Yes. Real life can be stranger than fiction – part 2.
In my previous blog entry I touched upon a widely held supposition on the Internet and in the media that – in order to be singled out like I was by the police – I must have done something more serious than not holding a handrail.
So, let us continue our journey down the rabbit hole.
What did it do to warrant so much trouble? It stands to reason, there must be a record of this supposed infraction that caught the attention of the police – especially if it was something worse than the non-crime of choosing not to hold a dirty escalator handrail during an influenza pandemic! This was, after all, official police business, and they are supposed to keep detailed records of all infractions. The criminal code of Canada, for example, has numerous provisions for them to cite, including prohibitions against causing a disturbance, criminal negligence, and assaulting a peace officer.
So what was it? Well, the police themselves aren't exactly sure. For my part, I know I didn't do anything wrong.
The best (or worse depending on your perspective) the police spokesperson at the time could muster in the way of a justification was to make the following cryptic statement:
"And she's lucky to not have ended up with criminal charges to boot."1
Criminal charges? And in the plural no less! For an agent of the state to go public with an innuendo like that …well, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their competence and trustworthiness as police officers. If anything, it actually undermines the trust we are supposed to have in the police. It is not normal, nor healthy, nor desirable in a free and democratic society for an agent of the state to be making accusations – veiled or otherwise – in the public domain with nothing to back it up.
Police officers are not only expected enforce the rules, they are also supposed abide by them as well – and that includes following normal investigative procedures instead of going rogue with insinuations to the press.
This brings me back to the media. Not only did they allow this veiled and unsubstantiated threat of criminal charges to go unchallenged, they put it out there in such a way as to sow seeds of doubt against me and create a chill effect. This is not journalism at its finest. It’s actually a travesty.
So let’s delve into the topic at hand.
In a follow-up interview with radio personality Paul Arcand, a certain escalator-riding lieutenant of the Laval police made the following stunning admission:
"We don't task our officers to write up fines for [not holding] the handrail. If we ever do that, and assign officer to that, you could say we lack judgment."2
In other words, giving fines for not holding a handrail does not apply to the masses, but exception can be made for those whom the police wish to selectively punish. Now, I want to be absolutely, positively, crystal clear: this is not the application of rule of law. Quite the contrary, what the lieutenant is trying to justify and explain away with his statement is what's known as rule of authority. It's what you see in murderous failed states and banana republics.
Let that sink in.
He is advocating an authoritarian approach to policing, outside the rule of law. You see, laws have to apply to all in equal measure. This is guaranteed under Section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that every individual is equal before and under the law. It is not the purpose of a law to be applied selectively – especially not to the extent where it is pervasively ignored. Legislators simply do not pass laws for them not to be applied and enforced. That's why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould had undertaken to get rid of so-called "zombie laws" in the criminal code of Canada.
In my case, the situation is even more troubling because there is no regulation that requires commuters to hold the escalator handrail. Make no mistake about it, when a police officer demands obeisance under colour of law, what they are seeking to impose is authoritarian rule. The police do not have the legal authority under rule of law to quash your Charter rights and freedoms. The irony here is if my situation had happened in some despotic country on the other side of the planet, our media would be calling it state persecution.
In their 2017 global ranking for freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders dropped Canada's standing four spots, down to 22nd place.3 When the index was first established in 2001, Canada used to be ranked fifth best in the world.
Its no wonder mainstream journalists are increasingly being perceived as enablers and facilitators of what I will generously refer to as state-sanctioned 'misinformation'. The body of news reports and articles about me (or should I say against me) over the past few years certainly stand as a stunning indictment of the media as purveyors of propaganda, half-truths and lies. I fully intend to expose in subsequent blog entries the many instances in which you, the public, have been misled.
But this is not just about me. It is important to note that there have been other high profile cases of trial by media, some of which have resulted in both people's lives and their careers getting turned upside down over the flimsiest of allegations.
Fortunately for you, and for me, I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements. My soul is my own and I intend to fight the good fight until the bitter end.
I hope with enough awareness and pressure from you, the public, justice will prevail.
1. Société Radio‑Canada. "Arrestation inusitée." Radio-Canada.ca
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/435709/metro-laval-arrestation (accessed May 6, 2018)
2. Arcand, Paul. Interview with Laval police lieutenant. Cogeco Média, 98.5 FM. Montréal, May 19, 2009.
3. Reporters without borders. "2017 World press freedom index." Reporters Sans Frontières
https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2017 (accessed May 6, 2018)