Re: the Story about the Child's Pictures, guns, fire
When it comes to teachers, social workers, there is law binding them to a higher "duty to report" and there can be legal consequences for failure to report.
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/reportingabuse/abuseandneglect/abuseandneglect.aspx
Do professionals and officials have any special responsibilities to report?
Professionals and officials have the same duty as the rest of the public to report their suspicion that a child is or may be in need of protection. However, the Act recognizes that people working closely with children have a special awareness of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and a particular responsibility to report their suspicions. Any professional or official who fails to report a suspicion is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $1,000, if they obtained the information in the course of their professional or official duties. [CFSA s.72 (4), (6.2)]
In the case of casualties/death-- there will be an investigation, involving all professionals in contact with that child/family.
Jumping to conclusions re: art work. Teachers learn about children of the less-verbal ages, it's understood that children communicate through pictures, art-- so there may be hypervigilance due to that 'understanding'. A teacher knows their limits of 'expertise', so it's defered to Child Protection agency, and if it involves suspicions about guns being a threat, then police are automatically called in to investigate. Child Protection workers are neither particularly trained to interview a child re: art-- trauma therapists are (but they don't exist in schools, nor Child Protection agencies)-- that's to do with Professional Code of Ethics, re: limitations of knowledge and expertise. Anyway, this is a process issue.
Hysteria about guns, I've been very guilty of, because of personal tragedy experience and I fought some of that out here-- it actually lead to a liberating experience. I am glad to hear of the story of an owner taking self-responsibility to store guns away at his fathers, while going through a tough bout and it was good protocal for the police to bring him to hospital for assessment.
Having said this, I am also very concerned about the threats to Civil Liberties, that infringment can in fact do much harm, be traumatizing, create a "police state" society, over-controlled, and unprofessional conduct by those in positions of power and authority.
I've been on the side of under-protected as a child and over-scruitinized as an adult by authoritarian powers. A couple of experiences in which I've had a good Civil Liberties infringement case. One situation happened stateside, and so I have no power on that one (but an interrogation, awoken by demand to get out of the tent, flashlights in the eyes, at night, at a campground-- falsely accused of something and no evidence of a crime, and that happened pre-9/11-- it was terrifying and traumatizing). Nothing made sense why we were 'targetted'. A break into cars accusation, the only thing that comes to mind was trying to 'break into the bear-locker' to dispose of our garbage (being civily responsible to not leave food stuff to attract bears, etc.). Were we 'profiled' for driving a 'beater'? No advocacy for that case, since I was in another country. What kind of 'profiling' will they do when Bill C-30 passes. . .?
Curious Civil Liberties Case:
The other case, my brother was violently assaulted, excessive use of force, no crime was committed. He was beaten, concussion, there were witnesses. Harrassed for standing at a bus stop after a night of drinking (responsible, because he could have driven). Looks shabby, white salt stains on his clothes from working hard labour. "Safe Streets Act", "panhandling is against the law"-- he wasn't panhandling! Cop was aggressive, brother was stunned, slurring-- Officer took that as 'attitude'. Power-tripping, told my brother to get lost ? ! ? Poor judgement on their side, unreasonable. (They were in an unmarked van, which was blasting dance music, slow night. . .? Screeched on the brakes to where my bro was). As my brother walked away, and as the cop got into his van, brother got mad about the harassment and chucked his empty plastic coke bottle in the direction of the van (since cop told him to take his diet coke and his walkman and get lost). Cop got out of the van, started towards my brother, witnessed warned him "look out, he's coming after you", he looked back, and ran-- got chased down an alleyway-- cop smashed his head up against a wall. CPIC'd him-- oh geez, no criminal record (that's right not a street person, can't use that one).
I saw my brother after the fact, monitored the concussion, he didn't want to go to the hospital-- he was post-assault, adrenalized. He developed symptoms though, that we had to go to the hospital. Turns out the respiration, and heart was probably a post-assault panic attack. Concussion was going away.
I was angry about what happened, and I felt the incident should be reported. Brother didn't want to report (should have listened to him). To me, it seemed that cop lost complete self-control and so I was concerned, signs of ill-health, colleagues should know about that, follow-up with stress-assessment, do something, monitor him (and in my mind, yeah, he's got a gun, in position of power and authority)-- anyway, felt it was a civic responsibility to report. I reported "informally", got attitude right away.
This part of the story is going to sound completely unbelievable, but about a week later, the [Insert Large Media Corporate name here] Newspaper ran a story, "The Gangs of [insert City here, not New York]" with a picture of a group of people standing in a parking garage. I looked at it, the figures had slightly shaded features, but my brother's stance is unique and other unique characteristics. And this figure is holding a beer glass-- like hmm, that seems out of place-- why that, and being in a parking garage. Spooky, irksome, odd. . .
And some time after that, I happened to be viewing a criminology lecture from local University (ITV course), by an old prof, whom I respected his work (Prof. Don Andrews-- empirically-based studies, known for his work:"The Psychology of Criminal Conduct"). So local Police were interviewed and touting their new "Project Sweep" initiative, strategies they use along with the newer police powers sanctioned under the "Safe Streets Act" which had been adoped in my City by that time. Some of their crime fighting strategies: deterrance. If they suspect a youth/person involved in criminal activities, they may employ strategies to give them warning, get them to back off. . . it talked about partnerships with local businesses, media and establishments (where did the pic come of a person holding a beer glass, standing in a parking garage [which is far enough displaced from any bar-- I recognized the location). . .
What this shows me, is the potential of abuse of newer police powers, the possibility of collusion in covering up for the crimes of fellow-officers. And who do they typically believe? Some anonymous stranger, or the colleage they work with? Biases, that I make an informal report, I must be criminally associated, trying to start trouble-- when honestly, it was out of civic duty, to contain harm, protect others (that's what I do with my anger, trauma/ptsd/hypervigiliance-- safety self/others). A background check, the phone number I used to make an informal report-- there's no separation of oversight. Maybe uninformed about that? Realized we were 'no-bodies', poor, no family of status, etc. (we could all become that any day, outside economic forces, etc.)
I have physical evidence (the newspaper page). But, beatings and an indirect witnesses (witnessing the injuries, de facto) of course do have traumatic impacts. If this has happened to my brother, because the assumption he was 'homeless', how often does this happen. The response of the witnesses at the time, like they see it all the time down there. . .? And inflicting injuries to the head-- imagine how many beatings homeless people have taken over the years, how many might have Traumatic Brain Injuries, de-regulating behaviours (e.g. frontal lobe injuries). . .
I know my brother very well, he has total self control re: violence towards others. He's 100% honest in character, has an unsually high level of integrity and honesty (though it was a hard time in his life at that time, thus drinking spell at that time in his life). But we've lived through crisis for so many years, containment of violence is well-practiced, even with getting hit, etc.
Thankfully, I've had some more positive experiences of police since that time-- that helps heal the traumatic impacts (like the ethusiasm, when my building was shut-down as a result of a double-homicide in my lobby-- very cheerful at that time ;-), exciting I guess, going door-to-door). They were also very reasonable re: another experience, re: theft at my brother's work site, wasn't a hostile interrogation (but I had to down some Ativan before going so I wouldn't fall apart, but went in to support my brother). But the whole idea of "if you have nothing to hide, don't worry about it", is absurd. At least a criminal would expect police to come, but if you're innocent, have done nothing wrong, it is shocking. When it's apparent that police powers have been abused, it
is frightening, it's just as bad as worrying about other "gangs" in your "hood"-- try to keep as much distance from both ;-)
What do we become in the "free world" as people, eventually hardened to being "terrorized" by your own country's forces, or becoming crippled and complacent because of it. How is that healthy for a free and democratic country. . . on it's population? That you can't feel safe walking the streets because of both gangs, other predators, and police? And we expect people to function well under those conditions, sets of systemic traumas.
Now we've got "thought police" potentially re: Bill C-30. And crackdown on democratic debate, and information-sharing re: Bill C-11, because of copyright-- both threatening to Charter Rights, democratic principles of informed debate, alternative news sites-- message controlling. This is a "nanny state" which I am highly opposed to. A mean, wicked nanny/Big Brother. Can't talk at all, liablility-- crushing of individual freedom on so many fronts. It will harm us culturally. Some people like to think Canadians 'have no culture', yes we do, especially when it comes down to our individual freedoms and rights.
There are other situations I tried to get help-- there's some systemic problems. There really is not a lot of help for victims of violent crime. No trauma-help, the system drugs, leads to under-reporting (maybe need safe support, to be able to report and long-term enough to get through court/trial-- it's not there-- no witness protection either. . .have to go to the "other side' to get protection. . .hard to do when one is law-abiding by identity, but necessities for literal survival, careful advocacy so no-one gets hurt. . .), of the most dangerous and heinous of crimes. If I talked about what happened re: the "Project Sweep" abuse, they'd throw me on anti-psychotics, and there would be no other actions to correct the problem (and that's also abusive, "secondary traumatization')-- the powers that be know this. When there is such a low level of accountabilty, as we also see with politicians who are allowed to lie to us and get away with it with no repercussions. It's Kaftka-esque, system has erroded, by neglect, by politicians packing things into ideologies to garner 'consent', and situations where the 'tests of consent' don't measure real consent, as can happen in Majority Governments and the abandoment of important foundations to a free and democratic society. A re-born of MacCarthy-ism and far worse because of technology, permanent records (not being confined to actual police records) of innnocent people. . . potentials for abuse. Abuse, "build it and they will come. . .", and "First they came. . ."
And then they will wonder why I internet-surf, seek truth, perspectives, as hobby, not fully trusting. . .maybe choosing to withdraw at some times. . . :
Or that I over-spill things, and bother others with long posts. . .oppressed. Don't look. It's just a perspective, hoping it never comes to a "theatre near you" or to so many others, regularly, systemically. Bill C-11 will make it harder to share from 'substantiated sources', and there's already laws to crack down on'liability' re: harm to Corporations (even Government officials/Departments by relationship, public record] reputation, profit-damage, etc. I think that's something they may also want tighter control over. . . it seems apparent to me, reading the discouses, 'conflict of interests', etc.
Maybe off-topic, but maybe not, because there are also sub-systems which operate outside of gun registry legislation/records and related to Bills C-10, C-30, C-11 and partner agreements with other enforcement agencies. Not occuring in a vacuum. A point about powers without oversight, independent watchdog, laws and rules of enforcement re: misuse of power, and without citizen recourse, lacking in needed supports. Poverty, the expense of lawyers is unreachable for many working-poor (who can't even afford to take a day off work), let alone for middle-class, plus the stress, time factors. . . + for others encumbered by illness/disability/lack of status, etc. Even "pro-bono" often have to be able to come up with $1000. to retain services. . . this gives others who are secure in the lack of accountabily, oversight, poor work culture (not upholding 'lead by example"] to continue to pick on society's weakest. . . "Survival of the Fittest", okay, how is that really for the teflon-class? If we're not willing to pay for effective oversight, then a lot of this needs to be scrapped, IMO.
