A soft spot for police, when they agree with the consensus media

- January 29th, 2013

I’m on the record as saying cops, at least at the upper level, are being way too political these days. Canada’s police chiefs have opinions on all matter of political issues and don’t mind sharing their opinions or lobbying for changes. Funny though, that advice is never more valued by the consensus media than when it contradicts the current government’s direction.

From today’s Red Star…..

RCMP feared ending gun registry would hurt investigations

OTTAWA—As the Conservative government prepared to abolish the long-gun registry, the RCMP privately expressed concerns about the negative impact that would have on its ability to trace long guns used in crimes, according to government documents.

The RCMP, in a memorandum marked “updated for (newly appointed) Commissioner Paulson — November 2011” and “under consideration for Cabinet Confidence,” outlined “strategic considerations” related to ending the long-gun registry.

All I want to point out is that when police support something like mandatory minimums The Star can’t seem to run a story.

I don’t think cops should be listened to on policy more than any other bureaucrat. We elected politicians to make decisions on our behalf and they act based on the mandate they receive from the people.

For good or bad that is our system.

I have a real problem though with the preponderance of stories out of Ottawa about how the government rejected this advice or that advice from some paper pusher whose job it is to present options. Bureaucrats propose, governments decide.

Maybe some of my colleagues would prefer to live in a country run by the bureaucracy….

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

6 comments

  1. Brian Stewart says:

    Come on Brian, you actually expect the commie Red Star to print anything balanced or relevant? That is your job, keep it up

  2. Alain says:

    None of this is surprising when it comes to the consensus media. As for the police this IS a very, very serious issue. Allowing the police to move from a neutral law enforcement body to selective political enforcement is a move from the rule of law (the law being applied equally and fairly to all) to a banana republic, and if it must be stopped. To make matters worse we now have cops believing they are above the law. If they want to be politicians, then they need to leave the police and run as a politician; otherwise do their job.

  3. Charles De Gagall says:

    They already are above the law, we have so many data points its embarrassing
    -it takes 12 years to successfully prosecute 7 dirty cops
    - Barrie Police Officer is only in court for assault because he did it in front of a security camera. It’s a stretch but I predict suspension with pay, no conviction
    -OPP refuse to obey judicial orders to end a native occupation
    -admitted alcoholic ex-solicitor general kills a cyclist and no breathalyzer, exonerated within 90 days
    -Chief Blair refuses to identify officers accused of abusing citizens at the G20
    We know how this ends, we don’t seem to know how to stop it.

  4. Christine ploeg says:

    Just imagine if EMS selectively responded to medical emergencies. Just imagine if the fire department cherry picked the blazes they would douse. I acknowledge that there needs to be room for different approaches to law enforcement but this nations principles need to be upheld.

  5. Jameshalifax says:

    I remember the good old days when cops were actually known to get their hands dirty to do the job we pay them for. They would wade into a bar brawl and start cracking heads and arresting people to break it up. Now, they are more apt to taser you to death without laying a finger on you. God forbid they should break a nail.

    I wouldn’t say the cops back then were more intelligent thatn those we have today, but there were certainly more able to make a decision on a moment’s notice. today’s cops….you can’t trust their judgement, and you can’t trust them to do what is right. That’s why we have idiots rampaging through the cities breaking windows and burning cars, or why we have Indians blockading the road. Like the woman in the blue truck…it’s time to start ignoring the protestors; drive right through them. The cops won’t do their job…so you do it for them.

  6. Bill Elder says:

    The only countries where police make or impact public policy are military dictatorships or police state tyrannies. Police have one function – to obey and enforce the law – not interpret the law, or make up laws, or break the law, or selectively enforce it, or intimidate government into changing it , as we see our out of control politicized police function doing recently.

    One thing people need to realize is that the largest, best financed and influential special interest pressure group or lobby in this nation is the police. There is just something about that which does not rest easy with the concept of representative democracy. Special interest political lobby groups by their very nature do not speak for the majority or its best interests – they only pressure government to make policy which benefits the narrow agendas of the small minority they represent. In essence they seek to garner political influence not available to the common citizen or voter. When you have police doing this in relation to changing the law it is their duty to obey, it bceomes a glaring case of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest which greases the slippery slope toward police state injustice. And we wonder why the police function has gone so far off the rails in the last few years.

Comments are closed.