The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

One of BLM Vancouver's complains is that Vancouver police killed Abdi Gani Mahamud Hirsi. He was armed with a knife and had already stabbed two people before he was shot. According to police he was approaching a third person.

The BC Coroners found that 70% of those who died in police-involved incidents have some kind of mental illness (source). Violent behaviour combined with mental illness appears to be a much stronger predictor of risk of death at the hands of police than race. Yet that doesn't get much attention in Canada.

Stats and incidences like these make me wonder if non-lethal tools should be considered standard. And also whether we need to move away from single officer patrols/response.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Newsflash................I am an openly gay man and I am under no illusion that we still face homphobia, bigotry, and harassment. That however does not make it the same as racism.

It is routine for the police to pull over Black and Native men for nothing more than suspicions but police don't pull over a guy because they know that there is a 3% chance of that person being gay. That woman in Central Park was freaking out because that man was black and not because he was gay.

Being visible makes you an easy target and the only analogy may be with trans-people and even then, often it is not obvious. Racism is not the same as homphobia which is not the same as sexism. Racial minorities, women, and sexual minorities may all face discrimination but that doesn't mean they face the same discrimination nor does it mean it manifests itself in the same way and hence solutions must be unique to each of those effected groups.

A decent percentage of gay bashing victims are actually effeminate straight guys that get bashed because people think they are gay.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

In the real world there are shades of grey, sometimes people say stupid things, and it doesn't always make sense to instantly fire anybody who behaves incorrectly.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, it’s obvious tolerance of racist behaviour. Good luck defending that in a court of law. I guess if you’re self-employed you can still get away with living in the past. Or if you have been lucky in hiding it so far from your employers.

I also confessed to obvious tolerance of homophobia, and obvious tolerance of "mental incapacitation" (as milomilo would call observing Ramadan) a.k.a. subpar work from a (temporarily) weakened starved sleep-deprived worker. Clearly at this point it's been established that I'm very tolerant as long as the work generally gets done well; you're surprised...?

I suppose in this case you'd probably be shocked to learn that someone who's still in my employment has, over the past few years, addressed several times, to his face, a Vietnamese businessman who was our commercial tenant (running a restaurant in one of my units) as "you fucking chink", as well as several times, to his face again, a Congolese businessman who's our commercial tenant (and still is years later, as I write this; I just gave him a nice Covid rent break because I like him) as "you fucking nigger", after which in all cases I then privately apologized on that person's behalf. (That's a good employee who's old and "rednecky" (grew up in a rural area in this corner of Quebec) and has no filter and doesn't care about being PC, and who does the job.)

You can also add to the above my Southern USA property manager who once when visiting a property with me and finding very amateur electrical work, pointed out "that's what we call 'nigger-rigged' here" (while acknowledging it's an extremely un-PC way to put it).

If someone does a good job in my view, they're going to be able to get away with a lot of such things as far as I'm concerned (mental incapacitation a.k.a. religion, homophobia a.k.a. religion, mild racism, mild sexism, etc.) because I'm results-focused; that's what mostly matters to me.

[rousseau]

Lio, this is an English-speaking forum. While it's something of a free-for-all, there are certain norms that are non-negotiable. One of the major ones relates to the use of what we call the "N-word."

You can't casually and arbitrarily spell that word out in full the way that you're doing. It's painful to look at, and whatever point you're trying to make is obscured and overshadowed by how cavalierly you're throwing that word around.

Every culture has live wires where you don't go. This is one of ours. Perhaps you're not aware of this? In any case, no more N-words please.

[Acajack]

I think some people might be quite surprised at how much "tolerance for intolerance" there is in the workplace. That's not necessarily because employers condone racism, but because intolerant, ignorant and even racist employees have rights too.

So in practical terms there is often a collision between the anti-racist principles of the workplace and an employee's right to a second chance or that due process need to be followed in order to get rid of them. And of course there is the small matter of "proof" and he-said, he-said. I'd be extremely surprised if in most instances a person accused of saying a racist slur wouldn't be given at least a second chance with a warning not to do it again. In most cases there are reasons X Y and Z plus A B and C why it would be a huge pain in the ass for employers to fire them just for that one incident.

This is especially true of lower-level rank and file employees.

If you notice most of the high-profile cases of people getting fired with no second chance for saying or doing something racist tend to be executives or at least higher level people. They don't have as robust a "rights" framework to defend them. They are also usually held to a higher standard.

But most of these things happen on the shop floor and we never hear about them.

[lio45]

Well, keep in mind (rousseau) that I'm merely the messenger in every single case - reporting real-life events verbatim. You're obviously correct that this is a mostly English-speaking forum (and more to the point, that this is a 100% English-speaking thread) and your point that I haven't adapted my own culture's norms to the North American Anglo ones that should be prevailing here is duly noted.

(I guess at least a few users here could continue the discussion if we switched to the other main official language...? Just kidding, I'm done making my point which is that I'm a lenient boss when it comes to everything that's tangential to the one main thing I care about, delivering.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A decent percentage of gay bashing victims are actually effeminate straight guys that get bashed because people think they are gay.

Source?
In any event, wouldn't the relevant factor be that they were perceived to be gay rather than that they were in fact straight?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But most of these things happen on the shop floor and we never hear about them.

Except I do, because I'm totally a "in the trenches" manager. Few things on the floor escape me - even when they take place in Punjabi (I have my snitches). (But you're right in most cases.)

I doubt the only entity that's above me on the totem pole (the Client) would truly care that much about the fact that the excellent, high-quality product we're delivering on time at an unbeatable price point was made by a mildly homophobic workforce - even if they knew (which they won't).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Source?
In any event, wouldn't the relevant factor be that they were perceived to be gay rather than that they were in fact straight?

Indeed. I am just responding to the notion that gay people are invisible minorities and as such cannot be in danger based on what they look like. Most people have an idea of what they think gay people look and act like. Even if a lot of gay people do not correspond to that. But the proof that it exists is that even straight people can get mistreated or victimized in public or elsewhere if they correspond to the gay look stereotype.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Except I do, because I'm totally a "in the trenches" manager. Few things on the floor escape me - even when they take place in Punjabi (I have my snitches). (But you're right in most cases.)

.

Yes, what I meant by "we" is the general public.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Some FN’s in Ontario do have their own police.

This also exists in Quebec and in New Brunswick too I believe.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't get how reform can be achieved with defunding.

I think a bigger discussion to have is how policing is managed in Canada. No reason every province can't have their own police force. Also time to think of how FN can police themselves. Either as auxiliaries/detachments of provincial police forces or as independent forces for larger reserves. Having the RCMP police reserves is an outdated solution.

Defunding is something that sounds awesome to a lot of people but I am pretty skeptical of how that will play out. It will be interesting to see what happens if Minneapolis actually goes through with it.

First Nations communities may offer an option for self-policing only by community members, but you will never have fully representative policing (i.e. guaranteed you'll be dealing with black officers, or even mostly) in cities like Minneapolis which are less than 20% black and even less in Toronto and Montreal which aren't even 10% black. There are similar challenges with urban indigenous people as well.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, keep in mind (rousseau) that I'm merely the messenger in every single case - reporting real-life events verbatim. You're obviously correct that this is a mostly English-speaking forum (and more to the point, that this is a 100% English-speaking thread) and your point that I haven't adapted my own culture's norms to the North American Anglo ones that should be prevailing here is duly noted.

(I guess at least a few users here could continue the discussion if we switched to the other main official language...? Just kidding, I'm done making my point which is that I'm a lenient boss when it comes to everything that's tangential to the one main thing I care about, delivering.)

Like any capitalist, you simply put profit ahead of your own morals. That's just the system we operate under. Come see, come saw?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by casper

I have been in a management role for a very long time (both in corporate and small business). I am not certain I would have solved the problem by moving people around. I would start with sitting down with the person one on one and basically say: "Look here are the company values and that drives everything we do and we do it. You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like them but we need to follow them."

For me moving people around would be a last resort. When it comes to moving people, I like the principle that shows up in this commercial. It is from a few years ago, but on the mark. Portugal has a sizable black population and close ties into a number of African countries to this day.


• Video Link

Thanks for sharing this video. Excellent.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, keep in mind (rousseau) that I'm merely the messenger in every single case - reporting real-life events verbatim. You're obviously correct that this is a mostly English-speaking forum (and more to the point, that this is a 100% English-speaking thread) and your point that I haven't adapted my own culture's norms to the North American Anglo ones that should be prevailing here is duly noted.

(I guess at least a few users here could continue the discussion if we switched to the other main official language...? Just kidding, I'm done making my point which is that I'm a lenient boss when it comes to everything that's tangential to the one main thing I care about, delivering.)

Just following orders, are we?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Just following orders, are we?

I'm very tolerant of lots of stuff. Takes a lot to actually offend me.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Architype

Like any capitalist, you simply put profit ahead of your own morals. That's just the system we operate under. Come see, come saw?

My experience of capitalism is you leave your morals at home and treat your colleagues with respect or face punishment. Seems pretty fair to me.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This also exists in Quebec and in New Brunswick too I believe.

We have them in AB as well.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Defunding is something that sounds awesome to a lot of people but I am pretty skeptical of how that will play out. It will be interesting to see what happens if Minneapolis actually goes through with it.

First Nations communities may offer an option for self-policing only by community members, but you will never have fully representative policing (i.e. guaranteed you'll be dealing with black officers, or even mostly) in cities like Minneapolis which are less than 20% black and even less in Toronto and Montreal which aren't even 10% black. There are similar challenges with urban indigenous people as well.

The more I hear and read about "defunding police" the more I am led to believe that it's really about adding more community policing (like the Bear Clan Patrol that keeps an eye on things in Winnipeg's North End) and more trained social workers to respond to the situations where cops are expected to play a certain social work role, like mental health distress calls.

For such a revolutionary sounding concept, the details speak to a fairly incremental approach to things.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

Like any capitalist, you simply put profit ahead of your own morals.

Only partially true. But yeah, I realized that in a critical situation, I'd rather slightly deviate from perfect morals than have a major project risk failing (with disastrous consequences), especially if I can do that without causing any harm to anyone.

Anyone who claims to have a different position, I'm skeptical. For example, you're certain you'd truly be fine facing financial ruin just for a question of principle?