Received: by dot.crosswinds.net (mbox republican) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Mon Nov 1 17:46:50 1999) X-From_: owner-apecalert-l@envirolink.org Mon Nov 1 17:20:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: from envirolink.org (manatee.envirolink.org [208.195.208.7]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA56402 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:20:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-apecalert-l@envirolink.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by envirolink.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11749; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from tao.ca (jaggi@tao.ca [198.96.117.188]) by envirolink.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11311 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jaggi@localhost) by tao.ca (8.9.3/TAO5) with ESMTP id RAA19872 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:21:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:21:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Jaggi Singh To: apecalert-l@envirolink.org Subject: re: Liberal Party fundraisers, biased Commission Counsels, double standards, impartiality and Grizzly tickets Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by envirolink.org id RAA11313 Reply-To: apecalert-l@envirolink.org Sender: owner-apecalert-l@envirolink.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN [this letter was sent to the RCMP Public Complaints Con-mission this morning ... j] BY FAX AND E-MAIL FROM MONTRÉAL November 1, 1999 TO: Marvin Storrow, Commission Counsel FROM: Jaggi Singh, provocateur for the Forces of Light CC: Ted Hughes and other parties (via Commission Counsel) RE: Liberal Party fundraisers, biased Commission Counsels, double standards, impartiality and Grizzly tickets Dear Marvin -- I was hoping to avoid having anything to do with the PCC, and leave matters with Joe Arvay (who can get away with much more than I ever could) for at least a few months. However, a news story I read recently compels me to write this letter. It is my understanding, based on an October 30, 1999 Canadian Press story, that you attended Jean Chrétien's $400-a-plate Vancouver fundraiser last October 20 at the posh Hyatt Hotel. According to the news report I read, you excused your actions by issuing, in part, the following written statement: "The fact that I attended an event with hundreds of others to hear the prime minister of this country speak on matters of general interest to the country has nothing to do with any issue before the ongoing inquiry and will have no bearing on any position we may take if there is an application to call Mr. Chrétien or anyone else as a witness." (CP, October 30, 1999). The event at the Hyatt Hotel was not just some innocent event as you make it out to be. As a Liberal Party fundraiser, it is a political and partisan undertaking, Moreover, the so-called guest-of-honour at the fundraiser was the very man who is central to the Public Complaints Commission (despite the apparent delusions of Ted Hughes and Commission Counsel). His speech was not simply on "matters of general interest", but an unabashed defense of the policies of his Liberal government, policies which hundreds of people were motivated to protest outside the same Hotel that you decided to enter at a cost of $400 (a lot of the protesters outside the hotel live on less than that per month). Chrétien was defending the very same policies that many demonstrators were protesting at UBC during APEC in 1997. Last year, at the same type of event, over one-thousand protesters gathered at the Hyatt, many of who were on the receiving end of the VPD's indiscriminate baton blows. Several demonstrators were seriously injured, and at least four people were hospitalized while the Liberal Party faithful and their supporters sang "O Canada" and enjoyed Chrétien's bon mots inside. You seriously can't claim to be ignorant of what happened last December, nor be unaware of how politicized the annual Liberal Party fundraiser is in Vancouver? Let's not be naïve Marvin, you know full well that a political party fundraiser, with the Prime Minister in attendance, is a profoundly partisan gathering. Moreover, your decision to attend the event manifests an astounding lack of judgment, even by the already questionable standards of the Public Complaints Commission. Also, I can't resist adding that you'd probably have had a lot more fun hanging out with some of us protesters from the Forces of Light than the bagmen, hacks, social-climbers and earnest yuppies who swarm to superficial events like $400-a-plate political party fundraisers. I am writing, therefore, to ask you to respond to the following questions. As a complainant to the Public Complaints Commission, in which you are the lead Commission Counsel, I feel I am entitled to specific and prompt answers: 1) Under what circumstances did you come to attend the Liberal Party fundraiser? Were you invited? If so, by whom? Did you pay the $400 fee? Was it paid for you? Again, if so, by whom? Was the food worth the $400? If so, how?!? 2) Do you not agree that by attending a partisan Liberal Party fundraiser that you have compromised your personal impartiality at the PCC, at least to some degree? 3) Why do you insist in upholding a double standard between the Prime Minister and other witnesses? Does not the fact that you insist on making an application to call Pepper Jean (if you ever decide to call him) mean that he is being treated differently than ever single other witness to the inquiry? (Just a friendly constitutional reminder: Chrétien is the Prime Minister of Canada, not the King of Canada, despite what he thinks.) 4) Do you not agree that if the Prime Minister does not testify at the hearing, the entire process has been a hopeless sham (beyond the whitewash it already is)? Do you still seriously believe that these hearings are about pepper-spray, dog bites, Suharto, naïve protesters, Reform Party opportunists and a few bad cops? I assert that your personal attendance at the fundraiser seriously compromises the existing pretences of impartiality at the Commission. Of course, I have always been of the position that the Public Complaints Commission is structurally biased in favour of the RCMP and the government. To quote from just one of many revealing passages from the 1998 Annual Report of the PCC: "Parliament established the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to reinforce confidence in the RCMP." (Annual Report 1998, page 5) No wonder that Chrétien, and his recent mouthpiece Herb Gray, put so much faith in the PCC and continuously repeat the mantra, "Let the Commission do its job." They know that if the Commission "does its job", the dutiful Ted Hughes will stick to individual complaints against individual officers and avoid the larger political context to the repressive political environment created by the federal government at APEC. Your decision to hobnob with Liberal Party hacks means that I can now credibly claim that the PCC is also tainted by the bias of a supposed neutral party, namely yourself. (Again, I can't resist adding that all you lawyers are already ideologically biased by virtue of your very profession.) It has been my view for some time now that Commission Counsel (both under Chris Considine and yourself) has not been nearly assertive enough with the federal government, especially in agitating for more documents, and in your annoying softball examinations of government witnesses. It's a view that I suppose I should have expressed much more forcefully before. Keep in mind that the recent document disclosures have had more to do with the stubbornness of us complainants than any actions by Commission Counsel. Recall that I was dismissed as "disrespectful," among other things, by Ted Hughes for refusing to testify until more documents were disclosed way back in April 1998. I still insist that document disclosure at the PCC is woefully inadequate. In any case Marvin, I hope this letter doesn't jeopardize those floor seats to a Grizzlies game that you promised. Even if it does, I still do look forward to your written reply. This is serious. Thanks in advance. Colossally yours, Jaggi Singh, La République de Montréal