The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by wave46

The problem with the blurring of the line between the military and police is that they're fundamentally misused with very negative effects.

The United States spent a good portion of the Iraq War using their military as a police force to restore order in Iraq. The military's purpose is to destroy the enemy through the use of force, not the administration of laws. A military can fight the enemy quite effectively, but it has very limited capacity to enforce order and law on domestic citizens.

The problem with the police adopting military-style tactics is that military tactics involve the 'enemy'. When the police become the military, the people become the enemy. That's not something you want in a democratic society.

Go on any military forum. You'll find plenty of concern about militarization. It's not so much the blurring of the line as the lack of training and accountability.

If deployed troops did some of what cops do, it would be instant charge and courts marital. The military standard of conduct is high. Rightfully so. So you'll see plenty of concern that cops in the US are getting kit that is usually reserved for military forces with none of the requisite training, force discipline and accountability.

Originally Posted by wave46

There's a damn good reason why there is distinct lines between the roles of the military and their use in free societies. One the military becomes a political entity that is unresponsive to civilian control, you're headed the way of many broken countries.

The most fascinating thing to watch for me personally is watching how the US Armed Forces as an institution react. On one hand a President who wants an American Tiananmen Square. On the other, National Guardsmen refusing their orders to activate and deploy in several states. And whole Chain of Command being oddly passive-aggressive with their Commander-in-Chief while doing everything to avoid an erosion of public trust in the institution.

Should be noted that in Canada, we have no legal limitations on the deployment of military force at home. And we have much more routine cooperation with police forces throughout the country. But we, thankfully, don't have a political system which would have a single megalomaniac elected in charge of us. I'm so much more grateful for our constitutional monarchy after watching what our southern neighbours go through.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Yet, how likely is it that this is actually the case? As far as I'm aware, no police force has a top-down data-based directive to racially profile specific groups of citizens - that's usually the result of pervasive biases amongst officers as individuals. And stereotypes of black people as criminals are pretty damn pervasive everywhere in the world (NS in particular has a pretty long history of anti-black racism) - I'd be willing to wager that those wealthy black students are still more likely to be stopped by the police, even if actually less likely to commit a crime than a local white (of course, there's no way to prove this one way or the other).

But again, even if it were the local white people who were being profiled because they have a greater likelihood of committing a crime - why should they be, in all absence of evidence of actually having had committed a crime? "Looking" like a criminal is not evidence of being a criminal, and not a valid reason on its own to stop & search or harass somebody.

About two years ago I attended a workshop on one of the large enterprise analytics platforms. The kind of stuff major retailer would use to figure out what items and at what price to put in flyers. One of the other people there was from the analytics team at one of the major city police forces in Canada. They were using the platform.

As far as I could tell based on the the discussion I had with him it was mostly used for human resources. The number of B&E, assaults, etc. were all correlated to specific days of the week, time of the year, holidays, when welfare cheques would go out, weather etc. They would use this to determine the number officers that should be on specific shifts and which neighborhoods to station offices. That lets you make the police force more efficient buy staff at a higher level on certain days vrs others.

The criminology program at SFU has been working on algorithms to use analytics to process police reports and profile suspects.

The disadvantage all of this is it amplifies any systematic bias. In one year your making a high number of arrests in a neighborhood the model says to send more police to that neighborhood next year.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Go on any military forum. You'll find plenty of concern about militarization. It's not so much the blurring of the line as the lack of training and accountability.

If deployed troops did some of what cops do, it would be instant charge and courts marital. The military standard of conduct is high. Rightfully so. So you'll see plenty of concern that cops in the US are getting kit that is usually reserved for military forces with none of the requisite training, force discipline and accountability.



The most fascinating thing to watch for me personally is watching how the US Armed Forces as an institution react. On one hand a President who wants an American Tiananmen Square. On the other, National Guardsmen refusing their orders to activate and deploy in several states. And whole Chain of Command being oddly passive-aggressive with their Commander-in-Chief while doing everything to avoid an erosion of public trust in the institution.

Should be noted that in Canada, we have no legal limitations on the deployment of military force at home. And we have much more routine cooperation with police forces throughout the country. But we, thankfully, don't have a political system which would have a single megalomaniac elected in charge of us. I'm so much more grateful for our constitutional monarchy after watching what our southern neighbours go through.

The US secretary of defense had a press conference today where he basically contradicted Trump. Apparently they don't get along. As far as I can make out the US military is not permitted to deploy in a police role domestically until activated under the Insurrection Act. The security said the current protests don't meet the threshold for activation.

My understanding is the National Guard is a weird in that they operate until the authority and direction of the local Governor but have access to resources, equipment and funding from the national military. The federal government can ask the government to move them to fall under the authority of the president but that does not happen. Just now Trump has no authority over the National Guard.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by 905er

the recent events in the US have really enlightened me to something that i had taken so for granted.. the whole concept of white privlege was a wash with me... never have I ever felt so aware of the fact that its a thing.. it exists and I have benefited from it. I am glad discussions of racism are happening even here on this forum and what is happenening in the US definitely forces us to look inwardly at ourselves and recognize that there is systematic racism in our own backyard... both with the black community and indigenous communities as well as all other visible minorities across Canada.

I have never been more ashamed to be white, than I am now and not because there is anything wrong with being white, but because my whiteness and the bubble in which I live in has caused me to inadvertently turn a blind eye to the wrongs so many across Canada experience on a daily basis. Moreover, as a gay white male, I should know better as someone from a group that have also historically experienced so much discrimination. So from here on out, i vow to do better.. be more aware and I don't think I can ever go back to being silent in the face of witnessing any social injustice.

So while we're all united here in the sense that we are all fans of skyscrapers and city scapes lets also remind ourselves of everything else that brings us together as opposed to singling out what sets us apart.

Your shame is well-earned. Believe me. And you need to make things right asap. Here's some advice: Head down to Ohsweken and find a Mohawk family; offer to swap lives with them ie homes, jobs, vehicles, etc.

You need to surrender your White Privilege to those more deserving. It's the right thing to do. That is unless this is all just lip service, in which case just keep living your life.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by casper

The US secretary of defense had a press conference today where he basically contradicted Trump. Apparently they don't get along. As far as I can make out the US military is not permitted to deploy in a police role domestically until activated under the Insurrection Act. The security said the current protests don't meet the threshold for activation.

My understanding is the National Guard is a weird in that they operate until the authority and direction of the local Governor but have access to resources, equipment and funding from the national military. The federal government can ask the government to move them to fall under the authority of the president but that does not happen. Just now Trump has no authority over the National Guard.

The National Guard is part of the military. The president can federalize the troops for emergencies and fold them into the army but can't use them to enforce federal law unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. Using them to help deal with the pandemic is totally okay but not to put down protests. Governors can activate their National Guard troops to put down civil unrest but there is an adjunct general that interprets the governor's orders into specific tactical decisions.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The National Guard is part of the military. The president can federalize the troops for emergencies and fold them into the army but can't use them to enforce federal law unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. Using them to help deal with the pandemic is totally okay but not to put down protests. Governors can activate their National Guard troops to put down civil unrest but there is an adjunct general that interprets the governor's orders into specific tactical decisions.

So in a case like this where they are helping to enforcing domestic laws that is permitted given they are operating under the activation of a state governor?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by casper

So in a case like this where they are helping to enforcing domestic laws that is permitted given they are operating under the activation of a state governor?

I don't think "domestic" is the right word to use. Looting, vandalism, etc. would all be illegal on a state level so governors could make use of their National Guard units if they felt police at local levels couldn't handle things. For Trump to take over in this situation he would have to essentially claim that the protestors are trying to overthrow the government. My understanding is that over the years it's been made easier for the president to take control of the National Guard but there are still limits. If Trump did take over I'm not sure who would be able to stop him or how. I guess he could also just send in the military but that would look horrible and top military brass would probably talk him out of it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A lot of people here seem suspicious of what I am getting at, or what I am trying to prove or "win". Other are similarly targeted.

I mean, what the fuck? It's a discussion forum. I am here to exchange ideas.

And discuss.

The Current Events Section is the very worst for this phenomenon. TexasPlaya saying Acajack is "transparent" and "not fooling anyone, his secret agenda is obvious". LOL

[once]

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local-news...en-police-and-group-of-teenagers-1399633

https://www.cp24.com/news/durham-police-...-back-followed-proper-protocol-1.4449419

[theman23]

Originally Posted by once

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local-news...en-police-and-group-of-teenagers-1399633

https://www.cp24.com/news/durham-police-...-back-followed-proper-protocol-1.4449419

These two videos don’t show the same thing.

The first shows a police officer assault a teenager without any provocation.

The second shows two police officers detaining a potentially armed suspect in an appropriate manner.

[JHikka]

Grand River came out yesterday:


https://twitter.com/TJ/status/1268294801453199363/photo/1


First person that brings up 'but social distancing!' gets a special prize.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No, it's because violent crimes especially shootings have shot up in Toronto and Ottawa since the Ontario government (can't remember Wynne or McGuinty) banned aggressive policing measures that had become controversial.

Violent crime during the same period has plummeted in Montreal where some of the aggressive policing measures now banned in Ontario are still permitted.

New York City also saw a similar drop when they implemented aggressive policing measures (remember the broken window theory?) under the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani.

All of this is verifiable. Common knowledge in fact.

This kind of flies in the face of your subsequent comments about "discussion," does it not?

None of these are really verifiable, as there's a multitude of factors going on in each case. Toronto had a much higher crime rate in the 90s for instance, despite likely having these nebulous "aggressive policing measures" you mention. The recent spike in violence doesn't seem to have any correlation with the banning of carding, even if a few more younger black people are stopped walking in their own neighbourhood (hah, who are we kidding).

There's also been a vast amount of academic research on the New York case that seems to point to wider societal/economic trends which allowed the Giuliani's "cleanup". While praised by a certain set on this forum (big surprise) it's still viciously derided by most New Yorkers I've talked to in person. Which also shouldn't be a jump to assuming they want to bring back the absolute dregs of the 80s, again which SSP constantly assumes. They've asserted it's just swept any problems under the rug and disproportionately affected the poor and minorities who don't fit the image of the new New York.

If we want discussion there have been many studies on alternate forms of policing such as the procedural model, yet I highly doubt anyone here would entertain that. Even though the City of Minneapolis seems to actually be looking into these things. But on SSP it's too much of a circlejerk of intellectual superiority about The Way Things Should Be. Which is particularly easy to say given the detached position most here are in. After all a discussion about a massive social event should have the same discourse as one regarding the merits of curtain wall over window wall glass.

[kwoldtimer]

That's an astonishing crowd for Kitchener!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

First person that brings up 'but social distancing!' gets a special prize.

Wasn't the point of social distancing to protect lives? You know, because they matter?

Let me know where I can pick up my prize :

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Wasn't the point of social distancing to protect lives? You know, because they matter?

To be fair I actually think every person in that photo is wearing a mask. I couldn't find one that wasn't.

Originally Posted by esquire

Let me know where I can pick up my prize :

There's no prize it's just a stern look from me.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

To be fair I actually think every person in that photo is wearing a mask. I couldn't find one that wasn't.

I'll give them credit, the mask-wearing rate in that photo is way better than what I saw when I was at my local Costco on Tuesday.

But that said, this is a very bad time to be having mass protests or rallies in the streets for any cause. Of course, any politician with a brain wouldn't touch that third rail by suggesting people shouldn't attend, but that is more out of pure self interest and a desire to avoid social media crucifixion than because of any concern for the health and best interests of the population.

It does not serve anyone's interests to pretend that covid is willing to step aside and wait while we cram thousands of people into the streets for a few hours to rally for whatever reason.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

This kind of flies in the face of your subsequent comments about "discussion," does it not?

None of these are really verifiable, as there's a multitude of factors going on in each case. Toronto had a much higher crime rate in the 90s for instance, despite likely having these nebulous "aggressive policing measures" you mention. The recent spike in violence doesn't seem to have any correlation with the banning of carding, even if a few more younger black people are stopped walking in their own neighbourhood (hah, who are we kidding).

There's also been a vast amount of academic research on the New York case that seems to point to wider societal/economic trends which allowed the Giuliani's "cleanup". While praised by a certain set on this forum (big surprise) it's still viciously derided by most New Yorkers I've talked to in person. Which also shouldn't be a jump to assuming they want to bring back the absolute dregs of the 80s, again which SSP constantly assumes. They've asserted it's just swept any problems under the rug and disproportionately affected the poor and minorities who don't fit the image of the new New York.

If we want discussion there have been many studies on alternate forms of policing such as the procedural model, yet I highly doubt anyone here would entertain that. Even though the City of Minneapolis seems to actually be looking into these things. But on SSP it's too much of a circlejerk of intellectual superiority about The Way Things Should Be. Which is particularly easy to say given the detached position most here are in. After all a discussion about a massive social event should have the same discourse as one regarding the merits of curtain wall over window wall glass.

Thanks for this. Lots of interesting food for thought in there.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by JHikka

To be fair I actually think every person in that photo is wearing a mask. I couldn't find one that wasn't.



There's no prize it's just a stern look from me.

It's a bit like playing Where's Waldo, but I did spot one man without a mask (hint: grey t-shirt, 10 o'clock(ish)) as well as a woman near the front with her mask pulled down.

[stevanford1]

Originally Posted by JHikka

To be fair I actually think every person in that photo is wearing a mask. I couldn't find one that wasn't.

I recall hearing that the mayor of Toronto was saying that people could peacefully protest as long as people wear a mask. Maybe it was another city though.

[Acajack]

The Mayor of Ottawa has said he will be attending the George Floyd protest at the U.S. embassy tomorrow. I don't know if he has said anything about masks.