Ford and Forde weigh in on the G20 inquiry

Mayoral candidate Rob Ford must really want to make sure we all know how much he supports the police. It was recently reported in Eye Weekly that among other things, he praised the service for their handling of the G20.

That’s good, but then he went on to say that there shouldn’t be an inquiry, because if anything, the service was actually “too nice.” And although he later participated in a unanimous city council vote to commend the service on their work, he was also subsequently the lone dissenter against an amendment that “City Council thank Chief Blair for his support of the Toronto Police Services Board decision to launch an Independent Civilian Review of the G20 Summit.”

With all due respect, these are the sort of measures that make me picture a giant file cabinet down at 40 College with “Ways in Which Rob’s Not Helping” written across the front.

Let me explain. Ford shouldn’t – and could hardly – be confused with Keith Forde, a distinguished Deputy Chief who recently announced his retirement after thirty-eight years on the job. In an interview with the Globe and Mail that I highly encourage you to read, Forde acknowledged that an inquiry could be a very helpful measure.

“Whether the police were right or wrong,” he said, “if the public believes we have done something wrong, we have fences to mend. You can’t have the public saying ‘we hate the police.’ We just can’t ignore them – we need the public.

“What the service is going through now,” he added, “it makes us a better police service. I have no problem with it.”

For the record, I agree with Forde and disagree with Ford.

I’ve already mentioned that I think an inquiry would be a good idea. But I feel like I should qualify that opinion, because the word itself can mean many things depending on who’s using it to what end – not to mention what level of understanding that person has of how these things can, should, and ultimately will occur.

There are so many questions about policing and security at the G20, both in terms of policy and its application, that I think a little clarification is indeed necessary to rebuild the public trust at best and identify culpability at worst. After all, trust is vital to the community policing model that has proven so successful in this city over the past several years.

It’s also important to review the successes and failures of any major police operation, and this was surely the most major in our history. Police services routinely conduct such reviews, but an independent inquiry is another matter – and if it’s conducted objectively, it may very well be beneficial.

But there’s a little more to it than that. When the average person calls for a G20 inquiry, they’re basically saying that they want to know what happened. I want to know what happened too. Lord knows the media – mainstream and alternative alike – are too wrapped up in their own individual agendas to do the job with the reliability and objectivity we need and deserve. In that respect, an independent inquiry is a sensible option. But it’s got to be the right kind of inquiry.

Because there’s always a good chance that an inquiry won’t accomplish anything – or worse yet, that it will confound the issue further. An inquiry with an agenda will inevitably seek to prove what it already believes, just as many of the loudest and most uninformed people on both sides of the false but sexy “police versus protesters” divide do whenever they watch the news or read the paper.

And by the way, if you’re on Twitter, like I am, then good for you. Twitter’s awesome. But it’s got to be said that by the very nature of Twitter, you probably follow far more people who you basically agree with than people who are likely to challenge your biases and opinions. These are the people from which you’re probably, and hopefully not exclusively, getting your G20 news and opinions. But that’s a digression for another day.

Ultimately, even an inquiry conducted with the best of intentions can easily make matters worse. There’s always a very real risk than any otherwise illuminating evidence that might be uncovered will be tainted by the nature and the conduct of the inquiry itself.

Oh, and if you’re as angry as I am about the G20′s gargantuan cost to taxpayers, then I hope you won’t mind if I point out that inquiries themselves cost money. In fact, they usually cost an awful lot of money, especially when you look at that cost in terms of return on investment.

With all of that in mind, if we’re going to do an inquiry, then great. I’m all for it. But for God’s sake, let’s do it right. And frankly, if you’re the sort of person who won’t be satisfied with anything less than an inquiry that totally blames a certain party, or totally absolves a certain party, then you shouldn’t be allowed at the table. Why hold an inquiry to confirm someone’s opinion when you can hold one to dig up the truth instead?

Speaking of which, you know who really doesn’t want to be the subject of an inquiry? The Conservative government. You may remember them as the people that dropped this summit on our town in the first place. They argue that Parliament should hold off on an inquiry until the Toronto Police Services Board and the RCMP have completed theirs. But opposition MPs such as Mark Holland have countered that the federal government’s role in the summit deserves much more scrutiny than these reviews will provide.

In addition, Holland took exception to the Conservative characterization of the inquiry’s supporters as pro-violence and pro-anarchy. Some would say that he could have just as easily pointed out that this is a classic dirty trick, best used when you’re desperate to deflect a little blame. But I suppose he’s got a little more class than that, and frankly, good for him.

At any rate, to say that there’s a lot of public confusion surrounding the G20 is an understatement. We all have our own role to play in clearing it up, whether by insisting on more transparency, demanding less shoddy journalism, or simply taking less of what confirms our worries and opinions at face value. But if an objective and effective inquiry is indeed an option, then I think it’s a good one.

By the way, you know what else is a good idea? Not electing Rob Ford to be the next mayor of Toronto. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t do a very good job. Do me a favour in October and vote for somebody else.

Posted in Uncategorized