Things that go crash in the night

At about 2:00 AM on Monday morning (AKA Sunday night) Jeannette and I were startled from sleep by a loud noise.  While both of us were immediately awoken there was some disagreement about the source of the sound.

I was of the opinion that the sound was that of something falling outside, though I couldn't imagine what that could possibly be given what I know of the area surrounding our bedroom window.  Jeannette, alternatively, was of the opinion that the sound was that of a car crash.

Being the attentive husband that I am (and also being interested in the source of the sound) I went to our bedroom window to see if I could see what had happened.

Just as I arrived I saw and heard a car speeding away.  Because it was dark all I could see of the car were its tail lights and general shape (probably a hatch back).  And the area from which the car was departing did not appear particularly disturbed.

As I couldn't determine the source of the noise and as nothing more appeared to be afoot we tried to return to sleep.  After a period of time we were successful.

By the next morning I'd inadvertently managed to put the whole incident out of my head.  Instead of dwelling on the strange events of the night before I made coffee, ate breakfast, showered, and prepared for work.  

It was only as I was starting my walk to work that I was reminded of the events of the previous night because of the presence of a police car, a neighbour sweeping up smashed car debris, and a newly totalled car.  Apparently Jeannette had been right to place the sound as a car crash.

Though the neighbour sweeping the debris lives much closer to the site of the accident she had not actually heard the event the previous evening so by speaking to the police officer I was at least able to provide an approximate time and semi-description of the vehicle.  Based on my exchanges with our neighbour and the police officer I also got the sense that the neighbours whose car had been hit had also managed to sleep through the event and hadn't learned anything was amiss until just a few minutes before I came on the scene.  I also learned that, perhaps not surprisingly, that this looked like the work of a drunk driver.

Despite the fact that this was a fair bit more excitement than our quiet neighbourhood is used to, I haven't heard much discussion of the event.  I am starting to think that most people slept through the original event and then weren't out on the street early enough to see the police presence and car removal.

This event taken with our own car troubles last weekend are leaving me with the impression that we might be best not to park on the street unless its absolutely unavoidable.

Doing the tourist thing

As you may recall, earlier this week I made my way to the daily Changing the Guard ceremony on Parliament Hill.

Despite the fact that the aforementioned event is incredibly well known but still super boring, on Friday I talked Jeannette into attending another similarly well-known event - the RCMP's Musical Ride - hoping it would be a little more exciting (and because we were going to be attending the special Sunset Ceremony version of the event I was pretty sure it would be).

As soon as we arrived, which was a few minutes before the event was scheduled to start, we were able to catch the tail end of the pre-show riding competition.  Had I known that this was to take place before the start-time I would have made a point of arriving much earlier than we did.

We were incredibly surprised to learn that the show was to be kicked off with a parachuting demonstration team - the SkyHawks (a group I hadn't even heard about until they were jumping out of a plane overhead).

Thanks to brightly coloured parachutes it was pretty easy to follower the performers as they descended. As they descended the performers engaged in various formations and manoeuvres.

I was generally surprised to see how much the performers were in contact with one another with their parachutes out as part of their formations.

In some cases they didn't separate from one another until they were only moments away from landing.  And they did these things so nonchalantly that it was almost easy to forget that they were putting their lives on the line for the sake of our entertainment.  It was really kind of weird.

Anyway, the presence of a parachuting team was definitely an pleasant surprise and immediately made this event about 100 times more exciting than the Changing of the Guard ceremony.

 

[Embedded video]

After the paratroopers we were treated to a pipe band and some dancing.  Unfortunately because they didn't have enough pipers (at least this is my diagnosis) the band wasn't quite as loud as I thought it should have been (what's the point of a pipe band if it's not loud enough to feel?).

The pipe band was followed by the only dud portion of the show, a Canadian boy band performing a few of their songs.  Not only did these guys not really fit the tone of the acts that had preceded them, or that were to follow, but they were seemingly unknown to just about everyone in the audience.  Despite the fact that these guys were really giving it there all, they just couldn't get the crowd to shake of their apathy (and to be fair to the crowd - I don't think any of us knew we would be in for a boy band).

Anyway, we were then on to the proper Musical Ride portion of the show.  As expected, the horses and riders seamlessly formed and transformed patterns for about 40 minutes.

Just a few minutes into the show I noticed that something that appeared to be a Mountie hat was in the performance area.  A few moments later I was able to spot the source of the hat, one of the riders was now without his famous headgear.

Despite the fact that the hat was resting in the performance area for most of the performance, I don't think it was stepped on by a horse a single time.  I just happened to be near the rider when the hat was returned and it seemed to be in perfect condition (and to think that all throughout the show I was wondering who would be responsible for paying for a replacement hat).  That the horses were able to avoid the had while continuing their routine is pretty impressive.

My only real complaint about the whole event (aside from the presence of an inappropriately booked boy band) is that the seating area isn't sufficiently large or well organized.  Firstly, the seating area just wasn't large enough to allow everyone to have a view of the performance area.  The embankments that they have created need to be elevated by at least a few feet.  If they had any extra money I would recommend that they then install bleachers so that people wouldn't have to bring chairs an so that everyone would be seated at the same level.  Presently too many people end up standing, and this forces other people to stand.  If everyone had a seat the the same height much of this could be avoided.

Secondly, despite the fact that the viewing area isn't huge, there are a number of items that obstruct views from large portions of the viewing area.  Given that this is a permanent performance venue there is no excuse for these obstructions.  These obstructions further constrain viewing options in a viewing facility that is already too small.

Anyway, complaints aside, if you are into seeing horses and riders perform a pattern making routine this event may be for you.  If you are ever in a situation  where you can attend either the Musical Ride or the Changing of the Guard my vote would definitely be to attend the former rather than the latter.

Now I'm fixing the radio

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to CBC Ottawa's All in a Day when I heard the host reading a listener letter chiding the host for warning cyclists about a location where police were actively handing out tickets.  After reading the note the host agreed that he wouldn't issue such warnings in the future.

I was immediately reminded of a story tweeted about by On the Media.  In the story it was reported that a man in Florida had been charged after he had been flashing his car lights to warn drivers about an upcoming speed trap.  The judge considered headlight flashing a form of protected free speech and the ticket was overturned.  Despite the fact that the case related to free speech protections that are specific to the US, I thought one the concepts that the judge mentioned was particularly relevant to the issue of warning cyclists.

At an earlier hearing Circuit Judge Alan Dickey said, "If the goal of the traffic law is promote safety and not to raise revenue, then why wouldn't we want everyone who sees a law enforcement officer with a radar gun in his hand, blinking his lights to slow down all those other cars?" reported The Crime Report.

My thinking is that the judge has it right.  Whether one is flashing lights or issuing a warning over the radio the end result is, hopefully, less of the prohibited/dangerous activity.  And isn't reducing the number of incidences of the action in question usually the justification for such check-points?  And, as far as society is concerned, isn't reducing these incidences what we really want as an outcome not the issuance of more tickets?  Are we necessarily served by the police issuing more tickets (which implicitly means that instead of being prevented the behaviour was ongoing until after it had been observed)?

Anyway, I quickly dashed off an email to All in a Day expressing my disagreement with the listener's letter, citing the aforementioned case.  Just a few minutes ago I received an email from someone from the show looking for more information about he case because they are interested in doing a follow-up piece on the topic today.  So if all goes well the radio will be one step closer to fixed by the end of the day.

You all remember the Millington Massacre, right?

Somehow, and I really don't know exactly how, I've been included on the fundraising mailing list for the Tuscola County, Michigan's Sheriff.  Thanks to a scan from my Uncle I've been able to examine the most recent mailing, a letter from the Sheriff seeking donations to the Michigan Sheriff's Association.

One thing that amazed me about the letter, though it probably shouldn't have, was the clear inclination to emphasize threats to the community and the pervasiveness of crime.  In just the second sentence the letter warns that

Every day we hear of the ravaging effects of violence, theft, predators, drug abuse, and many other deadly types of crime.

Seems to me that the Sheriffs might be better served by focusing on the good work they've already been doing preventing crime rather than emphasizing the continuing spread of crime under their watch. You know, provide some evidence that existence of Sheriffs helps keep a lid on crime rather than implying that crime has continued to spread.  But this disinclination to highlight achievements was really hammered home when by the Sheriff suggesting not that he is busy doing everything is his power to keep you safe, but that "I will do everything in my power to keep you safe [emphasis in original]." I can't help but come away with the feeling that the message is that he will step up to the plate and start doing his job, the job for which he is currently being paid by the County, once the voters have made enough donations to his Association.  Or am I being to cynical? 


(I was curious to know how much crime there is in Tuscola County and how many of the reported crimes are resolved, so I visited a Michigan State Police site that provides crime and arrest stats on county and agency basis.  It seems that in 2010 the Tuscola County Sheriff received 89 reports of Burglary - Forced Entry while the county total was 179. As far as arrests go, the Tuscola County Sheriff reported 7 Burglary - Forced Entry arrests while the arrest total for the county was 18.  I should also mention that in the same year there were zero murders reported and zero arrests for murder.)


Anyway, fear mongering aside, the part of the letter that really got under my skin was the following sentence.

My law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity.

Really?  Are you sure about that?


At this point I think it is important to think about what a crime against humanity really is, and whether or not such crimes really exist in a rural county in one of the richest countries in the world.  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as follows:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)     Murder;(b)     Extermination;
(c)     Enslavement;
(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f)     Torture;
(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j)     The crime of apartheid;
(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Unless the "crime against humanity" the Sheriff is talking about is simply the "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" that may come as a result of living in Michigan, I have a hard time imagining that the Sheriff of Tuscola County, Michigan's "law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity."  Not only do I doubt that they witness the "some of the worst crimes against humanity," I doubt they even witness any such crimes.

So not only does this letter betray a limited understanding of the term 'crime against humanity,' I think it goes one step further.  By labelling run-of-the-mill rural crimes as 'crimes against humanity' the significance of the term in the global context risks being diminished.  By using the term in this way at least one key aspect of the concept, which is that the crimes must be "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population," is lost.  Thus recipients of this letter, or other individuals who've seen the word used in a similar way, may not understand the significance and particular meaning of the term.  When they hear the term in relation to a real 'crime against humanity' they may not understand the widespread nature of the crime that the term is meant to indicate.  We risk diminishing our common understanding and appreciation of the particularly heinous nature of this class of crime, a class of crime that has included such things as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.

Sure, to quote Cheech and Chong, "Things are tough all over," but that doesn't mean that when describing these problems we should overemphasize the frequency of their occurrence or overstate the nature of the problem.  Not only does the bearer of this questionable news risk undermining their own credibility, but they risk diminishing our collective understanding of important and meaningful concepts like 'crimes against humanity' that have very specific definitions and are thus not something that should be used as a rhetorical tool.

Presumably this is how to make an editor's day

First you send out a horse cop on an icy day.

Have the horse slip, causing the cop to fall off of the horse.

Then have the horse run off for a few minutes.

Then have one of the responding car cops get in a wreck on their way to the scene.

An editor can then use the headline: Halifax cop falls off horse, responding officer involved in collision

Oh, and this same series of events could probably be used to ruin a chief of police's day.

Cameron: 35
Neil: 0

Life in Halifax, Nofuna Scotia

As part of his continued effort to justify the use of the moniker "Nofuna Scotia" the HRM chief of police has recently blamed bars and alcohol for high crime rate in Halifax.

As the Metro story puts it:

HRM drinks too much and Halifax Regional Police Chief Frank Beazley says he has the assault statistics to prove it.

He told the municipality’s police commission on Monday there’s way too much easy access to liquor in this town. Many people sit at home and drink heavily before going out late to the bar and pounding drinks until 3 a.m.

“If I could take the alcohol out of this, I could plummet the number of assaults in HRM,” he said.  

Beazley added that several of the 3,202 assaults last year involved people getting drunk and going home to beat a family member.

The access, hours the bars are open and the density of liquor establishments downtown combine to cause real problems.

“Why do we need that many bars in that one area of the community that require so many resources to police it?”

While I am sure it is the case that some number of Halifax's crimes were committed by people who had recently been drinking in bars, do we know that access to alcohol really lead to all that many crimes - or do criminals just happen to also be drinkers?   Do other communities with bar districts face similar problems?  If not, why not?

And is the chief of police really suggesting that some number of legally operated small businesses be closed or have their capacity to collect revenue severely restricted?  Might there not be other steps that we can take before this one?

And I am curious if the chief's suggestion that if he "could take the alcohol out of this, I could plummet the number of assaults in HRM" is accurate.  An interesting story from the Guardian today seems to suggest that people will go to great lengths to secure intoxicating substances in the face of prohibitions.  At least in the UK an ever-changing array of legal synthetic drugs seem to be popular at the moment.  And of course not much is know about these synthetic drugs and what kind of long-term impact they might have on their imbibers.  And should one not think about the risk of encouraging such a development be worth by changing alcohol rules?


Cameron: 26
Neil: 0

Good thing they were in a 'free' country

In response to a recent court ruling that upheld the prohibition of "silent expressive dancing" at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. a number of people decided to hold a silent dance protest at the memorial.

The following videos show some of what happened to the dancers while they were at the memorial dancing.



[Embedded video]



[Embedded video]

Even if we accept that what these individuals were doing was disruptive and that the police service involved can prohibit them from doing it, was the force used really necessary?

Furthermore, if the reason for prohibiting dancing and other such activities is related to disturbing tranquility isn't it at least a little ironic that the resulting arrests surely did more to disturb the tranquility than silent dancers? Would Justin Bieber, or any other celebrity, be arrested for visiting the site and disturbing the tranquility of the monument when they are mobbed by adoring fans?

I understand why one might want to prohibit disruptive behaviours at this type of site (though I think such a goal is fundamentally questionable), but things have clearly gone to far when silent swaying can be deemed so disruptive that it merits arrest.