LASKEY: Public inquiry needed

Siege of Shirley Street: Public inquiry needed
Heather Laskey
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited

(Original posting with pictures HERE)

Well now, let's get this story right about the Siege of Shirley Street. According to an RCMP officer's testimony reported in The Chronicle Herald early in the trial, this is what we are to understand took place in Halifax last May: It's after midnight when police go to the house with a child apprehension order on behalf of the Children's Aid Society. Inside is a man, his elderly mother, his wife and their five-month-old baby. Members of the RCMP emergency response team position themselves on roofs and inside neighbouring houses in this residential area. They are armed with semi-automatic machine guns. I repeat - semi-automatic machine guns.

The welcome mat isn't out, so they try to break down the front door of the house, by using a battering ram. Yes, a battering ram. Then there's a shotgun blast from inside the house. It whistles over the head of one of the police officers through the window of the opposite house.

You may recall what happened next. Shirley Street was cordoned off; neighbours were awakened, told to hide in their basements and not to leave their houses. The area was crawling with all kinds of police in all kind of get-ups, and all kinds of vehicles. It was as though they were trying to raise the level of public hysteria.

Or put on some kind of a show, or movie set - with the character parts being played by the man and woman. The "action" included the woman breast-feeding the baby on the porch roof, and the emergency response team propelling a robot towards the house loaded with baby diapers, milk and medicine for the man's ailing mother. Her doctor was not allowed to make a house call.

The public, many of whom knew the man who'd grown up locally, remained bemused. There was a general feeling, reflected in the letters column of this newspaper, that the attempt to remove the baby from its parents was simply wrong.

Sixty-seven hours into the drama, the couple emerge from the house. On a makeshift stretcher, they are carrying the body of the man's mother. She, not surprisingly, appears to have died of a heart attack. It is seen that there is a shotgun strung over the man's shoulder; the baby is in a carrier on the woman's breast.

According to the Mountie's testimony at the trial, as the couple carry the stretcher down the block, a dozen police officers converge on them "carrying drawn weapons." The policeman says that they forced them to the ground. "She had her arms wrapped around the baby with a tight grip. She would not release the baby." He said he therefore drove his thumb into the "fleshy area" of the woman's shoulder until she loosened her grip. As the police struggled with her, she cried, "Don't take my baby!"

In what the policeman describes as a "chaotic" struggle, another officer, who is wearing body armour, uses a knife (my italics) to cut the Snugli, with baby inside, from the woman's chest and he carries the baby away. (No description is given of the infant's vocal response.)

The policeman continued, "At this point, we're concerned that she hasn't been properly searched for weapons." She doesn't comply with a police demand to release her arms from beneath her body, so, the Mountie said, one officer "shocked" her twice with a Taser gun. "I've been Tasered," says the policeman, "and it's painful, but it lasts five seconds and it's over."

Here's a question: Had the police gone crazy? For what precise purpose did they intend to use semi-automatic machine guns? Who, for heaven's sake, OK'd the use of a knife to remove the baby from the mother?

There should never have been an armed confrontation. Reflecting on the mock-siege scene, with the trucks and the intelligence centre and multiples of police wearing masks and battle gear, two points were clear not only to me, but to everybody I heard talking about it.

The first was that the police response had nothing to do with the situation in hand - a Children's Aid demand for the baby to be handed over to them at birth (apparently because the woman had previously absconded with her triplets from a previous marriage). And yes, the couple clearly were odd-balls, but that was not an adequate justification.

The second point was that the whole performance - and indeed, it was a performance - obviously had another purpose. The most logical explanation I heard, and with which I concur, is this: The situation was being used as an exercise in the deployment of Emergency Response Teams in urban areas in the event of a real threat from terrorists or a gang of violent criminals. In fact, it was a hysterical melodrama in the worst possible taste.

And while we're at it, will the Children's Aid Society please tell us, the members of the public, what was their justification for demanding the removal of the baby from its mother from the moment it was born. It had better be good. Really good.

We need a public inquiry. And fast. Cost? Not a fraction of what that ill-conceived and dangerous circus cost us last year.

--------------------

Halifax author Heather Laskey has written extensively on the abuse of children in institutional care, including a ground-breaking book (Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage) and articles and radio documentaries on Indian residential schools, and the child immigration movement.