I really don’t know what or who to believe from the continuing saga of the Air India inquiry. The scenario of bizarre revelations, accusations and counteraccusations is outside my traditional realm of experience ad reference, while at the same time in harmony with the behaviour of Canada’s self-proclaimed “new government”.
Like most born-Canadians, i grew up instilled with the myths of the RCMP – always wise and competent, always fair and honourable – and unlike the competent and ruthless MI-5 or bungling and ruthless and incompetent CIA/FBI. I read my “Dale of the Mounted” books with the same devotion, even if they were considerably less homo-erotic, as my Hardy Boy mysteries. Even while the Mounties myth was shattered with the disclosure of illegalities in the pursuit of Québec terrorists in the 1970s, most of us were of the opinion that the RCMP could only be accused of being over zealous in their efforts to protect Canada and Canadians and assumed any minor problems were resolved with the creation of CSIS and the separation of basic policing and security responsibilities.
Amidst the contradictory revelations in the Air India story, one thing is becoming clear. There was a definite lack of competence in the monitoring of terrorists operating on Canadian soil and in investigating terrorist crimes after the fact and that covering for the incompetence became, and apparently continues to be, a higher priority than admitting to and learning from the failure to prevent the deaths of hundreds of Canadians and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
A week ago we were reflecting on the Hon James Bartleman’s astonishing, and 20-years late, revelation that he had been rebuffed in alerting RCMP to a threat against Air India, while his boss claimed never to have heard of such a warning. The sight of Mr Justice Major publicly challenging Gordon Smith’s, Bartleman’s boss, credibility was astonishing. While judges have to assess the credibility of witnesses testimony on a regular basis, challenging a sworn witness on the stand in extraordinary and clearly the judge believes Smith is part of an ongoing coverup. This week’s news is that not only were warning circulated in the RCMP but that “covering up” is deeply ingrained in RCMP culture . It seems Mr Justice Major’s concern was warranted. Each day more evidence emerges that there were plenty of warnings and opportunities for the RCMP and CSIS and Transport Canada to try to prevent disaster, but the warnings were routinely ignored and cover-up has been the mantra for the succeeding 2 decades.
Great offence has been expressed by some observers to the notion that the failure to protect Air India and its passengers, and the subsequent cover-up were racially motivated. I have not seen it asked, but consider for a moment how you think security officials would have responded to rumours Irish nationalists and terrorists were training with bombs and planning an attack on a British Airways flight to London, filled with business people and tourists. Still think the tragedy was the result of innocent oversight or culpable negligence? Yes - certain things are becoming clearer.
The myths of competence and honour shattered, Canadians are experiencing a paradigm-shift in what they think of and expect from one of their national institutions.
Like most born-Canadians, i grew up instilled with the myths of the RCMP – always wise and competent, always fair and honourable – and unlike the competent and ruthless MI-5 or bungling and ruthless and incompetent CIA/FBI. I read my “Dale of the Mounted” books with the same devotion, even if they were considerably less homo-erotic, as my Hardy Boy mysteries. Even while the Mounties myth was shattered with the disclosure of illegalities in the pursuit of Québec terrorists in the 1970s, most of us were of the opinion that the RCMP could only be accused of being over zealous in their efforts to protect Canada and Canadians and assumed any minor problems were resolved with the creation of CSIS and the separation of basic policing and security responsibilities.
Amidst the contradictory revelations in the Air India story, one thing is becoming clear. There was a definite lack of competence in the monitoring of terrorists operating on Canadian soil and in investigating terrorist crimes after the fact and that covering for the incompetence became, and apparently continues to be, a higher priority than admitting to and learning from the failure to prevent the deaths of hundreds of Canadians and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
A week ago we were reflecting on the Hon James Bartleman’s astonishing, and 20-years late, revelation that he had been rebuffed in alerting RCMP to a threat against Air India, while his boss claimed never to have heard of such a warning. The sight of Mr Justice Major publicly challenging Gordon Smith’s, Bartleman’s boss, credibility was astonishing. While judges have to assess the credibility of witnesses testimony on a regular basis, challenging a sworn witness on the stand in extraordinary and clearly the judge believes Smith is part of an ongoing coverup. This week’s news is that not only were warning circulated in the RCMP but that “covering up” is deeply ingrained in RCMP culture . It seems Mr Justice Major’s concern was warranted. Each day more evidence emerges that there were plenty of warnings and opportunities for the RCMP and CSIS and Transport Canada to try to prevent disaster, but the warnings were routinely ignored and cover-up has been the mantra for the succeeding 2 decades.
Great offence has been expressed by some observers to the notion that the failure to protect Air India and its passengers, and the subsequent cover-up were racially motivated. I have not seen it asked, but consider for a moment how you think security officials would have responded to rumours Irish nationalists and terrorists were training with bombs and planning an attack on a British Airways flight to London, filled with business people and tourists. Still think the tragedy was the result of innocent oversight or culpable negligence? Yes - certain things are becoming clearer.
The myths of competence and honour shattered, Canadians are experiencing a paradigm-shift in what they think of and expect from one of their national institutions.
