There have surely been many news stories lost in the United States in the midst of the Trump tumult. Different aspects of the main story are in danger of getting lost; what hope is there for other news?
One story that should be noted is the shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota. Of course, there have been many stories of innocent people killed by police in recent years. But this event is different.
Strangely, what sets it apart is not what happened, but what didn't. Police didn't defend their actions or deflect blame - the chief even resigned. The media didn't demonize the victim.
I'm sure you can see where this is going. In this case, the victim is white. Observing it is infuriating: it's provided confirmation of just how differently blacks and whites are treated by American police, media and politicians. So really, it's a big story, but only in the negative; the story here is that there is no story. Even if the media had both the inclination and space to report on it, it's hard to point to the absence of events.
And even if you are paying attention to it, it's hard to know how to take it. Seeing what's going on now might be anger-inducing, but it's important to remember that it's not the treatment this case is receiving that is the problem - after all, this is how it's supposed to be. Let's not forget that this woman's death is still a tragedy.
The situation is similar to that of Trayvon Martin. Defendant George Zimmerman was found not-guilty in large part because of lack of evidence. As I mentioned at the time, really that was the right verdict; the frustrating part was not that, but the knowledge that a black defendant would never have received the same allowance.
These inverted news stories are an obstacle for anyone trying to get the message out about poor treatment of African Americans. In order to really illustrate it, you need to call attention to these nothing-to-see-here-folks incidents. It takes some effort to try to demonstrate to a skeptical audience what is happening.
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Friday, July 28, 2017
Monday, June 26, 2017
Pride Goeth Before One Final Examination Of Both Sides
So we made it through this controversial Pride Week. The absence of police in Toronto didn't seem to dampen things too much - the PM made his usual appearance anyway, which some people didn't like. Though this was another one of those cases where the people who were really angry about it wouldn't have voted for him anyway, and the people who did vote for him probably won't be offended enough to not vote for him.
But I read a couple of things that are interesting relating to the police ban. One is from this Minister who talks about removing symbols of ministry when visiting first nations communities. And she feels this is a reasonable allowance, acknowledging the churches mistakes in the past and the reasonableness of fears of them. I can understand that, and it makes me wonder if there is some sense to the police uniform ban.
On the other hand, there was this incident in Chicago where Jewish members of the LGBT community waved rainbow Star of David flags. They were then took to go home, because that was considered offensive to some.
Just to clarify, they were offended by the presence of the Star of David as a symbol of Israel. I initially assumed that Jews or Israelis were offended by repurposing the flag, as I had recently seen similar complaints about Canadian rainbow flags. And also to clarify, this wasn't the main parade, but the Dyke March, which is the day before the main event, and supposedly more inclusive.
That incident is quite illustrative of the problem I had with excluding police. You've crossed the line from criticizing the actions of a group to eliminating aspects of the group itself. I've disliked many of the actions of Israel as much as the next guy, just as I've been critical of police actions. But in both cases, it's unreasonable and unfair to blame the entire group for the actions of a few. In this case it's a bit more obvious, since it's a more sympathetic group being targetted, and a group that has more often been victim of broad anger.
So how can I square these two points in favour of and against the police ban? First of all, we have to acknowledge that it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, since there is a big difference between voluntarily giving up symbols of your group vs. being told to give them up. I don't think anyone would have thought poorly of a police officer who chose to remove the uniform for the parade to improve community acceptance. And much as I understand why a minster might want to downplay the symbols of her church in a community hurt by it, it would be wrong for that community to ban the religion or symbols of it.
So that's why I'd stick with my original opinion. As the Chicago incident shows, you can't ban the symbols of a group without it being interpretted as an attack on the group itself. And unless you're going to say that the group is inherently bad, then their right to exist has to trump another group's discomfort.
But I read a couple of things that are interesting relating to the police ban. One is from this Minister who talks about removing symbols of ministry when visiting first nations communities. And she feels this is a reasonable allowance, acknowledging the churches mistakes in the past and the reasonableness of fears of them. I can understand that, and it makes me wonder if there is some sense to the police uniform ban.
On the other hand, there was this incident in Chicago where Jewish members of the LGBT community waved rainbow Star of David flags. They were then took to go home, because that was considered offensive to some.
Just to clarify, they were offended by the presence of the Star of David as a symbol of Israel. I initially assumed that Jews or Israelis were offended by repurposing the flag, as I had recently seen similar complaints about Canadian rainbow flags. And also to clarify, this wasn't the main parade, but the Dyke March, which is the day before the main event, and supposedly more inclusive.
That incident is quite illustrative of the problem I had with excluding police. You've crossed the line from criticizing the actions of a group to eliminating aspects of the group itself. I've disliked many of the actions of Israel as much as the next guy, just as I've been critical of police actions. But in both cases, it's unreasonable and unfair to blame the entire group for the actions of a few. In this case it's a bit more obvious, since it's a more sympathetic group being targetted, and a group that has more often been victim of broad anger.
So how can I square these two points in favour of and against the police ban? First of all, we have to acknowledge that it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, since there is a big difference between voluntarily giving up symbols of your group vs. being told to give them up. I don't think anyone would have thought poorly of a police officer who chose to remove the uniform for the parade to improve community acceptance. And much as I understand why a minster might want to downplay the symbols of her church in a community hurt by it, it would be wrong for that community to ban the religion or symbols of it.
So that's why I'd stick with my original opinion. As the Chicago incident shows, you can't ban the symbols of a group without it being interpretted as an attack on the group itself. And unless you're going to say that the group is inherently bad, then their right to exist has to trump another group's discomfort.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Sense And Sensitivity
It's Pride time again. Or, as it currently is in Canada, "How Much Do You Hate Police?" Week. Thanks to the Toronto Pride Parade's decision to grant Black Lives Matter's request to ban official police participation, that has become the big story this year.
There have been different reactions. Black gay-rights activist Orville Lloyd Douglas condemned the move. Interestingly he also called out Black Lives Matter for demanding that Pride be more accommodating of blacks, while not doing anything to stamp out homophobia within their own movement.
Meanwhile Now magazine has an article about how the policy was accepted at Pride Toronto with surprisingly little resistance and a fair amount of enthusiasm. Apparently, the outside assumption that BLM turned the screws and Pride caved is not very accurate. It's an interesting look at how people within the movements see the world and are motivated to act. If, like me, you find that understanding your political opponents makes them less frustrating, it may help even if it may not convince you.
Similar police bans - oh, I'm sorry, police in uniform bans; police are totally welcome as long as no one knows they're cops - have been enacted at Pride events throughout Canada. I'm not sure they really know what they're getting into. Sure, I realize that sometimes you have to play hardball. But you also need to choose your battles, particularly when you're thinking about a tactic that is going to give your opponent a sense of isolation and siege mentality.
Whenever I hear Pride activists talk about the bans, they use language that's not nearly as aggressive as the action itself. For instance, I saw a report from Brantford Pride in which a committee member explains it as eliminating something - the uniform - that some people find "scary." I have no doubt that many do find police officers scary, perhaps with good reason. But we are talking about picking a fight with a major societal institution full of largely innocent people just to eliminate some people's fears. My first reaction was that it sounds like something out of conservative paranoia, in which the desire for a safe space overrules the fair treatment of others. In this case, I have to agree that it doesn't seem like a fair compromise between people's rights. And, on a pragmatic level, it will ultimately do progressive movements more harm than good.
There have been different reactions. Black gay-rights activist Orville Lloyd Douglas condemned the move. Interestingly he also called out Black Lives Matter for demanding that Pride be more accommodating of blacks, while not doing anything to stamp out homophobia within their own movement.
Meanwhile Now magazine has an article about how the policy was accepted at Pride Toronto with surprisingly little resistance and a fair amount of enthusiasm. Apparently, the outside assumption that BLM turned the screws and Pride caved is not very accurate. It's an interesting look at how people within the movements see the world and are motivated to act. If, like me, you find that understanding your political opponents makes them less frustrating, it may help even if it may not convince you.
Similar police bans - oh, I'm sorry, police in uniform bans; police are totally welcome as long as no one knows they're cops - have been enacted at Pride events throughout Canada. I'm not sure they really know what they're getting into. Sure, I realize that sometimes you have to play hardball. But you also need to choose your battles, particularly when you're thinking about a tactic that is going to give your opponent a sense of isolation and siege mentality.
Whenever I hear Pride activists talk about the bans, they use language that's not nearly as aggressive as the action itself. For instance, I saw a report from Brantford Pride in which a committee member explains it as eliminating something - the uniform - that some people find "scary." I have no doubt that many do find police officers scary, perhaps with good reason. But we are talking about picking a fight with a major societal institution full of largely innocent people just to eliminate some people's fears. My first reaction was that it sounds like something out of conservative paranoia, in which the desire for a safe space overrules the fair treatment of others. In this case, I have to agree that it doesn't seem like a fair compromise between people's rights. And, on a pragmatic level, it will ultimately do progressive movements more harm than good.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Pride And Prejudice
Toronto's annual Pride parade was this weekend, and it made news for a few reasons. One was that it was the first one attended by a sitting Prime Minister. Which brings up:
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33.5
It's just assumed that police forces have floats in Pride parades.Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Assessing Threats
Last week, Wilfrid Laurier University here in KW was locked down after someone online posted a threat of a shooting in the science building. Of course, locals were shocked: who knew Laurier has a science building?
Okay, that's just my UW heritage talking, sorry Laurier folks. Anyway, the person who made that posting was in London (England.) He got arrested, and just spent nearly three days in jail before posting bail. He was interviewed upon release, and it came out that:
But now we have a couple of problems: in the Internet age, you can yell “fire” from the other side of the planet, and there's a lot of people who think freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Actually, three problems: there’s also our increasingly fuzzy definition of irony. Afterall, our perpetrator said he didn’t think his threat would be taken seriously, since it was on 4chan, a site known for pranks. I can see how a person might assume that, since many things of questionable taste happen there without affecting the real world. But the flipside is that if a person were to plan a shooting rampage, an untraceable discussion board is exactly where they would talk about it.
We’re left with a big overlap between what people think is acceptable online, and what raises red flags for law enforcement. So we’re going to have to create some new understandings about what is legal, and someone is going to be very disappointed.
Okay, that's just my UW heritage talking, sorry Laurier folks. Anyway, the person who made that posting was in London (England.) He got arrested, and just spent nearly three days in jail before posting bail. He was interviewed upon release, and it came out that:
- He didn't think this would happen, or that it would be taken seriously
- He doesn't know anything about Laurier, and was only copying it's name from another post.
- He assumed that freedom of speech covered this sort of thing
But now we have a couple of problems: in the Internet age, you can yell “fire” from the other side of the planet, and there's a lot of people who think freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Actually, three problems: there’s also our increasingly fuzzy definition of irony. Afterall, our perpetrator said he didn’t think his threat would be taken seriously, since it was on 4chan, a site known for pranks. I can see how a person might assume that, since many things of questionable taste happen there without affecting the real world. But the flipside is that if a person were to plan a shooting rampage, an untraceable discussion board is exactly where they would talk about it.
We’re left with a big overlap between what people think is acceptable online, and what raises red flags for law enforcement. So we’re going to have to create some new understandings about what is legal, and someone is going to be very disappointed.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
No, Seriously Car 54, I Can't Find You
The Ford Crown Victoria was a large sedan of the type they don't really make anymore. It's fairly famous in these parts because it was built in St. Thomas. It probably would have been cancelled in the eighties, except for the fact that it was frequently used for police cars.
Police, at least in North America, tend to like their cars big. I never really understood why. Of course, comfort and room is important if you spend a big part of your day in a car, but in small cars the space is mostly taken out of the back seat, and anyone sitting there is not going to be comfortable anyway.
So for years, if you saw a Crown Victoria on the road, you knew it had to be one of two things: a police car, or an unmarked police car. Okay, there was a third possibility: it could be a senior citizen refusing to give in and get a smaller car; either way, you knew you were slowing down.
But now that's all changing. The Crown Victoria has been retired, and each of the Big Three car makers are selling police cars based on normal-sized cars that the average person might actually drive.
I hadn't realized how much I had come to depend on being able to spot police cars a mile away. A few days ago, I slowed down when I saw a Dodge Charger (now a common police car) parked at the side of the road. But it turned out to be a used car for sale, and happened to be white. No, I didn't buy the car - who would want a car that makes everyone around you slow down?
Police, at least in North America, tend to like their cars big. I never really understood why. Of course, comfort and room is important if you spend a big part of your day in a car, but in small cars the space is mostly taken out of the back seat, and anyone sitting there is not going to be comfortable anyway.
So for years, if you saw a Crown Victoria on the road, you knew it had to be one of two things: a police car, or an unmarked police car. Okay, there was a third possibility: it could be a senior citizen refusing to give in and get a smaller car; either way, you knew you were slowing down.
But now that's all changing. The Crown Victoria has been retired, and each of the Big Three car makers are selling police cars based on normal-sized cars that the average person might actually drive.
I hadn't realized how much I had come to depend on being able to spot police cars a mile away. A few days ago, I slowed down when I saw a Dodge Charger (now a common police car) parked at the side of the road. But it turned out to be a used car for sale, and happened to be white. No, I didn't buy the car - who would want a car that makes everyone around you slow down?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
A Horse On The Force Is A Horse, Of Course
The local police force has a couple of horses, and today they showed up on a street I was walking down. I didn't see the horses themselves, but - how to put this delicately - I saw evidence that a horse had recently been there. Or a large and unwell dog; I hope it was a horse.
This isn't even the first time I've seen the unpleasant remnants of the police horses' presence. And it has me asking, isn't there a law against allowing a large mammal to take a dump on a public street? I mean, we have stoop-and-scoop laws.
See, it was a little controversial when they first got the horses a few years ago. Yes, there are some areas where horses are very useful, such as crowd control. But we don't have a lot of use for them here, and there are of course some start-up costs associated with getting your first police horses, like getting a stable. Thus, many suspected it was just because someone at the police department wanted a horse.
So I have to ask, how many crimes do you suppose the horses have prevented, and does it exceed the number of "crimes" the horses have deposited on the streets?
This isn't even the first time I've seen the unpleasant remnants of the police horses' presence. And it has me asking, isn't there a law against allowing a large mammal to take a dump on a public street? I mean, we have stoop-and-scoop laws.
See, it was a little controversial when they first got the horses a few years ago. Yes, there are some areas where horses are very useful, such as crowd control. But we don't have a lot of use for them here, and there are of course some start-up costs associated with getting your first police horses, like getting a stable. Thus, many suspected it was just because someone at the police department wanted a horse.
So I have to ask, how many crimes do you suppose the horses have prevented, and does it exceed the number of "crimes" the horses have deposited on the streets?
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Unseen At Any Speed
A weird thing happened on the highway today. I had just pulled onto the highway, when I noticed there was a police car at the side of the road ahead. Of course, it's good road manners to leave the lane by the shoulder if you see anyone parked there, for safety's sake (and it's now the law here in Ontario.)
The trouble was, as I had entered the highway, there was a truck beside me, so I couldn't move over. Thus, I'd have to either pass the truck and pull in in front of it, or let it pass me, and pull in behind. I was closer to the front of the truck, so I accelerated.
Only after committing to this action did it occur to me: I've seen a police car ahead - obviously looking for speeders - and now I'm accelerating as I approach it. Fortunately I made it past without the officer intervening.
How? It could be that I just wasn't going that fast to begin with, or that the police are more concerned with crazy-fast dangerous drivers than someone edging over the unofficial speed limit. But I suspect that it's because my older, unassuming car doesn't attract attention. As I tweeted a few weeks ago, I passed a Lamborghini on that same stretch of road; I assume that only happened because that driver knows his car is asking for a ticket and was driving accordingly. For just a moment, I bet he was jealous of my automotive freedom. A few more years and my car will be old enough to attract attention to itself, and the effect will be lost, but for now, I'm going to try to enjoy the automotive anonymity.
The trouble was, as I had entered the highway, there was a truck beside me, so I couldn't move over. Thus, I'd have to either pass the truck and pull in in front of it, or let it pass me, and pull in behind. I was closer to the front of the truck, so I accelerated.
Only after committing to this action did it occur to me: I've seen a police car ahead - obviously looking for speeders - and now I'm accelerating as I approach it. Fortunately I made it past without the officer intervening.
How? It could be that I just wasn't going that fast to begin with, or that the police are more concerned with crazy-fast dangerous drivers than someone edging over the unofficial speed limit. But I suspect that it's because my older, unassuming car doesn't attract attention. As I tweeted a few weeks ago, I passed a Lamborghini on that same stretch of road; I assume that only happened because that driver knows his car is asking for a ticket and was driving accordingly. For just a moment, I bet he was jealous of my automotive freedom. A few more years and my car will be old enough to attract attention to itself, and the effect will be lost, but for now, I'm going to try to enjoy the automotive anonymity.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Chalk Outline
Today, walking through the square in front of city hall, I found something written in chalk on the ground. In rather neat printing, it said, "International Day Against Police Brutality." I didn't hear about it, but apparently that was possibly today, or some day since the last time it rained.
You could argue that was defacement of public property - though it's not permanent, it could be there a while (okay, I looked it up and it was nearly a week ago.) But I thought it lacked creativity. I would have written, "International Day Against Police Brutalit" followed by a big smear of shattered chalk.
You could argue that was defacement of public property - though it's not permanent, it could be there a while (okay, I looked it up and it was nearly a week ago.) But I thought it lacked creativity. I would have written, "International Day Against Police Brutalit" followed by a big smear of shattered chalk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)