Police power being misused

Page 4

In a more perfect world, the police are in place to protect society from its criminal element. This, however, is not a perfect world.

And a recent court decision in Ottawa and police actions in Yellowknife have served notice that police can and will use their legal power to protect themselves from the public they serve and harass citizens leading their lives within the law.

There is no apparent logic in the Supreme Court's decision to stop the LaChance inquiry's request for hearing an RCMP right to hide the identity of an informant - except a moral legal logic.

There may be grounds in written laws and prior court decisions for the police right to protect informants. But in the LaChance case, the question is not whether a secret informant helped catch a criminal. The question is whether a person convicted of a serious crime was protected because he had a special relationship with law enforcement agencies.

The Prince Alberta Trial Council has announced that Carney Nerland, Saskatchewan head of the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan Nations, is the mysterious police source.

There is no reason why Nerland should be shielded if these allegations are true. Evidence brought forward at the inquiry suggests Nerland might have received special treatment during the Prince Albert city police investigation. After all, the local police force was approached by RCMP representatives who wanted to discuss the investigation and

its relationship to their informant.

The inquiry into the shooting of Leo LaChance was struck to determine if outside factors influenced Nerland's treatment at the hands of the justice system. Whether or not he was working for the police is a central issue in this question.

But the RCMP refuse to confirm or deny the persistent rumors and statement about their ties to Nerland.

If the RCMP refused to elaborate on their leadership with Nerland, they are using the law to hide justice from the public. They are protecting themselves instead of the public.

Meanwhile, the RCMP, in conjunction with their Crown prosecutor cousins, have decided to force a reporter to testify at several criminal proceedings. This smacks of harassment.

Lee Selleck, editor of the western Arctic's Press Independent newspaper, was doing his job when he covered a picket-line disturbance at the strike-torn Giant Mine in Yellowknife. No one ever expected that he would be expected to testify in court about what he saw that day, especially since there were dozens of police officers and security who could give testimony.

But the police decided to subpoena Selleck's photographs and force him to testify at the ensuing trials. There are no reports of these extraordinary requests being made of other publications that also covered the incident.

Although no one is saying as much, the actions of the police and the Crown's office appear to have a second agenda. They want the Press to shut up.

The paper has been thick with coverage of the Giant strike since the dispute began seven months ago. Indeed, some might even complain coverage has been tilted in support of the union. In some instances, the Press may have even reported information the police did not want publicized.

Tough. Newspapers have a right and a duty to report the news to the public whether or not the institutions they cover like what they see.

The Yellowknife RCMP are not censors, though their actions against the Press appear designed to intimidate either the paper or its sources to inhibit a steady flow of information.

It is sad to see the RCMP and the courts can use the power vested in them by

the public against the public interest.