The controversy as to whether the police brutality of the G20 weekend deserves an inquiry really brings out the worst in people. Miller shattered my respect, Pantalone proved to be disgracefully ignorant, Rob Ford was his usual self, and now even the hitherto-dependable Steve Paikin is disappointing me in his G20-related discourse. While strongly intimating that an inquiry into the police’s conduct would be prudent, he seems to revert to his perennially “neutral” television persona, noting that, “The decision to call a public inquiry is a political one. I am not a politician. Nor am I an op-ed columnist. Therefore, I will not be offering an opinion on this question.”
What the hell is he suggesting? That only politicians or “op-ed columnists” should form and express political opinions? That, despite having himself attested to the assault of a journalist by police during a peaceful G20 protest, he should maintain his pro-status-quo (“neutral”) stance (as seen on TVO) in regard to whether there should be an inquiry of police behaviour? That maintaining his “apolitical” facade is more important than preventing people from being terrorised by police again in the future?
After having seen numerous videos (as linked above) that clearly capture police terrorising hundreds of people, and having heard countless testimonies as to their brutality, it’s insane that there’s any question whatsoever as to whether the entire police force should be severely impugned and hundreds of police fired and jailed for what transpired that weekend. There shouldn't simply be an inquiry; there should be instant punishment of all police clearly involved in these crimes, and a blistering impugnment of everyone involved with the police on duty during G20.
No comments:
Post a Comment