The RCMP: Gunning for a Stephen Harper Election Victory?

<strong>Written By:</strong> Robin Mathews
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-12-30 15:47:00
<a href="/article/154704938-the-rcmp-gunning-for-a-stephen-harper-election-victory">Article Link</a>

As with many military and forces of like kind, the RCMP tends to reactionary ideas, likes ‘law-and-order’ platforms, admires the kind of big stick diplomacy of the USA, and is drawn to that country’s idea of public order which has little to do with Canada’s traditional ease of engaging the requirements of “peace, order, and good government.” Naturally, the RCMP is drawn to tendencies in the Stephen Harper/Peter MacKay Reactionary Party.

There is something very smelly about the RCMP announced “criminal investigation into whether anyone gave advanced notice of his [Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s] department’s decision on the taxation of income trusts hours before its public disclosure.” (National Post, page 1, Dec. 29 05)

To begin, the terrible evil done (which very likely wasn’t done at all) could quite well wait for public announcement of ”criminal investigation” until after January 23. Nothing prevents the RCMP from investigating without public announcement a matter for which (to quote “the force”) “there is no evidence of wrongdoing or illegal activity on the part of anyone associated to this investigation including the Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale.”

Pardon?

No evidence exists for a publicly announced criminal investigation of a federal cabinet department during a federal election, but – well, the RCMP has decided to trumpet its “criminal investigation” anyway. Because the RCMP has the power to begin and to announce any criminal investigation it “deems appropriate.”

But why, here, now?

Could it be the RCMP is working for the Right, for Stephen Harper, in the present election? The RCMP might say, “we are acting upon the allegations of NDP finance critic Judy Waslycia-Leis ‘regarding a possible breach of security or illegal transfer of information.’”

Oh! The investigation is the result of concern expressed by the NDP, not by the Stephen Harper party which backed up the NDP complaint, is the formal Opposition, and yet goes unmentioned in the RCMP news release.

Having begun an investigation with admittedly no evidence of wrong-doing, in the middle of an election, to the advantage of the Reactionary Party involved in the election, how do you raise that ridiculously reactionary bagatelle to a fever heat? You use the ridiculously reactionary monopoly press and media of course.

First bring in the Globe’s John Ibbitson (Dec 6 05 A6). The investigation, he writes, is “stunning,” “catastrophic.” It may “cost the Liberals this election.” Moreover, “for the RCMP to make this announcement in the middle of this campaign reflects the seriousness of the situation.”

Precisely.

But not in the way John Ibbitson means. The seriousness is not what “the force” says is alleged, but its power to open a criminal investigation on what is described by the force as no evidence, in the middle of a federal election campaign. When Ibbitson says that “we should be angry” that the Finance Department “botched the issue” of the income trusts, he is saying the Stock Market gnomes didn’t like what Goodale did. And so Ibbitson pulls into and mingles a political choice with criminal insinuations. But we have been here before.

He is doing precisely what the monopoly CanWest press and media did in B.C. when the call was out to all reactionary forces to get Glen Clark and the NDP government in B.C.

We should notice that a Bay Street financial analyst is reported by the National Post as believing that “any criminal impropriety is remote” in the Goodale matter. (Post, Dec 29, A4) That is worth noticing because Stock Market folk are like military ones – they tend to the Right. The analyst, Jeffrey Singer, in addition, added a stinger. “But we are in the midst of an election and it’s not surprising….”

Some of us think it should be alarmingly surprising that the RCMP is entering an election campaign, beginning a criminal investigation, trumpetting it, and declaring it has no evidence of wrongdoing among any of the people apparently targetted.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. The RCMP has been through a few full dress rehearsals. In B.C., allegations against the then-NDP premier, Glen Clark, that sprang from the consitutency office of Gordon Campbell, led to an RCMP “criminal investigation” of a wholly innocent man. Clark resigned when (disturbingly) now-Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh – then NDP Attorney General - announced publicly the “criminal investigation” by the RCMP.

The RCMP investigated and investigated and investigated Glen Clark concerning about ten thousand dollars worth of house renovations. He was investigated until the RCMP had at least twenty-eight volumes of evidentiary material (and had spent millions of dollars). Then Glen Clark went into a long trial in B.C. Supreme Court before Madame Justice Elizabeth Bennett. More than once, Clark’s lawyer, asked Madame Justice Bennett to name the action, in fact, vexatious and without basis. She refused, only to end the long trial unable to find a shred of guilt on Glen Clark’s part.

No matter. The NDP in B.C. was shattered. Glen Clark was ruined. Gordon Campbell became the very Far Right premier of B.C. And the Canwest monoploy press hounded Clark even after what I call the fraudulent trial had cleared him unequivocally. Vancouver Sun chief political columnist Vaughn Palmer, for instance, snidely insinuated that Clark might not be innocent after all.

What of the twenty-eight volumes of evidentiary material? There were continuous rumours about an RCMP officer engaged in alleged dubious actions before and during the Clark investigation. There were rumours of strange and repeated RCMP interrogations of some witnesses. There was no doubt at all that the RCMP investigation went on and on and on and on….

I made a complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, asking for an investigation of RCMP involvement. Each month for a few months I got a little note saying the investigation was continuing. Then I got a note saying (without any report) the investigation was terminated. Period.

I protested, apparently without effect. Then THREE YEARS LATER I received a telephone call from the Deputy Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP telling me the preliminary report on my complaint was finished and only had to go to the Zacardelli level of the RCMP for checking (?), and then I would receive it.

I did receive it. It reported that two experienced RCMP officers in Vancouver had wrongly terminated the investigation I had asked for. The “mistake” caused the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to do guess what? It recommended better training for RCMP officers. Zacardelli’s Right Hand man agreed vaguely that better training might be an idea. The Commission, however, left up to the RCMP whether it would reopen the investigation and pursue it to its completion – which the RCMP chose not to do.

Pause. Consider.

If the wrongfully terminated investigation I asked for had been fully and fairly completed, one outcome could certainly have been that the RCMP would have been found to be acting criminally against Glen Clark. That suspicion has to be considered as long as a full and complete investigation is not conducted. The RCMP, moreover, is alleged, more and more, to be untouchable when Canadians ask for real examination of its activities. It is believed by an increasing number to be a law unto itself, and a power fiefdom which, some allege, looks after its own.

Why was the investigation terminated? Who instructed the two experienced B.C. RCMP officers to terminate it? Did Zacardelli? The questions go on and on. The B.C. experience reveals that the whole police surveillance and supervision structure in Canada is lamentably inadequate. And it sadly seems to suggest it is possible that anyone the RCMP wants to “get” may have a “criminal investigation” started against him or her.

Regrettably, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is useless in any serious review of RCMP misdeeds. Commissions of Inquiry about the RCMP like the one eventuating in the (more than 500 page) Ted Hughes Report on RCMP behaviour at the APEC Vancouver Summit are so riddled with bias, cover-up, and special pleading they show the concrete wall around RCMP wrong doing. As does the fiasco of “policing” by the RCMP at the Quebec Summit of the Americas. The “criminal investigation” of Glen Clark by the RCMP – especially - was so questionable (and more) the question has to be asked whether the RCMP can be trusted in the Ralph Goodale “investigation”. From experience, I believe they can’t be.

Could the RCMP really be setting up Ralph Goodale to besmirch him and his party fraudulently in the federal election? Could the RCMP – at careful armslength – be acting on behalf of the Stephen Harper/Peter MacKay Reactionary Party? Could the RCMP be reacting in part to U.S. influence and desire to support the Stephen Harper/Peter MacKay party in order to get the Reactionary Party into power in Canada?

“Well”, you respond in reply, “do some answers to those questions suggest we have to ask if Canada is heading for a kind of a fascist state in which the national police force acts as a private instrument supporting any political party it thinks should be in power?”

You answer the question.

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 2, 2006]

Another paranoid smear-and-run from the old gasbag.

"As with many military and forces of like kind, the RCMP tends to reactionary ideas, likes ‘law and order’ platforms, admires the kind of big stick diplomacy of the USA, and is drawn to that country’s idea of public order which has little to do with Canada’s traditional ease of engaging the requirements of 'peace, order, and good government'."

Why somebody as apparently intelligent as Mathews would engage is this kind of embarassing overgeneralization is beyond me. But this one passage above speaks more to Mathews' character than the rest of his spew.

I guess by "law and order platform", Mathew's is talking about actually investigating, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating criminals. And by Canada’s "traditional ease of engaging...", he means coddling criminals and punishing lawful citizens who engage in activities that aren't as popular in Southern Ontario as in other regions (e.g. target shooting with handguns).

And why shouldn't a police force like a "law and order platform"? It's not Robin Mathews who puts his life on the line in order to protect us from people who would hurt us or steal from us.

Robin's definition of "traditional" in the Canadian context also apparently starts with the 60's and 70's, which is the era in which Mathews is apparently stuck.

I guess Mathews is comfortable with attacking a cherished Canadian institution because he believes himself to also be one. I'm sure the sycophants on Vive contribute to this delusion on his part.

Well call me a sycophant but why did the RCMP ever went after Clark on a balcony job??? That is a farce. Look at what Chretien&Co. have done. Did the RCMP really go after them? No. Perhaps the RCMP needs to do some catchup work now in the event that the Conservatives get elected.

BTW there is no need to insult on this forum. There are plenty of those elsewhere.

---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

Mr. Matthews reminds me of the kind of Canadian who looks the other way not willing to admit to the government's own pathetic record and is willing to excuse it. While all the while attacking opposition parties out of his own small-minded fear. I shouldn't say that, because he's nearer to the truth than most folks.

But he does come across as incredibly paranoid and in the end not that credible, doesn't he? To be honest I can't read his articles anymore without rolling my eyes. He seems unable to refer to Conservatives or their party properly, as every other Canadian does, Conservative or not. He comes across to me as childlish and disrespectful of those he disagrees with. When he refers to the Conservatives as the Harper/McKay Reactionary Party he reminds me of the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution in China who would hold 'struggle mettings' against 'Capitalist Roadsters, Counter-Revolutionaries, and Capitalist reactionaries'. Do us a favour and please grow up Robin?

---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw

"He comes across to me as childlish and disrespectful of those he disagrees with."

This childishness and paranoia manifests itself most strongly in the way he tends to lump all his "enemies" in together, as if they're all in cohoots.

If you're not with Robin, you're against him. And if you're against him, then you must be an American or an American sympathizer.

Most children, however, are not capable of the depths of hate and bitterness that characterize Mathews. That kind of darkness in the soul takes many years to build up.

The comparison to the Chinese Communists is appropriate. He is their cousin both in his place on the political spectrum and his love for the authoritarian state.

Mr. Matthews obviously has no understanding of the RCMP. In fact, his tirade reminds me of the Conservatives who have been complaining of how politicized the RCMP has become when they failed to law charges against their opponents without the evidence to support them. Peter MacKay turned quite vehemently against the RCMP when he was caught by them for speeding twice within a short period of time.

The RCMP have criteria under which they operate and when the NDP launched a complaint they are required to apply certain standards. The unusual activity of the markets in the hours before the announcement provides reasonable and probably grounds for further investigation. Remember that the investigation is related to an NDP, not a Conservative, complaint. If they had refused the NDP critics request, Mr. Matthews would be claiming they were trying to cover up for the Liberals.

It is clear the Mr. Matthews' personal prejudices have undermined any common sense he might exhibit with regard to the RCMP. This is one thing he and Peter MacKay obviously have in common.

Mr. Matthews has made a very serious allegation against the RCMP. I frankly doubt that it is true, at least not in the terms that he has presented. Even Stephen Harper could never afford to be associated with something of this nature. It would destroy him utterly.

Can you imagine if Harper were a minority Prime Minister, and some damning evidence surfaced that Canada's national police force had initiated a criminal investigation against his political opposition during an election campaign, at his direction or that of his operatives, and designed to affect the electoral outcome?

Wow! It would be the end of his government, the end of his personal career, and (mercifully in my mind) the end of the Conservative Party for many, many years. That is not to mention the damage to the RCMP themselves, the trashing of Zacardelli's long career and his likely criminal prosecution. I doubt the force would survive it. No, I find it hard to believe that it could happen like that.

That is not to say that the RCMP (and police generally) may not have a collective right wing bias. I believe they do in many cases. Police forces are very conservative institutions, and by the nature of their work can reasonably be expected to support a "law and order" agenda. That's what they are for and, in itself should be neither surprising nor alarming.

Conservative governments, because their policies are often unpopular with the less affluent, and because they tend to create relative poverty and exclusion in some communities, sometimes see heavy handed law enforcement as a necessary tool of their administration. (Think Ipperwash for instance.)

Some police forces may feel that this view of law enforcement is in their interest, more money, more officers, more power, etc. That could cloud their judgement in the handling of politically sensitive investigations. I believe it is much more likely that something of this nature took place in both the Glen Clark and Goodale cases, rather than any direct involvement by Harper & Co or by the BC "Liberals".

Nonetheless, the RCMP has been caught before on the wrong side of the laws they are sworn to enforce. Remember the exploding barns in Quebec? And of course there is much more, some of it unproven it is true, but scary enough to give everyone serious second thought about what this organization may be up to. They are also much too secretive. Organizations with too many secrets may have something nasty to hide. You never know. Anything is possible.

It would be nice if some concrete evidence would emerge around this sort of thing. Everybody who can should keep on looking. In the meanwhile, when it comes to the RCMP or any other security forces, eternal vigilence is the price of our freedom. We must continue to watch them like a cat.

Simply go to the library and read a book on the RCMP. Clearly many people have delusions of Dudley Do Rite. I'm the first to complain about Mr. Matthews frequent foray into pie in the sky rhetoric, however, in this I believe he is actually understating the case.

Of course many people simply like 'law and order' campaigns. It's far easier to bust heads and prop up the prison system than deal with criminals. As for RCMP deaths, far more construction workers have died as a result of their occupation than the force. The acts of ANY group which controls law and order should be watched VERY carefully, any body from three quarters of the countries on the planet will tell you that.

As for the RCMP we shoulnd't make the mistake of lumping the foot soldiers in with those making the decisions, or as is implied - making the biggest decisions. Simply read up on many of the protests held during the nineties, such as british columbia when the Prime Minister of Indonesia was coming here and especially on the RCMP's forays into 'organized crime', specifically during the seventies and eighties, since some posters don't want to go back further. Again, go read some books on the subject, they are enlightening and if you can't be bothered investigating an issue you can't be surprised when nobody takes your opinion seriously.

As usual those who benefit from the police protection will support it no matter what, those who are on the other side have quite a different view-ask the Winnipeg rail strikers, or the former communist party which they ran out of town on a rail. Of course we also have to remember some of the worst offenses have not been from the RCMP, but from provincial police forces, don't get them confused.

The concern is that they get too much independant power, and that's a very justifiable fear. Let's keep in mind that the vast majority of people incarcerated in this country are there for very insignificant offenses or pot offenses. A poor person can go to jail because they can't post bail on a vagrancy charge, hardly the 'law and order' type of campaign I'm interested in.

Great posts everyone. You took the words right out of my mouth and for me to write anything would be redundant but I will say this: I am appalled by how Matthews is implying that a vote for the conservatives is a vote for a police state. I guess a vote for the liberals would be a vote for lawlessness. Gomery, Dingwall, and Goodale all suggest this is so. Keep in mind it would be a lawlessness bound by the charter. I was once was called to testify in a case involving an accused pedophile but the judge threw the case out becasue the pedophile's charter rights were abused. No concern for the victims however (and believe me there was more than one). But if this is the country that Canadians want then so be it.

Not surprising that the charter came out of a liberal environment. Ultimate rights for the minority or the individual and diminished rights for the majority. And we call this democracy. Well, democaracy Canadian style anyway.

The RCMP action against Premier Glen Clark and the judicial
performance afterward, have always seemed to be a politically-
motivated coup d'etat, launched at the start, by a man aspiring to
become a Campbell kind of candidate. He failed.

Remember, at that time there already was a Leader of the B.C.
Liberals and Leader of the Opposition named Gordon Wilson.
What to do. A rocket scientist came up with the idea of a romantic
scandal that could wipe out Gordon and Judi Tyabji M.L.A. It did.
It got many newspapers sold, too, until the electorate was
absolutely certain that Gordon & Judi had to go ... they did ... and
Gordon Campbell took over as B.C. Liberal Leader. It was a
perfect media miracle! No RCMP involved there.

Then, oh what a surprise ... Premier Clark was also steamrollered
by the uproar over his back porch, so he resigned too ... and there
was the Premier's chair ... empty! Another media miracle!
Another Socred political miracle! No RCMP involved.

But the R.C.M.P. deserve huge credit for the historic action they
took on 28 December 2003. They sent 32 Sergeants into the B.C.
Legislature to haul away many of the Campbell Government's
boxes of files and computer hard drives. Then they laid charges
against the two high-ranking Ministerial aides (Finance and
Transportation).

The RCMP did the raids flawlessly, it seems, against two Reform/
Alliance/Socred-known-as-B.C. Liberal ministries and we should
be thankful for that.

The real scandal, in my opinion, is the two years of judicial silence
since those raids happened. The Supreme Court justice has not
even allowed the Search Warrants to be fully opened yet. British
Columbia still doesn't know what's in those Search Warrants.

This means that we'll be voting in a 3rd election without knowing a
lot of vital facts such as, was the sale of B.C. Rail fraudulent? such
as, what part has organized crime been playing in the corridors of
government. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. But the RCMP
did their part.

Has any candidate mentioned Basi & Virk during the current
federal election campaign? After all, those Ministerial aides were
high-ranking campaigners who helped get Paul Martin into the
federal Liberal leadership, then into the Prime Minister's Office.

Perhaps it's finally time for someone to review Robin Mathews' marquee player status on Vive. I'm glad that there are some on this site who are no longer excusing his excesses as simply poetic hyperbole.

To put it bluntly, this guy doesn't help your movement. He provides ammunition to those who equate Canadian nationalism with anti-Americanism. This guy genuinely hates the US and all it stands for.

He does serve a purpose in that he brings up the issues which are then hashed out. There's anti americanism and anti Bushism, and anti US foreign policy, we shouldn't get them confused. When you start an illegal war, refuse to settle softwood even though trade tribunals say you need to, then you can't be surprised that people keep a watchful eye out. As somebody who has been often involved in peaceful protests, I do not want to see the abuses of civil rights apparant down there become exacerbated up here. Our country has never been attacked and in general people are far more law abiding than the past. We do need to keep a handle on ALL police forces.

However, as said above, the 'ideal' is certainly not what the liberals have, they are as much 'state control' as any conservative. However, I would like to mention that this is an anonymous board and stories should be footnoted. All the time we hear about these horrible aggregious judges and lawyers who give all kinds of benefits to criminals because of 'right's. Those are VERY rare, so rare that I'd like to see the court case number. It's like watching "Law and Order" and thinking that criminals get off because they never heard their moranda rights. In reality that NEVER happened that an accused was set free for that.

Canada's law system is extremely rigid, in fact most people don't realize that most of the rights that exist on american TV don't even exist here. If anything, our legal is FAR too stringent-just ask Donald Marshall.

<<He provides ammunition to those who equate Canadian nationalism with anti-Americanism. This guy genuinely hates the US and all it stands for.>>

Sadly this seems to sum up the man quite well.

And can someone please give him a tutorial on the names of the parties running in this election. Are we really expected to take him seriously when engages in such pedestrian name-calling?

Well what does the United States stand for? It pretty dam bad when a government / nation such as the USA spys on it own people... so much for democracy and democratic process.

Communist countries are trying to open up and so call democratic countries are shutting down on their people. The whole wold is on CRACK

---
Good government is not a party government

<<The whole wold is on CRACK>>

I don't know about the "whole wold" but I can think of one person...