This afternoon lawyer Scott Bergman is presenting his independent review into the events surrounding Hamilton Pride 2019 to Hamilton’s city council.
As I posted earlier this week, I’ve been working through Mr. Bergman’s report, and I’ve been generally quite impressed by it. When I wrote my earlier post, I was still slogging through Part 7 – The HPS Culture, Training and Initiatives, and it was difficult going, especially as it clearly demonstrated an inherent bias against “anarchists from The Tower.”
The Tower’s organizing collective issued a response to the independent report yesterday, and it’s pretty blunt about both the shortcomings of the report – particularly the recommended responses – and pessimistic about the report’s impact on policing in Hamilton.
(Full disclosure: I am not a part of the seven-member organizing collective, although I am very much in support of and stand in solidarity with both this specific statement and with the actions and efforts of both The Tower and Hamilton’s anarchist community generally.)
And, having been so glowing in my praise for Mr. Bergman’s efforts in the early part of the report, I also have to say that I was also rather disappointed upon reading Part 8 – Recommendations.
In truth, the recommendations are pretty milquetoast. While Bergman clearly identifies failures and shortcomings by the Hamilton Police Service, Part 8A is a rather dry list of minor operational changes, most of which should be common sense items (although it’s appalling that such basic common sense was clearly not being applied in the first place, such as orienting officers with maps and coordinating with event organizers.) Part 8B, focused on improving the relationship between the police and the LGBTQ community is largely a list of things to apologize for, capped off with a fairly backhanded statement of innocence on the part of the the Pride Defenders… while using “anarchists from The Tower” as a scapegoat:
“Only the ones holding the black curtain were assumed to be from The Tower. There is no evidence to suggest The Tower members were there to engage in a physical confrontation with the Agitators. To give the impression that there were two groups looking to fight is simply not accurate. To equate the black curtain and the wider Pride Defenders as anarchists evokes images of the vandalism on Locke Street and is not a fair characterization of the Pride Defenders.” (Part 8, Page 112)
Part 8 sections C and D are likewise a fairly dry enumeration of what the HPS can do internally, which largely can be summed up by saying that the HPS needs to start taking it’s existing internal policies seriously.
The recommendations in Part 8 frankly don’t address the most egregious flaws of the HPS’ failures, and even in the unlikely event that they’re adopted fully they won’t do much to patch up the HPS’ reputation or increase the public trust in Hamilton’s police, especially among LGBTQ+, racialized and activist communities.
One of the most egregious items mentioned in the report is not addressed at all:
“A few of the community members report having been told by police that assault charges would only be laid if the victim of the assault formally complains – that video or other objective evidence of assaults is insufficient. One community member recounted having been told by an officer that if charges were laid, the complainant’s personal information, including his or her home address, would be provided to the accused.” (Part 2, Page 30)
And again:
“Many were told by police that arrests could only be made if the victim provides a statement. This is not correct in law.” (Part 6, Page 72)
Telling victims their personal information would be given to their assailants is clearly unacceptable. I can only interpret such statements by Hamilton Police Service officers as an attempt intimidate victims into silence. A full investigation – and not by HPS’ internal officers, who seem content to whitewash HPS’ misdeeds – needs to happen immediately. If this information is being given out, that’s a huge problem which puts victims at risk. If the information is not being given out, then why are ostensibly trained police officers using such a threat to cow and intimidate victims.
Frankly, there are only two interpretations of the actions of these officers: Either they are acting in ignorance of the law or they are acting maliciously in defiance of it.
Neither of those options speaks well of the competency and professionalism of the Hamilton Police Service. Let me say it again for those for the people in the back: This behaviour by law enforcement officers is completely unacceptable and it needs to be addressed by a competent and fully independent investigation. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Another egregious problem is what’s been described in the media as a “laser focus” on anarchists from the Tower to the detriment of this or any other investigation, as police continue equate the Pride Defenders to the 2018 Locke St. demonstration where businesses were damaged.
Bergman repeatedly states in the report that the Tower anarchists aren’t to blame, weren’t to blame, and stop saying they’re to blame. He also, as I have noted before, irritatingly seems to assume that “anarchists from The Tower” are inherently a problem and he doesn’t condemn the cops for blaming “anarchists from The Tower”, but merely for conflating them with the Pride Defenders, which I rather think misses the point.
Locke Street was two years ago. It’s over. Stuff got broken, people were arrested, and rightly or wrongly people served jail time. It’s done. The obsession with the Locke St. Demonstration is clearly causing the Hamilton Police service, in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle, “to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” At this point I think we have to acknowledge that Locke Street is clearly being used by police simply as an excuse to mistreat left activists.
That needs to stop.
Which leads into what I consider one of the biggest failures of the report: Its treatment of Cedar Hopperton. In the report Bergman notes explicitly that Hopperton’s parole was revoked for something they simply didn’t do:
“During the parole revocation hearing, 13 people swore affidavits in support of Hopperton, stating that Hopperton had not been at Gage Park on June 15, 2019. The Parole Board ruled that Hopperton had not breached a condition of parole on June 15, 2019, finding that it “was improbable that the applicant [Hopperton] was in attendance.
“Despite this finding, Hopperton’s parole was in fact revoked on the basis of the comments made during the June 18, 2019 public meeting.” (Part 6, page 71)
This is a de facto admission that HPS and the Parole Board revoked someone’s parole not for any illegal action but simply as a punitive measure for the exercise of their free speech.
And yet there is no recommendation of an apology for Cedar Hopperton, much less compensation for their ordeal nor professional consequences for officers who clearly decided to punish someone simply for speaking out against their failure.
Unacceptable. Utterly unacceptable.
Likewise, the report notes that a number of arrests both of Pride Defenders and those who later demonstrated in their support, and while Bergman notes that police can recommend that Crown counsel drop charges, “Based upon my interviews with senior ranking HPS officers, they do not plan on recommending the withdrawal of charges against any of the Pride Defenders.” (Part 6, Page 71)
The only reason any of the Pride Defenders had to put themselves in harm’s way is that the hate groups who attacked Pride (Bergman’s “Agitators”) is because police failed to do their duty. Further arrests for criticizing that failure only demonstrate that the HPS is not acting in good faith.
HPS and Crown counsel need to drop the charges against the Pride Defenders, issue a sincere apology to the people their incompetence (or possibly malice) have effected, and pursue criminal charges against the Agitators responsible for the attack.
Overall, however, I think the most disappointing thing about the recommendations of the independent report is this failure to call for serious consequences. Sure, charting a path forward is fine (although I’ll repeat my belief that neither the City of Hamilton nor the Hamilton Police Service will do a damned thing to follow even the mild recommendations in the non-binding independent report) is that it does not call for professional consequences for any of the officers involved.
My recommendation? Chief Eric Girt needs to be fired. He’s the top cop, he’s made unacceptable and homophobic remarks, he’s clearly helping foster a prejudiced and toxic culture within the HPS, and frankly someone’s ass needs to be on the line for what is at best a colossal fuck-up… and at worst collusion in a series of hate crimes.
Next, someone with the authority to enforce consequences needs to investigate the Hamilton Police Service. If officers are making false statements to intimidate victims, if officers are colluding (actively or passively) with hate groups, that needs to come out. This is an issue not only of public confidence in the police, but also of public safety.
Which, at the risk of being accused cynicism again, is almost certainly not going to happen.
Which means that the independent report is not going to close the book on Hamilton’s unfortunate relationship between LGBTQ+, racialized and activist communities. It’s merely punctuation, another chapter in a saga which won’t end anytime soon.
Scott Bergman did his job. I doubt very much City Hall or the Hamilton Police Service will do theirs.
