Sunday, May 27, 2012

Bob Paulson’s Dilemana

The Vancouver Province is reporting that B.C.’s top Mountie could have blocked the controversial transfer to B.C. of a disgraced Alberta Mountie, but decided not to. Here we have an idiot using the same old infamous command culture on civilians. I could have blocked his transfer but I decided not to and that decisions stands. Basically he is telling the public to f off. He will do what he wants when he wants and we have no say in the matter. That is not the way to restore trust that has been lost.

Now we need two people to leave: Don Ray and Craig Callens. Bob Paulson took the top dog position governing the RCMP in Ottawa. He did so amidst a flurry of bad press about sexual misconduct within the RCMP. He vowed swift justice for misbehaving mounties. Sadly, he has dropped the ball on this case and that diminishes all of us.

Not only is it wrong to transfer Don Ray to BC, it is ilegal. Bob Paulson appears to be genuinely frustrated with the case admitting that the actions of a senior Alberta Mountie who engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct, as well as the punishment he received, represent a "sorry, sad and shameful set of facts,"

Bob Paulson said the case of Donald Ray underscores a need to revamp the force's disciplinary system, and that the force is pursuing legislative changes to make that happen. "If I could change this case I would, I cannot," he said. "What I can do is make sure that we get a system where this sort of frustration is eliminated."

The problem culminates in a three-member adjudication-board that decided not to terminate Don Ray. That is the prime absurdity. Surely that decision can be appealed because it is clearly illegal. This is why there is a class action law suit against the RCMP as we speak. That employer has failed to enforce the laws protecting employees from sexual harassment and are now legally liable for damages.

They were sure quick to fire Al Dalstrom for doing his job and telling the truth. That wrongful dismissal resulted in a multi million dollar out of court settlement just to get a gag order on the reasons he was wrongfully fired. Under normal circumstance, labour law does protect employees from wrongful dismissal. Sexual harassment is not one of those allowable provisions. It’s the opposite. The employer can be held legally liable for not firing a person who has committed sexual harassment.

Take innocent absenteeism for example. The employer has a right to expect the employee will come to work. Yet people are allowed to get sick. If someone calls in sick a lot, we're not talking about a single long term illness for something like cancer, were talking about erratic ongoing illnesses which prevent an employee from attending work on a consistent basis. People can get fired for that. Yet there is a legal process involved.

First, the employer has to establish that the absences are excessive. They are more than twice the average absenteeism. Second, they have to establish that it is chronic, it has happened over a long period of time despite being warned by the employer in writing that these absences will affect their job. Finally, they have to establish that there is no likelihood of the absenteeism ever improving. That’s the hard part.

My point is, people can get fired for innocent absenteeism. It’s hard and frustrating for an employer but it is possible. Yet sexual harassment is very different. Since the employer is under legal obligation to protect it’s employees from sexual harassment, termination for sexual harassment is pretty much automatic. In ANY other industry, Don Ray would be fired. Surely one would expect the RCMP would have a higher standard than the private industry on this matter not a lower standard.

This three member adjudication board has made an illegal decision. That needs to be addressed. Telling the public to suck it up is wrong. This has destroyed what little faith there was in the RCMP. For those who hated cops, it fuels their fire. For everyone else who supports law and order it is a slap in the face. Take a look at the comments in the Vancouver Province’s Back Chat on the issue.


The RCMP has made a grave mistake in not dumping this guy. They promised that was what they would do to restore confidence in the force. And yet here they are.


We keep hearing the bad cops are few. If this is true then why aren't the good cops getting rid of them. You want to walk with pride? Clean your own house.


Transfers like this are a time-honoured tradition. It's called passing the trash.


The new boss in Ottawa said he would clean up the force.

This proves that he is nothing more than a bag of wind.

There are even jokes about having to change the name of the RCMP because of the new term mounted police has a negative conotation. It's tragic and undemocratic. The RCMP are Public Servants. Tax Payers pay their salary. To boldly declare their opinion doesn't matter is a very alienating slap in the face. One could respond with OK let's just sue their ass. But who would pay the settlement? Taxpayers. That is why the RCMP need to be publically accountable. Right now they are not and that needs to change.

Other important questions we’re going to have to ask is how on earth did Barbara George get her job back? Why on earth was she so confident that she was going to get it back? Who else was involved and ultimately responsible for the RCMP Pension fraud?


  1. "We're the Police, we can do whatever we want".

    It's funny because it's true. Oh wait, it's not funny.

    But it is true. And you've seen the results of all these promises about change and reform. There aren't any. It's just something they tell you to put you off and get you to shut up so some time can pass and they can go back to business as usual.

    And it works every time. Wow, it's almost seems like you're powerless to do anything to these guys, like they're above the law or something......

    Well, the reason it seems like that is because you ARE powerless to do anything about it. They ARE above the same laws they will enforce on you.

    Bon appetit.

  2. We can always pull out of the RCMP. Just because the provincial government renewed their contract doesn’t mean other cities like Surrey can’t just pull out completely and create their own regional police force. I think even Dianne Watts is starting to think that way. The other option is the civilian tribunal. If I’m not mistaken, the BC Liberals actually created local legislation saying that police discipline now goes through a civilian tribunal. However, I think that only applies to local police forces within BC it’s not federal yet i.e. RCMP.

  3. Agreed. People need to quit being so fucking apathetic and take control of their own lives. Government (and their minions) work for you, not you are ruled by them. Until people in Canada adopt that mindset, nothing will change.

    To illustrate using the "flock of sheep" model, the citizenry at the same time as being the sheep are also the shepherds who oversee the sheepdogs. Right now the sheepdogs do as they like, and when occasionally one of them dines on mutton, or fails to do their job and the wolves eat well that day, it is other sheepdogs who judge their peers. When the sheep say, "You've been a baaahd-doggy, the sheepdog elders say, "Let us handle this, you don't know how to bark, you're not qualified, go back to munching grass, you're lucky you have us".

    Until you have a shepherd (civilian oversight) who will do everything from whack his ass with a newspaper (discipline up to and including termination) to putting a round behind that renegade's ear (termination, prosecution, jail time) the dogs will not behave themselves.

    You have a difficult road ahead of you because you are talking about dismantling the culture of law enforcement in Canada as it now exists and replacing it with it's polar opposite as far as accountability and discipline goes. These guys thumb their noses at you for a reason, that being that citizens have demonstrated that no matter what the outrage, they do not have the balls to do what it would take to get change. Conversely, the police have demonstrated over and over that they have the balls to do whatever they want and get away with it. Similar to their supposed opposition in that respect differing largely in matter of degree.

    Quit being confused/hornswoggled about the nature of the problem being faced. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's ass is watertight, it's a duck.

    I know you will disagree with me here, but until Canadians have the right to defend themselves with force restored to them in law and in practice, they will always be subservient to those who imagine (accurately it turns out) themselves to be their masters.
    Right now Canadians are effectively disarmed and the criminals (who obey no laws anyway) are not. And this is also why no citizen is the equal of a police officer. Say what you like but there is effect from this. They are special, you are not. See how that works? Different than the citizens and the police are equal except the police have the job of keeping the peace and enforcing laws. And the ability to use force is what makes them equal. Remove that from one side through laws designed "for your own protection" and you have inequality that breeds contempt and a sense of entitlement.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.