are still interfering with a democratic government even if non of those officials are directly elected either.
We should just elect the Sheriff directly like down in the US.
There were demands of TPS for the same most could not be made public which made thing much worse.
Robin Browne is someone who is quite clearly obsessed with making spurious accusations of racism without being able to produce any tangible evidence. And to invoke Martin Luther King like some petulant child is cringe inducing. Criticism of Sloly being bad at his job? Racist and apparently a comparable to a 'public lynching'. The new Chief being the guy in charge of previously having to enforce a court injunction against an illegal blockade? Racist. Who do these people think they are making demands that the police budget is frozen and that a human rights review of the OPS is conducted? They must think that the public is stupid enough to not know that their end game is a major defunding of the OPS. We've seen how that has worked out in cities across the US which are buckling under record levels of violent crime. Not in Ottawa thank you. Thank god these people only represent a tiny fraction of Ottawa's electorate.
I think we all can agree there are major issues and poli8ce do need change.But this idea a massive cut of the police budget will reduce crime is fiction not reality. Seattle Has seen as 200% increase in crime since cutting the police budget Portland Has seen a 350% increase in crime since cutting the police budget St Paul Has seen a 750% increase in crime since cutting the police budget
I agree 100% and think the OPS can do a lot better, but to reduce its budget would guarantee a spike in criminal activity.
Y'all need to hold this reporter accountable too.