ORGANIZED CRIME A CONVENIENT BOGEYMAN

In the good old days, the phrase "organized crime" meant
something.

The Godfather. John Gotti. Certainly something to do with the "mob,"
the romanticized tableau of punks in shiny suits and loads of bling,
with cute names like Joe Bananas, whacking each other.

But it's a safe bet that no one would have thought that kids recruited
into street gangs were participating in organized crime, as was
suggested recently in Abbotsford. For almost all of us, "organized
crime" means a widespread, amorphous, high-stakes criminal enterprise
that operates mostly in secrecy and maintains a rigid hierarchy.

Sure, there are occasions when that real organized crime bubbles to
the surface. Prosecutions of Hell's Angels members and the very
successful recent raids on crime families in Quebec are prime
examples. But the currency of the phrase has been so debased that it's
worth about as much as the Zimbabwe dollar (.04 cents, if you're
interested).

In particular, if the RCMP is involved and drugs are part of the story
- - or even if they aren't but the Mounties want to leave that
impression - it can mean everything and nothing.

It is true that the Criminal Code defines a "criminal organization"
very broadly. All you need is a group of three people committing or
facilitating crime for their own benefit.

On the other hand, the B.C. Supreme Court struck down that definition
in December 2005 because it was too vague, specifically with reference
to the word "group." That ruling is under appeal.

But the fact that a definition exists for the purpose of criminal
responsibility doesn't give carte blanche to those who would play to
public anxiety by using the phrase at the mere mention of a drug bust.

Yes, those cashing in on drug prohibition are in some sense
"organized." It is, after all, a market: there have to be producers,
sellers and buyers who interact to move the product. But in the vast
majority of cases, there isn't even a whisper of what everyone
understands to be "organized crime."

In 25 years of hearing more than a thousand cases of possession,
production of or trafficking in drugs, on the North Shore and in
Vancouver, only a handful suggested any truly organized enterprise -
and even then, it was usually in the deep background.

There is no doubt that during those years, the courts occasionally
dealt with true "organizations" involved in drugs. Those cases were
the exceptions that proved the rule. Yet, for those whose political
well-being or funding depends on fostering fear, those two words have
become a mantra.

Remember the Tunnel Under the Border? The three men caught as they
came out at the other end have since been sentenced in Seattle to nine
years for drug smuggling and trafficking. None was ever charged with
racketeering or any other of the myriad offences available in the
United States to deal with organized crime. Nevertheless, the public
line on this side of the border has always been that this was a major
organized crime event, that the effort was very "sophisticated" and
that other arrests would follow. We never heard another word about it.
The reality was that three guys saw a huge profit to be made from
building a tunnel and smuggling drugs through it. But it was, like
many other drug investigations, a handy opportunity for the RCMP to
ramp up the rhetoric.

Sgt. John Ward is the officer in charge of what is called the
Communications and Issues Analysis Unit of the force in British
Columbia - the head ramper, if you will. His comments on the Great
Raid on the Legislature remain the gold standard for the genre.

The morning after the raid, he held a press conference. His
performance was dazzling, but, like a peacock, far more show than
substance. "Let me start by saying that illegal drug activity by
organized crime in British Columbia has reached critical mass . . .
today we have murders, beatings, extortion, and gang warfare at a
level never before seen in this province."

Unfortunately for him, this was December 2003, when violent crime in
British Columbia was in sharp decline. He went on about the recent
arrests of nine individuals in Victoria, Vancouver and Toronto,
"alleged to have been in an organized crime network."

Alleged by whom? It has been more than three years and nothing more
has been heard about those nine unidentified organized criminals.

He then said that the execution of search warrants on the offices of
"two non-elected officials" (David Basi and Robert Virk) and on the
home of one of them (Basi) was a result of "two things - information
specifically related to the organized crime/drug case, and unrelated
information that was . . . a by-product of (that) investigation."

Anyone would be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that Basi and Virk
were somehow connected to organized crime, specifically with respect
to drugs; and, by extension, were linked to "murders, beatings,
extortion and gang warfare."

The two were charged a year later with abusing their office by
unlawfully obtaining a benefit. All that bombast and the most the RCMP
could come up with was bribery. Ward's comments gratuitously vilified
Basi and Virk for no other reason but to keep hammering at the bogey
of "organized crime."

Their trial begins today, April 18. It may well collapse soon under
the weight of bungles in the investigation and prosecution. But if it
proceeds, don't expect any mention of organized crime - there won't be
any.

At a symposium I attended about 18 months ago on drug abuse and harm
reduction, RCMP Chief Supt. Bud Mercer was the sacrificial lamb for
the negative point of view. I admired his willingness to speak to that
gathering; and his firm opposition to easing up on the drug war was
coherent and maybe even heartfelt, if not persuasive.

In his remarks he made liberal mention of organized crime. During a
break I mentioned to him that I was interested in getting a realistic
picture of the issue. He gave me his card and invited me to call. He
said he would set up a lunch and invite along the force's B.C. expert
on the subject.

I called twice. His gatekeeper told me both times that he was a very
busy man but that he would eventually get back to me.

He never did. Maybe he had something concrete to show me and got
sidetracked into other priorities. On the other hand, maybe he just
preferred to stay away from the subject.