- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,591
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 228
I’m not sure which looks worse for the RCMP: either they embellished their claim that a woman with a stroller impeded one of their security officers during a crisis on Parliament Hill, or it’s actually true.
Welcome to Canada, where the Mounties always scapegoat their man or, in this case, a mother and newborn child. Otherwise, if they’re telling the truth, the proud national police service is sending a clear signal: we protect and serve; you know, as long as we’re not distracted by a woman with a baby buggy.
The RCMP has been very careful not to say it failed on Oct. 22 of last year, even after a detailed report showed all the missed opportunities to stop Michael Zehalf-Bibeau before he entered Parliament.
“It was a team effort, and the results showed that by working as a team, we were able to neutralize the threat in a limited amount of time,” RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud said at a news conference last week.
A team effort? If the New England Patriots defence stood around doing almost nothing while an opposing player ran past them, finally coming to a stop in the end zone, would that be considered neutralizing the threat in a limited amount of time?
What is the purpose of having RCMP officers stationed outside the Parliament buildings if not to stop unwanted individuals from entering them? Since Zehaf-Bibeau was confronted only after he was inside Centre Block, it’s tempting to ask what would have been different if there had been absolutely no police presence whatsoever on the grounds of the Hill.
What, by the RCMP’s criteria, constitutes a security failure on Parliament Hill if allowing a gunman to travel unimpeded for 250 metres through a supposedly secure environment, burst through the front doors of Centre Block and open fire in the Hall of Honour doesn’t qualify?
Imagine what the RCMP leadership would have said to the families of MPs, cabinet ministers and their staff if Zehalf-Bibeau had arrived only minutes later, when the hallways would have been full of parliamentarians. Would it have talked about a team effort responding in a limited amount of time?
There is no reason to single out the individual officers involved. This is a problem much more pervasive and widespread, a culture of complacency that starts at the top and traces its roots back to the day Jean Chretien had to fend off an intruder who had waved repeatedly at security cameras while languidly making his way to the bedrooms of 24 Sussex, not to mention the day Greenpeace activists hung their banners from the roof of West Block.
Only here would an officer assigned to protect the seat of government fail to notice an armed individual on foot because he was reading a report about a demonstration scheduled for that morning. This is security on Canadian terms: busily and carefully preparing for the peaceful, planned events while the violent surprise attacks are taking place.
So dysfunctional is the RCMP that, rather than see protecting the seat of government as an honour, many officers apparently view it as an undesirable posting, like having to work the overnight shift in a quiet office tower. Bring your sandwich and some other work to do and maybe the time will pass more quickly.
Unfortunately, having dodged a horrible disaster on the Hill that day, we had only a brief, anxious moment of refocused energy – we’ll never let this happen again – before reverting back to our previous carefree behaviour. Beyond putting machine guns in the hands of guards, eight months later, there are still significant issues unresolved. Multiple security teams are still operating on the Hill and we’re still talking about how we can improve, rather than actually making changes.
It’s as though this is all some academic exercise and security officials are getting to rewrite the test at their leisure, rather than in a live situation with the continuing prospect of a threat.
It’s as simple as this: if the RCMP doesn’t consider what happened on Oct. 22 to be a failure, it’s difficult to believe they will prevent it from occurring again.
查看原文...
Welcome to Canada, where the Mounties always scapegoat their man or, in this case, a mother and newborn child. Otherwise, if they’re telling the truth, the proud national police service is sending a clear signal: we protect and serve; you know, as long as we’re not distracted by a woman with a baby buggy.
The RCMP has been very careful not to say it failed on Oct. 22 of last year, even after a detailed report showed all the missed opportunities to stop Michael Zehalf-Bibeau before he entered Parliament.
“It was a team effort, and the results showed that by working as a team, we were able to neutralize the threat in a limited amount of time,” RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud said at a news conference last week.
A team effort? If the New England Patriots defence stood around doing almost nothing while an opposing player ran past them, finally coming to a stop in the end zone, would that be considered neutralizing the threat in a limited amount of time?
What is the purpose of having RCMP officers stationed outside the Parliament buildings if not to stop unwanted individuals from entering them? Since Zehaf-Bibeau was confronted only after he was inside Centre Block, it’s tempting to ask what would have been different if there had been absolutely no police presence whatsoever on the grounds of the Hill.
What, by the RCMP’s criteria, constitutes a security failure on Parliament Hill if allowing a gunman to travel unimpeded for 250 metres through a supposedly secure environment, burst through the front doors of Centre Block and open fire in the Hall of Honour doesn’t qualify?
Imagine what the RCMP leadership would have said to the families of MPs, cabinet ministers and their staff if Zehalf-Bibeau had arrived only minutes later, when the hallways would have been full of parliamentarians. Would it have talked about a team effort responding in a limited amount of time?
There is no reason to single out the individual officers involved. This is a problem much more pervasive and widespread, a culture of complacency that starts at the top and traces its roots back to the day Jean Chretien had to fend off an intruder who had waved repeatedly at security cameras while languidly making his way to the bedrooms of 24 Sussex, not to mention the day Greenpeace activists hung their banners from the roof of West Block.
Only here would an officer assigned to protect the seat of government fail to notice an armed individual on foot because he was reading a report about a demonstration scheduled for that morning. This is security on Canadian terms: busily and carefully preparing for the peaceful, planned events while the violent surprise attacks are taking place.
So dysfunctional is the RCMP that, rather than see protecting the seat of government as an honour, many officers apparently view it as an undesirable posting, like having to work the overnight shift in a quiet office tower. Bring your sandwich and some other work to do and maybe the time will pass more quickly.
Unfortunately, having dodged a horrible disaster on the Hill that day, we had only a brief, anxious moment of refocused energy – we’ll never let this happen again – before reverting back to our previous carefree behaviour. Beyond putting machine guns in the hands of guards, eight months later, there are still significant issues unresolved. Multiple security teams are still operating on the Hill and we’re still talking about how we can improve, rather than actually making changes.
It’s as though this is all some academic exercise and security officials are getting to rewrite the test at their leisure, rather than in a live situation with the continuing prospect of a threat.
It’s as simple as this: if the RCMP doesn’t consider what happened on Oct. 22 to be a failure, it’s difficult to believe they will prevent it from occurring again.
查看原文...
