But not all Inquiries have to be castrated at the start, like the Shreiber/Mulroney affair, re: whether they can look into criminal conspiracies or negligence etc.; and as the Dziekanski RCMP tasering inquiry will hopefully show, a decent inquiry can make them reopen the original lameass whitewashing police inquiry to actually prosecute the cops once the collusion, coverups & lying have been exposed. (The BC A-G named a special prosecutor, Richard Peck, to reopen the case on June 18, immediately after former judge Thomas Braidwood issued his final report.)

And they’d be after different things. Most of the lawsuits & complaints would be targetting the actions of indiv. officers (or private security people) for their brutality, false arrests, inhumane treatment & conduct unbecoming etc.

But some of the main objects of the Public Inquiry would be to find out why it was such a cock-up at the global level: who gave the orders — and why — to leave everything but the perimeter so vulnerable, which invited the vandalism? & to stand down when it began? & to pretend that the Riot Act was in effect for 48 hours even though it had never been read or broadcast & to extend the magical ‘I hereby annoint thee a public work’ force field far beyond the convention centre where the leaders were to encompass the entire downtown, if need be. Stuff that would never come out in a trial on some indiv. cop’s thuggery.

And you’re wrong: it’s not the fed. Libs who are calling for this, at all: at least, not as a Party. It’s a stretch, probably a false attribution by that reporter, to say that Mark Holland was calling for a pubic inquiry into the police conduct: he’s more concerned with the decision to hold it in Toronto, & the costs. Ignatieff has been conspicuously silent on it, and according to this infuriating self-appointed party whip, http://forliberaljustice.blogspot.com it’s because his & the ‘official’ party position is to support the police & their “necessary evil, to combat evil” tactics.

If the people need answers, they should get those answers in court where those cops at the wrong end of justice can face some real consequences. I’ve had family pushed around by the police a lot. The last time was with the RCMP who got all racial and violent with my brother – and the biggest slap in the face was how it was dealt with – a healing circle (cause we’re Indians and all). We didn’t want a healing circle, we wanted jail time for that cop, or at the very least we wanted him fired. “Truth and Reconciliation” are great for the disinterested, but if it’s you that got pushed around, you want “Justice”.

An inquiry sounds right on paper, but it does nothing to curtail government from stealing the people’s liberties, and does everything to shield cops who are clearly in the wrong. If the G20 – or any police riot – is to be dealt with, it should be dealt with in a court where individual police officers will face real consequences for their individual actions – that’s the only thing that will make a cop think twice before he starts cracking skulls.

To call for an inquiry though? Yeah, that’s easy – but who benefits? The federal Liberals who called for it, surely – as well as the police for the reasons mentioned above. If the police actually did something wrong – as it appears from every video I’ve seen – then let those individual police officers be charged in a court of law.

Anyway. Assuming you aren’t being snarky, here’s my answer: the truth.

Police, and citizens, deserve to have the many questions arising out of the G20 answered.

Two public inquiries later and cui bono? You were there “inside the Queensway”, weren’t you? So pray tell, what difference will another inquiry make? I mean of course, outside of pushing a few votes one way or another.

” Wha…what’s that you say, Mr. Hennessey: you were ‘cyber-mugged,’ and you want to have the comments section of an unruly and unfair political website closed down for not following the rules of proper debate? I see.

Ok, so what happened? …Someone insulted and mocked you and portrayed you as ignorant, uncaring, and/or hypocritical. I see; got it.

And how did they do that? By…by… pointing to your past statements and their context, and quoting you. I see.

Oh, say, isn’t that called “oppo” in those parts? You’re… you’re not sure. Ok.

And where, where were you when this occurred?

…Wait, wait, let me write this down… at the lounge of …the Liberal War Room… run by a… Mr. Warren Kinsella.

Say, say, I think of I’ve heard of him… isn’t he the one they call “The Prince of Darkness?” Right, right. And he did that funny Barney thing? Oh, sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt…

So, what were you doing there at the time?

Just… criticizing Liberals for their bad judgment, accusing them of over-reacting, and telling them they’ll continue to be stuck in opposition for a long time. Uh-huh.

Well, well, I’m really glad you called, Mr. Hennessey. I’m, I’m afraid we’re going to have to take away your license to travel the internet and confine you indefinitely, both for associating with unsavoury types — you understand; I think you mentioned that as one of the points you made yourself — and for your own protection, because you clearly represent a
danger to yourself. One has to be mindful of one’s surroundings.”

You’ve just managed to move me from indifferent into the inquiry column. Thanks for ringing my bell.

I wasn’t planning on laughing. In fact, I was resolutely determined not to do so but sir, or madam, plain and simple, you just wore me down!