Nzingha Millar says recent statistics released by Halifax Regional Police makes her question the progress made when it comes to racial profiling the community.
“This is anti-black racism specifically–not just non-white people being checked.”
Millar is currently a student in the one-year journalism program at King’s. She’s one of four panelists scheduled to participate in a Black Lives Matter panel on Monday, organized by Dalhousie University’s Black Student Advising Centre.
Last week, a CBC investigation brought the numbers of street checks performed by Halifax police to light: black people are three times more likely than white people to be stopped by police. The RCMP has similarly staggering statistics.
“How much progress have we really made?” asks Millar. “We don’t have a definitive answer about why there is such a huge variance in the numbers of white people that are stopped versus black.”
Amit Parasram, HRP’s diversity officer, is concerned people are drawing conclusions from unanalysed data.
“I think jumping to a statement like racial profiling causes a lot of issues,” he says. “If we went and interpreted (the statistics) in a way that we don’t have substantial proof, then that could cause more impact within that community.”
Millar agrees that a more in-depth inquiry is needed, but she says the police’s skepticism about the role of racial profiling is a major issue. She refers to the 2003 case of Kirk Johnson–a boxer who was stopped while driving in Dartmouth and had his car seized. A human rights inquiry led to a public apology from HRP and $10,000 in damages.
“The anecdotal experiences that have been expressed by black Nova Scotians for so long are still not valid. They’ve been invalidated for so long.”
Lindell Smith, the regional councillor for north-end Halifax, shared some of his own experiences after a council meeting last week.
“As a community member, I’ve known it’s been happening for a long time,” he says.
“It’s sad that now it’s taken another body to look at that evidence and kind of call the city out and our police force out, and now it’s on the radar.”
Given the long history of black people in Nova Scotia, the oppression they faced and how they fought for their rights–Millar says it only makes sense for black Nova Scotians to get involved with the “new age of activism.” Black Lives Matter is one way to try and shift police culture, says Miller.
“If we allow spaces to welcome change…and to question the way things have been done for so long, I think that we can make progress,” she says.
Related Stories
Halifax police will keep using street checks
Street checks by Halifax police are unacceptable says privacy lawyer
Police need to earn the trust of black communities
Editing the way journalists write about social justice
Street checks and balances
Lack of outrage over missing evidence surprises American policing expert
Ted Upshaw’s dedication
Impassioned debate on police street checks at north end meeting
Police commission to look for new legal rules on street checks
Toronto criminology professor hired to study Halifax police street checks
This article appears in Jan 12-18, 2017.
“The anecdotal experiences that have been expressed by black Nova Scotians for so long are still not valid.”
Are we supposed to go by what she said, or what she meant…?
Years ago a black man on Gottingen says to press: “A black man can’t get a job in Halifax.” Problem is, a white man can’t get a job either. When misfortune falls on a disadvantaged identifiable group, said groups are pre-disposed to blame an ism. Play the race card, etc. Racism exists, thats for sure. But it is junk science to blame racism for disproportionate street checks. Police carry out more patrols in low income, hi crime areas. It may be more appropriate to say low income people are over-represented in street checks.
Wait for the other side of the story. Save the race card for when its needed…
The more exaggeration and speculation, the more disbelief and apathy. The perpetual finger-pointing by The Coast exacerbates this. As a result, The Coast is creating more problems for the black community here than it causes itself. Salacious commentary and speculative accounting of events is poor journalism; leave that to the National Enquirer.
I think we can learn from the Supreme Court on how to respond to this idea that society must have irrefutable evidence of racial bias before senior leaders can take action.
A Nova Scotia Judge recognized racism saying;
“[Racism] is a pernicious reality. The issue of racism existing in Nova Scotia has been well documented in the Marshall Inquiry Report (sub. nom. Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution). A person would have to be stupid, complacent or ignorant not to acknowledge its presence, not only individually, but also systemically and institutionally.”
Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. S.M.S. (1992), 110 N.S.R. (2d) 91(Fam. Ct.)
And this fact was affirmed and authored by LHeureux-Dube AND MCLachlin JJ. Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. S. (R.D.)[1997] 3 SCR 484
Simply put, if you want to ignore the presence of institutional racism you are either; stupid, complacent or ignorant.
I’ll leave it to you to choose which descriptor is yours.
a black police offer said in the CBC today that these “checks” are very helpful and have provided himself a lot of help in solving crimes.
i say be where the crimes are being committed an close to those that are being committed.
they certainly aren’t finding a bunch of murder victims or swarmings going on in mennonite communities in north field etc.
Rhett, no one is saying it doesn’t involve racism; it has yet to be determined. Most recent evidentiary circumstances could perpetuate those statistics. Let’s wait and see what the findings really mean…
Methinks, you’ve nailed it. No one IS saying “it doesn’t involve racism.” Doesn’t that gnaw at you a bit?
The people who should be assuring us that there is NO racism or bias in police actions, (such as Chief Blais, Dep. Chief Moore, Police Board Chairman Craig and Premier McNeil) are actually saying racism might be a component to the street checks, but we don’t know.
It’s their duty to know if racism is at play. And if these leaders can’t say with 100% confidence that they don’t have a racist police tactic in use, then their duty is to stop the tactic until they can say “it doesn’t involve racism.”
There is no room for bad faith is the application of Human and Charter Rights where the State and the People are involved.
Rhett’s first argument is:
Smart people say institutional racism is well documented.
Hfx Police is an institution.
Therefore any accusations of racism in Hfx Police the must be true.
And if you disagree, we’ll call you a bunch of names (which isn’t really an arguement at all…).
His second argument is:
If one can’t prove a negative (racism doesn’t exist in Hfx. Police) then a process change must be made. I believe negatives are really hard to prove.
He says it is important, because Charter Rights are at stake. Rhett is ok tho, with us assuming Hfx Police are racist, until we sort this thing out.
Mouse; Ya, I think you’re getting it.
But, let me clarify. Not smart people are saying institutional racism exists, authoritative people say this. Here’s the difference. You, me and Methinks are smart people, but our word don’t amount to much more than a hill of beans. When the Supreme Court says something… it binds the minds of the courts, human rights tribunals and governments. They end debate.
As for having to prove there is an issue; well on one side you have:
– The HRP data set showing a trend based on race based tactics
– the anecdotal statements from the black community as to their experiences
– a historical record of racial bias in the HRP
– findings by legal scholars regarding street checks. ie: Prof G. Luther, U of Sask.
– finding by social scholars regarding radicalized policing. ie: Prof E. Comack, U of Man.
– the findings of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
– the actions by the Ontario Legislature to curb the tactic of street checking
– the binding decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada
Vs.
– The leadership of HRP stating that racism might be at play, we don’t know.
– the assurance that street checks are doing good, but also admitting there’s no evidence to support that claim
Given that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission makes decisions on the balance of probabilities, which way do you think they would come down on this issue?
You see, Chief Blais and our leadership sit at a junction. Will the Chief accept the framework laid out by Ontario Legislature to safeguard the rights of the community. Will he lead his institution and be “ahead of the curve” regarding the tactic of street checking? Or, will he stick to his stance, and keep dragging his feet, saying he needs more info before he can make a decision?
Eventually Chief Blais will have his arse dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission and his decision will be given to him. But, not till he has been publicly dragged across the coals by the Commission for his (in the words of the Supreme Court) stupidity, complacency, or ignorance.
Quite frankly, I hope he “sticks to his guns”. I love watching officials get pilloried in the town square.
Methinks – Are your part of the black community and/or live in said community within the past 5 years or so? If not, I find it odd that, your able to speak with such experience and knowledge as to what hurts the black community more, their actions or the Coast’s inflammatory articles. Yet, you can’t past due judgement on the actual checks, until we have “all the information” regardless of the many points/data Rhett brings counter to that argument. Interesting.
Rhett: no, it doesn’t.
Uncreative: I am not part of the black community and don’t live in it, no. I am not saying the black community isn’t feeling hurt. Re-read my comments and if you still don’t understand what I wrote, then there is nothing more I can do for you.
Methinks – Actually, if I continue to not understand, you could continue to articulate your point until I do, but apparently that is too much effort? Or you have ascertained what I am able to comprehend based on a small sample size of a reply I posted on an anon message board. Gotcha. I at no point said the black community was feeling hurt, so not sure why you made that point in your reply? Maybe you should go back and re-read what I posted, and work on your comprehension skills? Your comment “As a result, The Coast is creating more problems for the black community here than it causes itself.” is that The Coast is instigating this tension, which is creating more problems then the community creates for itself, with all the crime, misplaying the race card, drug use, etc…We have to assume since you never clarify what that means.
Thus, without being part of said community, or living in said community, you are going to tell everyone, including those in that community, what is most damaging to them, which to you is what The Coast is doing. Before you get into the whole, that is my opinion defence, let us really look at the language of your post. The way you wrote it, basically stated it as fact, at no point did you say, this is how I feel/think, my opinion etc.
I used this point to highlight my own, which is, I find it funny that you can make such authoritative statements regarding a community you are not part of nor reside in (which to me would seem that you don’t have all the “data” to make/form that opinion and if you did how do we know said data was interpreted properly ie your litmus test for us waiting to make judgement on the checks/stops) but yet these checks, which for the most part have been proven wrong statistically, scientifically and lastly their lack of actual effectiveness, we must be patient, and hold out more time and jump through a series of barriers and hoops in order to be sure, one way or another, if there is any racial bias.
Uncreative: In answer to your question, no I will not. The reason being is that I would either: a) consider you a troll or, b) believe you are so unintelligible that even further explanation will only result in further confusion. Either way there’s no point.
Rhett stands by his argument that since authoritative (not smart) people say something, we should end debate. Well, Trump and Stalin are authoritative people. Should we not debate what theyve said?
Much as I would like to have the supreme court on my side, we should note even they have changed their minds over time (example: assisted suicide). It is important to continue to discuss and challenge difficult issues. Just because Rhett sees a racist behind every blade of grass, doesnt necessarily mean a junk statistic means the Hfx PD are guilty of racism. Rhetts is playing a dangerous game of guilty until proven innocent.
Most telling tho, is Rhett refusal to address the significant factors (poverty, education, crime) other than race in this cohort.
Methinks – Agree to disagree. Truth be told I am not a troll and was trying to have an active conversation, but apparently you are above interacting and articulating your point to people that “don’t get it”.
This is one of the main problems with society today. There is no constructive dialogue. You either “get it” or someone can’t be bothered to explain their point to you. Furthermore, if anyone would be a troll in this instance I would have to wager that to be you. You say I am too unintelligible to understand you, which A) considering the arguments I have put forth and the construction (writing style) of them, would not seem the case, and B) you have somewhat attacked me personally by saying I am, let me dumb it down so it doesn’t hurt my head, too stupid to understand your one sentence point/argument…would make it pretty clear that you are the one “trolling”. All told, I would have to admit my second post was probably a bit snarky, however, you did a fine job of trolling me with your first reply, so I admittedly was a little more sarcastic then necessary, but at no point did I ever imply anything negative about you personally.
So there it is, the person looking to have a genuine conversation and try to understand what you were saying, is a troll…Not the person making controversial post, getting defensive when asked about said posts, and attacking other posters personally.
Mouse, You’re using the wrong definition for authoritative.
Stalin-like: having an air of authority; accustomed to exercising authority; positive; peremptory; dictatorial.
Supreme Court like- having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority :an authoritative opinion.
I use authoritative as it binds (like a precedent) the bodies subordinate to the Supreme Court.
You seem to see that, when you mention that the Supreme Court does and can change it’s opinion. But, that change can only come from that Judicial Body. (excepting an amend to the Constitution, and I can tell you, that doesn’t happen very often)
We can debate, that’s our prerogative. Courts, tribunals, and government bodies do not enjoy that. They must reach their decisions with certain pre-concieved notions.
When HRP steps in front of the Human Rights Commission to defend their actions, the commission must already accept that institutional racism is present. The argument starts at that common ground, it does not end there.