You and Jen are competing for best column of the year on a weekly basis. Thank you, and please continue. The Line is really hitting it's stride.
Guaranteed that a significant number of Canadians will buckle down and arm up in light of what they see (and don't see) in policing. That's not good, but as you eloquently note, quite rational and hardly surprising.
Groupthink within so many of our national institutions seems completely baked in at this point, and I'm not certain there's any way to fix that. Culture change takes a long time. We didn't, overnight, get to the point we are today where the police are throwing up their hands and asking homeowners to cower under the beds silently and make it easier for thieves to steal our stuff so they don't have to rough us up / kill us to get it. That takes institutional rot over decades.
Thanks again for not waiting to write this column.
Sometimes you've just got to let it out before you go insane.
I always used to defend the need for relatively high taxes to my more anti-tax friends and family, pointing out all the things around us they pay for. Even high police budgets were something I defended, despite leaning fairly left-wing on a lot of things, because I think it's a hard job and I was glad people were willing to do it. But apparently, they aren't going to do it! I don't have much to point to anymore.
Between this, our crumbling infrastructure, healthcare, and myriad overpaid contractor scandals - like seriously, what are we actually paying for? If I can't count on the things my taxes are supposed to provide, I might just end up joining those calling for a smaller government and a more libertarian society.
Considering where I started, that's really saying a lot, believe me.
NS, I have said previously (ad nauseum, really) that governments, particularly the federal government, try to do far, far, far too much, all in the name of fairness, equity, blah, blah, blah. The result is to take the ever increasing tax base and spread it so thinly that it cannot purchase the goods and services that are really, really needed.
I submit that what is truly needed is to cut back the federal footprint to the responsibilities set forth in the Constitution, fire an armada's worth of public cheque recipients and do the tasks left properly.
It is not that I am necessarily a smaller government guy, although I am recommending that herein, as much as I am convinced that we cannot do everything so find SOME THINGS that we CAN properly do.
Start with cutting the 38 member cabinet in half. There are 38 ministers all with staffs diligently working to get money out of treasury to make themselves look good and seem important. This government has one of the largest executive groups of any government and accomplishes less.
KS, I do understand the phrase but I would consider a better one is to substitute a different word for your initial one, i.e. knave. The word knave is a synonym for a jack in cards but it has another and, I submit better, meaning that is appropriate in this context.
I listen to the podcast so often that I now read both of your columns in your voice.
And I totally agree with Matt here. But what he doesn't mention is that the cops often put in the work and the courts just let the dudes off with a slap on the wrist. That must be very discouraging to the police.
We need data on how many of those released on bail go on to commit violent / serious crimes immediately afterward. And how many are young offenders, etc. And which judges most often grant bail leading to such consequences. Etc...
Living in a rural, isolated area, I have always been concerned with personal and property security. Even more so than urban areas the "police are minutes (hours?) away when seconds count". I would rather be convicted and alive than have my family hurt. Property I can replace but the shotgun remains close to hand and will remain so regardless of the civil disarmament agenda of this corrupt, morally bereft government.
"It would be nice if we had a political class that was willing to assert itself over the police forces they are responsible for, instead of hiding behind the convenient fib that politicians can never interfere with policing matters."
But we did let our political class assert itself over the police forces by acquiescing to the naive concept that the very existence of a police force is problematic. That is why a citizen protecting their own home from a violent invasion faces much greater consequences than the offender. Our political class has decided that criminals deserve more consideration than the rest of us.
It doesn't seem surprising that after "we" wanted to defund them and called them every name in the book, that they don't want to stick their collective necks out.
If you're no longer willing to perform your well-paid job properly, you should quit instead of continuing to drain resources from the public you now refuse to protect. There's no excuse for such behaviour in that role, and certainly no honour in maintaining that attitude.
I would extend this principle to all public servants who feel justified in not providing the service they're paid for - they should quit, or we should fire them if they won't. You deserve no sympathy for being a drain on the society you're supposed to serve.
MC I would respond that for ever so many of those so employed, they are not "public servants" but are, instead, recipients of public paycheques.
There are, indeed, true public servants but they are vastly outnumbered by those who simply follow the rule book that is written to allow anyone to "prove" ESG compliance but nothing else. Truly, "public service" be damned is their real creed.
WB, the budgets may well have increased markedly but the burden of ESG, etc. is weighing down everything. The results (e.g. safety and crime prevention) are irrelevant as long as there is "equality" of input; output is not considered; Hell, it's absolutely avoided.
Sean, I thought that I had responded to your query but it doesn't appear here so I will again try to answer.
ESG is the acronym for Environment, Social, Governance. That is, the various environmental this, that and the other shibboleths, many of which have obvious merit but just as many arguably are vastly too extreme and not applied with thought about the consequences, be they economic, social (jobs lost, for example), etc., etc. Social is the various collection of social "good" policies that one "must" follow or one is shouted down in the court of public opinion. Governance relates to the various governance practices of corporations and not for profit entities; it is my observation that many of such practices start off very sensibly and then veer off to absurdity. Clearly, ESG has a variety of good parts but the various proponents have skewed so much of it to absurd lengths.
Input / output? This federal government - well, pretty much all governments, actually. Will tell you that they have committed $X billions of dollars to accomplish a particular goal [Input] but they won't tell you (ever) a) if that goal was / will be / might possibly be achieved; b) what actually was accomplished by the expenditure of $X billions. To be more specific, an example: "Why is it so hard to find a family doctor?" "We have devoted $X billions more to the medical system." [Input] There is no answer that says, for example, "We have devoted $X billions more to the medical system and have now hired X more doctors, X more nurses and have been able to ensure that X more family doctors have opened medical practices in X area.
The point is that politicians tell you what "wonderful" stuff that they have "done" but it is all vapor and they definitely don't talk about what specifically, specifically the effect of that spending, policy change, etc. is because that would be work, that would result in them admitting that they don't know what the hell they are doing.
The breathless announcement of things [usually spending] followed by no or almost no impact reporting on results is a true hallmark of Canadian governance.
Oh you can’t blame the current “just surrender” attitude of the police on them getting all hurt and sad at the mean things people said in the post George Floyd environment.
The police insistence that people should not be allowed to defend themselves has been around a LOT longer. I remember that being the message when I was in high school and I’m pushing 50. It’s possible that they’ve gotten more insistent in that message, but it was there back then.
It may have been the message from the police for a lot longer, but high school was when I started paying attention.
"The police insistence that people should not be allowed to defend themselves has been around a LOT longer." I'm a little older and my read is slightly different. I never felt like the message was people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves -- it was more that a surprised, untrained civilian is unlikely to improve a robbery situation by taking a thief on -- you or I are way more likely to get ourselves hurt or escalate the situation. Most people have auto insurance, so the risks are high and the reward is pretty low.
That said, when there is a clear, organized pattern of crime like the auto theft situation and that advice seems to be combined with a "whatcha gonna do?" attitude -- that's a bit frustrating.
Unfortunately I think your prediction is quite likely accurate Matt; however, rather than moving to enhanced, active policing and prosecution we will instead wind up with more "gun control" pointed at law abiding Canadian gun owners rather than the criminals.
This certainly seems to be the LPC's preferred method to deal with crime?
As far as I can tell, police across North America have been on a “soft strike” or a kind of work-to-rule since summer 2020. To be honest I don’t totally blame them. When you have the top influential figures in culture and politics saying not that policing needs reform, but that the entire institution is “structural racism”, that’s going to have an effect. Either destruction of morale, or a quiet quitting in protest, or both.
I have heard that the leadership doesn't have cops' backs. That 1/3 of the OPP (for instance) is out on sick leave at any given time. That tallies with the increasing budgets and decreasing results.
We need only look south to see how this ends. Politicians and elites alike chronically fail to understand the sociological equivalent of Newton's third law: equal and opposite (over-)reaction. People won't put up with being passive victims and with feeling insecure in their own homes endlessly. There will start to be incidents of intruders being shot. Then homeowners being prosecuted more vigorously than the criminals. Then more people becoming outraged about that. Then political opportunists seeing opportunity. Demands for laws being changed. "Castle" laws. "Stand your ground" laws. It ends with open carry in Walmart and right-wing courts (packed with judges appointed by politicians elected by frightened people) striking down laws prohibiting firearms on college campuses.
Think that's an exaggeration? I lived in the US from the 60s through the early 2000s and watched exactly that happen – from strict gun control to a fearful populace replacing politicians until they got what they wanted: open carry, almost everywhere. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (as it did to the south) over a generation or so, if our leaders don't start taking the safety of the public seriously.
LA, you conclude, "... if our leaders don't start taking the safety of the public seriously."
They won't. They will take seriously their own safety when enraged citizens picket city hall, Parliament, etc.; when absolutely terrified citizens threaten the politicians, etc. But, they won't take seriously OUR safety. It's all hug a thug, don'tcha know?
I think you're completely correct about the problem here: police are acquiescing to the existence of crime rather than trying to prevent it. Consider what a proactive approach would be here: police identify neighborhoods with a higher incidence of these break-ins. They station extra officers and patrol cars nearby to deter criminals, and they communicate with residents about how to communicate a break-in so the police can execute a rapid response.
The deterrent to criminals is realizing they have a high probability of getting caught and facing consequences. It's much the same with the spate of organized shoplifting. I cannot fathom why the police haven't put plainclothes officers in certain hard-hit areas to catch these shoplifters in action. It turns the assumption of impunity on its head when criminals think there's a good chance that they're suddenly going to get pounced on by cops that they didn't know were there.
If police aren't going to provide the deterrent, they're going to find the public will do it for them and it isn't going to be pretty. I don't keep a gun in the house; I'm not going to shoot an intruder. However, I *do* have a German Shepherd from a protection dog line, and I *am* going to let her do her thing. A German Shepherd's preferred approach in these cases is to leap up and lunge for the throat. And, if somebody starts hurting my dog in my house, I will knock them to the floor and do violence to them until I do not feel threatened. I'm not a violent person, but it's my house and I tend to put my own safety on the line in defense of my wife and kids.
The comment by the cop was intended as a harm reduction strategy. I have to believe there’s a group at TPS tasked with making some arrests of professional car thieves. And when you get the moronic political class of one - Doug Ford- capitalizing on the issue it’s about appointing like minded judges. The head spins.
But what really is out of control is the public mayhem I have seen with the pro- Palestinian supporters who are very sophisticated at manipulating the situation so they appear victimized. They must not be permitted to continue to prevent law abiding citizens from going about their daily lives as was the case at the AGO. Escalation prevention I understand. But this approach is not working. It’s a disgrace and it is vital for the police to be and to be seen to be in control when there is an angry screaming mob traumatizing everyone in the area. This is not the Toronto I know and love. The rule of law is more than a political slogan.
Michele, you write in part, "I have to believe there’s a group at TPS tasked with making some arrests of professional car thieves."
Perhaps you would enlighten us as to a) how successful is that "group at TPS" given the apparent rapid increase in car thefts; and b) why any member of the public should believe that the TPS or any police "service" [note the quotation marks - I am uncertain as to whom the cops are really serving] can, will or wants to accomplish the stated task of reducing car thefts when the primary task is to hug a thug.
I agree that these pro-Palestinian thugs are terrifically dangerous and must be dealt with. I would note, however, that the EXCUSE of escalation prevention is so often simply that, an excuse, and that at some point, some day, some day SOON, the cops had better pretty much escalate and crack some heads in public.
As for "the rule of law"? Yes, it is absolutely a political slogan. The whole ESG shit show is oriented to changing the definition of law and then bending that resulting definition to be infinitely flexible so that there is no "rule" to that law. And, yes, the cops are complicit in that whole governmental changing of the definition.
So, to summarize, cynicism = realism = societal breakdown = failed state.
On a brighter note, after paying so much tax to Ottawa, I can only afford 10 year old Fords, which no one wants. Went the same way with a bicycle. After having many of them stolen, I now ride a bike that no one will steal. First World problem? Yeah, but I have decided not to immigrate to the developing world, thank you.
Yes, the developing world is coming to you, but Canada is rapidly approaching developing world status. Therefore, moving to such a country might, indeed, end up seeing one with a better standard of living.
Sean, I certainly think that Canada is trending in that direction. Then, when you look at our accumulated debt and our inability to do much of anything other than performative stuff, yes I do think that Canada is trending toward developing world status.
Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we trending in that direction in a way that could soon be irreversible? Yup, I think so.
The lucky part - for me - is that I am old and won't have to live through the Greeceification of Canada. The unlucky part - for me - is that my adult children and minor grandchildren will have to live through it.
Good food for thought. A better recommendation would be to step down a few pegs and have something in your driveway no self-respecting carbuyer in Nigeria would touch with a bargepole. I sleep fairly well at night as my driveway contains a ten year old Hyundai Sonata on its second engine, as the first one blew up but I got a freebie owing to a class action lawsuit settlement. I was told the new one won't explode but who knows? My neighbour looks even more well rested, as he has a 10-year old Dodge mini van. His driveway has a 3x3 foot black patch of oil and grease owing to a fairly major leak coming from somewhere. So, we're good. The answer may be to have a nice new Lexus kept at a secure location while your driveway hosts an old Chev Biscayne or something similar.
Interesting article however to blame the police for the problem negates the responsibility of the courts.
If you were a police officer today and u look at what happens to those you arrest one couldn’t help but be disillusioned. The fentanyl dealer has a hard upbringing so he or she has no responsibility for selling the drugs that kill our children, the shop lifter has a substance abuse problem so they can’t be held responsible, the car jacker may be a minor or a minority so circumstances dictate they shouldn’t be charged or be held responsible.
The very best that a police officer in Canada can do today is put them into the court system then the justice system does their magic and the perpetrators either walk free or receive a minimum sentence.
However if a police officer dare breach the rights of the criminals how ever petty that breach be, the offender walks free, the officer gets lectured or reprimanded for violating the right of the criminal.
After that happens to you and your colleagues repeatedly it kind of take the interest away from arresting these fine folks.
Our justice system reminds me of that famous Pogo quote “ I have seen the enemy and it is I!”
We are the voters we elect the fine folks that create the laws and appoint the judges so let’s not blame the police ,let’s elect some common sense people that will fix a broken system.
Buck passing. The courts have problems. The problems in this article belong to the police. I'm not going to let one institution hide its dysfunction behind the dysfunction of another.
I'd add that there's a good reason the courts and police are meant to be independent of each other. Police may indeed be frustrated by court outcomes, but it's not their job or, really, concern. They should focus on arresting the right people for the right crimes, which is their function in society.
I don't think that I agree with the take that the police are "surrendering", or at least, I don't think that their advice to put your keys by the door is damning evidence that they are. You point out yourself that car thefts are rising, and so too presumably is break-ins by people looking to steal cars. How we got here and what we can do about it is one discussion, but given that we're here, the advice is about how you or I can manage the situation. I agree that the situation is completely absurd and feels like a bit from a sketch comedy show, but it really is analogous to the advice given about what to do if you're being mugged - just give them what they want. This is proactively giving them that thing they want. If the risk of "being mugged" is high enough, then it makes sense.
That said, the situation is absolutely unacceptable and if this is the only "solution" offered, then indeed they're giving up, but it seems like an overreaction to me.
It isn't a question of how absurd the recommendation is in a vacuum, it's how it fits the risk. This is maybe an unsatisfying response to your comment, but I feel it's true. Currently, I feel that if they told me to move to gated community, that would of course be silly. That's not the recommendation though.
So you believe that if people break into your home they will just grab the fob hanging by the door and drive your car away? You don't think that if they go to the trouble of breaking in they aren't up for a little more mischief?
Sean, I say "nope" in response to your assertion that the police are not surrendering. If they were not surrendering why would they be recommending that you leave your keys where the thugs can easily access them instead of vigorously taking down the miscreants? Why do the police concentrate on avoiding confrontation in pretty well all situations? The answer is that the police say they don't want a riot (my word) where the public might be injured, etc. I don't want people to get hurt, that is true, but at some point these thugs are so brazen and so sure of themselves that there is no thought to consequence.
So, yes, I understand the idea of giving in to the mugger but proactively allowing the thugs to access your car? No thanks. I say, shotgun, bear trap, taser, etc.
The ability to protect or defend oneself and our family has to be the most basic human right that any person possesses! I am baffled why Canadians accept the utter inability of our national and local police forces to protect Canadians or enforce the law as they choose to, all the while intellectually and legally asserting that only in extreme cases are we able to defend ourselves & families in Canada! Of course in rural Canada police response “for service” can be hours or days away - an alternate is and has been a functional necessity!
You and Jen are competing for best column of the year on a weekly basis. Thank you, and please continue. The Line is really hitting it's stride.
Guaranteed that a significant number of Canadians will buckle down and arm up in light of what they see (and don't see) in policing. That's not good, but as you eloquently note, quite rational and hardly surprising.
Groupthink within so many of our national institutions seems completely baked in at this point, and I'm not certain there's any way to fix that. Culture change takes a long time. We didn't, overnight, get to the point we are today where the police are throwing up their hands and asking homeowners to cower under the beds silently and make it easier for thieves to steal our stuff so they don't have to rough us up / kill us to get it. That takes institutional rot over decades.
Thanks again for not waiting to write this column.
Sometimes you've just got to let it out before you go insane.
I always used to defend the need for relatively high taxes to my more anti-tax friends and family, pointing out all the things around us they pay for. Even high police budgets were something I defended, despite leaning fairly left-wing on a lot of things, because I think it's a hard job and I was glad people were willing to do it. But apparently, they aren't going to do it! I don't have much to point to anymore.
Between this, our crumbling infrastructure, healthcare, and myriad overpaid contractor scandals - like seriously, what are we actually paying for? If I can't count on the things my taxes are supposed to provide, I might just end up joining those calling for a smaller government and a more libertarian society.
Considering where I started, that's really saying a lot, believe me.
NS, I have said previously (ad nauseum, really) that governments, particularly the federal government, try to do far, far, far too much, all in the name of fairness, equity, blah, blah, blah. The result is to take the ever increasing tax base and spread it so thinly that it cannot purchase the goods and services that are really, really needed.
I submit that what is truly needed is to cut back the federal footprint to the responsibilities set forth in the Constitution, fire an armada's worth of public cheque recipients and do the tasks left properly.
It is not that I am necessarily a smaller government guy, although I am recommending that herein, as much as I am convinced that we cannot do everything so find SOME THINGS that we CAN properly do.
Start with cutting the 38 member cabinet in half. There are 38 ministers all with staffs diligently working to get money out of treasury to make themselves look good and seem important. This government has one of the largest executive groups of any government and accomplishes less.
Amen.
Jack of all trades, master of none, is what Canadians consistently vote for.
KS, I do understand the phrase but I would consider a better one is to substitute a different word for your initial one, i.e. knave. The word knave is a synonym for a jack in cards but it has another and, I submit better, meaning that is appropriate in this context.
KS, noted and accepted.
(First beer is on me btw next month)
I accept and am looking forward to it.
Now, if only I can hear what G & G actually say. This hearing loss thingy is aggravating!
I listen to the podcast so often that I now read both of your columns in your voice.
And I totally agree with Matt here. But what he doesn't mention is that the cops often put in the work and the courts just let the dudes off with a slap on the wrist. That must be very discouraging to the police.
We need data on how many of those released on bail go on to commit violent / serious crimes immediately afterward. And how many are young offenders, etc. And which judges most often grant bail leading to such consequences. Etc...
There have been plenty of such statistics released lately. Google can find them. Vancouver police for sure a
has done this several times.
Living in a rural, isolated area, I have always been concerned with personal and property security. Even more so than urban areas the "police are minutes (hours?) away when seconds count". I would rather be convicted and alive than have my family hurt. Property I can replace but the shotgun remains close to hand and will remain so regardless of the civil disarmament agenda of this corrupt, morally bereft government.
And "living in a rural, isolated area" is not a requisite for a close-by shotgun.
That's true. Police response times in my rural area are amazingly quick and thorough.
Remember the farmer's axiom:
Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.
"It would be nice if we had a political class that was willing to assert itself over the police forces they are responsible for, instead of hiding behind the convenient fib that politicians can never interfere with policing matters."
But we did let our political class assert itself over the police forces by acquiescing to the naive concept that the very existence of a police force is problematic. That is why a citizen protecting their own home from a violent invasion faces much greater consequences than the offender. Our political class has decided that criminals deserve more consideration than the rest of us.
It seems the second last sentence makes no sense.
This is satisfying to say, but it doesn't really make any sense.
It doesn't seem surprising that after "we" wanted to defund them and called them every name in the book, that they don't want to stick their collective necks out.
If you're no longer willing to perform your well-paid job properly, you should quit instead of continuing to drain resources from the public you now refuse to protect. There's no excuse for such behaviour in that role, and certainly no honour in maintaining that attitude.
I would extend this principle to all public servants who feel justified in not providing the service they're paid for - they should quit, or we should fire them if they won't. You deserve no sympathy for being a drain on the society you're supposed to serve.
MC I would respond that for ever so many of those so employed, they are not "public servants" but are, instead, recipients of public paycheques.
There are, indeed, true public servants but they are vastly outnumbered by those who simply follow the rule book that is written to allow anyone to "prove" ESG compliance but nothing else. Truly, "public service" be damned is their real creed.
"We" never did. That was always far more of an American thing. Their budgets have only gone up and accountability has been consistently going down.
WB, the budgets may well have increased markedly but the burden of ESG, etc. is weighing down everything. The results (e.g. safety and crime prevention) are irrelevant as long as there is "equality" of input; output is not considered; Hell, it's absolutely avoided.
Could you clarify this comment? What does ESG mean? What is input? What is output?
Sean, I thought that I had responded to your query but it doesn't appear here so I will again try to answer.
ESG is the acronym for Environment, Social, Governance. That is, the various environmental this, that and the other shibboleths, many of which have obvious merit but just as many arguably are vastly too extreme and not applied with thought about the consequences, be they economic, social (jobs lost, for example), etc., etc. Social is the various collection of social "good" policies that one "must" follow or one is shouted down in the court of public opinion. Governance relates to the various governance practices of corporations and not for profit entities; it is my observation that many of such practices start off very sensibly and then veer off to absurdity. Clearly, ESG has a variety of good parts but the various proponents have skewed so much of it to absurd lengths.
Input / output? This federal government - well, pretty much all governments, actually. Will tell you that they have committed $X billions of dollars to accomplish a particular goal [Input] but they won't tell you (ever) a) if that goal was / will be / might possibly be achieved; b) what actually was accomplished by the expenditure of $X billions. To be more specific, an example: "Why is it so hard to find a family doctor?" "We have devoted $X billions more to the medical system." [Input] There is no answer that says, for example, "We have devoted $X billions more to the medical system and have now hired X more doctors, X more nurses and have been able to ensure that X more family doctors have opened medical practices in X area.
The point is that politicians tell you what "wonderful" stuff that they have "done" but it is all vapor and they definitely don't talk about what specifically, specifically the effect of that spending, policy change, etc. is because that would be work, that would result in them admitting that they don't know what the hell they are doing.
And so forth. And, yes, I am cynical.
The breathless announcement of things [usually spending] followed by no or almost no impact reporting on results is a true hallmark of Canadian governance.
Oh you can’t blame the current “just surrender” attitude of the police on them getting all hurt and sad at the mean things people said in the post George Floyd environment.
The police insistence that people should not be allowed to defend themselves has been around a LOT longer. I remember that being the message when I was in high school and I’m pushing 50. It’s possible that they’ve gotten more insistent in that message, but it was there back then.
It may have been the message from the police for a lot longer, but high school was when I started paying attention.
"The police insistence that people should not be allowed to defend themselves has been around a LOT longer." I'm a little older and my read is slightly different. I never felt like the message was people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves -- it was more that a surprised, untrained civilian is unlikely to improve a robbery situation by taking a thief on -- you or I are way more likely to get ourselves hurt or escalate the situation. Most people have auto insurance, so the risks are high and the reward is pretty low.
That said, when there is a clear, organized pattern of crime like the auto theft situation and that advice seems to be combined with a "whatcha gonna do?" attitude -- that's a bit frustrating.
The budget for TPS has doubled over the last 20,25 ish years…
Unfortunately I think your prediction is quite likely accurate Matt; however, rather than moving to enhanced, active policing and prosecution we will instead wind up with more "gun control" pointed at law abiding Canadian gun owners rather than the criminals.
This certainly seems to be the LPC's preferred method to deal with crime?
Bear traps seem useful.
As far as I can tell, police across North America have been on a “soft strike” or a kind of work-to-rule since summer 2020. To be honest I don’t totally blame them. When you have the top influential figures in culture and politics saying not that policing needs reform, but that the entire institution is “structural racism”, that’s going to have an effect. Either destruction of morale, or a quiet quitting in protest, or both.
I have heard that the leadership doesn't have cops' backs. That 1/3 of the OPP (for instance) is out on sick leave at any given time. That tallies with the increasing budgets and decreasing results.
We need only look south to see how this ends. Politicians and elites alike chronically fail to understand the sociological equivalent of Newton's third law: equal and opposite (over-)reaction. People won't put up with being passive victims and with feeling insecure in their own homes endlessly. There will start to be incidents of intruders being shot. Then homeowners being prosecuted more vigorously than the criminals. Then more people becoming outraged about that. Then political opportunists seeing opportunity. Demands for laws being changed. "Castle" laws. "Stand your ground" laws. It ends with open carry in Walmart and right-wing courts (packed with judges appointed by politicians elected by frightened people) striking down laws prohibiting firearms on college campuses.
Think that's an exaggeration? I lived in the US from the 60s through the early 2000s and watched exactly that happen – from strict gun control to a fearful populace replacing politicians until they got what they wanted: open carry, almost everywhere. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (as it did to the south) over a generation or so, if our leaders don't start taking the safety of the public seriously.
LA, you conclude, "... if our leaders don't start taking the safety of the public seriously."
They won't. They will take seriously their own safety when enraged citizens picket city hall, Parliament, etc.; when absolutely terrified citizens threaten the politicians, etc. But, they won't take seriously OUR safety. It's all hug a thug, don'tcha know?
I think you're completely correct about the problem here: police are acquiescing to the existence of crime rather than trying to prevent it. Consider what a proactive approach would be here: police identify neighborhoods with a higher incidence of these break-ins. They station extra officers and patrol cars nearby to deter criminals, and they communicate with residents about how to communicate a break-in so the police can execute a rapid response.
The deterrent to criminals is realizing they have a high probability of getting caught and facing consequences. It's much the same with the spate of organized shoplifting. I cannot fathom why the police haven't put plainclothes officers in certain hard-hit areas to catch these shoplifters in action. It turns the assumption of impunity on its head when criminals think there's a good chance that they're suddenly going to get pounced on by cops that they didn't know were there.
If police aren't going to provide the deterrent, they're going to find the public will do it for them and it isn't going to be pretty. I don't keep a gun in the house; I'm not going to shoot an intruder. However, I *do* have a German Shepherd from a protection dog line, and I *am* going to let her do her thing. A German Shepherd's preferred approach in these cases is to leap up and lunge for the throat. And, if somebody starts hurting my dog in my house, I will knock them to the floor and do violence to them until I do not feel threatened. I'm not a violent person, but it's my house and I tend to put my own safety on the line in defense of my wife and kids.
The comment by the cop was intended as a harm reduction strategy. I have to believe there’s a group at TPS tasked with making some arrests of professional car thieves. And when you get the moronic political class of one - Doug Ford- capitalizing on the issue it’s about appointing like minded judges. The head spins.
But what really is out of control is the public mayhem I have seen with the pro- Palestinian supporters who are very sophisticated at manipulating the situation so they appear victimized. They must not be permitted to continue to prevent law abiding citizens from going about their daily lives as was the case at the AGO. Escalation prevention I understand. But this approach is not working. It’s a disgrace and it is vital for the police to be and to be seen to be in control when there is an angry screaming mob traumatizing everyone in the area. This is not the Toronto I know and love. The rule of law is more than a political slogan.
Michele, you write in part, "I have to believe there’s a group at TPS tasked with making some arrests of professional car thieves."
Perhaps you would enlighten us as to a) how successful is that "group at TPS" given the apparent rapid increase in car thefts; and b) why any member of the public should believe that the TPS or any police "service" [note the quotation marks - I am uncertain as to whom the cops are really serving] can, will or wants to accomplish the stated task of reducing car thefts when the primary task is to hug a thug.
I agree that these pro-Palestinian thugs are terrifically dangerous and must be dealt with. I would note, however, that the EXCUSE of escalation prevention is so often simply that, an excuse, and that at some point, some day, some day SOON, the cops had better pretty much escalate and crack some heads in public.
As for "the rule of law"? Yes, it is absolutely a political slogan. The whole ESG shit show is oriented to changing the definition of law and then bending that resulting definition to be infinitely flexible so that there is no "rule" to that law. And, yes, the cops are complicit in that whole governmental changing of the definition.
So, to summarize, cynicism = realism = societal breakdown = failed state.
There's also probably a group at TSP tasked with crowd management tactics. What we need is more enforcement less conference
On a brighter note, after paying so much tax to Ottawa, I can only afford 10 year old Fords, which no one wants. Went the same way with a bicycle. After having many of them stolen, I now ride a bike that no one will steal. First World problem? Yeah, but I have decided not to immigrate to the developing world, thank you.
No need to emigrate to the developing world. The developing world is coming to you.
At least things are cheaper in the developing world - we're instead moving towards offering a developing world reality at luxury prices.
Yes you could probably buy your car back for less than replacement here :)
Yes, the developing world is coming to you, but Canada is rapidly approaching developing world status. Therefore, moving to such a country might, indeed, end up seeing one with a better standard of living.
Do you genuinely think that Canada is rapidly approaching developing world status?
Sean, I certainly think that Canada is trending in that direction. Then, when you look at our accumulated debt and our inability to do much of anything other than performative stuff, yes I do think that Canada is trending toward developing world status.
Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we trending in that direction in a way that could soon be irreversible? Yup, I think so.
The lucky part - for me - is that I am old and won't have to live through the Greeceification of Canada. The unlucky part - for me - is that my adult children and minor grandchildren will have to live through it.
Truth.
Good food for thought. A better recommendation would be to step down a few pegs and have something in your driveway no self-respecting carbuyer in Nigeria would touch with a bargepole. I sleep fairly well at night as my driveway contains a ten year old Hyundai Sonata on its second engine, as the first one blew up but I got a freebie owing to a class action lawsuit settlement. I was told the new one won't explode but who knows? My neighbour looks even more well rested, as he has a 10-year old Dodge mini van. His driveway has a 3x3 foot black patch of oil and grease owing to a fairly major leak coming from somewhere. So, we're good. The answer may be to have a nice new Lexus kept at a secure location while your driveway hosts an old Chev Biscayne or something similar.
Interesting article however to blame the police for the problem negates the responsibility of the courts.
If you were a police officer today and u look at what happens to those you arrest one couldn’t help but be disillusioned. The fentanyl dealer has a hard upbringing so he or she has no responsibility for selling the drugs that kill our children, the shop lifter has a substance abuse problem so they can’t be held responsible, the car jacker may be a minor or a minority so circumstances dictate they shouldn’t be charged or be held responsible.
The very best that a police officer in Canada can do today is put them into the court system then the justice system does their magic and the perpetrators either walk free or receive a minimum sentence.
However if a police officer dare breach the rights of the criminals how ever petty that breach be, the offender walks free, the officer gets lectured or reprimanded for violating the right of the criminal.
After that happens to you and your colleagues repeatedly it kind of take the interest away from arresting these fine folks.
Our justice system reminds me of that famous Pogo quote “ I have seen the enemy and it is I!”
We are the voters we elect the fine folks that create the laws and appoint the judges so let’s not blame the police ,let’s elect some common sense people that will fix a broken system.
Buck passing. The courts have problems. The problems in this article belong to the police. I'm not going to let one institution hide its dysfunction behind the dysfunction of another.
I'd add that there's a good reason the courts and police are meant to be independent of each other. Police may indeed be frustrated by court outcomes, but it's not their job or, really, concern. They should focus on arresting the right people for the right crimes, which is their function in society.
I don't think that I agree with the take that the police are "surrendering", or at least, I don't think that their advice to put your keys by the door is damning evidence that they are. You point out yourself that car thefts are rising, and so too presumably is break-ins by people looking to steal cars. How we got here and what we can do about it is one discussion, but given that we're here, the advice is about how you or I can manage the situation. I agree that the situation is completely absurd and feels like a bit from a sketch comedy show, but it really is analogous to the advice given about what to do if you're being mugged - just give them what they want. This is proactively giving them that thing they want. If the risk of "being mugged" is high enough, then it makes sense.
That said, the situation is absolutely unacceptable and if this is the only "solution" offered, then indeed they're giving up, but it seems like an overreaction to me.
If they told you to move to a gated community with private security then would you agree they've thrown in the towel?
It isn't a question of how absurd the recommendation is in a vacuum, it's how it fits the risk. This is maybe an unsatisfying response to your comment, but I feel it's true. Currently, I feel that if they told me to move to gated community, that would of course be silly. That's not the recommendation though.
So you believe that if people break into your home they will just grab the fob hanging by the door and drive your car away? You don't think that if they go to the trouble of breaking in they aren't up for a little more mischief?
Nope!
Nope to what? I can't engage with your point if you don't make it.
Sean, I say "nope" in response to your assertion that the police are not surrendering. If they were not surrendering why would they be recommending that you leave your keys where the thugs can easily access them instead of vigorously taking down the miscreants? Why do the police concentrate on avoiding confrontation in pretty well all situations? The answer is that the police say they don't want a riot (my word) where the public might be injured, etc. I don't want people to get hurt, that is true, but at some point these thugs are so brazen and so sure of themselves that there is no thought to consequence.
So, yes, I understand the idea of giving in to the mugger but proactively allowing the thugs to access your car? No thanks. I say, shotgun, bear trap, taser, etc.
The ability to protect or defend oneself and our family has to be the most basic human right that any person possesses! I am baffled why Canadians accept the utter inability of our national and local police forces to protect Canadians or enforce the law as they choose to, all the while intellectually and legally asserting that only in extreme cases are we able to defend ourselves & families in Canada! Of course in rural Canada police response “for service” can be hours or days away - an alternate is and has been a functional necessity!
Have to admit - I never voted for the Liebrals, not even once when young, stupid & idealistic!