Protest non-policing needs better explanation

Position on Wascana Park activists strains fabric of community support

“We manage risk. Our goal is the safety of every person in this community — and not doing something that we think would jeopardize that. We think there is optimism for resolution.”

That was Regina police Chief Evan Bray, explaining why RPS will not end an occupation of Wascana Park by activists despite four requests to act by the Provincial Capital Commission.

From the operatic sentiment 150 years ago, that “a policeman’s lot is not a happy one,” no one ever said that policing is easy. Like a good referee, cops need to know when to look the other way and when to enforce the law without favour, preference or prejudice.

Chief Bray’s explanation is understandable, but incorrect in refusing to eject Indigenous protesters from Saskatchewan’s most famous park surrounding the legislature. While sources at Regina police headquarters say that the Wascana issue “is just some bylaw,” the chief knows that modern policing has undergone significant changes that make it a hybrid of social work and political gymnastics, lest a cop ever offend a growing list of entitled and noisy activists.

The earliest principles of policing, from Sir Robert Peel in the 1820s, still resonate today: policing ’s purpose is to prevent crime and maintain order; its goal is to achieve voluntary compliance with the law in the community.

And, according to Peel, the police must be unwavering in their duties and adherence to the law, maintaining impartiality and not being swayed by public opinion. Peel first coined the creed “serve and protect.”

Surely, the Provincial Capital Commission and the provincial government bear some responsibility. Back in February, on the day that a group of squatters with an illdefined and fuzzy Indigenous rights message arrived, they should have been accommodated with a meeting and then summarily packed up after their tents and teepee spent the first night illegally erected in the park.

Now, more worried about “risk” (precisely what risk is not explained) and implying that police action would actually jeopardize public safety, the police refusal to enforce the law sends the message that it’s OK to flout laws as long as someone feels strongly enough about their protest issue.

Oddly, the police are also engaging in a hierarchy of grievances, which should be explained to the community. If Indigenous rights warrant a police non-response in an iconic park, what about other causes in the same park and other locations? Recall marijuana activists who were dealt with firmly — arrested and charged, their premises raided and closed by RPS, all in the interests of enforcing the law. This was done despite the fact that within a few months existing laws against storefront medical marijuana sales will be rendered moot when all cannabis can be publicly purchased.

The disturbing part of the Regina police position is that it strains the fabric of community support and respect for the rule of law and for the police we trust to enforce it. If the police pick and choose which protests and grievances are acceptable, why have restrictions at all in Wascana or any park?

Just think, from politics to poverty, disability rights to children’s issues, racialized concerns to unions, reproductive choice and a range of other activism, tents should be able to set up in Wascana Park at any time, interrupting Canada Day or other events.

And none of this should concern the Regina Police Service (or us), so long as they “manage risk,” keep people safe and remain optimistic that everything will eventually work out. Gormley is a broadcaster, lawyer, author and former Progressive Conservative MP whose radio talk show is heard weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on 650 CKOM Saskatoon and 980 CJME Regina.