Robert Dziekański's death is still up for debate.

Watchdog's scathing report passes judgment on RCMP in Dziekanski's death

Navigator type spin on it started, with Global news noting Kennedy  is  "going out swinging"  because the federal government is not renewing his ocntract.....

When Mark Kelly on his new CBC show interviewed Paul Kennedy's predecessor, it really sounded like she was also circling the wagons. In any case, it's worth noting that she remarked on the poor/lack of training of (RCMP) Members on the one hand, and lack of policy on the other hand. She didn't really address the whole issue of killing a man armed with a stapler, nor did she address the issue of what amounted to lying under oath by the Members at the Inquiry.

Anyway, I agree with her to some degree. The Members ARE poorly trained, as the amount of training has been reduced over the last few years. 9 months to 6 months I think. And there is a kind of vacuum at the higher levels, a failure of leadership as she put it.

But this whole garbage of claiming that the Members aren't responsible for their actions, they shouldn't be blamed, etc., is just a pile of shit. I guess she wants to keep her current job or something.

People who work in mental health deal with people "out of control" all the time. They're not supplied with tasers, nor are they armed with 9mm Glocks, nor do they carry batons and other instruments of "persuasion" as the Members do. But people who work in mental health "somehow" manage these situations every day. 

exactly.....

Small quibble.  They do have the police available.  It is not unheard of to have a mental patient tased.  Such a case was recently discussed on CBC's White Coat/Black Art and happened here at the Archie Courtnall Centre. 

Yes, they do.  By strapping patients into four-point restraints, shooting them up with Loxapine or a similar substance and flinging them into an isolation cell. 

We're all agreed that the police do not know how to handle a mental health crisis.  Let's not add to the disaster by looking to the "experts" for guidance.

P.S. When I read the thread title, my first response was "No, he's still dead.  There can be no debate."

Two years ago.

Sweet Jesus, two years already?  That video is burned into my brain as if I saw it yesterday.

ETA:  In my view, there are many levels of tragedy to this story.  And the saddest of all of them is that in all those hours before the cops showed up, not one person managed to effectively intervene.  I could have helped (and maybe even prevented his death) and I don't even speak Polish.  What is the matter with people?  Is it that frightening to assist a person in obvious distress?  Kitty Genovese and Robert Dziekanski and Reena Virk and many, many others will never die.

They got away with murder just like the RCMP who murdered Ian Bush and one of the YVR murderers went on to murder again and the crown over ruled the Delta police on one of the charges...

lets give the rcmp some nuclear weapons and see what they can do... geez.... or we could just give some directly to harper.. he seems to like power... then again that is exactly what iggy the stooge did with his coalition acumen.... raising folks to be braindead: examine canuck skool system for innovative ideas...

They killed him because they didn't want to get thier hands dirty, the taser is too easy, too tempting.

Yarg, yarg, yarg.  The taser didn't kill him; the man was "excitedly delirious."

ETA:  Scare quotes added by thoughtful editor.

that is a burn eh, no1important, and we are 1 of  2 provinces where "the crown"  gets to decide, not the police...

GPie  i  hear you, there is so much sickening about this....

What does the Crown get to decide?

Quibble.

This phrase "excitedly delirious" should be in scare quotes to convey to readers that they are reading fiction. No such condition is recognized in any proper medical text. It is only recognized by the "authorities" at Taser International and medical "colleagues" at police forces like the Horsemen.

Carry on.

All other provinces, except BC and NB, the police forces themselves lay the charges they believe should be laid, against anyone committing a crime, or crimes. And then the crown prosecutes them according to the charges the police have laid.

In BC and NB, the police present their investigation information to the crown and then the crown decides what charges they want to lay and prosecute....the police forces have no final say.

Remind, isn't that as it should be?  People who work for the Crown graduated from high school, have an undergraduate degree, passed the LSAT, have a law degree, passed the bar exam and then articled.  Their behaviour is overseen by the Law Society and, in general, they are capable and intelligent people.

The police, on the other hand, well, geez ... a family member taught philosophy in the criminal justice program for years and refers to them as "knuckle draggers."

ETA:  Come to think of it, you have to article and then pass the bar exam. 

I really should have known better.  This is from an email earlier this morning:

Often I have thought so...and then rethought it by thinking it does not matter either way they work in cooperation with one another...then rethought it again by a closing ranks or can't be bothered kinda of perception...and so it goes....

Okay, this isn't going well.  Signing off.  Readers keep in mind that it's hard to use a compromised brain to assess your own mind.  Have some compassion.

ETA:  Not in response to Remind's post.  Just generally feeling a little naked.

Who was the guy who claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture then underwent the procedure and changed his mind?  Was that Hitchens or somebody else?

And of course there are no crappy incompetant or corrupt lawyers right?

I hear you, Bacchus, but in the usual course of events crappy lawyers don't kill (except in death penalty states, of course).  Bankrupt you, devastate you, drive you to suicide, sure.  But they won't kill you.  (Too bad we can't say the same for doctors.)

Point taken Bacchus but G.Pie is right. Why is it that the men and women we arm with guns and other fancy toys only have to have high school and 6 months of police college? It's insane that we allow people to control us, and worse when it is a group of people who for the most part haven't taken any anti-racism, sociology, criminology, etc. I think a degree in the social sciences should be mandatory for all police. Lawyers? I hear you there but at least they don't have weapons that kill.

Isn't it a tad elitist to consider that higher education, the path of which more often than not involves social privilege, is the gateway to some higher moral reasoning? The political class and the bureaucracy is chock full of lawyers and advanced degrees in various fields. Instead of carrying guns and flak vests though, they carry briefcases and wear suits and ties, and quite likely have, if the current crop of them is any indication, more blood on their hands than any cop could ever dream of.

Sorry, no.  Lawyers are trained to present a cogent argument.  That's a damn valuable skill and it makes for entertaining conversation.  I don't know any police officers that I'd want to pal around with but several of my friends have law degrees.  Now I would agree with you that it's not fair that who gets to go to university is pretty much determined before birth.  That's certainly something we could address.

Over 1000 lawyers have warmed the chairs in the House of Commons since Confederation, and 15 of 22 Canadian PMs have been lawyers.  Collectively, they've made quite a mess of things to this point, at least judging by the countless political threads hereabouts for years now, ranging from genocide, imperialism, war, hunger, poverty, the list is quite exhaustive.  But as long as their valuable entertainment skills are unsullied with the dirty work normally assigned to lesser thugs, i'm sure they are quite charming during martini hour.

I don't know why, exactly, but I don't consider people lawyers once they move to other careers.  I certainly don't think of Stephen Harper as a lawyer, for instance, even though I'm 75% sure that he is. 

You're saying politicians suck?  Rock on. I wouldn't consider associating with those types, either.  Except for Svend Robinson whom I have an understandable affinity for.

He's not.  One of the few of them who isn't.  He's an economist instead...Master's degree i believe.

This makes me laugh (in a good way), but I couldn't say why. 

I would agree. There are certain character traits that transcend formal education levels. It's also dangerous to assume that being formally educated would automatically help a police officer deal with the day-to-day aspects of the job. As for education, the main difference I could see making is that an educated cop would do a better job covering his or her tracks when acting improperly.

By the way, a few years ago at a recruiting fair, I was told by the constable that even though the formal requirements of a police officer only go to Grade 12 that most departments will not consider anyone without post-secondary education anyways.

I'm very glad to hear you say that because that means that you might be willing to listen to a rational argument presented by someone who doesn't have academic cred.  That thrills me to my bones whenever I hear this.  Really.

Don't know.  Wouldn't some psychology and anthropology and philosophy and maybe some other stuff make for a better beat cop?  I'm pretty sure it would.

Okay, that's an extremely negative view which I don't share.  Education (real education, that is) improves people and their interactions with society.  Sure, some slime ball might abuse their education.  Whatever.  Overall, the police force as a group would be better off with, at the absolutely, very least, a solid understanding of mental illness and related legislation.  You would not f'ing believe some of the things I've experienced.

True, but the two year program (in Victoria, anyway) is woefully lacking.

I can't help but to detect a contradiction here with your earlier comment about preferring the company of lawyers over cops.  Presumably due to what we'd both suspect in general terms as certain character traits inherent within the mindset that would view police work as a viable profession.  I can tell you that having lived among and socialized with police, I take the general view that no amount of education would be of any value in providing a greater awareness of their responsibilities within a just society.

I'm with Aristotle and Slumberjack on this one.

Having gone to graduate school in the social sciences, I can tell you without a doubt that there are people in graduate school who have no connection to "the real world", could not argue their way out of a paper bag, and have no systemic analysis of the power of institutions that run our societies. I left the academy after I got my degree, but I would guess that most of my classmates went on and are now holders of PhDs, possibly teaching and molding young minds.   *shiver*   Lovely.

First sentence: absolutely not. I think the "lawyers" example proves that fairly well.

Second sentence: if by abuse you mean "use their education not in the service of being helpful or making a better society" as opposed to "taking their framed degrees and hitting people with them"    then I think you have a far more positive notion of what the role of formal education is than I do. Which is mainly to keep the barriers up between the elite and the rest, which means continued and ongoing marginalization and gatekeeping, only this time such actions are justified with charts and graphs and stuff.

As for the police, the only point I will add to the excellent points already made is this. When there's a group of legally armed agents of the state (the police in this case), whose main purpose is to defend the values of the state internally (and selectively of course, and always with the values of the elites at the centre), then the problem isn't the level of education of said agents. Think deck chairs on the Titanic. The system is corrupt, and fucked. Tinkering will result in no relevant changes to the next time tasers are used in real life.

Well this is quite the thread drift. But obviously I can't let Maysie's ruthless attack stand. You want a piece of this? Bring it.

Education, including post-secondary education, is a fundamental human right. I don't know a single person who has attended the kind of social science or humanities classes that Stargazer is talking about who hasn't had their life and understanding improved by the process. I would also go so far as to say law school breeds a respect for the law and its antecedents in the majority of its students, and an appreciation for social justice in many.

The problem, of course, is that universities, like the police apparatus, are state structures, which means they have the same innate contradictions. They also instill its subjects with the desire to protect the state and uphold its hierarchical privilege. But abstract attacks on the "ivory tower" don't do justice to the diversity of the university institution. The same battles being fought in our legislature, in our courts, in our unions and in our streets are being fought in the university. Dismissing a liberal education for elitism--and I don't mean criticizing it--which is important work--I mean dismissing it as irrelevant to the "real world"--is the same strategy used by right-wing populists who want to turn law into morality, Marxism into magical thinking, feminism into ideology and anti-racism into counter-intuition. I live in the real world, and my world includes the belief that liberal humanism is something we've fought hard for centuries to understand and develop. I can't believe that teaching some of these basic principles--some might call them fundamentals--wouldn't vastly improve the understanding and empathies of anyone who takes the time to learn them.  That includes the 5-0. It is not elitist or classist to believe that we all have something to learn.

I'm with Maysie,Aristotle and Slumberjack on this one. I would rather have a blue collar 'simple' mind who sees things in black and white than an 'educated' elite who can argue all the shades of grey to justify why they did the horrible things they did (Enron, for example. Or how about Conrad Black, as educated in all the psychology and anthropology and philosophy you could want).

Education makes a good man better and a bad man worse. I have a lawyer as a former inlaw who is totally corrupt, very stupid and beats his wife. His Psychiatrist wife (top child one in her field) abuses her kids and takes bribes to change a diagnosis. I have a friend with degrees in Anthropology and enviromental science and another with Physics, Math and Chemistry degrees who I would trust with my life and are totally honest and forthright.

I have a friend with no education save high school who is painfully honest and has lost jobs because of it and another who is a fairly skilled thief.

Im sorry but education doesnt seem to have changed any of them neither has the lack of it (though the physics buddy could be one of the guys on big bang theory)

Oh Catchfire, I didn't mean to ire you.

You know I can't let this one go by, my friend. There are many folks in psychology and sociology who don't have what you and I would call a connection to "the real world". Higher education, for them, and I'm describing the majority of my classmates here in liberal-arts heaven, Toronto, is about power-over and granting, accepting and using privilege. Back in undergrad I was in a very conservative cohort, this could be why I had this experience. But the radical activists/students/scholars I met in grad school, and the radical profs, were that way despite the academy, not because of it.

I agree. Where we disagree is that the majority of our learning, or that meaningful learning, happens within the bounds of the academy.

So then police training as is is okay? Educating them in racism, social inequality and the roots of same is elitist? I'm talking about the police here.

It would be great to over throw the entire corrupt system but that isn't happening and in my corner of my world, most of the people I know who have taken a good liberal arts education ARE a lot more sensitive to other people.Of course, many who haven't had a formal education are as well. The difference being the average person on the street doesn't carry a mass of weapons to lay beatings down on those who are poor. It may allow them to understand women's position in society and therefore treat rape more seriously. I see a ton of benefit from a good education.

I'm sorry but I see education as something that would be more than beneficial to the many idiots we call on to "serve and protect". Teach them about capitalism's destruction, social class, inequality, racism and yes...I think we will get better police. Something has to tear down the Blue Wall.

Crown prosecutors and social justice..who would have thought. Perhaps they emerge from a different track than those who develop their appreciation along the traditional lines. You seem to have mistaken an objection to the point raised earlier regarding higher learning being a prerequisite towards enhanced social justice and awareness to mean an attack on education itself, in the manner that you suggest as a hallmark of red state 'anti-book learnin' mentality. This is certainly not the issue. Pre-existing social understanding and value systems can be significantly enhanced through education, in the same way that a pre-existing sense of entitlement and privledge can be supported and justified toward the very ends we see in front of us at every turn in this society. You either have it or you don't, regardless of the educational rung achieved.

I will not tolerate being criticized in my home.  This has got to be stop.  I'm outing myself.

To Remind, please help.

To Michelle, shut me down.

To Unionist and a few others, keep being awesome.

To anybody who knows what the fuck is going here, I'm fine, thanks for your concern.

Everybody else, take care and always remember the immortal words of George Costanza:  "It's not a lie if you believe it."

That is all.

maysie December 10, 2009 - 12:26pm - nice post... i do agree with some of catchfires views as well... to quote from maysie and catchfires posts

"Catchfire wrote:  It is not elitist or classist to believe that we all have something to learn.

maysie wrote "I agree. Where we disagree is that the majority of our learning, or that meaningful learning, happens within the bounds of the academy."

Aaaahh Haaaa. :)

This is ludicrous. We might as well give up if we believe that people are just born ignorant, and that's the way they'll stay. Social understanding is an innate, essentialist trait? Sorry, not buying it.

I did not say that a university education is guaranteed to turn you into bell hooks. I said that a liberal arts or humanities education is likely to give you a greater understanding of social and economic forces. I also said that as an agent of capitalism it will also instill in you the ideology of the state. But that is a battle we fight against capitalism, not against education. We've come a long way figuring out this big problem we call democracy, and the modern university played no small part in that. So has the labour movement, the civil rights movement and the feminist movement--all of these things, in fact, interrelate, nourish and constrict each other. That's what bugs me about this enforced, symbolic separation of the university from the real world. It's all real, baby--well, actually, it's all an illusion. Do the police live in the "real world"? One that says since I have a gun and am authorized by the state, I am doing a public good? One that says I am an agent of social welfare and not of capitalist ideology? What about Obama? Does he live in the "real world"? Did George Bush? I don't even know what the real world is. I teach privileged undergraduates and recently volunteered to tutor aspiring students in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Both are reading and learning the same things. Which one is 'real'?

Education--particularly a liberal arts education--is a good in and of itself. This is recognized in the UN Charter of Human rights, and by most democracies (in lipservice if not in practice) since the Enlightenment. That this needs defending on rabble, especially on such specious grounds, really sticks in my craw.

Left on, Catchfire. (Where is the clapping emoticon when I need it?) I have spent 28 years in universities and on balance I believe they are a positive force in society. In my case a waist is a terriblt thing to mind; I truly believe a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Education is a right. One is never worse off for having one.

My university degree taught me two things

1-I can do anything,given the right tools and instructions

2-To look at things critically and analyze them, letting me disect them and understand the essential parts

Neither makes me a good or better  person. If it did, the only racist, sexist, violent abusive people would be non-educated people. Both made me better at understanding things and approaching things but it did nothing for my moral compass. I am what I am before the education and after. Its experience that taught me to change my views as well as a voracious desire for knowledge and reading (neither of which is taught at University. You either have it or you don't).

So true Caissa!

Great post Catchfire.

G. Pie, you back now?

We are agreed on your two points Bacchus. Where we tend to disagree, I think is where you seem to place university aside as a different category of experience to your other experience. University has had a fundamental effect on my moral compass as has other influences on me.

Hmm I can accept that Caissa. I did get learned experience at University that I can say changed me. But it was never as a aim of the university. What happned while I was there, yes. As a result of a specific professor, definitely (same as in high school in fact) But I don't really include a professor becoming someone who taught me a lot as a projected outcome of a university because they were outnumbered by the pompous hacks who were there for their own ego, to browbeat or dominate others for their own self-worth and who had no warmth or understanding for humanity or the world outside their doors.

ETA Having said that of course, my newborn daughter will damn well go to university when she is of age. Because an education is a necessity really to prosper in our world.

But I still don't think that in of itself, it makes you a better person

I agree, education itself doesn't make you a better person.I think what you take certainly does.

I can only give examples from my own life but prior to entering university I was a fairly ignorant 19 year old who thought Pay Equity for women was bad. I had no understanding at all of the dynamics of my abusive relationship, nor the way women were treated in society. I thought it was all our fault. That we were inferior.

So...on to university I go, only to discover, through various sociology classes, that the world really was stacked against us. Then the anti-racism course...I never felt such guilt and horror in my life. It was these courses, these professors who showed this young female the "other side" and taught me about "the other" and that is when my life changed.

I went from being a woman hating woman to a staunch feminist. I started to notice how people interacted and what cues were being sent based upon their conversational cues. I started to understand and emphasize with people. I started to speak out against racism, sexism and homophobia when I heard it. I started attending rallies and got involved with Socialist causes and groups.

For me, my education was invaluable, and that has a lot to do with the courses, the liberal profs I had (and that was all of them) and the teachers who took their time when I needed to speak with them and learn from them in regards to my personal life. I will never forget these profs and the lessons I learned at school. For me, university was a blessing.

That said, I see zero harm in higher educational standards for police.

"That said, I see zero harm in higher educational standards for police."

I totally agree and the forces (at least the OPP and Toronto Police) actively encourgae and help pay for extra education of officers. And pretty much you need a degree or connections (as in my daddy was a cop, etc) to get in easily to the forces here

In regard to individual police officers or Members, what's needed are higher ethical and moral standards. That comes, in part, from better links with the communities they're supposed to be serving. In the case of the Mounties, the para-military structure and culture of that rotting institution needs to be destroyed.

And both of these issues can be addressed by more citizen input into the police. Democracy, even. That starts, in my view, by bringing to an end the repulsive habit, across Canadian police forces, of investigating themselves.

And so on.

I'm wondering if examining the social and personal value of a university liberal arts education as opposed to other routes in life isn't starting to get a bit off topic.  It would however make a great thread somewhere else.  Maybe I'll start one.

There's an observation I've wanted to make about the Dziekanski killing earlier. A number of years ago I was in on a training lecture given to the the Durham Regional Police SWAT team by their consultant psychiatrist.  He said when you have someone basically surrounded or somehow contained, and there was no longer any risk to officers or the public, that time then becomes your friend.  Proper technique is to simply wait someone out while using verbal defusing and negotiation skills.  People simply cannot keep up a state of agitation indefinitely.  He said it really doesn't matter if you go home and the next shift takes over.  If no one is likely to be hurt by the person, give them a bit of space if you need, but if nothing else happens they'll eventually need to eat pee or sleep.  He was also pretty clear that property damage considerations were a clear second to safety.

Dziekanski was clearly contained in a closed area away from the public.  They had him.  There was not so much as a one second consideration given to any alternative measure to tazing him.  It was badly done.  They screwed up and lied about it.  I also want to say in response to what someone said above that I've been in some tense situations with people and found myself standing at the pointy end of a knife. (a pool cue once too) It's amazing the communication skills you can find within yourself when you're not packing heat.

Its common in training in the forces (military) that what you bring with you, you will use. If you go somewhere where violence would work against you (as in if danger approaches running or bargaining is the only good choices) then dont bring a weapon because you will always feel you should use it, instead of another instinct

GPie, sorry I was not around, and I understand your position given your experience with police that are not properly educated....and that this thread is a trigger for all those bad memories.....

Please know that some do understand what it is like to be a women and demeaned by the police, just for being a woman. Then when you add to  that equation, our teatment at their hands, is not always what it should be...

Would more education stop this?

I think so.

compassion can't be taught at school... how does one learn to able to relate to the suffering of others? perhaps it is through being able to relate to your own suffering, or having suffered in some context.... higher education is sometimes  for priviledged folks... while priviledged folks suffer too in some respects i suppose, i think the gap between those who have and haven't is wider when i think of those with higher education and those not able to get that... maybe i am wrong on this... is higher education a status symbol? it certainly is viewed favouably in our culture and i think there are good reasons for this... however, i still don't know how one learns compassion and i don't believe a higher education is being able to provide this... i think compassion can come with experience.often real experiences in life are when one is out living it, as opposed to being in an educational setting... i think this is what was missing in the Robert Dziekanski example.... i think the issue of education is a very central one to this story but in a more broad way..

You learn either through experience or teaching - or both.  I found education to be an excellent start to learning compassion and empathy, but then again, I took liberal arts.

I get really peeved (sorry sandstone not a personal thing) at people who say education is for "elites" (isn't that what the Right always says?) or that education is for the privileged few. I certainly wasn't privileged nor were many people I attended school with.The massive loan repayments can testify to that.

Nobody thought a 17 year old single parent on welfare would amount to much.

As a whole though I do agree that education, due to the cost factor, can  be for the privileged few and we need to do something about that, but that is for a different thread.

Education only taught my friends they were somehow better than me for learning from a prof, while I learned from books at my leisure. Insight cannot just be taught there has to be a trigger, this doesn't come from schooling but can.

The main issue with police is one seen in most organizations....fraternity. This applies to many areas and causes above the law and elitism. My friend is having problems dealing with her friends because they are part of her sorority. She doesn't really like them , but is oathbound to help them. Rediculous. The police, military, and esp lawyers are all in this same category. You can throw firefighters and doctors in there as well. Protecting the brand at all costs is paramount. Even if it isn't deserved.

Oh, I'm back, baby.  Just wanted to be more of a listener from now on.

___________________________________________ Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Signing off for the night after this post so I won't be able to respond to your response.  If that's what your friends' education "taught" them, then they wasted their money on it.  However, insight can indeed be taught.  You can be taught critical thinking and constructive analysis (my own term, doesn't mean anything) and you can improve your approach that way.  Whether that be in the classroom (like them) or with noses in books (like us) really doesn't matter.  You have to keep your mind open, you have to be receptive to wild and wacky ideas, you have to present your case and persuade other people of it.  That's all there is.  This might not sound terribly "sane" if you have sanist tendencies.  And if you have sanist tendencies, then that is your misfortune.  (You being the hypothetical you (anybody), not directed at thorin_bane in any way).  Good night.

But before I go, please let me share my own insight from these very difficult last few days.  The trouble with being crazy, of course, is that you are using the ailing organ to assess the ailing organ.  That's very hard to do and, should you find yourself faced with the task, I can offer a small guideline that may help:  If everything makes sense, if everything is connected and if you are the only one who understands it all, then it's reasonably likely that you're experiencing psychosis rather than the ultimate truth.

Did anybody catch Howie Mandell on the Q the other night?  That Socko the Clown story saved my life. 

Of this society, it might be said that it is a product of the educational system, and not the inverse. Any rational observation that isn’t hinged upon hysterical gatekeeper sensitivities couldn’t help but to observe that the system being defended has been producing a type of subjectivity that eventually takes its place alongside all other forms of conditioning, turning out for the most part, individuals who accept competition on the understanding that the playing field is level, who expect in life that each person be rewarded as in a contest according to their merit, who always ask permission before talking while silently respecting the rules and those with the highest grades.

At best, even attachment to the great, critical intellectuals and their youthful rejection of capitalism are branded by this love of school, institution and tradition. Meanwhile, broad based inaccessibility has bought forth a remarkably powerful counter culture school of the street, in competition with state institutions and its cardboard culture. Perhaps on some level after all, the extreme right is already reconciled with the most virulent left, with both having similar suspicions in this regard.

A delightful paradox lies in the fact that higher education within a corporate system is seen as a triumph over all other ways of existing, at the very moment when the demands of perpetual growth sees an educated North American workforce as an increasingly superfluous hindrance. Corporate services sector and governance prospects await each graduate cycle, where the remaining work that hasn’t disappeared during the night is divided into highly skilled positions of research, conception, control, coordination and communication which deploys all the knowledge necessary for the latest production processes. Positions requiring lesser skills are apportioned to individuals tasked with the maintenance and surveillance of the process. The first are few in number, very well compensated and thus so coveted that the minority who occupy these positions will do anything to avoid losing them.

The present educational apparatus resembles on the one hand, a gigantic mobilization machine for sucking the energy of humans that are becoming superfluous, and, on the other hand, it is a sorting machine that allocates survival to conformed subjectivities and rejects all “problem individuals,” all those who embody another use of life and, in this way, resist it. Meanwhile, managers, scientists, lobbyists, researchers, programmers, developers, consultants and engineers, literally never stop working to serve and augment productivity.

The security apparatus, when it considers education as a worthwhile pursuit at all, sees value in maintaining parity and awareness as a means of risk management in developing influential and informed strategies to counter idleness among both the educated and uneducated alike, and to provide informed excuses and draft propaganda for re-gurgitation by the political class at the microphones.

Though it seems a general observation in nature, the question of education within a capitalist system is not at all a philosophical one. It is what rules, takes possession of, and with ample precedence, ultimately colonizes the most banal, personal, daily existence. Education is inseparable from the state. Thus it should come as no surprise that our political figures all emerge from the same system. We generally agree that our leaders are the root of our ills, to the extent that we like to grumble so much about them and that this grumbling is the consecration that crowns them as our masters. The life we invest in these figures is the same life that’s taken from us.

It looks like the RCM Police have purchased the silence of Robert Dziekanski's mum.

The RCMP can not purchase a good reputation for any amount of money.  The behaviour of the RCMP officers involved, not only during, but before and after the tazing event, demonstrates that the RCMP has inadequate civilian oversight, and inadequate training. 

The money tossed into revamping the RCMP Complaints Commission, is only money.  It needs to be spent correctly.  There needs to be power to supenea officers to testify during investigations, and the power to gather all records, no matter what the medium.  There must be civilians in power running the new body.

No matter how good this might turn out, it does not address the human rights abuses by JTF2, and CSIS.  So its like plugging only one hole in the dam.  It's not enough.

A culture of "Testing out" new weapons (elecronic or otherwise) against civilians, and maintaining a culture of cover-up are things a democracy must not tolerate.

Peace,

Matthew Pauly

"Freedom Endures Through Sacrifice"

After the Vancouver Police assaulted Yao Wei Wu his lawyer disdained to go to the (equivalent of the) Complaints Commission and went, instead, straight to litigation. Many, many people view the police as untrustworthy when it comes to investigating complaints against them.

From a political point of view I don't actually think it's such a bad thing when the public has a higher sense of justice than the police. Dispensing with one branch of the state - or holding it in contempt - is a prerequisite to making big changes to the state. Radical changes. It's also a big deal for a country such as our own in which there is such a high "law abiding" attitude.