MaxedOutMama
Saturday, July 16, 2005
A Short Note About Bigotry
ARGHHH!
I decided to swear off Common Dreams, DU, Kos and the like for at least the weekend in order to recover from the shocking realization that an astonishingly large number of people in this country are prepared to believe anything rather than conced the reality that a sect of terrorists seeking domination who justify themselves through the use of a few Koranic texts does exits. (Such as the proposition that the CIA is behind Al-Qaeda in order to create the pretext for Bush and Blair, who are the fonts of all evil, much worse than Hitler, to impose draconian curbs of civil rights.)
So I hopped over to SC&A, who has been skewering idiotic politics on the left and the right (a big field, and it does make for enjoyable reading), and ran into his review of Small Dead Animals. I like the blog and I read it pretty frequently. In the comments the author was accused of being a bigot, especially towards aboriginals (Native Americans, if you are in the US). So a few short notes about reality:
A) Chief No-Nag is pretty much 100% Indian.
B) His skin is dark enough that there is a diner in a local area that does not want to serve us if we come in together. Either his skin is too dark or mine is too light, I am not sure which. They will serve us separately, but if we come in together somehow food never arrives at our table. That, sweethearts, is bigotry.
C) I work in a small office full of devout fundamentalists, a Jew, a Mormon, me (the renegade conflicted Mennonite fleeing the ECUSA by attending the Catholic church) and a gay Catholic.
D) Racially speaking we have a few lily whites, a Jew, several Cherokee breeds, a black, and a compilation of "Mexicans" (in the south that means any hispanic).
E) All the religious factions agree that it is doing bad or irresponsible things (blowing up people would be included in that list) which gets you in trouble with God and society.
F ) We would all agree that this post from Small Dead Animals discusses bigotry (in Canada):
It is not bigotry, but the truth, to concede the reality that many native Americans carry genes which predispose us to obesity, diabetes and alcoholism. It is also true that some groups of native Americans have a high incidence of alcoholism and diabetes. It is also true that some European populations (Finland and Russians, for example) have a high incidence of alcoholism.
However predisposition is not fate. All human beings also carry genes which predispose us to eat everything in sight and then sit on our fat asses while making contemptuous comments about our neighbors who got to the table later. Your average male carries genes which predispose him to pursue and impregnate all the nubile women in sight. Then there is the natural predisposition to grab your neighbor's property if you think you can get away with it. We have these genes because they have conferred survival advantages in the past. A thing called "culture" is what causes us human beings not to be controlled by our genes alone but also by our consciousness of a greater good. Various ethical systems have arisen, including religions, all of which point out that there is a greater good and that sometimes following your personal instincts is a very, very bad thing.
All human populations also have the genetic capacity to imagine and create an order in society which is aimed at the common welfare and to institute requirements that individuals follow that order. It is bigotry to assume that some population of humans doesn't have this capacity. This assumption presumes a genetic inferiority so severe as to classify certain peoples as lacking basic elements of the capacities which make us human.
It is bigotry to attempt to disallow criticism of various cultures or cultural practices. All cultures, ethical systems and religions are not equal. We have a long history of learning how correctly to judge cultures, ethical systems, and religions, and it is by their outward effects. A culture, ethical system or religion which teaches that I should enslave or exploit my fellow humans is not equal to one which teaches that I should not enslave or exploit my fellow humans. How to create a set of rules that work the best for any human society has always been and always will be the great human debate. In part that's because the conditions are always changing, and therefore we have to change the rules in order to adapt to current conditions. In part it's because humanity is learning to do better. Slavery (buying and selling human beings) was once a universal human practice; now it is a rarity.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that being a fundamentalist of any faith means that you will wind up stoning, bombing or otherwise attacking your fellow human beings.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that human beings of different ethnic or religious backgrounds or sexual orientations do not have the same human needs and desires as you do. This includes freedom from abuse, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, access to economic opportunity and the opportunity to participate in a representative political system.
It is not bigotry to point out that certain naturally attractive behaviors have bad practical effects. This includes things like eating too much, drinking too much alcohol, cheating and lying, knocking up women and abandoning your offspring, sleeping around on your husband and bearing other men's children, beating up people because they irk you, and spreading disease through irresponsible sexuality. It is not bigotry to point out that every human being has natural tendencies to do this sort of thing. It is not bigotry to teach that one shouldn't do this sort of thing.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to claim that certain human populations don't have the wherewithall to survive in or do well in a system that offers opportunity and self-determination. Darker skin, for example, does not imply stupidity or immorality. It is bigotry to assume that some group of humans is so naturally inferior that laws mandating good and responsible public behavior should not be applied to that group. (Public behavior is behavior that affects other people, like driving drunk or urinating on the street.)
I decided to swear off Common Dreams, DU, Kos and the like for at least the weekend in order to recover from the shocking realization that an astonishingly large number of people in this country are prepared to believe anything rather than conced the reality that a sect of terrorists seeking domination who justify themselves through the use of a few Koranic texts does exits. (Such as the proposition that the CIA is behind Al-Qaeda in order to create the pretext for Bush and Blair, who are the fonts of all evil, much worse than Hitler, to impose draconian curbs of civil rights.)
So I hopped over to SC&A, who has been skewering idiotic politics on the left and the right (a big field, and it does make for enjoyable reading), and ran into his review of Small Dead Animals. I like the blog and I read it pretty frequently. In the comments the author was accused of being a bigot, especially towards aboriginals (Native Americans, if you are in the US). So a few short notes about reality:
A) Chief No-Nag is pretty much 100% Indian.
B) His skin is dark enough that there is a diner in a local area that does not want to serve us if we come in together. Either his skin is too dark or mine is too light, I am not sure which. They will serve us separately, but if we come in together somehow food never arrives at our table. That, sweethearts, is bigotry.
C) I work in a small office full of devout fundamentalists, a Jew, a Mormon, me (the renegade conflicted Mennonite fleeing the ECUSA by attending the Catholic church) and a gay Catholic.
D) Racially speaking we have a few lily whites, a Jew, several Cherokee breeds, a black, and a compilation of "Mexicans" (in the south that means any hispanic).
E) All the religious factions agree that it is doing bad or irresponsible things (blowing up people would be included in that list) which gets you in trouble with God and society.
F ) We would all agree that this post from Small Dead Animals discusses bigotry (in Canada):
It was mall policy to deny access to people who had dirty clothing, open sores and wounds, red eyes, and who were acting intoxicated. Lyster ruled that the policy created practices that had an unfair and discriminatory effect on aboriginal people.Public drunkenness is bad behavior. It is bigotry, pure and simple, to claim that having a certain set of genes means that you are doomed to reel through Canadian or US malls or streets drunk, dirty, unkempt and uncaring. It is not bigotry to point out someone being bigoted, or worse, the law taking a frankly bigoted position.
It is not bigotry, but the truth, to concede the reality that many native Americans carry genes which predispose us to obesity, diabetes and alcoholism. It is also true that some groups of native Americans have a high incidence of alcoholism and diabetes. It is also true that some European populations (Finland and Russians, for example) have a high incidence of alcoholism.
However predisposition is not fate. All human beings also carry genes which predispose us to eat everything in sight and then sit on our fat asses while making contemptuous comments about our neighbors who got to the table later. Your average male carries genes which predispose him to pursue and impregnate all the nubile women in sight. Then there is the natural predisposition to grab your neighbor's property if you think you can get away with it. We have these genes because they have conferred survival advantages in the past. A thing called "culture" is what causes us human beings not to be controlled by our genes alone but also by our consciousness of a greater good. Various ethical systems have arisen, including religions, all of which point out that there is a greater good and that sometimes following your personal instincts is a very, very bad thing.
All human populations also have the genetic capacity to imagine and create an order in society which is aimed at the common welfare and to institute requirements that individuals follow that order. It is bigotry to assume that some population of humans doesn't have this capacity. This assumption presumes a genetic inferiority so severe as to classify certain peoples as lacking basic elements of the capacities which make us human.
It is bigotry to attempt to disallow criticism of various cultures or cultural practices. All cultures, ethical systems and religions are not equal. We have a long history of learning how correctly to judge cultures, ethical systems, and religions, and it is by their outward effects. A culture, ethical system or religion which teaches that I should enslave or exploit my fellow humans is not equal to one which teaches that I should not enslave or exploit my fellow humans. How to create a set of rules that work the best for any human society has always been and always will be the great human debate. In part that's because the conditions are always changing, and therefore we have to change the rules in order to adapt to current conditions. In part it's because humanity is learning to do better. Slavery (buying and selling human beings) was once a universal human practice; now it is a rarity.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that being a fundamentalist of any faith means that you will wind up stoning, bombing or otherwise attacking your fellow human beings.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that human beings of different ethnic or religious backgrounds or sexual orientations do not have the same human needs and desires as you do. This includes freedom from abuse, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, access to economic opportunity and the opportunity to participate in a representative political system.
It is not bigotry to point out that certain naturally attractive behaviors have bad practical effects. This includes things like eating too much, drinking too much alcohol, cheating and lying, knocking up women and abandoning your offspring, sleeping around on your husband and bearing other men's children, beating up people because they irk you, and spreading disease through irresponsible sexuality. It is not bigotry to point out that every human being has natural tendencies to do this sort of thing. It is not bigotry to teach that one shouldn't do this sort of thing.
It is bigotry, pure and simple, to claim that certain human populations don't have the wherewithall to survive in or do well in a system that offers opportunity and self-determination. Darker skin, for example, does not imply stupidity or immorality. It is bigotry to assume that some group of humans is so naturally inferior that laws mandating good and responsible public behavior should not be applied to that group. (Public behavior is behavior that affects other people, like driving drunk or urinating on the street.)
Comments:
<< Home
Except Maxed Out Mama, the woman in the story was not drunk, nor was she walking around with open sores... nor was she a criminal, nor was she causing a disturbance.
Did you bother to READ the actual complaint and the ruling before making your long winded post about bigotry?
The aboriginal woman in question did not violate any of the "rules" of the mall. That's part of why there was a big problem for them...
They also violated the law by refusing to allow this woman and others like her (who also did not break any of the rules) access to the Skytrain thru the mall, which was a condition of their lease of the land...
Did you bother to READ the actual complaint and the ruling before making your long winded post about bigotry?
The aboriginal woman in question did not violate any of the "rules" of the mall. That's part of why there was a big problem for them...
They also violated the law by refusing to allow this woman and others like her (who also did not break any of the rules) access to the Skytrain thru the mall, which was a condition of their lease of the land...
# posted by 
: 2:15 PM
: 2:15 PM
I read it and saved it down for another look. It's 216 pages, and I thought several parts of it were fascinating. I am not familiar with the specifics of Canadian law, so it's a little harder for me to understand some aspects of this. For instance, I don't know the specifics of Canadian right of way law.
However, to determine this may sound reasonable:
I order both respondents to cease and refrain from discriminating against people on the basis of their race, colour, ancestry and disability.
and this:
In my view, an ejection policy which closely followed the language of the statutory right of way, while giving explicit recognition to human rights norms, combined with effective training for security guards and responsible management in how to apply such a policy in a non-discriminatory way, would likely satisfy the accommodation requirement.
Until you read aspects of the determinations in the decision such as this:
I have already analysed the 2002 site post orders, and found that while improvements were made, serious problems remained: see above at paras. 591-603. In particular, the 2002 site post orders continue to authorize status-based discrimination in relation to people identified as “suspicious”, as transients, and as drug-users. Further, the 2002 site post orders continued to authorize the use of procedures which I have found had a negative impact on Aboriginal people, in particular the “meet and greet” policy and following and questioning those deemed suspicious. Finally, the 2002 site post orders continued to fail to contain any reference to human rights norms, and the necessity of not discriminating on grounds prohibited by the Code.
Mind you, earlier the idea of discriminating against people who appeared drunk was dismissed as discriminating against people with disabilities. Basically all that's allowed to the security people is that they can eject people who are actively committing a crime like shoplifting or drugdealing. Because the revised orders that were struck down do not appear to be denying right-of-way access, but removing people who are acting in certain ways:
The new site post order removes any reference to denying people access at the main doors, although it continues to say that suspicious people and transients are to be kept off the site. “Transient” has been substituted for “vagrant”. From their evidence, it appears that the guards took the two words to be equivalent in meaning, with “transient” merely being more “politically correct”. Certainly this was Mr. Power’s evidence, who had a leading role in drafting the new policy. The purpose of the policy is stated as being: “to provide a safe environment for our customers and merchants”. This is an improvement, as it explicitly ties the policy to a legitimate business purpose.
[593] The number of “things to look for” is reduced to four: “attitudes when approached with greeting”, acting intoxicated or stoned, bothering customers, and begging for money or cigarettes inside or around the shopping centre. A number of the more facially objectionable criteria have been eliminated, but problems remain.
As for Ms. Radek, the evidence given is not that she was denied admittance, but that she felt like she was treated with suspicion. If, for instance, security guards can't monitor people whom may appear to be drunk or acting suspicious, how are they to do their jobs at all?
Reading the entire decision shows clearly that the judge appeared to be depriving the mall of any ability to effectively eject anyone other than a person actively committing a crime, and that crime would not include public drunkenness or stinking like an old goat.
Furthermore, the 2002 policy did not deny anyone access other than for behavioral reasons. I suspect that there may have been discrimination at times, but that does not justify the ruling to me.
However, to determine this may sound reasonable:
I order both respondents to cease and refrain from discriminating against people on the basis of their race, colour, ancestry and disability.
and this:
In my view, an ejection policy which closely followed the language of the statutory right of way, while giving explicit recognition to human rights norms, combined with effective training for security guards and responsible management in how to apply such a policy in a non-discriminatory way, would likely satisfy the accommodation requirement.
Until you read aspects of the determinations in the decision such as this:
I have already analysed the 2002 site post orders, and found that while improvements were made, serious problems remained: see above at paras. 591-603. In particular, the 2002 site post orders continue to authorize status-based discrimination in relation to people identified as “suspicious”, as transients, and as drug-users. Further, the 2002 site post orders continued to authorize the use of procedures which I have found had a negative impact on Aboriginal people, in particular the “meet and greet” policy and following and questioning those deemed suspicious. Finally, the 2002 site post orders continued to fail to contain any reference to human rights norms, and the necessity of not discriminating on grounds prohibited by the Code.
Mind you, earlier the idea of discriminating against people who appeared drunk was dismissed as discriminating against people with disabilities. Basically all that's allowed to the security people is that they can eject people who are actively committing a crime like shoplifting or drugdealing. Because the revised orders that were struck down do not appear to be denying right-of-way access, but removing people who are acting in certain ways:
The new site post order removes any reference to denying people access at the main doors, although it continues to say that suspicious people and transients are to be kept off the site. “Transient” has been substituted for “vagrant”. From their evidence, it appears that the guards took the two words to be equivalent in meaning, with “transient” merely being more “politically correct”. Certainly this was Mr. Power’s evidence, who had a leading role in drafting the new policy. The purpose of the policy is stated as being: “to provide a safe environment for our customers and merchants”. This is an improvement, as it explicitly ties the policy to a legitimate business purpose.
[593] The number of “things to look for” is reduced to four: “attitudes when approached with greeting”, acting intoxicated or stoned, bothering customers, and begging for money or cigarettes inside or around the shopping centre. A number of the more facially objectionable criteria have been eliminated, but problems remain.
As for Ms. Radek, the evidence given is not that she was denied admittance, but that she felt like she was treated with suspicion. If, for instance, security guards can't monitor people whom may appear to be drunk or acting suspicious, how are they to do their jobs at all?
Reading the entire decision shows clearly that the judge appeared to be depriving the mall of any ability to effectively eject anyone other than a person actively committing a crime, and that crime would not include public drunkenness or stinking like an old goat.
Furthermore, the 2002 policy did not deny anyone access other than for behavioral reasons. I suspect that there may have been discrimination at times, but that does not justify the ruling to me.
"As for Ms. Radek, the evidence given is not that she was denied admittance, but that she felt like she was treated with suspicion"
Obviously you didn't read the whole ruling. Because she was... on more than one occasion denied access to the mall, escorted, asked to leave.
Why don't you go read the whole thing... research first, pontificate later.
Obviously you didn't read the whole ruling. Because she was... on more than one occasion denied access to the mall, escorted, asked to leave.
Why don't you go read the whole thing... research first, pontificate later.
# posted by : 4:01 PM
: 4:01 PM
You are beginning to irk me - I did see in the ruling that guards asked her not to come in (according to her), but she did. Given the public right of way, I don't think they had the right to block her and they knew that.
Obviously I am not there seeing what they saw or Ms. Radek experienced. They did change the policy in 2002 to include monitoring rather than barring access (not that I can find where they ever actually stopped her from coming in, and according to her testimony she didn't later), and that is the policy that was knocked down. I can't concede that the guards have no right to follow people who look like they might be drug users or shoplifters or cause trouble, although I agree that the policy could be applied in a discriminatory way. According to the opinion, there was a problem with drug use on the premises. I don't know if you have ever had to use a bathroom full of junkies, but it is not a pleasant or a safe experience.
As for the incident on May 10th with Ms. Radek (other times, according to my reading, guards may have followed her or asked her not to come in but she did, thus no denial of access), the guard followed her and Ms. Wolfe, she confronted the guard, yelled at the guard (she said herself she had raised her voice and was "hollering"). The supervisor, Mr. Clulow was called. Matters escalated, and the manager, Mr. Power, was called.
From Power's report as quoted in the opinion:
"S/M Power informed the female that she would have to leave as she was now causing a disturbance. The female refused stating that she was on native land and therefore did not have to leave."
Ms. Radek called the police on her cell phone. This from the police report, which the judge discounted (that now brings our racist count up to five, Hayer, Clulow, Powers, and the two policemen):
… She [Ms. Radek] was extremely agitated and demanded that [Clulow] be arrested. PC 1893 [Constable Bellia] asked her what happened but she kept stating that the staff was harassing her because she is native. She went on about how there were several complaints against the mall because of a history of staff being racist to native people (ie: complaints to Jenny Kwan). [Bellia] told her that we weren’t here to address these complaints but rather the assault she was alleging. She repeatedly turned her back on me and remarked how I wouldn’t do anything for her. She told us that if she was white, this wouldn’t happen to her. [Bellia] told her numerous times that she was not being judged and the security staff always greet customers at the door. [Bellia] also tried to explain that the mall is private property and they could refuse service to anyone. Furthermore, it was suggested that if she wanted to complain (ie: racism allegations), she should contact Civil Liberties. [Bellia] did not even get to the point of the alleged assault when she called me a racist because she is native. I then asked her: “I’m a racist” (in a question form) and she demanded to have my PIN#. She said I admitted I was racist and left the scene with her male friend. She was completely uncooperative throughout the entire interview… [Constable Gough] spoke to the complainant’s friend, [Wolfe] who was present during the incident. She was much more reasonable but suggested they did not like to be harassed. She said it was convenient for them to shop there and they have the right to be there. She admitted the security guard asked her to leave and they refused. PC’s later returned to the security office and reviewed the surveillance tape of the incident. Throughout the incident, it appeared the complainant was the aggressor and attempted to pass by [Clulow] after she was asked to leave. [blank] did not appear to be involved in the incident. The security staff appeared to have acted completely within the law and the tape supported their statements…
Draw your own conclusions. I will not judge Ms. Radek; I am sure she was upset. Nonetheless, I will not assume that all five people were racists either. I'll presume that Ms. Radek was upset and yelling as she admitted, and that the others reacted to her behavior.
For those who may wish to judge for themselves, I suggest you read the pdf document. I have, despite Anonymous's dark suspicions. What I most object to in the decision is the judge's dismissing all effective controls that any normal security personnel would use.
I stand utterly by my post. I want to point out that bad behavior in public (like cussing and screaming at someone who is only doing their job) is going to get you ejected from any establishment. The judge explicitly wrote in her opinion that a policy of following people who looked suspicious was wrong and would produce bad behavior. Actually, I have been in crowds where I would have given anything to have security guard hanging around me. Perhaps you believe that it is a civil right to be able to make such a disturbance in public, or to be drunk in public. I don't.
The 2002 policy was this (according to the judge):
The number of “things to look for” is reduced to four: “attitudes when approached with greeting”, acting intoxicated or stoned, bothering customers, and begging for money or cigarettes inside or around the shopping centre. A number of the more facially objectionable criteria have been eliminated, but problems remain.
So the judge essentially decided that trying to bar people who cussed out a guard when the guard approached, or acted drunk, or bothered customers or begged, was discriminatory to disabled and aboriginal people.
It could certainly be applied that way - which would be a problem. However, I don't think any fair-minded person would not see that it would be hard to write any policy to preserve order in a bad neighborhood that would not include such elements.
Obviously I am not there seeing what they saw or Ms. Radek experienced. They did change the policy in 2002 to include monitoring rather than barring access (not that I can find where they ever actually stopped her from coming in, and according to her testimony she didn't later), and that is the policy that was knocked down. I can't concede that the guards have no right to follow people who look like they might be drug users or shoplifters or cause trouble, although I agree that the policy could be applied in a discriminatory way. According to the opinion, there was a problem with drug use on the premises. I don't know if you have ever had to use a bathroom full of junkies, but it is not a pleasant or a safe experience.
As for the incident on May 10th with Ms. Radek (other times, according to my reading, guards may have followed her or asked her not to come in but she did, thus no denial of access), the guard followed her and Ms. Wolfe, she confronted the guard, yelled at the guard (she said herself she had raised her voice and was "hollering"). The supervisor, Mr. Clulow was called. Matters escalated, and the manager, Mr. Power, was called.
From Power's report as quoted in the opinion:
"S/M Power informed the female that she would have to leave as she was now causing a disturbance. The female refused stating that she was on native land and therefore did not have to leave."
Ms. Radek called the police on her cell phone. This from the police report, which the judge discounted (that now brings our racist count up to five, Hayer, Clulow, Powers, and the two policemen):
… She [Ms. Radek] was extremely agitated and demanded that [Clulow] be arrested. PC 1893 [Constable Bellia] asked her what happened but she kept stating that the staff was harassing her because she is native. She went on about how there were several complaints against the mall because of a history of staff being racist to native people (ie: complaints to Jenny Kwan). [Bellia] told her that we weren’t here to address these complaints but rather the assault she was alleging. She repeatedly turned her back on me and remarked how I wouldn’t do anything for her. She told us that if she was white, this wouldn’t happen to her. [Bellia] told her numerous times that she was not being judged and the security staff always greet customers at the door. [Bellia] also tried to explain that the mall is private property and they could refuse service to anyone. Furthermore, it was suggested that if she wanted to complain (ie: racism allegations), she should contact Civil Liberties. [Bellia] did not even get to the point of the alleged assault when she called me a racist because she is native. I then asked her: “I’m a racist” (in a question form) and she demanded to have my PIN#. She said I admitted I was racist and left the scene with her male friend. She was completely uncooperative throughout the entire interview… [Constable Gough] spoke to the complainant’s friend, [Wolfe] who was present during the incident. She was much more reasonable but suggested they did not like to be harassed. She said it was convenient for them to shop there and they have the right to be there. She admitted the security guard asked her to leave and they refused. PC’s later returned to the security office and reviewed the surveillance tape of the incident. Throughout the incident, it appeared the complainant was the aggressor and attempted to pass by [Clulow] after she was asked to leave. [blank] did not appear to be involved in the incident. The security staff appeared to have acted completely within the law and the tape supported their statements…
Draw your own conclusions. I will not judge Ms. Radek; I am sure she was upset. Nonetheless, I will not assume that all five people were racists either. I'll presume that Ms. Radek was upset and yelling as she admitted, and that the others reacted to her behavior.
For those who may wish to judge for themselves, I suggest you read the pdf document. I have, despite Anonymous's dark suspicions. What I most object to in the decision is the judge's dismissing all effective controls that any normal security personnel would use.
I stand utterly by my post. I want to point out that bad behavior in public (like cussing and screaming at someone who is only doing their job) is going to get you ejected from any establishment. The judge explicitly wrote in her opinion that a policy of following people who looked suspicious was wrong and would produce bad behavior. Actually, I have been in crowds where I would have given anything to have security guard hanging around me. Perhaps you believe that it is a civil right to be able to make such a disturbance in public, or to be drunk in public. I don't.
The 2002 policy was this (according to the judge):
The number of “things to look for” is reduced to four: “attitudes when approached with greeting”, acting intoxicated or stoned, bothering customers, and begging for money or cigarettes inside or around the shopping centre. A number of the more facially objectionable criteria have been eliminated, but problems remain.
So the judge essentially decided that trying to bar people who cussed out a guard when the guard approached, or acted drunk, or bothered customers or begged, was discriminatory to disabled and aboriginal people.
It could certainly be applied that way - which would be a problem. However, I don't think any fair-minded person would not see that it would be hard to write any policy to preserve order in a bad neighborhood that would not include such elements.
If you read the judges opinion about how the police officers handled the situation, she was firmly of the opinon that Ms.Radek was in the right to be upset at what was happening to her.
I have just noted that you are from Georgia.
Maybe that little bit of information doesn't mean much... but in light of the fact that you, without reading the entire case, are willing to "stand by your opinion" that the security guards or the police did nothing wrong...to me, your curious defence of the racists in this case explains a lot.
I guess you aren't aware of the now famous case of the Vancouver Police Department's negligence in bothering to hunt for a serial killer, Willie Pickton, who murdered dozens of Indian women in Vancouver, and fed their bodies to his pigs.... despite the fact that many people, including their own geographic profiler Kim Rosmo, and that guy from America's Most Wanted, told them bluntly "You've got a serial killer targeting Indian prostitutes"
You don't know the Vancouver Police Department. I do.
It is definately not a stretch of the imagination for me to consider that some Good Old Boys from the VPD took offence at being called racist by an Uppity Indian woman who was not willing to quietly say "Yes Massah" when being harrassed by mall security gaurds, and asked to leave.
I suspect actually that Mr.Radek has a case against the VPD as well as the mall security people. Not that it will do much good.
If you think the VPD doesn't have a problem with racism... you are sorely mistaken, as this incident and several others clearly show there is a problem.
you might want to pay attention to the following story
http://www.missingpeople.net/ex_cop_kim_rossmo_attacks_police_over_missing_women-june_2001.htm
Kim Rossmo is the police officer who actually invented the technology known as "Geographical Profiling". He was actually "let go" from the VPD for, among other reasons his unwillingness to shut up about his alarm over a serial killer picking of Indian woman on Vancouver's East End.
He has since moved to the United States, where his expertise and technology was used to track down the Washington Snipers a couple years back.
Ask Kim Rossmo if the VPD has a problem with institutionalized bigotry within the police force.
Don't take my word for it.
I have just noted that you are from Georgia.
Maybe that little bit of information doesn't mean much... but in light of the fact that you, without reading the entire case, are willing to "stand by your opinion" that the security guards or the police did nothing wrong...to me, your curious defence of the racists in this case explains a lot.
I guess you aren't aware of the now famous case of the Vancouver Police Department's negligence in bothering to hunt for a serial killer, Willie Pickton, who murdered dozens of Indian women in Vancouver, and fed their bodies to his pigs.... despite the fact that many people, including their own geographic profiler Kim Rosmo, and that guy from America's Most Wanted, told them bluntly "You've got a serial killer targeting Indian prostitutes"
You don't know the Vancouver Police Department. I do.
It is definately not a stretch of the imagination for me to consider that some Good Old Boys from the VPD took offence at being called racist by an Uppity Indian woman who was not willing to quietly say "Yes Massah" when being harrassed by mall security gaurds, and asked to leave.
I suspect actually that Mr.Radek has a case against the VPD as well as the mall security people. Not that it will do much good.
If you think the VPD doesn't have a problem with racism... you are sorely mistaken, as this incident and several others clearly show there is a problem.
you might want to pay attention to the following story
http://www.missingpeople.net/ex_cop_kim_rossmo_attacks_police_over_missing_women-june_2001.htm
Kim Rossmo is the police officer who actually invented the technology known as "Geographical Profiling". He was actually "let go" from the VPD for, among other reasons his unwillingness to shut up about his alarm over a serial killer picking of Indian woman on Vancouver's East End.
He has since moved to the United States, where his expertise and technology was used to track down the Washington Snipers a couple years back.
Ask Kim Rossmo if the VPD has a problem with institutionalized bigotry within the police force.
Don't take my word for it.
# posted by : 8:42 AM
: 8:42 AM
Oh, and for your information... I have actually spent some time in Atlanta.
I recall very clearly my disgust over one of the elevators of the Marta Station in Georgia stinking of piss.
I wondered about it... until I caught site of a drunken white bum with a shopping cart publicly urinating in the parking lot complex that I walked out of the Marta Station from to get to my car.
I currently live in the South too Ms.Maxed Out Mamma. My husband is 12th Generation American, whose people were some of the first to come to Jamestown.
My husband, who has lived in the South for his entire life is constantly amazed at how attitudes about black people which are 20 years out of date down here, are so very casually accepted and promoted by people in Canada about Indians...
He is jaw-droppingly astounded on a regular basis at the kind of casual bigotry spewed by your friend Kate, and by people who defend these remarks.
Especially when this comes from A country whose people purport smugly to be somehow more tolerant and inclusive than America and Americans.
I live in Ocala FL currently... on one occasion, not too long ago, I was in a video store where an employee was very obviously following black customers around and standing over them as they browsed the racks. My husband and I actually sat in our car for about 20 minutes watching this go down.
After I wrote down my observations and passed them on to the Store Manager and Owner... that employee was let go. The customer got an apology from the owner.
Understand that the neighborhood that I live in is about 90% African American, middle class suburbs, with good families.
My son is the only "white looking" kid in the neighborhood. It's never been a problem for him.
Back in Canada, he's been beaten up by both Indians for being too white, and by Whites for hanging out with his Indian relatives.
Things have changed a lot in the South... it would be nice if they changed in that direction in Canada too.
Your position/attitude on this doesn't help matters.
I recall very clearly my disgust over one of the elevators of the Marta Station in Georgia stinking of piss.
I wondered about it... until I caught site of a drunken white bum with a shopping cart publicly urinating in the parking lot complex that I walked out of the Marta Station from to get to my car.
I currently live in the South too Ms.Maxed Out Mamma. My husband is 12th Generation American, whose people were some of the first to come to Jamestown.
My husband, who has lived in the South for his entire life is constantly amazed at how attitudes about black people which are 20 years out of date down here, are so very casually accepted and promoted by people in Canada about Indians...
He is jaw-droppingly astounded on a regular basis at the kind of casual bigotry spewed by your friend Kate, and by people who defend these remarks.
Especially when this comes from A country whose people purport smugly to be somehow more tolerant and inclusive than America and Americans.
I live in Ocala FL currently... on one occasion, not too long ago, I was in a video store where an employee was very obviously following black customers around and standing over them as they browsed the racks. My husband and I actually sat in our car for about 20 minutes watching this go down.
After I wrote down my observations and passed them on to the Store Manager and Owner... that employee was let go. The customer got an apology from the owner.
Understand that the neighborhood that I live in is about 90% African American, middle class suburbs, with good families.
My son is the only "white looking" kid in the neighborhood. It's never been a problem for him.
Back in Canada, he's been beaten up by both Indians for being too white, and by Whites for hanging out with his Indian relatives.
Things have changed a lot in the South... it would be nice if they changed in that direction in Canada too.
Your position/attitude on this doesn't help matters.
# posted by : 8:56 AM
: 8:56 AM
You insist that I haven't read it the case, Anon, and I have. I don't know Kate, although I do read her. So your comment that she is my "friend" is a bit off. I bet I have never even commented on her blog.
You say Ms. Radek didn't cause a disturbance. According to the judge she did, in the one instance in which she was ejected from the mall. You said in your original comment that she did not violate any of the rules of the mall. Yelling at a security guard is causing a disturbance. You said they refused to allow her to go through the mall to get access to the Skytrain, but I did not read that finding in the opinion. The 2002 protocol for the guards (which was after Ms. Radek's problems there), did not mention blocking people from entering at all.
I felt a lot of sympathy for Ms Radek, but I am troubled by the judge's determinations about the overall policies of the mall.
I have extreme sympathy for minorities who are experiencing discrimination. I understand your point entirely about your son facing dual discrimination. I would bet that the situation in Canada varies in different areas just as it does here. Darcey of Dust My Broom has also written of similar incidents.
I don't think an entire nation can ever be classified as monolithic these days.
The worst I ever smelled was Newark, which nearly knocked me flat, but I know what you mean about MARTA! Soooo lovely on a hot summer's day....
Look, I have sympathy with your general attitudes but I think you are misrepresenting the facts a bit. I was very curious to read Ms. Radek's original complaint, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Do you know where I could? Do you have some information not in the judge's writeup?
I stand by my post still. It is the worst type of discrimination to fail to place the same standards on members of a particular race or class, as long as those standards are fair - abusing or harassing people for skin color, etc, is not fair. In this decision, the judge really disallowed any effective way of controlling an atmosphere in which even the judge did not dispute that there was considerable illegal activity going on.
One of the reasons that this is a serious problem is that it can allow bad behavior to take over good stable neighborhoods and environments. You and I both know that when that happens the wealthier people can get out but the poorer people, who tend to be a higher percentage of minorities, get left with the brunt of it.
If you have more information please supply it. I think you are being a bit rude in continuing to maintain that I haven't read the 216 pages when I have.
I have myself openly confronted people about prejudiced behavior. The south is hardly free of it, but then neither is the NE. However, any community runs into a disaster when it assumes that controlling bad public behavior is discrimination or necessarily amounts to discrimination. I have seen this happen myself. It's not a minority problem, and it's not a socio-economic problem. It is a problem with human nature.
There are a number of very well-off areas in the US in which malls or public places have had to institute really harsh policies about teenagers because groups of them used the area as a hangout, shop-lifting and drug use rose, and other people became afraid to go and so the situation took a downward spiral.
They can't deny admittance to a person in that mall in Canada because it is a public right-of-way. If they can't mark out and follow people who appear to be drunk or out of control, what do you think is going to happen? I really want to know! And that is what the decision was! There was plenty of evidence that people who weren't aboriginal were also getting ejected for the same behavior or the same reasons.
These types of issues are never easy in any type of neighborhood. I thought Ms. Savage's evidence was particularly telling as to that liklihood. However, banning people from a mall when they have been caught in illegal behavior (and few people seem to have been banned) is not inappropriate.
You say Ms. Radek didn't cause a disturbance. According to the judge she did, in the one instance in which she was ejected from the mall. You said in your original comment that she did not violate any of the rules of the mall. Yelling at a security guard is causing a disturbance. You said they refused to allow her to go through the mall to get access to the Skytrain, but I did not read that finding in the opinion. The 2002 protocol for the guards (which was after Ms. Radek's problems there), did not mention blocking people from entering at all.
I felt a lot of sympathy for Ms Radek, but I am troubled by the judge's determinations about the overall policies of the mall.
I have extreme sympathy for minorities who are experiencing discrimination. I understand your point entirely about your son facing dual discrimination. I would bet that the situation in Canada varies in different areas just as it does here. Darcey of Dust My Broom has also written of similar incidents.
I don't think an entire nation can ever be classified as monolithic these days.
The worst I ever smelled was Newark, which nearly knocked me flat, but I know what you mean about MARTA! Soooo lovely on a hot summer's day....
Look, I have sympathy with your general attitudes but I think you are misrepresenting the facts a bit. I was very curious to read Ms. Radek's original complaint, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Do you know where I could? Do you have some information not in the judge's writeup?
I stand by my post still. It is the worst type of discrimination to fail to place the same standards on members of a particular race or class, as long as those standards are fair - abusing or harassing people for skin color, etc, is not fair. In this decision, the judge really disallowed any effective way of controlling an atmosphere in which even the judge did not dispute that there was considerable illegal activity going on.
One of the reasons that this is a serious problem is that it can allow bad behavior to take over good stable neighborhoods and environments. You and I both know that when that happens the wealthier people can get out but the poorer people, who tend to be a higher percentage of minorities, get left with the brunt of it.
If you have more information please supply it. I think you are being a bit rude in continuing to maintain that I haven't read the 216 pages when I have.
I have myself openly confronted people about prejudiced behavior. The south is hardly free of it, but then neither is the NE. However, any community runs into a disaster when it assumes that controlling bad public behavior is discrimination or necessarily amounts to discrimination. I have seen this happen myself. It's not a minority problem, and it's not a socio-economic problem. It is a problem with human nature.
There are a number of very well-off areas in the US in which malls or public places have had to institute really harsh policies about teenagers because groups of them used the area as a hangout, shop-lifting and drug use rose, and other people became afraid to go and so the situation took a downward spiral.
They can't deny admittance to a person in that mall in Canada because it is a public right-of-way. If they can't mark out and follow people who appear to be drunk or out of control, what do you think is going to happen? I really want to know! And that is what the decision was! There was plenty of evidence that people who weren't aboriginal were also getting ejected for the same behavior or the same reasons.
These types of issues are never easy in any type of neighborhood. I thought Ms. Savage's evidence was particularly telling as to that liklihood. However, banning people from a mall when they have been caught in illegal behavior (and few people seem to have been banned) is not inappropriate.
You all inferior Earthians, stop squabling your petty concerns and kneel before us, your masters. YOU ARE ALL INFERIOR, and you spend your life trying to decide who's inferior to whom. YOU ALL ARE OK?. We come from Klandarktarics and we'll make you all our servants, you inferior Earthians. Ok, now you can keep on squeaking about who's inferior or who's not. Bah! Bunch of mediocre semi-thinking beings.
# posted by : 1:08 AM
: 1:08 AM
I came upon your post after I Googled my name for kicks. I am one of the Constables who attended the mall that day.
I read several paragraphs, but not the whole thing. All the ones with my name in it. It's too long and it's late at night. I just wanted to say a bit here: I am not a racist and neither is my partner. There is no "defensive denial" going on here... we are both married to women outside of our own race! Our children are of mixed heritages! What more do you need? And no, we did not unconditionally take the side of the security officer because they are brothers-in-arms. That's garbage. It sounds like the judge has been reading too many cheap paperbacks.
We both pride ourselves on impartially enforcing the law. I have arrested security guards, bouncers and even an off-duty police officer in my time. I have also arrested every race of person there is! If we were so biased, then why did we view the video then write a complete report? And why is the video, from what I read, not mentioned? It showed pretty clearly what happened.
My job was to establish if an assault took place. Some passing comment about racism from a woman who was totally unreasonable (and she was) was not to be taken seriously. If we followed up with every complaint against humanity I would be going 24/7 and never getting anywhere. The public expects officers to investigate crime – not insinuation. We directed her to the right people as is our job. Too bad she did not like it.
Let me set the record straight. We are not racist. We are unbiased, professional and impartial. We investigated the event and found no Reasonable and Probable Grounds (RPG) to believe that an offence under the Criminal Code took place. That was all. One party was a total hot head (Radek) and one party was not (Wolfe). Why is that too hard to believe? I don't care if a person is of any particular race. If that person is hard to talk to that's what matters. In this case that's what we dealt with. Radek was an extremely unreasonable person. Because she called us racist she owes us an apology. Since the judge said we were biased and or reporting of the issues was 'disturbing' she needs to apologize to us too - then be fired. But I won’t hold my breath. Oh, and the comment “I’m racist?” was said with the appropriate inflection of tone required for a rhetorical question. Only a complete idiot would have understood otherwise. Radek was such an idiot.
The only person who is biased in this matter is the judge. Her so-called findings were junk (I wanted to swear just now, but I will keep this family-rated). She says that it's not our jurisdiction to investigate the Human Rights Code then goes on to say that we ought to have investigated it. What??? She also says that she finds Radek's testimony so very truthful... And the judge can sit there and pretend she is unbiased? She was coached, you idiot! She was the only one in the room who was coached. Everyone else spoke from the chest. Clearly if I look over my left shoulder then look left again the judge would be sitting there in her sanctimonious garb pretending to be a woman of letters. She was just too scared to say what I thought on the day: Radek and Wolfe are gold miners (Radek mostly) who made a false allegation of criminal conduct. Radek and Wolfe both ought to have been charged with public mischief. But being the nice guys we are, and seeing what a political storm that would have caused, we decided not to. Oh, and by the way, when someone drops a politician's name (especially a left-winger like Jenny Kwan) then we as police know that i) a complaint is coming no matter what we do – good or bad and ii) there probably is no basis in fact for the allegation. This is a case in point. We saw the police complaint coming a mile away and the assault complaint was untrue. Just sad to say that I can’t complain about Radek. I still want that apology.
I don't know if the policies of Tinsletown are biased. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be panhandled while enjoying a night out with family – and no, panhandling is not a criminal offence in Vancouver. If that means keeping the great unwashed out, then too bad. Is that biased too? The judge doesn’t even know what a security guard does. They don’t enforce the law like I do (oh, and I am not cozy cozy with them... another stupid assumption without any grain of truth whatsoever). They are civilians with no more power than any other civilian – even the power of arrest. They are merely empowered by the owners to act as representatives for that property – like if I was walking around my house or paid someone to do it. If I saw someone do a crime to my house I could arrest and so it is with them. The judge here is so stupid. I can’t begin to say.
Just to recap: the judge is biased and stupid and ought to be fired; and she was not there. Radek is a gold digger and she was a hothead that day and is not credible. My partner and I are not racist (why is it we have to prove such?) nor did we take any side without examination. We investigated the allegation and found it to be unfounded. Sorry that irked Radek, but that was what happened.
Enough, I’m tired. Sorry for the rant. Just getting it off my chest.
Post a Comment
I read several paragraphs, but not the whole thing. All the ones with my name in it. It's too long and it's late at night. I just wanted to say a bit here: I am not a racist and neither is my partner. There is no "defensive denial" going on here... we are both married to women outside of our own race! Our children are of mixed heritages! What more do you need? And no, we did not unconditionally take the side of the security officer because they are brothers-in-arms. That's garbage. It sounds like the judge has been reading too many cheap paperbacks.
We both pride ourselves on impartially enforcing the law. I have arrested security guards, bouncers and even an off-duty police officer in my time. I have also arrested every race of person there is! If we were so biased, then why did we view the video then write a complete report? And why is the video, from what I read, not mentioned? It showed pretty clearly what happened.
My job was to establish if an assault took place. Some passing comment about racism from a woman who was totally unreasonable (and she was) was not to be taken seriously. If we followed up with every complaint against humanity I would be going 24/7 and never getting anywhere. The public expects officers to investigate crime – not insinuation. We directed her to the right people as is our job. Too bad she did not like it.
Let me set the record straight. We are not racist. We are unbiased, professional and impartial. We investigated the event and found no Reasonable and Probable Grounds (RPG) to believe that an offence under the Criminal Code took place. That was all. One party was a total hot head (Radek) and one party was not (Wolfe). Why is that too hard to believe? I don't care if a person is of any particular race. If that person is hard to talk to that's what matters. In this case that's what we dealt with. Radek was an extremely unreasonable person. Because she called us racist she owes us an apology. Since the judge said we were biased and or reporting of the issues was 'disturbing' she needs to apologize to us too - then be fired. But I won’t hold my breath. Oh, and the comment “I’m racist?” was said with the appropriate inflection of tone required for a rhetorical question. Only a complete idiot would have understood otherwise. Radek was such an idiot.
The only person who is biased in this matter is the judge. Her so-called findings were junk (I wanted to swear just now, but I will keep this family-rated). She says that it's not our jurisdiction to investigate the Human Rights Code then goes on to say that we ought to have investigated it. What??? She also says that she finds Radek's testimony so very truthful... And the judge can sit there and pretend she is unbiased? She was coached, you idiot! She was the only one in the room who was coached. Everyone else spoke from the chest. Clearly if I look over my left shoulder then look left again the judge would be sitting there in her sanctimonious garb pretending to be a woman of letters. She was just too scared to say what I thought on the day: Radek and Wolfe are gold miners (Radek mostly) who made a false allegation of criminal conduct. Radek and Wolfe both ought to have been charged with public mischief. But being the nice guys we are, and seeing what a political storm that would have caused, we decided not to. Oh, and by the way, when someone drops a politician's name (especially a left-winger like Jenny Kwan) then we as police know that i) a complaint is coming no matter what we do – good or bad and ii) there probably is no basis in fact for the allegation. This is a case in point. We saw the police complaint coming a mile away and the assault complaint was untrue. Just sad to say that I can’t complain about Radek. I still want that apology.
I don't know if the policies of Tinsletown are biased. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be panhandled while enjoying a night out with family – and no, panhandling is not a criminal offence in Vancouver. If that means keeping the great unwashed out, then too bad. Is that biased too? The judge doesn’t even know what a security guard does. They don’t enforce the law like I do (oh, and I am not cozy cozy with them... another stupid assumption without any grain of truth whatsoever). They are civilians with no more power than any other civilian – even the power of arrest. They are merely empowered by the owners to act as representatives for that property – like if I was walking around my house or paid someone to do it. If I saw someone do a crime to my house I could arrest and so it is with them. The judge here is so stupid. I can’t begin to say.
Just to recap: the judge is biased and stupid and ought to be fired; and she was not there. Radek is a gold digger and she was a hothead that day and is not credible. My partner and I are not racist (why is it we have to prove such?) nor did we take any side without examination. We investigated the allegation and found it to be unfounded. Sorry that irked Radek, but that was what happened.
Enough, I’m tired. Sorry for the rant. Just getting it off my chest.
# posted by : 2:26 AM
: 2:26 AM << Home
