The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Should the RCMP have done it? I'm talking, of course, about its seizure of firearms from evacuated homes in High River, Alberta. Central to the rule of law is that those involved in its administration use caution in its application. Judges or law enforcers, for example, should adjust their judgment to context and circumstance. In that sense, a judge who gives a lenient sentence to a repentant teenager prudently adapts to the circumstance. Context matters. In that tradition, there have been instances in which police have ignored calls to action or refused to enforce laws against protestors blocking roads. To their discretion, the enforcement of the letter of the law might put people in greater danger and undermine the public's perception of police neutrality which, if true, erodes in turn the fairness that justice seeks to promote. The smoke screen of 'just following orders' or simply applying the law, therefore, is insufficient. So when the RCMP announced seizing 'large quantities of weapons' in High River because they were improperly stored, we have to look at the circumstances and not only the law's application. The Mounties claim that, during their sweep of evacuated High River homes to see if there were people left behind, they discovered the regulation-violating firearms. They quickly 'secured' the firearms by seizing them. The broader context needs to be spelled out. The homes were vacant because people were ordered to evacuate by the same authority that forced its way in to locked homes. Risk claimed The police claim they seized the firearms because of the risk of the items being stolen, which begs the question as to what it did with the valuable silverware they encountered and that was also 'in plain view.' As there had been no reports of looting in High River since it was sealed off, the ironic justification for violating privacy and property in order to protect property is unconvincing. The biggest impact of the RCMP's actions is that people are questioning its motives. Is the federal police more interested in boosting their incident report statistics than in protecting the rights of vulnerable citizens? Reasonable people understand the need of police entering our homes in an emergency, even when we are not home. But that is quite different thing from allowing them to bust down doors, pick locks and seize our property. Although no charges may be laid and the items are returned, there is a violation of trust in knowing that the Mounties have been through our drawers. In future disaster and emergency situations, the RCMP's crafty seizure of firearms will make people even more reluctant to leave their homes. The Mounties have exposed themselves to greater mistrust. And that sentiment, in the long run, may endanger more lives rather than safeguarding them. Marco Navarro-Genie is vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. This column was distributed by Troy Media.
