No pics of muslims allowed in Canada?: David Menzies assaulted by Toronto hijabi

Uploaded by sdamatt2 on Sep 16, 2011

Encouraged by hundreds of e-mails (from Texas to Tehran), I've decided not to let the matter rest.

You may recall my column last month regarding an assault that took place at Yonge-Dundas Square.

I was there on a Sunday evening with my nine-year-old son, testing my new camera. Suddenly, an hysterical hijab-clad woman confronted me.

"We are Muslim!" she screamed. "You do not take pictures of us!" When I refused to holster my camera, she slugged me in the face. (Still images of the assault were caught on my camera.) My son and I were then surrounded by a mob, some speaking Arabic.

One individual kept demanding my camera. If I complied, he'd "let" us go.

I broke through the mob and made a beeline to a group of police officers. I reported what happened, and a couple of eyewitnesses, originally from Syria, bravely came forward and told one of the officers what had happened.

After speaking to the woman, he said no assault charges would be laid because he believed the woman's story that she was merely trying to knock the camera out of my hands.

Encouraged by hundreds of e-mails (from Texas to Tehran), I've decided not to let the matter rest. Here's what has occurred since then:

1. I filed a Freedom of Information request with the police asking for a copy of the police surveillance videotape. Apparently, the cops' eye-in-the-sky video camera did not capture the assault. I say "apparently" because I can't verify it. When I asked to view the tape, I was told "privacy regulations" prohibit it. I can see the tape if I consent to having the faces of all individuals digitally distorted. The hitch: Such an editing job will cost me about $900.

2. The investigation was reopened in August (surely not due to the worldwide reaction to this sordid incident?). Earlier this month, I gave a videotaped statement under oath with two 52 Division detectives. The process struck me as more of an interrogation than an interview, in my view just so much "cover-your-butt" window dressing by police. Indeed, one of the detectives informed me on numerous occasions that just because the investigation has resumed, this "doesn't mean any charges will be laid," even though this would appear to be a slam-dunk — an assault caught on camera and eye-witnessed.

3. There's a bizarre sidebar. A security guard on the night of the assault told police I had been at the square two weeks earlier taking photos of individuals and was ordered to stop. This is either a case of mistaken identity or a lie, given the last time I visited the square was August, 2010.

I contacted the security firm's head office in Montreal and told them about this false accusation — even though photographing people in a public place is legal. A spokeswoman said they have no reason to doubt the security guard. And, she added, when it comes to photographing Muslims, this is a "sensitive" issue.

Really?

I have since filed a complaint against the security firm with the provincial ministry that regulates security companies, given it apparently doesn't understand the law when it comes to photography in a public place.

4. Should the detectives decline to press charges, I plan to do so myself. I've had numerous lawyers, paralegals, and even police officers step forward to offer their services in pressing charges as a private citizen.

Epilogue: walking back to the car the night of the incident my son told me: "Daddy, I thought the police were the good guys. Why wouldn't they help you?"

Why indeed?