- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I was sent this editorial piece via email. I tried like heck to find a link, but I don't think that all editorials get posted on the web. In any case, it has a fist full of good info and common sense:
The Riff Raff of The City
Dear Mr. Shanoff
Toronto Sun;
In last week's Sun I read an informative, full two-page story about the proliferation of drug dealers in the downtown area of Oshawa. Included were anecdotes and explanations of the problems from two Durham Regional Police officers assigned to that specific problem, one of whom I know. The reporter evidently spent considerable time walking the beat with those officers and interviewing business people and residents in the vicinity. Oshawa was the town of choice for the article but it could have been any city of the that size (pop. 160,000) or larger.
One of the people interviewed was the gentleman in charge of the bus terminal on Bond St., a well known hangout for drug dealers and customers who force unsuspecting commuters to walk their gauntlets of annoying, frequently aggressive panhandlers. The fellow observed that they routinely disappear when the police show up only to re-emerge when the officers move onto other areas and duties. He aptly described it essentially as a game of cat and mouse. Unless the police actually catch those people either selling or possessing illicit drugs, which doesn't usually happen in full view of uniformed officers, little more than temporarily flushing them out takes place. The social parasites know it, too. The man from from the bus terminal and other local residents wondered about the reason more couldn't be done to keep them away, as did the reporter.
I can offer one valid reason:
Early in my career as a cop in Toronto (Regent Park) there was a section of the Criminal Code entitled 'Vagrancy';
(1) Everyone commits vagrancy who,
(a) not having any visible means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found;
(b) begs from door to door or in a public place;
(c) being a common prostitute or night walker is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herself;
(d) supports himself in whole or in part by gaming or crime and has no lawful profession or calling by which to support himself.
(e) having at anytime been convicted of an offence under a provision mentioned in paragraph 689(1)(a) or (b) (i.e. any of several sexual offences), is found loitering or wandering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area
(2) Everyone who commits vagrancy is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (i.e. maximum six months in jail and/or substantial fine)
(3) No person who is aged or infirm shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph (1) (a).
[Note; It's interesting that the only clause in that law that refered to the female of the species was (c), perhaps presuming that all prostitutes and 'night walkers' were women and the rest of the bums were men. Thank goodess for the Interpretation Act.]
The vagrancy section was used regularly by police to deal with the problems covered in the article by the Sun. The people presently infesting the downtown area of Oshawa would have been arrested for vagrancy when I was a very young officer, not simply dispersed to do their dirty deeds elsewhere until the uniforms disappeared.
That entire section of the Criminal Code was repealed and replaced by nothing about 1972 by the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau during the cultural revolution, at a time that freedom to do just about anything was celebrated as a great victory for social justice. 'Freedom', 'Rights' and 'Do you own thing' were extremely popular buzz words. Obedience, compliance and responsible behaviour were unwanted relics from the past. Defence lawyers hailed the trashing of the law relating to vagrancy as a triumph over the draconian measures of an earlier, Victorian age.
In reviewing that section now, perhaps it needed some work, an updating amendment with respect to specificity. After all, it was originally enacted in the very early twentieth century. (It might need the support of the 'notwithstanding' clause of the Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be enforceable at all now.)
Police authorities, especially in Toronto, at the time publicly warned of the consequences of totally repealing, rather than re-writing that law. It came as no surprise that their cautions were ignored. After all, police were 'pigs' and storm troopers in jack boots then and they were supposed to have no say about actual policy. To fan the flames of discord, radical lawyers with an abundance of free air time and media ink at their disposal, alarmed the public by portraying our officers as the Gestapo of Nazi Germany, WW II vintage, whose opinions were pessimistic, negative, oppressive, outdated and predictable. The cops simply liked trampling on citizens and locking them up for the fun of it. Predominantly left wing, enlightened politicians in Ottawa and especially Toronto dismissed their concerns because, being intellectuals, they obviously knew better.
Even the blame for really serious criminal behaviour wasn't laid at the feet of the offenders, but society. The astute psycho-babblists and radical anarchistic lawyers of the time said that society produced them, that we were to blame and owed them rehabilitation at any expense. We'd badly mistreated our beloved, cherished criminals and were in their debt, instead of vice versa. Much of the media, most notably the Toronto Star in this area, ate it up and politicians, to say nothing of our beloved Supreme Court with its predominantly left wing appointees, hopped aboard the bandwagon. The Chiefs of Police had little credibility while the Clayton Rubys and others of his ilk were gods.
In fact the police knew that they were the people charged with the onerous task of keeping order in their areas of jurisdiction, that they'd be the first ones condemned for their alleged failure to do so, and that they'd be unable to effectively do their jobs as their tools were being removed by legally eroding and ultimately usurping their authority to act.
What we've learned, or ought to have learned, in my opinion is that so-called freedom isn't free at all. There are consequences and costs for just about everything. To the people who now complain that the streets are mostly lost, a cynical, 'I told-you-so' retired cop with a decent memory, who followed it very closely all the way, might well say that congratulations are entirely in order because you got what you wanted through your elected representatives. Everyone received tons of boundless freedom to do their own things without fear of reprisals. Good for you! Just because many of you are now basically incarcerated in your own homes because you're terrified to walk the streets after dark, or even during the day in many instances, doesn't matter. Anything goes. It's a small pittance to pay for all that nice limitless freedom. So stay home, lock your doors, shut up and live with it.
Thank goodness I'm not a cynic like that..
Kindest personal regards
Larry Wood
Bowmanville, Ont
Doubtless, if vagrancy were to be brought back the section would need some tweeking. However, the total inability to deal with people clagging around in the streets is not helping anyone. And most certainly, this topic will bring up the oh-so-terrifying concept of officer discretion. But just realize that such a law wouldn't trigger mass homeless round ups ala Soyalent Green crowd control.
But it would sure be nice to be able to target some of the degenerates that steal oxygen repeatedly without any repercussions.
I am particularly fond of the part where he indicates that the people get what they asked for, especially in the GTA. They worked their butts off for years to achieve the leftie utopia they now live in. Hope they enjoy their six murders per weekend
The Riff Raff of The City
Dear Mr. Shanoff
Toronto Sun;
In last week's Sun I read an informative, full two-page story about the proliferation of drug dealers in the downtown area of Oshawa. Included were anecdotes and explanations of the problems from two Durham Regional Police officers assigned to that specific problem, one of whom I know. The reporter evidently spent considerable time walking the beat with those officers and interviewing business people and residents in the vicinity. Oshawa was the town of choice for the article but it could have been any city of the that size (pop. 160,000) or larger.
One of the people interviewed was the gentleman in charge of the bus terminal on Bond St., a well known hangout for drug dealers and customers who force unsuspecting commuters to walk their gauntlets of annoying, frequently aggressive panhandlers. The fellow observed that they routinely disappear when the police show up only to re-emerge when the officers move onto other areas and duties. He aptly described it essentially as a game of cat and mouse. Unless the police actually catch those people either selling or possessing illicit drugs, which doesn't usually happen in full view of uniformed officers, little more than temporarily flushing them out takes place. The social parasites know it, too. The man from from the bus terminal and other local residents wondered about the reason more couldn't be done to keep them away, as did the reporter.
I can offer one valid reason:
Early in my career as a cop in Toronto (Regent Park) there was a section of the Criminal Code entitled 'Vagrancy';
(1) Everyone commits vagrancy who,
(a) not having any visible means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found;
(b) begs from door to door or in a public place;
(c) being a common prostitute or night walker is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herself;
(d) supports himself in whole or in part by gaming or crime and has no lawful profession or calling by which to support himself.
(e) having at anytime been convicted of an offence under a provision mentioned in paragraph 689(1)(a) or (b) (i.e. any of several sexual offences), is found loitering or wandering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area
(2) Everyone who commits vagrancy is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (i.e. maximum six months in jail and/or substantial fine)
(3) No person who is aged or infirm shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph (1) (a).
[Note; It's interesting that the only clause in that law that refered to the female of the species was (c), perhaps presuming that all prostitutes and 'night walkers' were women and the rest of the bums were men. Thank goodess for the Interpretation Act.]
The vagrancy section was used regularly by police to deal with the problems covered in the article by the Sun. The people presently infesting the downtown area of Oshawa would have been arrested for vagrancy when I was a very young officer, not simply dispersed to do their dirty deeds elsewhere until the uniforms disappeared.
That entire section of the Criminal Code was repealed and replaced by nothing about 1972 by the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau during the cultural revolution, at a time that freedom to do just about anything was celebrated as a great victory for social justice. 'Freedom', 'Rights' and 'Do you own thing' were extremely popular buzz words. Obedience, compliance and responsible behaviour were unwanted relics from the past. Defence lawyers hailed the trashing of the law relating to vagrancy as a triumph over the draconian measures of an earlier, Victorian age.
In reviewing that section now, perhaps it needed some work, an updating amendment with respect to specificity. After all, it was originally enacted in the very early twentieth century. (It might need the support of the 'notwithstanding' clause of the Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be enforceable at all now.)
Police authorities, especially in Toronto, at the time publicly warned of the consequences of totally repealing, rather than re-writing that law. It came as no surprise that their cautions were ignored. After all, police were 'pigs' and storm troopers in jack boots then and they were supposed to have no say about actual policy. To fan the flames of discord, radical lawyers with an abundance of free air time and media ink at their disposal, alarmed the public by portraying our officers as the Gestapo of Nazi Germany, WW II vintage, whose opinions were pessimistic, negative, oppressive, outdated and predictable. The cops simply liked trampling on citizens and locking them up for the fun of it. Predominantly left wing, enlightened politicians in Ottawa and especially Toronto dismissed their concerns because, being intellectuals, they obviously knew better.
Even the blame for really serious criminal behaviour wasn't laid at the feet of the offenders, but society. The astute psycho-babblists and radical anarchistic lawyers of the time said that society produced them, that we were to blame and owed them rehabilitation at any expense. We'd badly mistreated our beloved, cherished criminals and were in their debt, instead of vice versa. Much of the media, most notably the Toronto Star in this area, ate it up and politicians, to say nothing of our beloved Supreme Court with its predominantly left wing appointees, hopped aboard the bandwagon. The Chiefs of Police had little credibility while the Clayton Rubys and others of his ilk were gods.
In fact the police knew that they were the people charged with the onerous task of keeping order in their areas of jurisdiction, that they'd be the first ones condemned for their alleged failure to do so, and that they'd be unable to effectively do their jobs as their tools were being removed by legally eroding and ultimately usurping their authority to act.
What we've learned, or ought to have learned, in my opinion is that so-called freedom isn't free at all. There are consequences and costs for just about everything. To the people who now complain that the streets are mostly lost, a cynical, 'I told-you-so' retired cop with a decent memory, who followed it very closely all the way, might well say that congratulations are entirely in order because you got what you wanted through your elected representatives. Everyone received tons of boundless freedom to do their own things without fear of reprisals. Good for you! Just because many of you are now basically incarcerated in your own homes because you're terrified to walk the streets after dark, or even during the day in many instances, doesn't matter. Anything goes. It's a small pittance to pay for all that nice limitless freedom. So stay home, lock your doors, shut up and live with it.
Thank goodness I'm not a cynic like that..
Kindest personal regards
Larry Wood
Bowmanville, Ont
Doubtless, if vagrancy were to be brought back the section would need some tweeking. However, the total inability to deal with people clagging around in the streets is not helping anyone. And most certainly, this topic will bring up the oh-so-terrifying concept of officer discretion. But just realize that such a law wouldn't trigger mass homeless round ups ala Soyalent Green crowd control.
But it would sure be nice to be able to target some of the degenerates that steal oxygen repeatedly without any repercussions.
I am particularly fond of the part where he indicates that the people get what they asked for, especially in the GTA. They worked their butts off for years to achieve the leftie utopia they now live in. Hope they enjoy their six murders per weekend
