Police and public information should be a 2-way street
RCMP reticence hard to understand when police want public’s help getting information but often don’t give public what they need to know
Nunavut RCMP often turn to the public to ask for information, but too often are reluctant to share information they have with the public, including basic details about serious incidents. (File photo)
“Help us help you” is our message to Nunavut RCMP after police asked witnesses to last weekend’s fatal collision in Iqaluit to come forward — but without providing many details about the collision itself.
Someone lost his or her life early Aug. 10 on Sivumugiaq Street. On Monday — more than two full days later — police asked anyone who witnessed it to call them.
As of Thursday, it was the only public statement police had made about a tragic death that affected the city.
We don’t know if the victim was a man, woman, boy or girl — because the police did not disclose that information, citing their ongoing investigation.
Police did say the victim was struck and killed by a vehicle, though it’s not clear from the appeal for witnesses what happened to that vehicle or its driver. Did the driver stay on the scene, or did he or she flee?
Sivumugiaq Street is busy with both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It’s hard to ignore that the collision took place at 1:30 a.m., closing time at bars whose patrons were heading home. It has all the hallmarks of a drunk-driving hit-and-run, but no one has said that.
It’s unfortunate that police are so reluctant to share basic information about a tragic death. It’s hard to believe that disclosing a person’s age or gender might jeopardize a police investigation.
When a tragedy occurs in a community, the public has both a desire and a right to know what happened.
Furthermore, providing fuller information — and doing it sooner — might also help police with their investigation. The more information the public has, the more likely someone will realize they know something.
No one’s expecting all the details to be made public, but police should routinely satisfy the community’s curiosity and right to know by disclosing basic information — what journalists call the 5Ws: who, what, when, where and why.
Other RCMP divisions are more forthcoming with information.
On Aug. 12, RCMP in Melville, Sask. were called to a collision involving a child. The police identified him as a male under 12 and described his injuries as serious.
In Selkirk, Man., a 24-year-old man died after his motorcycle was hit on July 31. Police there provided the age and gender of both the victim and the 30-year-old man charged with impaired driving causing death on Aug. 2.
In Russell, Man., on Aug. 11, a 19-year-old Saskatchewan woman died when the ATV on which she was a passenger lost control and rolled over. The 19-year-old man who was driving was charged with impaired driving causing death.
These are the kinds of details RCMP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan provided about recent tragic deaths in their communities, reported publicly in news releases. In all three cases, the investigations were continuing but police didn’t withhold information by hiding behind “an ongoing investigation.”
In many cases, police don’t release the names of victims of crime. However, depending on what charges follow, the victim’s name becomes a matter of public record when the charges are filed in court.
The stark reality is that when people die as a result of a crime or public tragedy, they lose some of the privacy that comes when they die of natural causes.
Traffic deaths don’t occur frequently in Nunavut or across Iqaluit.
When they do, people are naturally concerned for their safety. They need to consider what needs to change to prevent similar deaths.
That starts with the police helping them by being more forthcoming about what happened.
This is rich coming from a news outlet that deliberately omits names and other important details, even after the police have made that information available in their public releases. You want details about the victim, yet you won’t ever publish details about the suspects.
My thoughts exactly. The last release about the fire at the damp shelter included the name, but Nunatsiaq didn’t publish it. Then when the name was posted in the comments, they purged all the comments and didn’t approve any more for that article.
Nunatsiaq moderators are also well-known to protect some politicians far more than others when it comes to online criticism through censorship, even when comments don’t violate their commenting policy.
some politicians = their friends
And people o
n Facebook report more crime than the news paper
People post on Facebook. . They do not report crimes to the RCMP.
It’s also happening with Nunavik Police Service!! They haven’t shared a single detail about a standoff that happened in Akulivik month and a half ago!!! where Canadian Military were called up! It was all over tiktok too the incidents but the NPS refuse to share any details!!! I wonder if it’s a standard practice now for all Northern Police? Not share any information. 🤔🤔
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that police are not the problem here, the drugs, alcohol, and drunk drivers are. Funny how ppl always blame someone else….🙄
There have been lots of break-ins and small fires lately, too. Not much in the way of public information.
If the RCMP cannot recognize the perp in the break-in video, they should make the video public. Most likely someone will recognize the perp from the way they walk. Yes, that’s a thing up here.
Is it any surprise with the rapid growth of censorship across Canada and around the world? Only a short while ago police announced they will no longer release the suspectes race or identifying the gender of victim, suspect or accused? So no information… now par?
Over in Britain it’s off to jail or a hefty fine if post on social media something the government doesn’t like. Mmm, isn’t their a bill like that flowing with MPs support in Canada?
X rushed out of Brazil to save staff from being hard locked in jail. Makes one wonder if Nunavut government is quietly ordering censorship? Falling in step with Canada’s frighting march towards Totalitanism? But no worries, the free snowmachines will keep all distracted from noticing… until too late.
While censorship appears to be on the rise, it’s a pretty hilarious thought to think that the Government of Nunavut would have enough coordination to organize something like that.
Thanks, NiN; I tend to agree with you but there are enough totalitarian minds in GN to pull off a censorship stunt. Never underestimate the enemy.
This approach from the RCMP is unusual and can create an atmosphere of secrecy and conspiracy while citizens will often discuss the incident on the web. Elsewhere in North America, police are more proficient with details about incidents in general and particularly when they are asking ,more information from the public. The best example are the Amber alerts that include lots of details to facilitate the recovery of the abducted children.
Many European countries will not identify a suspect until convicted but they do provide lots of information about the incident and the investigation so that the public can help if someone can provide more evidence to the police.
The excuse “under investigation” is just that, an excuse and is not covered by any legal requirement.
Same news website that says “a man was charged” when they know the name and there is no publication ban.
These editorials really miss some juice. They are so basic you’d think they were written by students.
In his editorial, Corey Larocque presents a rather simplistic and myopic view of the relationship between law enforcement and the public, especially in our close-knit communities. He seems to suggest that the withholding of certain information by the police is an egregious affront to public transparency, implying that it is motivated by something nefarious. This, I would argue, is a gross misunderstanding of the complexities inherent in investigative processes, particularly in our unique environment.
To begin with, the assumption that every withheld piece of information is a slight against the public’s right to know is not only naïve but also potentially dangerous. The reality, which Mr. Larocque conveniently overlooks, is that early steps in an investigation—steps that may include the temporary withholding of certain details—can significantly influence the outcome of a trial. In a community where everyone knows everyone, the premature release of sensitive information can irreparably taint the judicial process, making it nearly impossible to secure a conviction when the case finally reaches the courtroom.
Moreover, Mr. Larocque’s cavalier criticism of law enforcement’s discretion displays a troubling disregard for the intricate balance that must be struck between transparency and the integrity of investigations. It is all too easy to demand full disclosure from the safety of a keyboard, but those tasked with maintaining the peace in our communities understand that their responsibilities are far more complex and consequential than Mr. Larocque would have us believe.
Now, turning to the more pernicious aspect of his editorial, one must wonder why any organization would choose to engage with Nunatsiaq News if this is the type of rhetoric it champions. By taking potshots at virtually every institution save for NTI and regional Inuit organizations, Mr. Larocque is not rallying support for his cause; he is alienating the very entities that are essential to the fabric of our society. This approach does nothing but sow discord, eroding the trust and cooperation that are vital for any community to thrive.
In his zeal to castigate, Mr. Larocque seems to forget that a newspaper’s reputation is its lifeblood. A publication that continuously undermines those it ought to collaborate with is not just shooting itself in the foot—it is systematically dismantling its own credibility. Nunatsiaq News, under his stewardship, risks being relegated to the margins, seen as little more than a purveyor of sensationalism rather than a reliable source of information and analysis.
One might advise Mr. Larocque to reconsider his approach, for the path he currently treads leads not to the high ground of journalistic integrity, but to a quagmire of distrust and irrelevance. It would be wise for him to reflect on the long-term consequences of his editorial style—both for the paper he represents and for the communities it purports to serve.
I would encourage you to do some reading on ‘economy of language’.
https://bunnystudio.com/blog/economy-of-language-communicating-concisely-in-any-dialect/
Ah, the irony of being admonished by one who hides behind the rather juvenile moniker “Booble head” is not lost on me. It is always fascinating when those who contribute little to the substance of a discussion resort to critiquing the style in which it is delivered.
Economy of language, while a worthy consideration in certain contexts, should not be confused with the reduction of complex ideas to the lowest common denominator. There is a place for brevity, certainly, but it is not at the expense of nuance, depth, and the precision of thought that certain subjects demand. If one seeks the pithy and the simplistic, there are other venues more suited to such inclinations.
The art of rhetoric and the craft of argumentation are not bound by a word count but by the clarity and effectiveness with which they convey truth. If you find yourself overwhelmed by the breadth of vocabulary or the construction of sentences that extend beyond a few words, I would suggest that the fault lies not in the prose, but in your willingness—or perhaps your capacity—to engage with it.
So, while I appreciate your concern, I shall continue to employ the language necessary to articulate ideas in their full complexity, regardless of how it might affront those who prefer their thoughts served in more bite-sized portions.
Why? The writing is very clear, easy to read, and informative.
“write a comment criticizing this editorial that makes me sound smart”
The writing is pretentious and verbose. It self-consciously projects grandeur and importance. Yet is overwrought in a way that shows a lack of skill, rather than possession of it.
I wrote a response to the editor, and if he (or the rest of the public) finds it pretentious rather than thoughtful, then it speaks to a troubling decline in the appreciation of the English language. If we have reached a point where anything more complex than text message shorthand is dismissed as pretentious, it is a sad reflection of the state of our discourse.
It was wordy to the point of ridiculousness. This is not an indication that reading skills have declined, but rather writing skills.
Your writing is an affront to the English language. So many words, so little coherence.
I appreciate your words because I read them in totality and understood your message. Thank you for that. But, my own bugaboo. Why not use your name? I see no reason to hide behind the anonymity as so many do on NN.
Not everyone has that freedom. Government employees, for example, need to be very careful about expressing opinions on social media and public forums. Also, Nunavut is made up of small, isolated towns, and sometimes speaking up about non-life and death matters can cause unnecessary friction, discomfort and divisions. I appreciate having a safe place to voice my opinion and shut up and listen to others. I don’t need to know a person’s first and last name and middle initials to listen to their feelings or reasoning.
i knew the victim since they were a child, it is truly heartbreaking. They were a good person and a wonderful parent. i will miss them helping me at the stores when i needed it. they openly and helped with energy and a great smile. You will be missed.
How about checking the cameras that surround Federal Road, there are certainly plenty in that area alone. You will be able to see who or what vehicles were around at the time and go from there.