Police dismissive, disrespectful
EDITORIAL / Ottawa chief, oversight board aren't interested in gay and poz issues
Noreen Fagan / Ottawa / Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Share |

The Police Services Board — a seven-member civilian oversight body — was set up to serve as a link between the community and Ottawa police. They are supposed to be responsible for setting policy, objectives and goals related to policing in the city, yet on Monday night they appeared as lame ducks — beholden to the police and certainly not representatives of the entire Ottawa community.

The board was presented with a proposal by Brent Bauer of the Gay Men’s Wellness Initiative to review and develop policy guidelines for prosecution for HIV non-disclosure cases. The proposal was well thought out, respectful and to the point, yet it was dismissed without thought — in fact it was dismissed so quickly it reeks of a decision being made well before the presentation was given.

Henry Jenson, a provincial appointee to the board, was the first member to object to the proposal, saying it was an inappropriate matter for the board. I am not sure if Jenson even heard the proposal — he spent most of the time looking around the room while Bauer was talking.

Police Chief Vern White was no better; he spent the entire presentation fiddling with his water bottle. When given the opportunity to speak, he wasted no time in bringing up the HIV non-disclosure case now before the courts as an example of good police investigative work.

White also told the mainstream media before the meeting that the police would continue to use the term sexual predator in future press releases.

But here’s the thing — the police didn’t use the term sexual predator in the media release. It was used in an email sent by Inspector Joan McKenna, using the listserv of the Police Liaison Committee, to the queer community. McKenna has since apologized for her poor choice of words.

It appears that White has now adopted the term “sexual predator” as a mantra — setting the base line for future press releases. His cavalier attitude about the policy review reflects his attitude toward the concerns of the queer community — that he couldn’t care less.

Councillor Maria McRae also spoke up at the meeting, praising White for his progressive tactics in community policing. Was she praising White for agitating against the city’s crack-pipe program? Or promoting the street-crime unit that regularly targets street-level sex workers in an effort to “clean up” neighbourhoods? Although she spoke of finding a way for Bauer to proceed, her idea of approaching the police board’s lawyer — to find a way for the board to order a policy review — were lost in the board’s negative reaction.

Clearly, the board has no idea of the effects of non-disclosure prosecutions on poz communities — and its members have no desire to learn. They had before them an opportunity to forge a new path in dealing with the criminalization of HIV — an opportunity to revamp policies that would show the progressive side of the Ottawa Police Service.

I agree with Bauer's calling them cowards, but I fear he is being too kind.

He was dismissed as easily as one swats a fly. He was shown no respect by the board members. A proposal that could potentially help avert a public health crisis was thrown aside in a contemptuous manner.

Bauer is right. Until the Supreme Court overturns the HIV disclosure law, the Police Services Board could, through a policy review, help police and provincial attorneys-general offices across Canada through the development of guidelines for prosecution so that HIV-related matters are handled in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

However, given the board’s reaction on July 26, that possibility looks extremely remote.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Councillor McRae is an ally
Thank you, Noreen, for your comprehensive coverage of the Ottawa Police Services Board meeting on July 26. You have certainly captured our disappointment with the Services's lack of leadership on this issue. I would make one clarification, however, to your editorial: Councillor McRae spoke specifically to Chief White's work around the establishment of a youth drug treatment centre. Unfortunately the Board failed to take up what I felt was her point: these are all interconnected issues - prevention and treatment work with at-risk youth who use substances helps reduce the rate of HIV transmission in our communities. It was a useful intervention. In what was otherwise a quite dismissive meeting, Councillor McRae stood out as an ally to work with on these issues. Brent H. Bauer on behalf of the Gay Men's Wellness Initiative
Brent H. Bauer, Ottawa ON
07/28/10 5:14 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Criminalization Isn't Anti-Testing
I don't know that I believe criminalization of non-disclosure cases reduces the number of persons being tested for HIV. What about anonymous testing? Isn't that a means of people who are insecure about a legal corner they may have put themselves into? As someone who is both gay and HIV negative, I have the deepest sympathy for those with the illness as I have seen first hand what it can do; however, I don't accept that criminalization in any way hinders gay men's health, it is another means of preventing transmission in the first place. The way I see it is if you are responsible enough to ask the question, you deserve an answer that is to the best of the repondants knowledge the truth.
Paul, Ottawa ON
07/30/10 1:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
It takes two
I have been following the news stories about incarcerating someone who was positive and who had sex without disclosing and I am disappointed but not surprised at his treatment. I think it takes two to spread HIV and that both partners are responsible to prevent HIV which includes not trusting that a new acquaintance is going to tell you the truth. To consider the mere asking of whether one's partner is positive or not an absolution of responsibility seems to me to be extraordinarily naive. What ever happened to the slogan "always assume they are positive until you definitely know that they aren't"? I find it draconian to hold a positive person criminally guilty just for not disclosing. This kind of anti-sex, arbitrary, punitive law enforcement behaviour will only result in people not getting tested and in people thinking that when they ask if their partner is HIV positive and the partner says "no" then that they must be telling the truth because they must know the ludicrously heavy arm of the law will come crashing down on them should they lie - but not everyone knows the law and not everyone thinks they will get caught and not everyone cares and sometimes people are drunk or high. Everyone is responsible for their health - not just the positive person - assume everyone is positive until you definitely know otherwise and to the law enforcement community please get your heads out of the early 80's and learn that sex is not a sin. Just in case anyone is wondering, no I'm not positive, I'm negative, and I still think the behaviour of the legal community regarding HIV non-disclosure to be highly disappointing and regressive but then I know to have safe sex and always assume my partner is postive until I know for sure that he is not.
Mike J., Ottawa ON
08/05/10 7:45 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
so as i was saying...
as long as organizations such as Toronto's HIV legal clinic HALCO for instance supports the criminalization of those with HIV then you get what you get. The cops are just playing along. The immediate removal of these infestations of people in Gay/ASO organizations of self-loathing homosexuals and their allies is the first step. You gotta clean your own house first. http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Time_to_stand_against_the_criminalization_of_HIV-7529.aspx
tim, toronto on
08/07/10 9:26 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Right on Tim
Tim: Amen. I agree with you 100%. It is hard to see clearly what is right and wrong when one's mind is side tracked by internalized homophobia and AIDSphobia. I would like to add to that one very important phobia that also pollutes minds and keeps them from being able to see clearly and that is sexphobia. One of the comments under the story you provided a link to was about how small minded and provincial Canadians are and I believe this to be true at least when it comes to expressions of sexual drive. In a university course called Human Sexuality we learned that countries fall somewhere on a continuum from being highly sex positive to highly sex negative and Canada was down in the sex negative part of the continuum. We have a long way to go towards being comfortable with our homosexuality, the reality of HIV and, also, with our right to fully partake of and enjoy sex.
Mike J., Ottawa ON
08/07/10 1:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Agreed: It Does Take Two
I agree wholeheartedly that it "takes two" to transmit HIV. And I also agree that the HIV negative person should assume everyone to be possitive and use condoms. However, I think the bigger moral ownus to bring to light HIV is the HIV positive person who has been told by public health that they have a responsibility (presently legal and arguably moral) to disclose before sex. What is so wrong with that? That's all I'm saying, give your partner(s) the fully informed choice.
Paul, Ottawa Ontario
08/10/10 2:56 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Paul....
there is nothing wrong with your common self-hating homo and their allies type logic...except you are STILL criminalizing those with HIV. Why not target and incite hate against those with all types of STD'S? What about the un-detectable? Do you have any evidence of transmission when that is the case? Don't shove your "moral onus" this way. http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Time_to_stand_against_the_criminalization_of_HIV-7529.aspx
tim, toronto on
08/14/10 11:51 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.