the slippery slope and the thin edge of the wedge

[electricland]

I'm all for catching the Parkdale killer, but I'm not comfortable with this tactic.

A team of 20 officers is going door to door, asking residents to sign a consent form allowing a search of closets, basements and freezers, looking for evidence linked to the discovery of a woman's dismembered torso in an alleyway three weeks ago.

...

Almost everyone in Parkdale who has been asked has let officers in. But police confirm that saying no will land a resident on a list of potential murder suspects.

By the sounds of it, they are pressuring people fairly strongly. Call me selfish, call me lacking in public spirit, but I'd be inclined to say "No. You want to consider me a suspect? You want to search my house? Fine. Come back with a warrant."

Of course, I'm a white, educated, Canadian-born female, which is likely to put me at the bottom of a list of suspects and means I have more resources for standing up for my rights. If I were an immigrant from a police state, I suspect this would freak me right the hell out.

(I'm also quite surprised by the number of people on toronto who are saying "Sure, I'd let them in.")

Comments

[lostvoice.livejournal.com]

How can you believe that rights are not being neglected? Yes, technically they are not, but when one is told that if they don't co-operate, they'll be considered suspect - how is that not to be considered an act of coercion, which is in essence diametrically opposite of what the Charter stands for?

Also, where these people come from isrelevant to the argument - How they react to the questions police might answer, how their experiences in their country of origin will inform their reactions, puts them at a distinct disadvantage in contrast to someone like you or I, who are priviliged and white and have always lived here, and would have a better comprehension of what the ramifications of compliance or non-compliance truly are.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

Yes, technically they are not, but when one is told that if they don't co-operate, they'll be considered suspect - how is that not to be considered an act of coercion, which is in essence diametrically opposite of what the Charter stands for?

a) I don't think that they're actually telling people that if they don't let the police search their home, they'll be considered a suspect, since I believe that would invalidate their consent to search if the matter were ever brought to court, which would defeat the purpose of searching in the first place.

b) The Charter is all about technicalities. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms codified our right to certain civil liberties precisely so that they could be observed pro forma rather than allowing our liberties to depend on various interpretations of what was or was not in the so-called spirit of the law.

Also, where these people come from is relevant to the argument - How they react to the questions police might answer, how their experiences in their country of origin will inform their reactions, puts them at a distinct disadvantage in contrast to someone like you or I, who are priviliged and white and have always lived here, and would have a better comprehension of what the ramifications of compliance or non-compliance truly are.

Are you arguing that landed immigrants and naturalized Canadians should be treated differently under the law than Canadian citizens because they can't be expected to understand their legal rights? Because that is not and should not be a problem that the police are made responsible for addressing. Community and immigrant advocacy is a separate issuse, although I admit that it's not unrelated in this case. Bottom line for me, the police have a crime to solve, and I believe that they're attempting to do that in good faith.