Peoples choice movement

One world, one human race, one community – as one we make a difference

Police Whistleblowers – Why there are few if any and the blue code of silence

Whistleblowing.  What motivates it?  What prevents it?

Many of us can relate to the desire to tell, to unburden, to inform, especially when harm is being done to others.  A few take the risk and tell, but at what cost?

David Hutton, Executive Director of FAIR – Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform which works to protect whistleblowers who protect the public interest, recently writes, Dr. Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerrard Lambert were scientists with Health Canada in the late 90′s.  They blew the whistle on a drug designed to improve dairy cattle’s milk production that would be harmful to Canadians drinking the milk – Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone.  Their protest caused the drug to be banned not only in Canada, but in other developed countries around the world.  Canadians’ and other world citizens’ health was protected, but our government reprimanded these scientists, told them to remain silent, then fired them.

A government  agency was created to protect whistleblowers.  The scientists were promised protection for their testimony by the senate.  Later, the public sector integrity commissioner, Christine Ouimet stated that it wasn’t in the “public interest” to deal with the scientists concerns and the senate took no action against the integrity commissioner.  The result – three sacrificed careers.

Ernesto Londono of the Washington Post reported that a number of our Canadian military soldiers in Afghanistan in the mid 2000′s, were upset after witnessing Afghan boys being raped by Afghan soldiers.  A Canadian forces chaplain, Jean Johns filed a report describing how one corporal told her that Canadian troops have been ordered by commanding officers “to ignore” incidents of sexual assault.  Other chaplains told similar accounts of soldiers coming forward to speak of the same incidents of sexual assault on boys.  The Department of National Defence argued Canada wasn’t obliged to investigate because none of the soldiers made a formal complaint.

Can one expect these soldiers to blow the whistle, when the result will be loss of their jobs, income for their families –  a means to survive?  The whistleblowers are left unprotected as are the victims that the whistleblowers are attempting to protect in the first place.

The Toronto Star’s,  Sheryl Smolkin writes, “If you badmouth your manager or your company in a way that seriously undermines the employment relationship, you could be fired for just cause without notice or termination pay.  Criticizing a boss’s character, honesty or competence can also trigger justifiable termination and it’s easier for the company to prove just cause if you criticize the management in writing.”

No wonder formal, written complaints are not lodged.

Is it then, a surprise that police officers do not ‘rat out’ their partners or co-workers?  This is why it is important to have effective oversight of the policing systems so that reliance on whistleblowing is not required.   The SIU - Special Investigations Unit initiated in the early 90′s- was created to supposedly have effective oversight and mete out disciplinary action for the handful of police officers not following protocol.  Unfortunately, this has not been effective.  The few police officers that choose excessive use-of-force each year are often cleared of any charges – if in fact, any charges are even laid at all.

Associated Press reported in London that police chiefs in the UK suspended officers from duty following alleged racism, among them an allegation that an officer used a racial slur while arresting a black man in the aftermath of England’s riots last August.   And, in Northern Ireland, 4 police officers were suspended from duty after the discovery of racist and sectarian text messages.  The Police Service of Northern Ireland said in a statement, “We expect our staff to behave with the utmost integrity at all times both on and off duty.   Any officer who fails to abide by the highest standards of behaviour expected of all officers as laid out in our code of ethics can expect to be rigorously investigated.”

At the Toronto Police Services Board meeting April 19th, I heard nothing that compares.  What I heard from Toronto Police Services Board and Chief Blair is that ‘use-of-force’ is declining backed by plenty of stats to support that statement.  What I didn’t hear was a commitment to discipline any officer who had killed unnecessarily, found contravening police protocol.

I’m still waiting…

About these ads

Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Police Whistleblowers – Why there are few if any and the blue code of silence

  1. In addition, there is no support from colleagues if you are the one “ratting” out your team/employer/partner, etc. Often the person who is the one who questions, who brings issues to light, is left out to dry without any support from others – and this does not encourage one to speak up either.

    • I couldn’t have said it better Colline! As front-line workers, the police are overshadowed by their bosses – the chiefs of police, who they get their direction from. In Ontario, the SIU – Special Investigations Unit was set up to oversee policing in Ontario. Unfortunately, many of the SIU investigators are former police officers. This is a system of police investigating police, which could work, as other professions do endorce self-regulation. However, when breakdown of that system occurs, there needs to be another oversight to correct the bias! Currently, there is none.

      Recently, Andre Marin, Ontario’s Ombudsman, has been updated regarding potential abuses within SIU. Additionally, Police Chiefs have not been disciplining officers who have been found to be lying in court to ‘catch the bad guys’. This is due to no regulation within the Police Act in Ontario stating that they should do so, so they havn’t. Even the position of the Chief of Police in Toronto, Bill Blair, as reported by Mark Pugash, his representative, states that what a judge states in court regarding a police officer’s blatently fabricated evidence, does not need to be addressed at all.

      Marin is currently planning to investigate the SIU. The Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukerjee, has suggested formal reporting when police officers lie in court.

      If your Chief of Police won’t pursue it and you are one of the police officers who believes in justice and that the sworn oath taken by police oficers should be upheld, who would you report that to? If you tried to discuss it with anyone, you probably would not have the support of your collegues, you may even lose your job, or worse, other officers may not back you up at the next call, where you need back-up, putting you in a dangerous situation. Policing is a dangerous job. Individual officers need other officers support, to stay safe.

      This is why, all concerned citizens, and oversight boards, have a moral and legal responsibility to speak up for all the police officers, some of who may believe in true justice, of which I hope outweigh the police officers who take justice into their own hands, and create a biased justice system resulting in inconsistent, and unreliable justice for everyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: