The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I do think some change is likely to come out of this. But it will probably be in a form and on a scale that the majority of the population is comfortable with. That's almost always the way things go.

Agreed. Obviously the various BLM movements have no ability to unilaterally invoke the changes that they have demanded in their various statements, websites etc. They of course are well aware of this.

However, they have succeeded in initiating a number of discussions and evaluations at the institutional and broader cultural levels. Those discussions and evaluations may well lead to meaningful and positive change (which will be much less ambitious than their original "demands"). This may well have been the strategy from day one.

[urbandreamer]

I think Trump will win a second term: the stock market is rising.

I'm fine with having a revolution. Scale back the police, let's have a war, fire off some cannons. I predict the same old elitists will be back in power within a decade of it happening.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

That plays a role. I grew up in a time when everyone around me was homophobic. It was suffocating. That has fundamentally changed over time, for the most part. Dramatic changes can and do happen. You just might be in the lagging or regressive end of that.

You think that your opinions are more important in a sense because they are supposedly indicative of the majority. But what if that’s not true or what if the majority is already shifting and you will be left behind? Young people will accelerate that further.

This thread provides ample evidence that I am not as out of touch as you claim I am.

And this is an "urban affairs" forum.

Imagine a fishing forum. A hockey forum. A motorcycling forum.

[Pavlov]

Oh great.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Agreed. Obviously the various BLM movements have no ability to unilaterally invoke the changes that they have demanded in their various statements, websites etc. They of course are well aware of this.

However, they have succeeded in initiating a number of discussions and evaluations at the institutional and broader cultural levels. Those discussions and evaluations may well lead to meaningful and positive change (which will be much less ambitious than their original "demands"). This may well have been the strategy from day one.

If so they were brilliant strategists!

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Because it's failing to hit the intended target.

If the target was simply "excessive police brutality", I'd be on board.

A movement that would address things like Tony Timpa's needless death at the hands of the Dallas police, for example.

But no, that movement does not do that, for the SOLE reason that the man who got killed did not have the correct skin color.

That is racist and divisive, and I don't support movements that are racist and divisive.

If you started something like All Lives Matter and had ideas that weren't crazy ("abolish the police"), then I'd likely be on board.

I don't understand this argument. If Main Street is the most (or one of the most) pot-holed streets in my neighborhood, and I happen to live on Main Street, why can't I stand outside City Hall with a sign that says "Fix Main Street!"? Would you argue that I am being divisive because "all streets matter"? Of course they do but I live on Main Street and it is full of fucking potholes!

(OK, this is a pretty flawed analogy but whatever).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I grew up in a time when everyone around me was homophobic. It was suffocating. That has fundamentally changed over time, for the most part. Dramatic changes can and do happen.

[...]

Young people will accelerate that further.

Ironically, the levels of homophobia I've personally observed from very young people in the Vancouver of 2020 are absolutely mind-blowing by Typical Quebec (Non-Muslim) standards.

I'm hoping that's just a hiccup in the very long run - a temporary local peak due to high volumes of recent immigration from cultures that aren't gay-friendly.

But it does prove that young != more accepting.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If so they were brilliant strategists!

You think so? Seems like a fairly standard playbook to me (but maybe that is just with the benefit of hindsight?). I don't actually have much of a rabble-rousing CV.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I don't understand this argument. If Main Street is the most (or one of the most) pot-holed streets in my neighborhood, and I happen to live on Main Street, why can't I stand outside City Hall with a sign that says "Fix Main Street!"? Would you argue that I am being divisive because "all streets matter"? Of course they do but I live on Main Street and it is full of fucking potholes!

(OK, this is a pretty flawed analogy but whatever).

It's an interesting analogy because if you and your neighbors are loud and annoying enough that you manage to bully the City into putting $x million to completely redo little and remote cul-de-sac Pavlov Street to the very highest standards while there were many more pressing issues as well as plenty of other streets that needed some fixing and aren't going to get it now thanks to your action, from a greater good perspective the Bad Guys won there.

I prefer to see such things addressed at the ballot box; I'm not a fan of having the view of whichever faction bullies government the most strongly and relentlessly be the one getting implemented.

If the people actually want to defund the police in a given city, then they'll elect the candidates who have that kind of stuff in their platforms to city council next election, and it'll happen. It's that simple.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This thread provides ample evidence that I am not as out of touch as you claim I am.

And this is an "urban affairs" forum.

Imagine a fishing forum. A hockey forum. A motorcycling forum.

The Simpsons' School Principal: "Am I out of touch? ... No, it's the other SSPers who are wrong."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Ironically, the levels of homophobia I've personally observed from very young people in the Vancouver of 2020 are absolutely mind-blowing by Typical Quebec (Non-Muslim) standards.

I'm hoping that's just a hiccup in the very long run - a temporary local peak due to high volumes of recent immigration from cultures that aren't gay-friendly.

But it does prove that young != more accepting.

Progress in spite of the nature of the word is not necessarily a linear thing. Certain factors can alter it, and demographics are a biggie.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by lio45

Ironically, the levels of homophobia I've personally observed from very young people in the Vancouver of 2020 are absolutely mind-blowing by Typical Quebec (Non-Muslim) standards.

I'm hoping that's just a hiccup in the very long run - a temporary local peak due to high volumes of recent immigration from cultures that aren't gay-friendly.

But it does prove that young != more accepting.

I have not experienced that here in Vancouver. What specifically have you observed?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's an interesting analogy because if you and your neighbors are loud and annoying enough that you manage to bully the City into putting $x million to completely redo little and remote cul-de-sac Pavlov Street to the very highest standards while there were many more pressing issues as well as plenty of other streets that needed some fixing and aren't going to get it now thanks to your action, from a greater good perspective the Bad Guys won there.

I prefer to see such things addressed at the ballot box; I'm not a fan of having the view of whichever faction bullies government the most strongly and relentlessly be the one getting implemented.

If the people actually want to defund the police, they'll elect the candidates who have that kind of stuff in their platforms to city council next election, and it'll happen.

So if a majority of voters live on White Street and a minority love on Black Street, White Street probably gets paved and Black Street probably doesn't? That doesn't seem very fair.

And, with respect to the additional context you provided to my clumsy analogy, I think it takes us back to the fundamental difference between how you and I approach this debate. I focus on the central issue raised by BLM protesters (the continuing existence of systemic race-based discrimination in our society) and you focus on the radical, revolutionary demands made by the most strident "leaders" of some of the group's that call themselves "BLM" (or related names).

Systemic race-based discrimination isn't analogous to fixing cracks on a cul-de-sac. Abolishing prisons probably is.

EDIT: Also, to strengthen this analogy a bit, we should also add the premise that, if you're born on White Street, you can never move from White Street (and if you're born on Black Street you can never move from Black Street).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

So if a majority of voters live on White Street and a minority love on Black Street, White Street probably gets paved and Black Street probably doesn't? That doesn't seem very fair .

That happens all the time though. Squeaky wheel syndrome.

In Canada at least, it is rarely if ever racial.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

So if a majority of voters live on White Street and a minority love on Black Street, White Street probably gets paved and Black Street probably doesn't? That doesn't seem very fair.

Ideally, they would elect a municipal government that realizes it's its duty to care about both White St and Black St.

But yeah, in the analogy, if a majority of voters live on White Street, then you probably won't be able to convince any democratically-elected municipal government to maintain Black Street to much higher standards than White Street for a number of years in a row. Your only chance of achieving that (as Black Street residents) would be through bullying.

And this is why these mobs know very well that their only chance of achieving what they want is through bullying, not the ballot box:

Originally Posted by someone123

This polling data from 2015 stands out:

And, with respect to the additional context you provided to my clumsy analogy, I think it takes us back to the fundamental difference between how you and I approach this debate. I focus on the central issue raised by BLM protesters (the continuing existence of systemic race-based discrimination in our society) and you focus on the radical, revolutionary demands made by the most strident "leaders" of some of the group's that call themselves "BLM" (or related names).

I'm a very rational person and stupidity rubs me the wrong way; if you're making idiotic demands, you're outing yourself as stupid and then I'll tune out. To reuse a recent example, it's like discussing biology with that Saudi grad student who was my sister's colleague; as soon as it surfaces that he's genuinely convinced that Allah created the Earth exactly as it currently is (complete with current flora and fauna) a few thousand years ago, biology conversation over.

If someone raises an issue that makes sense, and they have an approach that doesn't scream "we're idiots and you should dismiss us", no reason I won't be on board

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That happens all the time though. Squeaky wheel syndrome.

In Canada at least, it is rarely if ever racial.

That simply isn't true. It may not be intentionally racial (few people would deliberately say "let's not pave Indigenous Street because screw the people that live there" but sure enough, theres always that budget crunch, and Indigenous Street always seems to have so many more potholes.

For example, see the recent Federal Court and Canadian Human Rights Tribunals decision regarding child welfare funding on reserves.

EDIT: From that decision:

[329] While there is no obligation to bring forward comparative evidence to substantiate a discrimination complaint, there was some comparative evidence brought forward in this case demonstrating a difference between child and family services funding and service levels provided on and off reserve.
...
[458] AANDC’s design, management and control of the FNCFS Program, along with its corresponding funding formulas and the other related provincial/territorial agreements have resulted in denials of services and created various adverse impacts for many First Nations children and families living on reserves. Non-exhaustively, the main adverse impacts found by the Panel are:

The design and application of the Directive 20-1 funding formula, which provides funding based on flawed assumptions about children in care and population thresholds that do not accurately reflect the service needs of many on-reserve communities. This results in inadequate fixed funding for operation (capital costs, multiple offices, cost of living adjustment, staff salaries and benefits, training, legal, remoteness and travel) and prevention costs (primary, secondary and tertiary services to maintain children safely in their family homes), hindering the ability of FNCFS Agencies to provide provincially/territorially mandated child welfare services, let alone culturally appropriate services to First Nations children and families and, providing an incentive to bring children into care because eligible maintenance expenditures are reimbursable at cost.
The current structure and implementation of the EPFA funding formula, which perpetuates the incentives to remove children from their homes and incorporates the flawed assumptions of Directive 20-1 in determining funding for operations and prevention, and perpetuating the adverse impacts of Directive 20-1 in many on-reserve communities.
The failure to adjust Directive 20-1 funding levels, since 1995; along with funding levels under the EPFA, since its implementation, to account for inflation/cost of living;
The application of the 1965 Agreement in Ontario that has not been updated to ensure on-reserve communities can comply fully with Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act.
The failure to coordinate the FNCFS Program and other related provincial/territorial agreements with other federal departments and government programs and services for First Nations on reserve, resulting in service gaps, delays and denials for First Nations children and families.
The narrow definition and inadequate implementation of Jordan’s Principle, resulting in service gaps, delays and denials for First Nations children.
[459] The FNCFS Program, corresponding funding formulas and other related provincial/territorial agreements only apply to First Nations people living on-reserve and in the Yukon. It is only because of their race and/or national or ethnic origin that they suffer the adverse impacts outlined above in the provision of child and family services. Furthermore, these adverse impacts perpetuate the historical disadvantage and trauma suffered by Aboriginal people, in particular as a result of the Residential Schools system.

[460] AANDC’s evidence and arguments challenging the Complainants’ allegations of discrimination have been addressed throughout this decision. Overall, the Panel finds AANDC’s position unreasonable, unconvincing and not supported by the preponderance of evidence in this case.

SOURCE: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/20...hcmUiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2#_Toc441501140

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I have not experienced that here in Vancouver. What specifically have you observed?

It's been described in some detail starting on page 42 of this thread, if you're interested.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

That simply isn't true. It may not be intentionally racial (few people would deliberately say "let's not pave Indigenous Street because screw the people that live there" but sure enough, theres always that budget crunch, and Indigenous Street always seems to have so many more potholes.

But Indigenous Street is very remote and has low traffic and density... there are practical reasons it's not paved, it's not a question of demographics of the area.

There are streets within City of Sherbrooke municipal limits that are dirt roads in 2020. They look like rural roads, though - which functionally, they are.

edit - and to further the analogy, if you live on remote Indigenous Street you can actually relocate downtown where everything's pavement and concrete and there's running water.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

That simply isn't true. It may not be intentionally racial (few people would deliberately say "let's not pave Indigenous Street because screw the people that live there" but sure enough, theres always that budget crunch, and Indigenous Street always seems to have so many more potholes.

For example, see the recent Federal Court and Canadian Human Rights Tribunals decision regarding child welfare funding on reserves.

It may not be well allocated or even sufficient to bring things up to an acceptable level, but I would bet all I own that indigenous communities receive more public money per capita on average than any others.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It may not be well allocated or even sufficient to bring things up to an acceptable level, but I would bet all I own that indigenous communities receive more public money per capita on average than any others.

Not when it comes to child welfare funding apparently... unless the federal government chose, for some reason, not to adduce some key, readily available evidence to rebut the high profile allegations against it. That seems... implausible.