Crime and Surrey: An eye to practicality

Commentary

---

Voice journalist, Rattan Mall, published an interesting article, albeit one that was in need of some well-positioned paraphrases and deeper criticism.

The resounding tune of the article’s primary interviewee, Dr. Robert M. Gordon, “SFU’s leading criminlogist,” as written by Mall, is one that denounces council as a bumbling bunch when it comes to the question of handling crime in Surrey.

Dr. Gordon, as reported by Mall, extends valid points. But, taken collectively, it’s difficult not to lump Dr. Gordon in with those who have occupied city council for the past half-dozen years.

Why? The contradictory conclusions rendered by the SFU professor, in combination with his own general characterization of our city’s crime conundrum, demonstrates the inherent difficulty in facing the issue of crime.

This isn’t a cop-out for our municipal leaders or police, it’s a display of media and academia inflaming the context without an eye on practicality.

Assessment over Talking Points

Mall summarizes Dr. Gordon’s assessment on Surrey’s crime outlook, as poor. The article’s headline: “Will crime situation in Surrey improve in 2015? NO! Here’s why …”

Dr. Gordon is quoted as saying:

I didn’t think hiring more policemen in Surrey is going to do anything because almost invariably those police officers are fresh out of [the RCMP] Depot. They have no street sense, no street experience … They are not going to be very good field police officers for at least two years.

On the other foot, however, Gordon rests on community safety officers as a “tremendously useful tool for dealing with a range of community issues and challenges.”

I don’t doubt the above, in that CSOs are and can be a useful tool, but realistically, an officer out of the depot will be, pound-for-pound, a more effective policing tool, if not, what are they teaching in Regina?

The SFU criminologist is further quoted as stating:

Gathering information is the first step – and analyzing that information. One of the problems with Surrey is that it is just such a huge diverse community that … it makes it very difficult to identify particular strategies for action.

Earlier in the same piece, Dr. Gordon is also quoted as stating:

It is a regional issue and to think that they can address the problems inside Surrey without reference to anything that’s going on outside is just blatantly foolish.

So which is it, then? A local issue that is wholly Surrey’s problem, or a regional issue requiring regional cooperation? Or, evidently, it’s both.

But in that sense, to challenge complacency in face of the complexities strikes me as peculiar. He is even quoted as stating Surrey’s diversity “… makes it very difficult to identify particular strategies for action.”

So even he, as a Professor of Criminologist, recognizes the difficulties present to curbing and controlling criminal activity within the City of Surrey.

So to contend there is a “broken policing structure” (para. 6) and espouse those in leadership are “blatantly foolish” is harshly critical.

Crime exists in shadows

Dr. Gordon was quoted as stating:

Surrey has low-income clusters probably in wilder profusion than is the case in other municipalities and it is a tendency for minor crimes both property and crimes of violence to find themselves around the periphery of those communities. None of that is going to change.

In essence, crime is a necessary byproduct of society.

But, I think it must be considered that criminal behaviour is the exhibit of a counterculture. Criminal activity exists in the shadows, difficult to witness, and so difficult to police.

As complex as the causes of criminal activity are, so is the fight against it. Crime doesn’t occur, always, in the light of the public eye.

We can’t short-change the battle between unscrupulous souls and those on the straight and narrow.

Complacency or the ebb and flow of criminal activity, which, like policing, is adaptive? This, I question.

Blue-Ribbon Rescue?

The overt solution, according to Dr. Gordon, is a blue-ribbon panel. This, to gather and analyze the information at hand.

But such suggestion raises hesitancy for practicable concerns.

It’s difficult to even pinpoint the cause(s) of crime, the root of it, because criminal activity exists and subsists for a myriad of reasons.

The tasteless truth, whether considered from a hyper-local or regional perspective, is that the awnings of anti-criminal tendency is psychological. Upbringing and desire, personality and moral character, all help define a delinquent and criminal from all else.

Combating crime certainly requires effective policing, but preventing it, that is of a grassroots nature. It starts and ends with proper rearing, which takes a community that extends beyond policing. It takes opportunity and role models to set the standard.

I am wary some “blue-ribbon panel” could arrive at a sure and effective solution. If it’s in regard to policing tactics OK. If in regard to preventative measures, I think we need to look to community initiatives.

Crime is a regional issue with Surrey contending with its own, serious issues. But it’s a cultural thing. A North American cultural thing.

The mentality or propensity for gangsterism is, at least from my personal experience, tied to a need or desire for money, a glorified view of life and on rare occasion: it’s just the most natural setting and way of life.

Can you wholly remove these elements from society is a question to consider. I would think, it requires a village to remedy. We are all products of our environment, which consists of more than policing, or at least, ought to.

How our children are raised and function as adults in society must be in the conversation somewhere, as well.

Are the reaches or influence of government directly correlated to our growth? There’s duality to that answer and subject of another post.

Taking back Surrey

With inside at capacity, a crowd of people stood outside Newton Seniors’ Centre to listen in on the speeches broadcast at the Take Back Surrey rally, Sunday, Sept. 28. Photo by: Brandon Kostinuk

The Take Back Surrey rally hosted at Newton Seniors’ Centre last Sunday occurred on the backdrop of yet another murder in Surrey, one that left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth.

With the death of 17-year-old Serena Vermeersch, and some months ago, of Julie Paskall, the Surrey framework, that of an out-of-hand crime ravaged city, has taken on new heights. It can certainly feel like Gotham City sometimes with the rhetoric that flies around. (Come on, an emergency council meeting?)

I grew up in the Whalley area, back when it was still “Whalley.”

Surrey was unsafe then. I remember the house directly across from where we lived was broken into, a home invasion. The homeowners were assaulted, tied up and robbed. That was in the late 90s.

Times change and often it’s because of what politicians do (or don’t do).

Whalley is now the City Centre. Newton residents are now bearing the brunt of Watts’ reformation. This is of course an oversimplification of the issue, but in the grand overview, it’s what’s occurred.

Crime once rampant in the notorious Whalley area has now been partially relocated south, and with grim consequence.

That’s why I liked the fact the rally referred to taking back Surrey. Compartmentalizing city issues doesn’t do anything to solve the general problem.

Newton community members have done well to bring amplified attention to the issues there, but this isn’t just a Newton issue, just as Whalley’s issues should not have been or be perceived in such a narrowly-based condition.

The diseases that plagued Surrey’s most notorious locale shifted to become problems — tragedies even — for other folks and this will continue to happen if attention and policy action is hyper-localized.

Crime is a Surrey issue and must be viewed as such, if not by its people, then by its political leaders, who, for now, have a city-wide mandate so politicians must not view it otherwise. A neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis, leaves families bound to unevenly face the burden of yesterday’s misplaced policies.

And what does it say about political leaders who prefer to stray from the citizens they’re supposed to lead?

Acting mayor Linda Hepner and Surrey First members strayed from community members following the Take Back Surrey rally. They stood on their own, talking amongst themselves before leaving. It’s nice to be in power.

Barinder Rasode appeared outside, nearing the end of the rally. She talked and greeted the people outside, (even with phone in hand).

Safe Surrey candidates and Independent Martin Rooney can be seen scattered in back. They all remained to talk with citizens and pose for photos.

Local think-tanks, now that’s a thought!

Do we have or make use of local think-tanks? Or, do we always contract out consultation and research to a single corporation that embodies a monolithic type approach, or vision that is sluiced by the corporate makeup.

Think tanks brought to a local level seems a concept worthy of consideration. Gather select groups of academics, community activists, artists, journalists, engineers, critics etc. to collaborate on innovative thinking and ideas to improve the city and policy using diverse minds and talent, of those who live within it.

Of course, limitations on who can qualify should be in place for the selection of any committee or think tank. Those who wish to enter the pool of thinkers enter their name and credentials, CV, résumé, whatever, to allow for some sort of screening. But the requisites shouldn’t be limited to PhD holders, and it shouldn’t be limited to just political representatives, nor just developers and architects. It takes a multitude of opinions to reach a well-balanced solution, because everyone’s viewpoint is different and the solution may be involve a difference of perspective to reach the best result.

Further, I’m a firm believer that it doesn’t require the inclusion of every economic class in order to put forth an idea that can benefit one or every economic class. It takes reason to understand such things. It’s important that decisions are made with an eye of consideration to each class and how something may or may not affect those who will come into contact with whatever initiative is proposed.

Now, we are indeed moving in that direction as I’ve indicated before with CitySpeaks, or as Councillor Rasode tweeted:

We must innovate our way out Platform upon which citizens can grow govt with collaboration of an enlightened digital citizenry @GavinNewsom

— Barinder Rasode (@BarinderRasode) January 22, 2014

But I discuss on purpose the notion of think tanks versus, say, an all-inclusive forum such as what can be experienced at City Hall or perhaps what CitySpeak might aim to do (I’m not certain how this program works or has worked). The reason is that I’ve seen, many times, citizens take a stance or grow increasingly frustrated over services, programs or actions of the government when they do not have the full case of evidence or misinterpret the evidence in front despite it being against reason or rationale. Sometimes, voters simply rely on passion and prejudice to influence their decisions they themselves perhaps failed to fully investigate.

It happens.

Greater local collaboration that draws from as many viewpoints as seems feasible. Only then can our local politicians and policy-makers make informed decisions. Mass consultation works so far as the citizenry is informed. And the fact is, not ALL citizenry who raise opinions, are informed.

So, to stave off wasteful minutes, perhaps hours (a la the South Surrey Casino ordeal), think tanks—selective committees of community problem solvers—seems a worthwhile route. Ideas from the tanks are published and presented to the public. All ideas fleshed out and the best ones brought to light.

Or, perhaps such a task is furthest from pragmatic?

I know the federal government may use them from time to time, with several national policy think-tanks (See List: McGill List of Canadian Think Tanks). Maybe we need to localize our thought, make use of the academics, businessmen and artists here, especially as municipalities are claiming greater responsibilities than ever before.

Politics is the movement and influence of people through ideas and policy. But our present political culture seems to predicate this notion of NIMBYism or this aversion to change. Involvement of the community is the only way to keep the naysayers from always raising ire over new developments or decisions. A line must be drawn.

Our present political culture seems to predicate this notion of NIMBYism or an aversion to change. Involvement of the community is the only way to keep the naysayers from always raising ire over new developments or decisions. But, a line must be drawn.

Furthermore, with all of the unnecessary or, at times, ineffective spending/planning that exists at every level of government, something must change.

They say that no question is a dumb question, but the same doesn’t stand true of ideas and innovation. It will be the educated masses that will lead us out of the problem-land, not just the blood, sweat and labour of our tradesmen.