LEFEBVRE: Michael Baker, unaware or unconcerned?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hon. Michael Baker
To: andrelefebvre@
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: MORE iNFORMATION is available in the case of Mona-ClareFinck

Dear Mr. Lefebvre:

Thank you for your e-mail about the child custody issue.

The family matter you referred to and related criminal matters, have both been addressed in Nova Scotia courts. I am satisfied that matters were dealt with appropriately and I am of the view that there is no public interest in a further inquiry.

The best interests of the child are paramount and the actions of child protection authorities are examined carefully by the Supreme Court, as is required by our legislation. The legal process for child protection is described at www.gov.ns.ca/coms/families/pdf/child_welfare_brochure.pdf.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views.

Michael G. Baker, Q.C.

-------

Dear Mr Baker,

I appreciate you took the time to personally write back.

It is very unfortunate however that you seem to be unaware of the importance of this request. More and more people are completely agreeing that a public inquiry is the only mean we have to serve the public interest as too many questions remain unanswered even after the trial. Which focused on criminal charges stemming from the standoff and not on the content of a court order that certainly has never been proven valid.

What happened to the Fincks had nothing to do with the proper administration of justice, although you expressed satisfaction at the outcome. It does not matter what Carline and Larry were like in court, so much as why they were driven to such extremes in order to resist such order and try to defend themselves against alleged abuse of power on the part of the CAS. So many more similar cases exist today to make us all wonder why you are not stepping in to make changes. And restore justice to the Fincks. Why continue to defend a system that failed them? Why not correct the wrongs? Isn't what justice is about?

There exist another level of injustice that is shocking the population and it concerns directly the circumstances that forced the Fincks to run from a CAS court order, and the excessive use of force to get the baby anyways. The use of a taser gun on a suspect already in custody, a handcuffed woman, is also very disturbing. Some people have some explaining to do.

As you yourself should know through your own experience with the Lunenburg CAS, there has been many instances of abuse of power on the part of CAS, as well as lack of passion in being involved in serious cases of child molestation, leaving children in criminal hands because of very poor judgment on the part of CAS workers. Or was it because of sheer corruption or favoritism?

Parents need to be able to trust. And right now, the CAS has lost that trust. And restoring it can only be done publicly. There is a dark history of Nova Scotia in terms of child abuse by government agencies or orphanages. Our slogan: never again.

This is such a situation. The public nowadays is VERY informed, and many are doing very extensive investigative work, sharing information over the web and connecting the dots. If this situation was legally sound, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are basically telling us you are implicitely trusting the whole chain of command that was activated in Nova Scotia from the CAS all the way through the trial and the sentencing. If this is the case, then don't think that you realize how hurtful this is going to be for your Ministry as well as the exercise of justice in Canada. This has a deep impact on the ability of the population to trust the political and legal institutions of our country.

If we, citizens, know enough of the truth to rally thousands of other citizens in support of a public inquiry, then we have to wonder what it is you're trying to do by denying this one. It is well-known inside and outside of Nova Scotia that there is protectionism within the legal and law enforcement system. We are acquainted with the existence of rules governing child protection and have also read public documents revealing that these rules have been violated by CAS workers in some cases.

Consider seriously the odds, Mr Baker. Either you participate in a cover-up, either you open the door to further reform the CAS. There are thousands of victims of the CAS in Nova Scotia.

Further, the insistence of your office to refuse a public inquiry could be seen as very suspicious when considered in light of your history with the CAS. No offense, Mr Baker. Justice does not mean righteousness.

I plead with you, before God and the Queen, to consider again the consequences of a denial of a public inquiry in the Fincks case. Their case is not unique as you know. Why would insurance companies refuse to cover the CAS ...

http://www.grahamsteele.ca/media2003a.html#anchor21634

We need to see some kind of deterrent for sloppy work in the case of agencies who are endowed of civil and criminal power for the protection of our children. Because of your past history, you are obvioulsy the last person who could convince anyone that he is ignorant of those cases of abuse.

We take into consideration the fact that since 1999, there as been no annual reviews of the Child Protection Services in Nova Scotia. That too is of grave consequences.

Mona-Clare Finck has been damaged not by her parents, as was the reason invoked to take her away, but by the CAS actions. And compounded by subsequent interventions by other instances based on that basic error.

Make history: grant a public inquiry. If not for justice sake, at least do it because it makes a whole lot of sense politically and socially. Finally reform the CAS in a way that would ensure the true protection of the children, and not mean the decimation of families.

Thanks for taking time to read despite your busy schedule,

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre

LEFEBVRE: Amnesty International and TASER GUNS

When Carline VandenElsen was "arrested," her baby was cut free from her snugli with a combat knife by a police officer, the mother then was hand-cuffed and put face down on the ground. THEN, even though she was no threat and already in custody, the police tasered her twice.

This is police brutality and further support our request for a public inquiry in the actions of the CAS and the police on May 19, 2004, which resulted in a conviction for both parents who were trying to defend themselves against abuse of power on the part of the CAS and the Halifax police.

Who then should be charged and sentenced? The parents or those who were supposed to serve and protect the child and the parents? The real criminals are not necessarly those who are behind bars today, their baby girl in limbo between foster homes.

Excessive and lethal force?

USA / Canada: Pattern of abuse -- suspend use of taser guns

November 30, 2004

More than 70 people in the USA and Canada have died since 2001, after being electro-shocked with taser guns. While coroners have generally attributed cause of death to factors such as drug intoxication, in at least five cases they have found the taser played a role.

"Tasers have been used by police officers against unruly schoolchildren; unarmed mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals; suspects fleeing minor crime scenes and people who argue with police or fail to comply immediately with a command," said Amnesty International today as it launched two new reports examining the use of taser guns in the USA and Canada.

Evidence suggests that, far from being restricted to narrowly-defined circumstances in order to avoid lethal force, tasers have become the most prevalent force tool in some police departments. More than 5,000 law enforcement and correctional agencies in 49 US states are currently reported to be deploying or testing taser equipment, with the take-up rate continuing to grow. In Canada approximately 60 police departments have been issued with tasers.

Despite being widely deployed, there has been no rigorous, independent and impartial study into the use and effects of tasers, particularly in the case of people suffering from heart disease, or under the influence of drugs.

"Many experts believe taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in people who are under the influence of drugs or suffer underlying health problems such as heart disease, risk factors present in many of the cases we examined," said Amnesty International.

Tasers have been purchased by the US army, including for use in Iraq. The US Air Force is reported to deploy tasers aboard aircraft carrying suspected al-Qa’ida members to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. While few details have been provided about the use of tasers by US military forces, one of the units deploying them in Iraq in 2003 was the 800th Military Police Brigade, accused of grave abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of tasers
November 30, 2004

Deaths in custody (Canada)

Within the last fifteen months, nine people have died after being shocked with a taser by law enforcement officials in Canada. More than 60 people have died in the USA after being hit with police tasers in the past three years. While coroners have usually attributed the deaths to other factors, such as drug intoxication, some medical professionals believe taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where people are agitated or under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems. Furthermore, in at least five recent US cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the deaths, along with other factors such as drug intoxication and heart disease.

The rising death toll heightens Amnesty International’s concerns about the potential health risks involved in taser use. While the manufacturers claim the electrical output of tasers is far below the threshold that would trigger cardiac ventricular fibrillation (severe disturbance of the heart rhythm), there remains a lack of rigorous, independent research into the medical effects of such weapons.

While there is a limited amount of literature describing the clinical experience of earlier tasers, there has been virtually no independent, medical literature published to date on the effects of the more powerful M26 or X26 tasers currently deployed in the USA and Canada. The only medical studies prior to the marketing of these new generation taser models were tests on animals commissioned by the company; none of these studies has been peer reviewed by independent medical experts. Meanwhile, a number of medical experts have continued to raise concern that tasers may have adverse effects on certain vulnerable groups, including those under the influence of certain recreational drugs – often the very people who have come into contact with police tasers. Further information on health concerns relating to tasers, and studies or reports conducted to date, is contained in Amnesty International’s report on police taser use in the USA, published in conjunction with this report.(6)

Amnesty International is further concerned that many of the nine men who died in Canada were subjected to high levels of force, including other restraint procedures in addition to the electro-shocks. These procedures include hogtying, chest compressions and pepper spray, all of which can dangerously restrict breathing especially when combined with other force. While autopsies are still pending in some cases, Amnesty International is concerned that these restraints may also have been a contributory factor in some deaths.

In six of the nine cases reviewed, the deceased appear to have been coerced into restraint positions which have been associated with deaths in custody from "positional asphyxia". Such positions include being held face-down on the ground with weight or pressure applied to the chest. [Note: this is exactly what happened to Carline VandenElsen. She was already cuffed, face down on the ground with her hands in front of her when the police officer tasered her. Not once, but twice].

Individuals who are obese, have underlying heart disease and/or who are severely agitated or intoxicated from drugs or alcohol are believed to be at increased risk from such procedures.

In at least five cases, the deceased were placed in a "hogtie" or "hobble restraint", with their wrists or elbows bound behind them to their shackled ankles. This form of restraint is believed to be a particularly dangerous and potentially life threatening procedure, especially if the subject is in a prone position.(7) Standard-setting bodies discourage the use of hogtying and urge that law enforcement officers avoid holding anyone in restraints, even handcuffs, in a face-down position.(8) While some US departments have banned hogtying Amnesty International is disturbed that police departments in Canada still authorize such procedures.

Several of the deceased were pepper sprayed before being tasered. Pepper spray, which acts on the mucus membranes and respiratory system, can further restrict breathing and has been associated with in-custody deaths in the USA and Canada. Amnesty International is concerned that use of multiple restraint techniques, including pepper spray, might increase the risk of respiratory failure.(9) In two cases (see below), an unarmed suspect died after being pepper-sprayed, electro-shocked and restrained.

Positional asphyxia was listed as a direct cause of death in one of the cases examined, and use of restraints was noted as a contributory factor in another. In other cases, however, restraint was not listed as a causal or contributory factor even though death or loss of consciousness appears to have occurred very shortly after the use of restraints.

Experts have noted that multiple factors may play a role in deaths where restraints have been applied, particularly if other risk factors are involved. Amnesty International believes that all the cases require further evaluation. They also underscore the need for clear protocols and training for law enforcement officers on use of restraints and how to avoid excessive or dangerous force when dealing with people with mental health problems and/or acute behavioural disturbance.