I see Toronto is policed in the same racist way New York City is.

Disgusting!

Too bad we focus on how evil some feel cops are, while we discount and ignore the behavior of people who create the problem.

The videos are very interesting. Toronto is one of, or THE most multicultural city in the world. Living here, hearing about and witnessing many of the violent/gun crimes in the city I'm sad to say this isn't surprising. There is quite a lot of race on race crime here too (gangs).

Of course there will always be those bad apples in positions of power, but I'm glad to say that Toronto isn't known for crooked cops.. for now anyway.

The link above did not work for me for accessing the video. If you are also having problems, try: http://www.thestar.com/videozone/760029--profiling-or-practical-policing

I don't know much about the racial distribution of Toronto, but if this information is just "number of black people pulled over / number of white people pulled over", it's pretty useless. Without comparing it to the baseline population figures, it's just a number in a vacuum. I imagine that ratio is over 100 in Mozambique.

Hi

I get tired of hearing from uneducated and uninformed individuals that purport to know what they are talking about when they are not ethnic minorities and have not experienced racial profiling firsthand. Who knows maybe some of them are cops that I can only describe as racist white trash. This article is definitely accurate well researched and well written. If anything it actually doesn't go far enough towards going ballistic when it comes to racial profiling. I get tired of experiencing shoplifting, petty theft, burglaries, harassment all committed by whites in addition to the white on white crimes that continue to go unreported. It is this majority that commits a preponderance of all the crimes and deservedly should be profiled as opposed to focusing on ethnic minorities that are powerless to protect themselves from crooked cops that tow the line supported from the hierarchy above. And yes this does go on in multicultural multi-ethnic Toronto the racist capital of North America.

Looking at it again later, I saw that, in fact, they were talking about rates relative to the census rates. I should have said something then, but decided to just let it drop... Sorry.

Thanks for the survey. I concur Toronto is the "racist capital of North America." There are more ethnic minorities in the US in terms of population. A lot of the stories in the US are blown out of proportion. However the US has definitely made North America a more ethnic diverse society and not the other way around. The last time I looked ethnic minorities have capitalized on more economic opportunity for social advancement in the US than in Canada. Despite the prevalence of racism in the US ethnic minorities are better served to reside in the US than in passive racist Canada. Because racists Canadian's refuse to acknowledge that they indeed are racist. This means that while racism continues to permeate US society there is certainly more organized action inside the US than we have here in Canada towards actively giving the masses a voice. The government in the US has passed laws to encourage the protection of civil rights for all US citizens. The US government in my humble opinion has done more to encourage racial diversity than any other Caucasian dominated government anywhere in the world. So stop fooling yourselves into thinking otherwise. And despite the racial inequality at least the US government is doing something actively to uphold the rights of ethnic minorities. You may argue that they aren't doing enough. You may state as a matter of fact that there are still flagrant abuses. But the US government certainly does a lot more than the Canadian government to address these issues. When do you think we will see an ethnic minority aspire to become Prime Minister in Canada? I was recently arrested for impaired driving. It was a clear case of racial profiling. I'm sorry I mean impaired driving after all I must have done something wrong to break the law right? I forced the prosecution to withdraw the charges through my aggressive legal defense. If they had not you would most certainly have heard about my case via the media outlets worldwide. I still have 2 years to make the world aware of what happened. Relax for now my story is safely tucked away and you probably will never have to hear about it unless I have another unpleasant interaction with the racists Canadian police. Again I have chosen not to do so for now because the charges were withdrawn. However from my experience the police in Canada are racist. They are a paramilitary organization which means the racists policies come from the highest levels above. The system is designed to protect the police from themselves. The lawyers for the most part are also racist and are an extension of the police and part of the cover up. This means lawyers in Toronto will work out deals with the police and sacrifice your rights in order to get a conviction for the police. If you are black you had better make sure to seek out a black or brown lawyer every single time. Take my advice very seriously. Most Canadian's don't have the financial resources to defend themselves. My faith in God and ability to defend myself is the only reason I prevailed. My case is similar to other ethnic minorities most of whom are found guilty simply because they are unable to come up with the financial resources to defend themselves. Now just think if you are white and continuously targeted by the police for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Never mind the fact that you may be innocent. How about the costs associated with defending yourself or the repercussions post trial? Do you really understand the effects of racial profiling? Can you really understand what it does to people who are innocent? Can you understand why some people will never trust the police again? Can you understand why Canada isn't as respected as you think? Do you really believe that ethnic minorities are comfortable with the system simply because they put on a facade in public? Can you really understand? It doesn't matter what excuse you come up with racial profiling really does occur. I know, whoever said life was fair right? Maybe if the countries that supply these immigrants treated white Canadian's in the same manner this issue would be taken more seriously. If you are an ethnic minority and are stopped by the police and don't have the financial resources to defend yourself my advice is to fully cooperate with the police. They have the ability to ruin your life notwithstanding all these surveys. If you have the financial resources to defend yourself like I did you owe it to your community to do so and then decide whether or not filing a lawsuit and going public with your story is prudent or not. Furthermore your responsibility is to educate your community. I was arrested for a DWB in Toronto. It means driving while black or brown. Only I wasn't even driving. I wasn't even inside my vehicle initially. Nevertheless that was the bogus and frivolous charge. Surveillance footage had my car parked until it was towed. Need I say more. I simply attempted to walk from one restaurant to another on foot. The reason the police gave for arresting me is contradicted by some of the officers at the scene. But here's the best part of the story. In order to arrest me the arresting officer told 3 different stories. The reason for my arrest was because I had to be inside my car after consuming a lot of alcohol. At the time of my arrest I was drinking water and had consumed half a glass of an alcoholic beverage with less than 7% per volume of alcohol. I'm sure I must have exhibited the usual signs of a drunk. You know falling swaying from side to side and etc. Surveillance footage from inside the restaurant exists and clearly indicates that I was drinking water and most definitely was not drunk had all my faculties and was otherwise normal. But how about those that don't actively seek out restaurants with surveillance camera's as I do. Would they have been believed? Thank goodness for surveillance cameras. Oh and at the risk of offending my white friends I was never inside my vehicle other than when entrapped by the police into retrieving my drivers license. Ethnic minorities are you listening? If I did not retrieve my drivers license I would have been arrested for not providing identification. I chose to cooperate retrieved it and you now know that I was arrested for impaired driving. Do you think once the police figured out that I had the resources to aggressively defend myself, they provided me with the disclosures every Canadian is entitled to? No! Do you think it was easy to get the surveillance footage to prove my innocence? No. Some of it is still deliberately missing because it clearly proves the police are a bunch of racist pathological liars. By the way not all of the police are racist. Toronto only has 1 racist cop to the best of my knowledge and recollection! Do you think there was a trial once the prosecution determined that these idiotic racist cops would be discredited on the stand? No. How do I know it was racial profiling? Please review the law regarding racial profiling per the supreme court in Canada. In addition make sure to review the Dee Brown case that had occurred in Toronto some time ago. The police observed my vehicle ran my plates to verify I indeed was the driver then waited for me prior to my exiting the restaurant. They knew the result of my breath test before I had taken the test. This suggests a conspiracy. Then they attempted to cover up everything after the fact. Unfortunately since the introduction of radios that transfer voice to text their lies were captured. So the conspiracy may be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Though they never released the full edition of the tape. Folks this not only is racial profiling that's life in Toronto. If I were to provide more detail my arrest would be even more shocking. You can't simply go around arresting people because you don't like the color of their skin then claim to have a multicultural ethnic diverse society. Toronto operates under the premise that ethnic minorities are inferior to the white majority. This applies to all of Canada. Racism therefore is here to stay for a long time to come. Surveys do help to direct more focus on an issue that the majority clearly wants swept under the carpet. Oh and I have lived in the US and can honestly state as a matter of fact that US residents aren't as racists as Canadians. But we really aren't bad people! We welcome everyone! We have some of the most ethnic diverse cities in the world! Really! I understand that we are a passive nation but to my white friends please don't insult my intelligence with unfounded comments that amount to nothing more than your opinion when you aren't educated enough to provide such commentary nor have you experienced racial profiling. I am very educated. I have experienced racial profiling. I am very successful.I have taken on the system several times and prevailed. I know what I am talking about. Impress me by taking action to make our society mutually beneficial to all of us. Isn't this what you want?

The first study in Canada of racial profiling by a police service has turned up results showing what Aboriginal people have thought all along-police target Native people.

Scot Wortley, a professor with the University of Toronto criminology department, headed up a study done on the Kingston police department. Released in May, the study found that police were 3.7 times more likely to pull over a black person, and 1.4 times more likely to pull over an Aboriginal person, than a member of the white race.

The study is the first of its kind in Canada, and confirms that racial profiling in policing organizations does exist.

Ron Phipps admits he was criss-crossing Vernham Ave. the day he was stopped by police in the Bridle Path.

He was also wearing a Canada Post coat and carrying two mailbags while filling in for the regular letter carrier.

Toronto Police Const. Michael Shaw pointed that out to a new constable he was training as soon as they turned into the street. Shaw was also suspicious about Phipps, who is black, speaking to a homeowner but not delivering her any mail.

They also had instructions to investigate cut phone lines and look for suspects described as male, white and eastern European who were seen in a car.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled that by stopping Phipps on March 9, 2005, questioning him, trailing him and asking a white letter carrier to verify his identity, Shaw was guilty of racial profiling.

O.k. I'll stop here. I hope I've made my point. Now you can go back to talking about other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with racial profiling. Maybe this will make a lot of you feel better.

Tribunal Rules Racial Profiling in Case Against Peel Police

* Send this page to somebody
* Print this page

For immediate publication
May 17, 2007

Toronto -

The Ontario Human Rights Commission was successful in a significant racial profiling case under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The complaint was filed by Ms. Jacqueline Nassiah against the Peel Regional Police Services. The Commission thoroughly investigated the matter finding evidence indicative of racial profiling. Attempts to mediate and settle the case with Peel Police were unsuccessful. In a decision released on May 11, 2007, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has found that a Peel police officer subjected Ms. Nassiah, a Black woman, to a more intensive, suspicious and prolonged investigation because of her race.

In February 2003, Peel Police were contacted to investigate a possible shop-lifting allegation at a large department store in Mississauga. The Tribunal found that Ms. Nassiah had been wrongly apprehended by store security on suspicion of stealing a low-priced item despite her repeated and impassioned denials. The Tribunal further found that Richard Elkington, a Peel police officer, conducted a discriminatory investigation that included:

* Stereotypically assuming that a Black suspect might not speak English,
* Assuming that the White security guard was telling the truth and that the Black suspect was not, without properly looking at all the evidence, including a videotape of the alleged theft, which exonerated her,
* Adopting an “assumption of guilt” approach to the investigation by immediately demanding that Ms. Nassiah produce the missing item,
* Unnecessarily arranging for a second body search after the first one had demonstrated that she did not have the allegedly stolen item,
* Continuing with the investigation, rather than releasing Ms. Nassiah, even after the second body search confirmed that she did not have the stolen item,

Spending up to one hour pursuing an allegation of theft, in the face of fragile evidence, for an item worth less than $10.

In it's decision, The Tribunal also found that the police officer subjected Ms. Nassiah to verbal abuse, including calling her a “f---ing foreigner” during the investigation and threatened to take her to jail if she didn’t produce the missing item. The police and store security ultimately released Ms. Nassiah after they concluded that they had made an error.

I found this on the web. The story appeared in 2003.

Criminal Defence Articles

Evidence Ruled Capable of Supporting Racial Profiling Allegation
by Tushar K. Pain
This article originally appeared in the May 23, 2003, issue of The Lawyers’ Weekly

On April 16, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in R v. Brown, [2003] O.J. No. 1251, which deals with the occurrence of racial profiling by the police during investigation, detention and arrest. It also addresses the trial judge’s handling of the Charter application based on the allegation of racial profiling raised by the accused.

On November 1, 1999, Constable Olson, a Metro Toronto police officer, stopped Decovan "Dee" Brown, a young man of African-American descent and a former professional basketball player for the Toronto Raptors, as he was driving down the Don Valley Parkway. The officer’s reason was that Mr. Brown was driving in excess of the speed limit and, on two occasions, his car had crossed out of and back into the lane in which he was traveling.

Brown was administered a roadside screening device test, which he failed. As a result, he was taken to the police station and administered a breath test. Brown’s blood-alcohol concentration registered at 140 mg per 100 ml of blood. He was charged with driving over the legal limit (more that 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood).

At trial, it was argued that the only reason Mr. Brown was stopped was because he was a young black man driving an expensive car (i.e. racial profiling). As a result, said the defence, the arrest was contrary to section 9 of the Charter and the results of the breath tests should be excluded.

The trial judge dismissed the defendant’s application and convicted him. Brown was fined $2000.00.

Brown appealed to the Superior Court of Justice. The conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered. The appeal judge, Justice Brian Trafford, ruled that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias created by the trial judge’s handling of the racial profiling issue and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The court of appeal concluded that, indeed, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. It came to this conclusion based on comments by the trial judge made during (a) the cross-examination of the arresting officer, (b) during defence counsel’s submissions on the Charter application and, (c) during the sentencing process.

At one point the trial judge characterized the Charter application as "serious allegations, really quite nasty, malicious, potentially, accusations based on, it seems to me, nothing…" During the sentencing process, the trial judge suggested that Mr. Brown apologize to the officer for raising the racial profiling issue, which he characterized as "distasteful".

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the test for determining a reasonable apprehension of bias was whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – would conclude that it was more likely than not that the decision maker, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. In relation to a racial profiling case, it confirmed that the reasonable person must be taken to be aware of the history of discrimination faced by disadvantaged groups in Canadian society protected by the Charter’s equality provisions and that these were matters of which judicial notice could be taken.

On the issue of racial profiling, the Ontario Court of Appeal made the following pronouncements:

1. Definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling involves the targeting of individual members of a particular racial group, on the basis of the supposed criminal propensity of the entire group.

2. Proof of racial profiling: A racial profiling claim can rarely be proven by direct evidence since an officer is not likely to admit that he has been influenced by racial stereotypes in the exercise of his discretion. Therefore, racial profiling must be proven by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.

3. Generally persuasive evidence: Where the evidence shows that (a) the circumstances surrounding a police detention correspond to the phenomenon of racial profiling and (b) provide a basis to infer that the police officer is lying about the reason for singling out the accused; then the record is then capable of supporting a finding that the stop was based on racial profiling.

4. Motivation for racial profiling: Defence counsel should not be expected to provide a motivation for racial profiling since the phenomenon provides its own motivation – a belief by a police officer that a person’s colour, combined with other circumstances, make him more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

5. Likelihood of occurrence: Racial profiling is more likely to occur in areas where its victims look out of place than in areas where their skin colour is prominent.

6. Pattern of abusive conduct: The accused is not required to demonstrate that a particular instance of police conduct alleged to be racial profiling fits a wider pattern of abusive detention amounting to racial profiling.

In the present case, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that there was evidence capable of supporting a claim of racial profiling. This included evidence that 1) the accused was a young black man wearing a baseball hat and jogging clothes driving an expensive car; 2) evidence that the officer looked into the accused’s car before stopping him; 3) evidence of a second set of notes prepared by the officer to firm up his reasons to justify the stop once he realized that the accused was a person of considerable means capable of defending th charge; 4) evidence of a licence check that the officer made before the stop; 5) evidence of discrepancies between the times recorded in the officer’s notebook and those, which he gave to the breathalyzer technician.

The Court of Appeal confirmed Justice Trafford’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Montreal accused of stalling racial-profiling complaints
Last Updated: Thursday, January 28, 2010 | 8:23 PM ET Comments11Recommend24
CBC News

The City of Montreal is systematically blocking complaints of racial profiling against the police force by stalling hearings before the province's Human Rights Tribunal, says the president of Quebec's Human Rights Commission.

Gaétan Cousineau, president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, says delays in racial-profiling cases are harmful to the commission's reputation. Gaétan Cousineau, president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, says delays in racial-profiling cases are harmful to the commission's reputation. (CBC)Seven complaints are now before the tribunal, but the hearings have not been able to proceed, Gaétan Cousineau said.

Lawyers representing the police force use procedural and jurisdictional arguments to delay hearings, he said. For example, he said, the lawyers will argue that Montreal police officers cannot be interrogated if the complaint is also before the police ethics commissioner, which is frequently the case.

"In certain cases we have to send subpoenas to officers," Cousineau said. Even the subpoenas are often contested.

The Human Rights Commission is the first recourse for a complaint about racial profiling. Its decisions are non-binding. If one of the parties disagrees with the commission's recommendations, the case is referred to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The delays at the tribunal level are frustrating for officials and undermine confidence in the commission among minority communities, Cousineau said. It also damages the complaint process "to not be able to solve these cases in a timely fashion," he said.

Cousineau wondered whether the delays are the result of the city’s refusal to acknowledge that racial profiling exists — or whether there is a disconnect between city administrators and the legal services department.

"Refusing to look at things, and refusing to see it when it is there is the worst thing that can happen to society," Cousineau said. "Once you acknowledge that it is there, then you can start repairing it."
Dollard woman waits for compensation

Dollard-des-Ormeaux resident Gemma Raeburn is still waiting for her case to be heard by the Human Rights Tribunal.

In July of 2008, the Human Rights Commission ordered the Montreal police to pay Raeburn $20,000 for racial discrimination.

The commission ruled that police officers made racist remarks in a 2004 incident in which they drew guns on Raeburn and two men while all three were clearing out Raeburn’s garage.

A neighbour called 911 after spotting the trio, believing a robbery was in progress. Police arrived with guns drawn and when Raeburn protested, an officer replied that "bullets don't see colour." Another officer told one of the men that if he didn't like it here, he should go back to his own country.

The three complained to the Police Ethics Commissioner and to the Human Rights Commission. The ethics commission ruled the remarks were discriminatory. One of the officers was suspended for three days, and the second was suspended for one day.Dollard resident Gemma Raeburn says waiting for her complaint to be heard by the Human Rights Tribunal has been stressful. Dollard resident Gemma Raeburn says waiting for her complaint to be heard by the Human Rights Tribunal has been stressful. (CBC)

The Human Rights Commission awarded each complainant $20,000 in moral and punitive damages.

But because the commission’s decision is non-binding, it was forced to take the case before the Human Rights Tribunal.

"It is incredible, the stress and what they put you through — just I guess, to break you down," said Raeburn, a bank executive and active member of the black community.

"I’m not doing this for myself, I’m doing this for my community — I’m doing it for my son. There is racial profiling and discrimination and it's like being an alcoholic. If you don’t admit you're an alcoholic, you’ll never get cured.”
Lawyers doing job

Officials with the city and Montreal police declined to comment.

But Frantz Benjamin, a councillor with Mayor Gérald Tremblay’s Union Montreal Party, said he has spoken with the city’s lawyers about the issue.

"They told us that they are not really doing obstruction, they just want to be clear on the rights of the police," Benjamin said.

Opposition party Vision Montreal said it intends to push the city on the issue. The party will present a motion Friday, aimed at encouraging Montreal police to change their way of addressing racial-profiling complaints, said Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve Borough Mayor Réal Ménard.

"The police department has to collaborate with the Human Rights Commission," Ménard said. "I think that’s the right thing to do."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/01/28/mtl-delays-racial-profiling.html#ixzz0nL7YFUxH

Amal Asmar claims racial profiling for sitting on a bench at 3 a.m.

Concordia student claims racial profiling
Last Updated: Thursday, April 8, 2010 | 7:01 PM ET Comments23Recommend20

CBC News
Amal Asmar was sitting on a bench on Ste-Catherine Street in Montreal on Feb. 4 when she was approached by police. (CBC)

Concordia University student Amal Asmar plans to file a complaint against Montreal police, alleging she was mistreated by officers and fined $1,000 after being targeted because she is of Palestinian descent.

Montreal police refused to comment on the case, but the force has maintained that racial profiling is against its official policy.

Asmar, 33, a human relations and psychology student, said she was on her way to a friend's house after a late night of studying for midterms at Concordia's library on Feb. 4.

She said she stopped and sat down on a bench at a bus stop on Ste-Catherine Street outside the Alexis Nihon plaza at about 3 a.m., when a police cruiser pulled up and two male officers began questioning her.

"They said, 'You're breaking the law based on the way you're using the bench.' And I was just confused. I didn't understand what they were talking about."

The officers got out of the car and approached her, she said.

"I was like, 'I don't understand what's going on. What did I do?' And then before you know it, they had then roughed me up, if you will, and pushed me against the police car and began to restrain me."

Asmar said she screamed when the officers began twisting her arm and pushing her neck against the cruiser.

"I was in such excruciating pain. I was crying. I was screaming, pleading for them to stop. I said, 'Stop. You're hurting me. I am in pain.'"

She claims she was handcuffed and frisked before being put in the back of the police cruiser.
Student claims racial profiling

"I was very confused as to why any of this happened. The only thing that I can say, and what I felt is that I was being singled out because of my ethnicity," said Asmar.

Asmar said she was wearing a kaffiyeh — a black and white checkered scarf commonly worn in the Middle East. She said police made no mention of her ethnic origins.

Asmar received two tickets for the incident: a $620 ticket for making noise and a $480 ticket for using municipal property, in this case the bench, improperly.

She is contesting the tickets and plans to file a complaint with the Police Ethics Commission.

"The way I was mistreated, humiliated, embarrassed, it just instills this fear. These are cops that I've always seen as officials that are there to serve and protect us. And here the very people I though would do so, are the very people I am just terrified of."
'It's unthinkable'

Asmar is working with Montreal's Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations to file a complaint to Quebec's Police Ethics Commissioner.

The centre's executive director, Fo Niemi, said the circumstances Asmar describes are "unthinkable."

"It's very unusual. We find it very, very abusive."

Niemi supports Amar's claim that she was the target of racial profiling.

"Her race, her skin colour, the way she dressed — she was wearing the Arab scarf — and the fact that she was in the street at 2:30 in the morning, particularly around that area. So maybe the combination of those factors led the police to mistreat her."

"This is the kind of incident that makes people lose faith in the police and nullify or compromise whatever good efforts the police try to do," added Niemi.

WHEN YOU ARE WHITE YOU ARE SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY! POLICE BRUTALITY IS UNACCEPTABLE ANYWHERE! BUT WHY THE PUBLIC OUTCRY WHEN THE VICTIM IS WHITE?

RCMP ‘deeply sorry’ for death of Robert Dziekanski

Amy Husser, Canwest News Service Published: Thursday, April 01, 2010
More On This Story

*

Ontario to standardize Taser training
*

RCMP open to independent oversight agency in B.C.
*

Dziekanski report available in summer
*

Lorne Gunter on Dziekanski tasering: Fire the Mounties
*

RCMP watchdog slams force for treatment of Dziekanski

Related Topics

*

Robert Dziekanski
*

Zofia Cisowski
*

Civil Trials
*

Crime and Law
*

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Powered by Inform
Story Tools

*

- + Change font size
*

Comment on this story
*

Print this story
*

E-Mail this story

Share This Story

*

Facebook
*

Digg
*

LinkedIn
*

More

Zophia Cisowski (R) listens as Royal Canadian Mounted Police Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologizes for the death of her son Robert Dziekanski in Richmond, British Columbia April 1, 2010. Andy Clark/Reuters Zophia Cisowski (R) listens as Royal Canadian Mounted Police Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologizes for the death of her son Robert Dziekanski in Richmond, British Columbia April 1, 2010.

The RCMP told Zofia Cisowski they are "deeply sorry" for their role her son Robert Dziekanski's death more than two years ago when officers used a Taser on him to subdue the just-arrived Polish immigrant at the Vancouver International Airport.

"Your son arrived from Poland eager to begin a new life here in Canada," said RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass at a media conference Thursday. "We are deeply sorry he did not have that opportunity."

Along with the apology, Ms. Cisowski is also to receive an undisclosed financial settlement.

Ms. Cisowski tearfully accepted the apology, saying she was ready to "close this chapter" and move on.

"It has been 2 1/2 years since my son died at the Vancouver airport. There was not a single day that I did not cry and analyze what could be done to avoid this tragedy," she told the media conference, her voice cracking.

"I believe the sentiment in the apologies given by federal and provincial authorities will help begin the healing process and clear the path toward my future."

Mr. Dziekanski, 40, died on Oct. 14, 2007, at the airport after being Tasered five times by four RCMP officers responding to a 911 call.

Ms. Cisowski filed a lawsuit last October for damages against the RCMP, the four officers involved, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Vancouver Airport Authority.

Mr. Dziekanski, who was immigrating to Canada to live with his mother, became frustrated when, after a 20-hour flight from Poland, he had to spend another 11 hours in the international arrivals area of the airport. He was unable to contact his mother, who was waiting for him in another area.

An inquiry into the Polish immigrant's death was launched in May 2008, headed by retired appeal court judge Thomas Braidwood, who was slated to deliver the second report of his two-part review to B.C.'s attorney general as early as this month.

Ms. Cisowski also said some of the financial settlement would go toward establishing a scholarship in her son's name at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., where Mr. Dziekanski had planned to live.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2752487#ixzz0nLLlbCDQ

Village Idiot 8:45 am on May 8, 2010 | # | Reply

“This is the kind of incident that makes people lose faith in the police and nullify or compromise whatever good efforts the police try to do,” added Niemi.

Yeah, it’s a shocking and disheartening process, but just like here in the U.S. (where I am) you’ll eventually get used to it.

Excellent commentary. And yes you are absolutely right. I do keep a low profile notwithstanding my comments thus far. Furthermore I take every precaution possible nor do I care to elaborate. I made the mistake of being at the wrong place at the wrong time which may be attributed to mere coincidence. Even mere coincidence is no longer permissible.

In my situation in addition to 26 surveillance cameras both inside and outside the restaurant and numerous witnesses not one of the predominantly white witnesses came forward to defend or provide testimony about what they saw. From my perspective I was guilty until proven innocent. Later it was reported to me by one of the witnesses that the police had pressured her to not come forward. The police witness list also mysteriously disappeared. (Facts Intentionally Mischaracterized For Obvious Reasons In My Commentary)

My thoughts are that some of the predominant majority actually felt some degree of vindication in seeing another black male placed into handcuffs. After all I must have done something wrong to be able to drive the vehicle I drove and outspend them in an establishment that was frequented by individuals that are predominantly white.

But I do understand the points you have made and have only focused on the racial profiling issue. Where I to focus on the rest of the incident I would no longer be construed to be maintaining a low profile. And I am certain there would be repercussions. (I Fully Understand The Rules Of Engagement)

Prior to this incident I was stopped for driving to slowly on a major highway. My vehicle speed at the time was 100KPH. The majority may ask how do you know how fast you were traveling? The answer is I take every precaution possible since I live in a racist society. The white female officer made sure to identify my vehicle, use the radio to run my plates then pull up to the side of my car to confirm that I was indeed an ethnic minority. I have received prior training to confirm the aforementioned. This was my first stop in Canada that confirmed to me racial profiling does exist.

By the way this took over 7 minutes. After criss crossing all 3 lanes on the highway losing control of her vehicle culminating in her ending up on the shoulder (I Kid You Not) she then motions for me to pull over. This was followed by her activating her siren and the accompanying flashing lights. One of the first things she did was to use her belt to brush up against my car and intentionally scratch the vehicle. She then attempted to lecture me as to my vehicle speed. (100KPH The Legal Speed Limit)

By the way I never back down when confronted by racists. These situations can always be addressed and remedied in court though it is expensive. She would later go on to withdraw the ticket after the fact. It was never entered into the system. I guess she took my warnings seriously. I believe and this is my opinion solely that this incident is what led to my being charged with care and control.

Her buddies decided to help her get even. I have a lot of friends who are police officers so I know how they think some of the time. The get even attitude isn't far fetched. I too almost ended up pursuing a career in law enforcement. And I do have a lot of respect for police officers. However it is worth noting that they are only human and err in judgment frequently which is reflective of the rest of our society. The only exception are "Super Cops." All racist police officers are "Super Cops." Just kidding! Then again they act like they are above the law until they pull over the wrong person that challenges them. Then the cover up begins in earnest.

They do things like flag the system which is computerized so that the next time you are stopped and your vehicle plates are run they and only they can see the deliberately hidden notes on the system. If you frequent the same places over and over and here I have to be extremely careful in what I say, owners of the restaurants and the staff will also assist the police in targeting you personally. In other words things aren't always what they seem to be.

I currently take the position per "Chris Rock" that if I am again stopped for impaired driving it's my fault. I should have known better. This means I should have the ability to see into the future. If I do absolutely nothing wrong and I am alleged to have broken the law that's par for the course. Again I should know better. So it's best to work hard earn a decent living go home shut up and take your medicine day in and day out.

Until my White friends travel internationally and are confronted with police brutality in the least likely places and wonder why life isn't fair it is worth remembering that what goes around comes around eventually. It's already tough enough for me to travel and I'm not speaking about the security precautions I have to endure but rather about racial profiling when traveling as well. So I assume it will continue to get tougher and tougher for my white friends to travel as well though this transformation will not occur immediately.

Whenever I travel internationally I am always amazed at how polite courteous and respectful our predominant majority behave whenever they are out of their realm. The transformation is incredulous to say the least. By the way note that I didn't mention which geographic location I am referring to in as far as travel is concerned.

Finally when I was a kid I recall that a businessman had been arrested in a foreign country where he resided. He most definitely fits the description of the majority. I was surprised that it was my Dad that rescued him from his predicament. I don't want to consider what would have happened to him had my Dad not intervened on his behalf. Our families remain good friends till this day.

What I often tell the majority is that in my neighborhood where I grew up as a kid if someone that looked like me mistreated someone that looked like them I or my family would have intervened. It would be embarrassing not to have done the right thing.

You support policy by omission or commission. This always worth remembering. So if you decide to do nothing you will still be considered to be supportive of racist policies.

Maybe some of these good deeds have followed me up till the present. If all of us attempted to do what was right without necessarily having to stick our necks out it most certainly would make this world a better place.

I still reside in Toronto. The question is why. I could relocate tomorrow. It wouldn't make a difference to me financially. However I do like Canada and I certainly support the virtues espoused by Canadians. So lets collectively make this dream a reality for everyone by playing our part collectively.

I am from Ontario. I live in Detroit. (USA) And I have first hand experienced racial profiling already. I have a very nice car, and the part of Ontario i’m from lots of people of color or black people have nice cars and make a good salary. I was driving around the Cass Corridor vicinity, and the cop pulled me over and when I asked him why he pulled me over he said. “I just want to make sure this is your car” I was like what? I didn’t get crazy and let it go because I was in a rush, but if you know me I don’t let things like this slide. So yeah I got racially profiled in Detroit. And if it happens again, there is going to be a international situation eh.

Because that kind of stuff is not happening, this ain’t the 1950s eh and I don’t care where I live. I have been told from other Americans that they aren’t used to seeing black people drive nice cars up here. I can tell they aren’t, but they better get used to seeing me because I ain’t goin nowhere eh. And if it happens again, i’m going to make an example out of whatever officer does it. And i’m willing to go to whatever lengths I have to go to so this doesn’t happen to anybody else eh. Or that they know that they can’t do that. If I gotta shed some light on this subject then so be it. I’ll do what I have to do eh.

Group wants to give Quebec cops racial profiling training

By STEPHANIE SAUCIER, QMI Agency

Last Updated: May 26, 2010 7:48pm

MONTREAL - A prominent Quebec advocacy group says it would be the best candidate to teach Montreal police officers about racial profiling because black residents of the province no longer trust police organizations with the task.

The president of the Black Coalition of Quebec, Dan Philipp, said the current training isn’t taken seriously by officers and that the rights of minorities are routinely flouted during police operations.

Philipp made the comments during the first day of public hearings in the province examining the issue of racial profiling. The issue has been a topic of heated debate in Canada for years and has been getting more attention in Quebec after several incidents involving police and minorities.

“It’s time we gave formal training that will be different than the sensitivity training that we’ve already given police officers in the past,” Philipp said.

He added that because the Black Coalition of Quebec knows the black community and the problems it faces, and because it’s aware of how officers behave, the group is in a better position to give meaningful training to Montreal police services than other officers on the force.

“They need a strong, straightforward and clear-cut message so they understand that some of them are doing things outside of the law. We have to tell them exactly how the community views them,” Philipp said.

He said he also wants officers to show they will have zero tolerance for racial profiling.

In its presentation, the organization noted that black residents no longer trust the province’s police disciplinary committee and that victim statements are often distorted during the complaints process, a frequent occurrence “when the police investigate the police.” “We need independent investigations to re-establish trust between society and police officers, especially when people are dying,” Philipp told the committee.

The Black Coalition leader also criticized the federal government for not acting on a United Nations appeal to launch a nation-wide awareness campaign addressing the problems at the heart of racial profiling.

“We have to start by changing mentalities by educating society,” he said.

“The government of Canada still hasn’t started this basic education.”

I just came across these posts today. How refreshing for a change. My thoughts are that racial profiling will not change soon enough at least not in my lifetime and especially given the current approach.

Maybe it's time we realize that we can no longer fight hate with more hate. What goes around comes around. Trust me.

A good start would be to treat everyone we meet the way we would like to be treated. I think the 10 commandments go a long way towards supporting this position. There are bad people everywhere so try not to encourage them to persist in their behavior.

Try to be nice and pleasant to everyone including strangers. Go out of your way to treat each person you interact with very well. Be genuine.

Try to be polite and courteous to everyone. Turn the other cheek even when you know the other person is a jerk. It really is their loss and not yours. Spread positive energy by doing your share as an essential member of our global village.

Yes there are bad people out there and I'm sure we all agree that racial profiling is wrong. The people that continue to profile others are obviously misguided troubled and disturbed regardless of their explanations.

See them for what they really are and attempt to win them over by showing that you are above the fray. You aren't weak. In reality you are stronger and arguably a more advanced human being. They still have a lot to learn during their lifetime. And believe it or not eventually people do change though it is worth noting that change does truly come from within. More than likely you won't be able to change them.

Try to accept those who are different in as much as you can. Try to avoid violence. It really is unbecoming in such an advanced society. Try to ignore the haters who will hate you because of your perceived success. And please remember that much as I read above life most definitely is not fair.

Be thankful for what you have and don't take what you have for granted. There are numerous others worldwide that would love to take your place if they could. And remember that hate and anger have no place in our world.

Every step in this, the right direction takes us that much closer to getting rid of racial profiling.

“Every step in this, the right direction takes us that much closer to getting rid of racial profiling.”

That’s easy for you to say. We live in an imperfect world and continually strive for perfection. However “the more things change the more they stay the same.” Have you considered that there are those in the predominant majority that would like for things to remain unchanged?

For these predominant majority that continue to maintain the status quo by omission or commission racial profiling while still an issue isn’t that important an issue just yet. I know I am white.

Scot Wortley, a professor with the University of Toronto criminology department, headed up a study done on the Kingston police department. Released in May, the study found that police were 3.7 times more likely to pull over a black person, and 1.4 times more likely to pull over an Aboriginal person, than a member of the white race.

The study is the first of its kind in Canada, and confirms that racial profiling in policing organizations does exist.

“The police will never back off from racial profiling or other abuses on their own. It’s the people who tell them what to do who determine their strategies and tactics so if you want to change those you need to change the status quo at a fundamental level. That will only happen by either displacement of the existing power structure (a crumbling of the status quo from within or without) or a miraculous expansion of consciousness/compassion/empathy within the existing power structure (not too likely). So until one of those things happens I wish you luck, and implore you to keep a low profile (so to speak).

“On November 1, 1999, Constable Olson, a Metro Toronto police officer, stopped Decovan “Dee” Brown, a young man of African-American descent and a former professional basketball player for the Toronto Raptors, as he was driving down the Don Valley Parkway. The officer’s reason was that Mr. Brown was driving in excess of the speed limit and, on two occasions, his car had crossed out of and back into the lane in which he was traveling.”

“I was driving around the King Street Area, and the cop pulled me over and when I asked him why he pulled me over he said. “I just want to make sure this is your car” I was like what? I didn’t get crazy and let it go because I was in a rush, but if you know me I don’t let things like this slide. So yeah I got racially profiled in Toronto.”

“Prior to this incident I was stopped for driving to slowly on a major highway. My vehicle speed at the time was 100KPH.”

“Racial profiling is more likely to occur in areas where its victims look out of place than in areas where their skin colour is prominent.”

“The OHRC defined racial profiling as “any action taken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin, rather than on reasonable suspicion”.

“The way I was mistreated, humiliated, embarrassed, it just instills this fear. These are cops that I’ve always seen as officials that are there to serve and protect us. And here the very people I thought would do so, are the very people I am just terrified of.”
‘It’s unthinkable’

“The City of Montreal is systematically blocking complaints of racial profiling against the police force by stalling hearings before the province’s Human Rights Tribunal, says the president of Quebec’s Human Rights Commission.”

“Ron Phipps admits he was criss-crossing Vernham Ave. the day he was stopped by police in the Bridle Path.

He was also wearing a Canada Post coat and carrying two mailbags while filling in for the regular letter carrier.

Toronto Police Const. Michael Shaw pointed that out to a new constable he was training as soon as they turned into the street. Shaw was also suspicious about Phipps, who is black, speaking to a homeowner but not delivering her any mail.”

“I was arrested for a DWB in Toronto. It means driving while black or brown. Only I wasn’t even driving. I wasn’t even inside my vehicle initially. Nevertheless that was the bogus and frivolous charge. Surveillance footage had my car parked until it was towed. Need I say more. I simply attempted to walk from one restaurant to another on foot.”

“The police observed my vehicle ran my plates to verify I indeed was the driver then waited for me prior to my exiting the restaurant. They knew the result of my breath test before I had taken the test. This suggests a conspiracy. Then they attempted to cover up everything after the fact.”

“Folks this not only is racial profiling that’s life in Toronto.”

June 17, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will hear testimony today from civil rights groups, legal scholars and law enforcement officials at a hearing on racial profiling that will examine law enforcement’s use of race, ethnicity, national origin and religion to determine guilt. The hearing, titled “Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law Enforcement Policy,” will also set the stage for the upcoming reintroduction of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) by both the House and the Senate.

"Racial profiling is not only an unfair and un-American policing tactic, it also erodes community trust and is an ineffective waste of law enforcement resources," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. “Using race, ethnicity, national origin or religion to single out people for police scrutiny does nothing to make us safer, but does a great deal to deepen racial divides in America. Racial profiling is wrong, unconstitutional and sends the unacceptable message that some citizens do not deserve equal protection under the law.”

One of the hearing’s witnesses, Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris Burbank, is expected to testify on the law recently passed in the neighboring state of Arizona requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. Law enforcement groups, including Arizona’s state police chief's association, oppose the discriminatory law because it undermines public safety by diverting scarce security resources toward false threats and eroding trust between law enforcement and Latinos.

Last month, the ACLU and other leading civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law in a federal court in Phoenix. The extreme law, the groups charge, invites racial profiling because law enforcement will inevitably rely on their own bias to determine who they suspect is in the U.S. unlawfully and force anyone who looks or sounds “foreign" to confirm their identity and citizenship.

ERPA was introduced in the House and Senate in 2001, 2004 and 2005, failing each year to receive a vote. If enacted, ERPA would prohibit any local, state or federal law enforcement agency or officer from engaging in racial profiling. It would make engaging in efforts to eliminate racial profiling a condition for law enforcement agencies to receive federal money. ERPA would institute a meaningful enforcement mechanism to ensure that anti-profiling policies are being followed.
“Despite condemnation of racial profiling by leaders from across the political spectrum, including the president and attorney general, attempts to pass a comprehensive federal ban have not moved forward,” said Jennifer Bellamy, ACLU Legislative Counsel. “Racial profiling has undermined the respect and trust between law enforcement and communities of color, which is essential to successful police work. Race, ethnicity and religion are not and should not be grounds for criminal suspicion. Congress should move quickly to reintroduce and pass the End Racial Profiling Act.”

Black people across Toronto are three times more likely to be stopped and documented by police than white people, a Star investigation has found.

To a lesser extent, the same is true for people described by police as having "brown" skin, according to a Star analysis of 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto police officers between 2003 and 2008.

Top police brass, including Chief Bill Blair, stress that they are deploying officers in areas of high "victimization" where there is a lack of opportunity and people are struggling with poverty, and where there also happens to be significant ethnic populations. They say being carded does not equate to a criminal record. Yet, young men interviewed by the Star feel as though they do have one, and complain of racial bias and repeated encounters where they believe they have no choice but to answer police questions, produce identification and sometimes be searched.

The Toronto Police Service encourages officers to fill out the notebook-sized cards, known as 208s, though it is not mandatory as it is in England and a growing number of U.S. cities, but there the data is used to look for patterns of potential bias.

The cards document name, age, gender, race, skin colour, address, physical features, the names of associates, and ask for identification. Also noted is the nature of police contact, which includes "suspicious activity," "general investigation" or "loitering" – nothing necessarily criminal.

People don't have to answer questions, but legal experts say failure to cooperate can escalate a situation.

All of this information is fed into a growing internal Toronto police database, which police say is an invaluable investigative tool that allows them to find associates, witnesses and suspects, and reduce crime.

There's collateral damage: An innocent man like Toronto teacher Rohan Robinson is frequently stopped by police in the same way that Mark Cain, now a convicted murderer, was often stopped. With the help of a 208 card, homicide detectives broke Cain's alibi in a 2006 case involving the slaying of a community activist.

Blair said he does not dispute the Star's analysis and acknowledges racial bias plays a part in the disparities identified. How much is difficult to say.

"We're not trying to make any excuses for this. We recognize that bias in police decision-making is a big, big issue for us, and so we're working really hard on it."

Blacks are documented more than whites in almost every part of Toronto, with the highest disproportionate rate of "carding" for blacks in areas that are predominantly white, like pockets of North Toronto.

A criminologist calls this the "out of place" factor – people being questioned because they do not fit in.

In reality the solution to racial profiling in policing may just be to replace humans with robots.

Robots aren't inadvertently biased nor prejudiced. Technology will ultimately resolve this pressing issue sooner or later.

Black Harvard Professor's Arrest Continues to Generate Controversy
Friday July 24, 2009

President Obama is facing a backlash for saying Wednesday that "police acted stupidly" for arresting Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates. What I don't get is why.

On July 16, a woman in Gates' Cambridge neighborhood called authorities to report two black men attempting a home robbery. Turns out there was no robbery in progress. The black men were Harvard Professor Gates and his driver, and the home in question belonged to the noted academic. The duo resorted to jimmying the door open because it was stuck but managed to get inside through the back door. However, when police arrived on scene and found Gates there, they asked him to provide identification to prove that he was the homeowner.

After viewing his ID and confirming that Gates indeed lived in the home, Cambridge Police arrested Gates anyway, citing disorderly conduct on his part. After the charges against the professor became public, though, the police department dropped them, calling the arrest "unfortunate and regrettable."

Despite the department's decision to drop the charges, Obama is being criticized for characterizing the arresting officer's behavior (not the officer himself) as stupid. The President's critics argue that he shouldn't have spoken without knowing all of the facts. Well, I argue that Obama didn't need to know all the facts. By dropping the charges and calling Gates' arrest regrettable, the Cambridge Police Department is admitting to wrongdoing, or "acting stupidly," as Obama so bluntly put it.

It would be another matter if the police had not dropped the charges. But by doing so, they are admitting to bad behavior on their part, however slight. What remains in dispute is whether Cambridge Police committed the act of racial profiling when arresting Gates. They deny this charge. According to them, the officer who arrested Gates--Sgt. James Crowley--has even trained other officers to avoid racial profiling. As for Obama, he never directly accused Crowley of arresting Gates due to his race. His exact words were: "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

I couldn't agree more. That said, I'm not accusing Crowley of racial profiling. The fact that he arrived at Gates' home after someone phoned the authorities puts that idea to bed for me. However, I don't doubt that race factored into Gates' arrest. This is because African Americans are routinely held to a different code of conduct than whites are. I know from personal experience that when African Americans are upset about something and show it, they are more likely to be labeled as having a chip on their shoulder or an attitude problem than whites who exhibit an equal amount of anger are. In fact, in my post on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I mentioned how it was once commonplace for people of color in America to avoid making eye contact with whites, lest they appear "uppity." Given this, I wonder if Gates was really as belligerent as the arresting officer described him as being. Even if he was, would the white officer have arrested a white Harvard professor who became indignant after being accused of breaking into his own home? I tend to think not. I tend to think that Sgt. Crowley would have given Gates' white counterpart a break in this situation rather than arrest him. In the criminal justice system, whites are routinely given breaks that blacks aren't, including fewer convictions, reduced sentences and a lower likelihood of being sentenced to death.

For the record, Gates has disputed Cambridge Police's description of him, saying that he complied with all of Sgt. Crowley's requests. The fact that the department dropped the charges against the professor only serves to make him more credible. Yet, a vocal segment of the public continues to accuse Gates of wrongdoing. And, now, the President has been accused of wrongdoing for speaking out about the incident. Unfortunately, the critics and supporters of Gates are divided along racial lines, with blacks overwhelmingly supporting Gates. This paints a rather bleak picture of race relations, not to mention a familiar pattern of all but the most liberal whites refusing to empathize with an African American in a heated incident.

Harvard Law Professor Writes New Book on Racial Profiling
Racial profiling is alive and well in America, says author Charles Ogletree

Meredith Hobbs

Fulton County Daily Report

July 02, 2010

What is it like to be arrested in your own home and taken to jail -- and to feel that it is because you are black?

At a benefit for The Southern Center for Human Rights on Monday evening, Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree talked about his experience representing his colleague Henry Louis Gates last July in just such an incident.

Gates, a University Professor at Harvard and nationally known scholar on race, was on his porch when he was arrested for disorderly conduct by a Cambridge police officer who had responded to a call from a neighbor saying that someone had forced his way into the front door of Gates' house.

The ensuing national brouhaha about racial profiling prompted Ogletree to write a book about the incident, "The Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Race, Class, and Crime in America," which was just published on June 18.

Ogletree, who has been the chairman of the Southern Center's board since 1982, said that America has a long way to go to become a post-racial society, citing the disproportionate number of black men in prison.

Racial profiling is alive and well in America, he said, almost two decades after the Rodney King beating.

Ogletree said he delayed sending the book to press to add a section on the new Arizona law that allows police making a lawful stop to ask for proof of legal immigration status from people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally.

"The law makes it OK to profile everybody," said Ogletree. "How can you look at somebody and determine if they are an undocumented citizen or not? You can't."

Ogletree shared his experience representing Gates with the audience gathered in the spacious living room of criminal defense lawyer Edward T. M. Garland's mansion on West Paces Ferry Road.

"Skip Gates was shocked to be in jail," Ogletree said. "He really thought he'd earned the right to be treated differently -- but class did not help him."

Ogletree said that Gates' protestations to the policeman who arrested him -- "Do you know who I am?" and "This can't be happening to me" and "Is this because I'm black?" -- caused him to be cast as "an angry black man" in the drama.

Gates' arrest struck a national nerve, even though Cambridge police dropped the charges five days later. Controversy erupted over whether Gates had been a victim of racial profiling or an obstreperous citizen who happened to be black.

President Barack Obama inadvertently fueled the story when a reporter seized the opportunity to ask him about Gates' arrest after a speech on health care reform.

Obama "became the black president," said Ogletree, when he responded with an off-the-cuff comment that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" by arresting a man in his own home.

"Then he said we have a problem with the racial profiling of black and Latino men -- and then the firestorm happened," said Ogletree.

That lead to the famous "beer summit" last July where Gates and the policeman, James Crowley, shared a conciliatory beer with Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden at the White House.

Ogletree said the strangeness of the case caused him to procure every document about the arrest and see what had happened. "It's amazing the difference between what the public was told and the reality of what happened," he said.

He shared some insider knowledge of the case with the audience.

On returning from a trip to China, Gates could not open the door to his house, because it was jammed. After forcing the door open, he called his landlord to send someone to repair it. Moments later a car arrived -- but it was the police, summoned by a neighbor who'd seen Gates forcing open the door.

Ogletree said that Gates refused the officer's request to step onto his porch and asked why he was there. When Gates stepped away from the door to get identification for Crowley, the officer followed him into the house.

Gates showed the policeman his Harvard ID and his driver's license with his address. The officer was slow to be persuaded that Gates was the occupant of the house, prompting Gates to tell him to call Harvard's police chief to vouch for him.

Then he told the officer he was going to file a complaint and asked for his name and badge number.

This is where Gates made his mistake, said Ogletree, a former public defender.

"Never tell a policeman you are going to file a complaint -- and never ask for a name and badge number," he said, pointing out that this information is on the officer's uniform. "Memorize it," he said.

The officer asked Gates to step outside at that point, Ogletree said, adding that one cannot be charged with disorderly conduct in one's own home, since there is no public to disrupt. Gates did.

After thanking Gates for complying with his request, said Ogletree, the officer arrested him for "loud and tumultuous behavior" in a public place, handcuffed him and took him off to jail.

Ogletree said he widened his narrative beyond Gate's arrest to look at incidents of racial profiling in the years since Rodney King's 1991 beating by Los Angeles police sparked a race riot.

While representing Gates, Ogletree said he received numerous e-mails, calls and letters from people describing their own experience with what they perceived as racial profiling.

The second half of the book, called "100 Ways to Look at a Black Man," tells the stories of the people who contacted him, mostly African-American men, as well as prominent black men in U.S. history, such as Thurgood Marshall, John Hope Franklin and Johnnie Cochran Jr.

He includes incidents of racial profiling of black students and professors in the Harvard community as well as educated professionals in other parts of the country.

"If the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. proves anything, it is that America has not achieved its goal of being a post-racial society," Ogletree said.

POLICE BRUTALITY - Vancouver Police Push Down Disabled Woman, Then Walk Away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX3nTOBt9mI

By the way in case you haven't noticed she isn't white!

Here is a link to the Agenda hosted by Steve Paikin as he interviews Dr. Kwame McKenzie. This should be mandatory viewing for all the "Racists" as to an objective view of Toronto. Learn from history. This is an intriguing interview especially because Dr. McKenzie is a newcomer to Toronto.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=41

STOP YOUR RANTING! POLICE BRUTALITY IMPACTS US ALL. WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT COLLECTIVELY AS A SOCIETY! READ THIS! AS A WOMAN I REMAIN VERY CONCERNED FOR MY WELL BEING AND PERSONAL SAFETY WHENEVER I ENCOUNTER THE POLICE!

Lifted like a rag doll and hurled into cell: Shocking video of police brutality... on 5ft 2in tall woman, 59, found asleep in car

By Ian Gallagher and Christine Challand
Last updated at 8:26 PM on 5th September 2010

* Comments (352)
* Add to My Stories

Captured on film, a burly police sergeant flings an innocent 5ft 2in woman on to a concrete floor, knocking her unconscious.

By the time the then 57-year-old market researcher Pamela Somerville comes round several minutes later, blood is streaming from a wound above her left eye.

Disorientated and bewildered, she manages to lift herself off the floor, but can only stagger around the room.
Pamela Somerville
Pamela after the assault

Nightmare: Pamela Somerville yesterday, left, and with a blood-spattered shirt and black eye after her ordeal

Blood forms in small pools at her feet. Then she presses an intercom and cries: ‘I’m hurt, please, please help me.’

The incident, in the sleepy Wiltshire market town of Melksham, will inevitably stoke debate about the deteriorating relationship between the public and the police following the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, pushed to the ground by a police officer during last year’s G20 protests.

More...

* To watch the video click here

Unlike that case, however, the officer involved – 6ft 3in, powerfully built former soldier Mark Andrews – was brought before a court.

Earlier this summer, Sergeant Andrews, 37, was convicted of assaulting Ms Somerville on a July morning two years ago.

He had denied the charge, but was found guilty at Oxford Magistrates’ Court after a five-day trial. He will be sentenced on Tuesday when he faces up to six months in jail.

CCTV footage of the incident obtained by The Mail on Sunday also shows Andrews dragging a terrified Ms Somerville across the floor.
'Barbaric': Pamela Sommerville is dragged into a cell and then flung into a cell, spilling blood on the floor

'Barbaric': Pamela Sommerville is dragged into a cell and then flung into a cell, spilling blood on the floor

It was, she says, the first time she had been inside a police station. Not having had ‘so much as a parking ticket before’ it was also her first encounter of any kind with the police.

‘I am just an ordinary, middle-aged, middle-class Miss Goody Two-Shoes. I had done absolutely nothing wrong,’ she said.

‘What happened to me was extraordinary, terrifying, and no one should ever be treated in the same way again, no matter what they are said to have done.

'It’s the kind of thing that might go on in a tin-pot dictatorship in Latin America, maybe, but not in rural Wiltshire.’

Police took Ms Somerville into custody after she spent the night asleep in her car in a rural lane. They say she was arrested because she refused to

provide a breath sample – something she strongly denies. Although she was later charged, the police dropped the case against her.

It should be stated that despite her harrowing experience, privately educated Ms Somerville, who has a degree in microbiology from Warwick University, is not consumed with hatred of the police.

‘There are good and bad apples everywhere,’ she offers magnanimously.
Pamela Somerville is brought into the police station for her first encounter with custody sergeant Mark Andrews

Pamela Somerville is brought into the police station for her first encounter with Sergeant Mark Andrews
Andrews moves from behind the desk and grabs Pamela by the arm

Andrews moves from behind the desk and grabs Pamela by the arm
As Pamela shouts out in protest, Andrews drags her across the floor

As Pamela shouts out in protest, Andrews drags her across the floor
Andrews appears to grab Pamela by the deck, as another officer follows

Andrews appears to have Pamela in a strong hold, as another officer follows behind
Pamela has walked back from her cell and is grabbed by Andrews

Pamela has walked back from her cell and is grabbed by Andrews

One of the key prosecution witnesses, in fact, was a female officer, PC Rachel Webb, who witnessed what happened and made an immediate complaint. It is understood she has now been recommended for a commendation.

Ms Somerville, now 59, who lives with her partner, John, in the hamlet of North Colerne, Wiltshire, says she still suffers consequences from the assault.

She says she will need a cataract operation, the direct result of the trauma she suffered. ‘My vision is still affected, it’s as if I am looking through a cloud,’ she said. ‘And the whole of the left side of my face is now lower than the right, like a stroke victim.

‘The emotional and physical trauma of the past two years has not been easy to deal with. Had I been beaten up by a gang of thugs in a busy city centre, I think I would have been able to come to terms with being a victim a lot sooner.’

Ms Somerville’s story began on the evening of July 3, 2008. She arrived home from work as normal and, after dinner, became embroiled in an argument with a mobile phone company over a disputed bill. It left her ‘stressed’ and she told John that she was going to stay the night at her daughter’s house in London.
Pamela refuses to move in protest at not being told what is going on. Andrews puts her in an arm lock and she falls to the ground

Pamela refuses to move in protest at not being told what is going on. Andrews puts her in an arm lock and she falls to the ground
Andrews drags Pamela across the floor of the station's custody suite

Andrews drags Pamela across the floor of the station's custody suite

Andrews pushes her violently through the cell door, and she falls on her face on to the bare concrete

Andrews pushes her violently through the cell door, and she falls on her face on to the bare concrete
Andrews turns away as Pamela - circled - hits her head on the hard ground, knocking her unconscious and causing lasting damage

Andrews turns away as Pamela - circled - hits her head on the hard ground, knocking her unconscious and causing lasting damage

Pamela regains consciousness after her 'barbaric' treatment, and struggles to raise herself off the cell floor

Pamela regains consciousness after her 'barbaric' treatment, and struggles to raise herself off the cell floor
At last, rubbing the wound above her left eye, which she says is still affecting her vision, she manages to stand upright

At last, rubbing the wound above her left eye, which she says is still affecting her vision, she manages to stand upright

‘I just wanted to get in my car and drive. My car is a safe haven, somewhere where I listen to music and relax,’ she said.

She pulled over into a lay-by 150 yards from her house on a country lane and rang her daughter. During the course of a long conversation, she decided against making the lengthy drive to London.

Instead she wound down the windows, listened to a Van Morrison CD and rang some friends, eventually draining the phone’s battery.

At some point she fell asleep, and awoke at around 1.30am to find her car battery was also flat because she had left the heater on full blast.

Despite being so close to home, she decided to remain in the car until daylight because she didn’t want to leave her work computer and confidential documents inside.

‘It had been drilled into us at work never to let these things out of our sight,’ she said.

Ms Somerville readily admits that her decision to remain in the car overnight will be seen as odd, if not bizarre – but she is adamant she had neither been drinking nor was under the influence of drugs.

‘I appreciate it will seem strange, particularly for a woman of my age.

'But I can sleep on a washing line. Even though I wasn’t far from home I would have had to walk along a dark and pot-holed country lane.

'I thought it would be better to stay put.’ She said she had had a ‘minor’ argument with her partner, and admits: ‘I couldn’t go back because I didn’t want to lose face with John after storming out the way I did.’
Pamela is clearly in distress as blood starts coming from the wound, forming in small, scattered pools at her feet

Pamela is clearly in distress as blood starts coming from the wound, forming in small, scattered pools at her feet
Disoriented, Pamela sits on the simple bed in the cell, the padded matress behind her, and cries out for help through the intercom

Disoriented, Pamela sits on the simple bed in the cell, the padded matress behind her, and cries out for help through the intercom

After hearing Pamela's desperate pleas, Andrews appears again, striding over the blood on the floor to attend to his injured prisoner

After hearing Pamela's desperate pleas, Andrews appears again, striding over the blood on the floor to attend to his injured prisoner
Finally Andrews shows some sympathy, and crouches down beside Pamela, putting his gloved hand to her injured forehead

Finally Andrews shows some sympathy, and crouches down beside Pamela, putting his gloved hand to her injured forehead
A doctor enters the cell and examines Pamela's injuries before the paramedics are called

A doctor enters the cell and examines Pamela's injuries before the paramedics are called

She awoke at around 8.30am and, after getting out of the car, saw a female community police officer walking towards her.

‘I was delighted to see her,’ said Ms Somerville. ‘I asked her if she had some jump leads but she walked off as if to make a call.’ Within

minutes a patrol car pulled up alongside her Mercedes estate and two police officers, one male and one female, got out.

‘I asked if they had brought the jump leads but they simply said, “Shut up. We are the f****** police.” Then they pushed me on to the back of the car, pushed my arms up high behind my back and handcuffed me very roughly.

'I was astounded and assumed it was a case of mistaken identity. One of the officers was particularly aggressive and kept telling me to shut up when I asked what was happening.’

Wiltshire Police said yesterday that she was arrested for failing to provide a sample for a breath test after the officers suspected she was drunk in charge of a car.

Ms Somerville disputes this version of events, denies she had been drinking and insists she was never told why she was being arrested.

‘I would have been blissfully happy to do a breath test. It was akin to something out of an American detective show like Hawaii Five-0,’ she said.

‘I thought there might have been an incident in the area and they thought I was somehow involved. Either that or they thought I had drugs because I had been in the car all night and look young for my age. At this stage, I still thought that everything would be cleared up quickly.’

Ms Somerville admits she became angry and abusive when the two officers repeatedly refused to explain why they wanted to take her to a police station.

‘I came out with a few choice expletives when they kept telling me to shut up, and the male officer used the F-word again when I told him he was making a mistake.’

It was on arrival at Melksham police station, where cameras are installed in the custody suite and holding cells, that Ms Somerville first encountered Sgt Andrews.

CCTV footage shows Ms Somerville flanked by two officers as she stands handcuffed at the front desk at around 10.20am.

An edited version of the film was later used in evidence against Andrews. There is some sound, but only at the start, and the timings at the bottom of the screen appear to be out of sequence in places.

Before taking her to a cell, Andrews shouts from behind his desk: ‘Oh shut up. Listen to me. You are in my custody now and you will be quiet and you will listen. Do you understand?’

Ms Somerville admits shouting at the officer, but only because he would not explain why she had been arrested. She was then taken to a cell. ‘I was starting to become very frightened by then,’ she said.

Around an hour later, Ms Somerville was visited by a police doctor.

‘I was relieved to see him when he introduced himself because I thought he’d have more intelligence than the officers who’d been dealing with me,’ she said.

‘I told him, “Thank God, at last I can speak to someone with a brain and get this nightmare sorted out.”

'But when he started putting on a pair of disposable gloves and said he couldn’t tell me anything, I thought he was going to strip search me, so I walked past him and out of the cell.’

Ms Somerville, who is eight stone, encountered Andrews outside. She recalls ‘being lifted up under the arms like a doll by Sgt Andrews and thrown headfirst back into the cell’.

He then slammed the door shut and left her unconscious on the floor. ‘I still find it hard to watch the images of me staggering to my feet with blood pouring from a head wound because I can remember how terrified I was,’ she said. ‘I could have died.

‘It seems utterly barbaric that an innocent person could be treated in such a horrific and violent way and then left alone, the fact that someone may even have been watching the CCTV footage of me not moving on the floor.’

Later that morning, police eventually called paramedics who took Ms Somerville to the Royal United Hospital in Bath.

‘I can remember trying to explain to the paramedics that I didn’t understand why I was there,’ she said. ‘When they saw blood coming from my mouth, they put the sirens on and I was taken straight into A&E. I thought to myself, “This is it, Pam. You’re going to die.” I was still concussed.’

During the several hours she spent in hospital she was kept in handcuffs and accompanied by two police officers, despite protests from nurses.

‘The officers at the hospital wouldn’t let me call my partner, or anyone. I said it was my right and they replied that it might be like that on American TV programmes but not here.’

After the gash above her eyes was stitched and her head X-rayed, she was driven back to the police station.

‘My eye was still bleeding and one

of the officers told me off because he would have to clean the blood off the back seat of the car,’ she said.

Soon after returning, at 6.45pm, she was charged with failing to provide

a specimen of breath and released on bail. Officers told her she would have to take a taxi home but when she started vomiting outside the station, they called an ambulance and she was taken back to hospital.

Her partner John, who still thought she was staying at her daughter’s, was eventually told about her whereabouts by a community policeman, who told him she had been arrested and was injured.

‘John burst into tears when he saw me at the hospital covered in blood with my eye closed and swollen,’ Ms Somerville said.

‘I was so relieved to be free that even though the hospital wanted me to stay in and have a blood transfusion, I signed a disclaimer and told John to take me home.’

At his Wiltshire home yesterday, Sgt Andrews declined to comment. He sped off in a Honda Civic, the hood of his anorak pulled tightly around his face.

In a statement, Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty said: ‘The court has heard from a number of witnesses in connection with an incident within the custody suite at Melksham police station two years ago which resulted in a 57-year-old woman sustaining an injury to her head.

‘We are very concerned when anyone is injured while in our custody and the court has decided that this injury was as a result of a criminal assault by Sgt Mark Andrews, a member of Wiltshire Police who was performing duty as a custody sergeant at the time.

‘We respect the decision of the court and the force has formally apologised to the injured lady for the assault she suffered while in our care.

'The incident was reported by another police officer within the custody centre who was concerned at what had taken place.

'The officer found herself in a very difficult situation created by her own supervisor but performed her duty to the highest standards in bringing this unacceptable incident to the attention of another supervisor.

‘As soon as the incident was brought to attention, the officer concerned was removed from public-facing duties and the incident was voluntarily referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission who decided they would be satisfied with a local investigation by the force itself.

'This investigation resulted in a file being sent to the CPS which led to the trial of Sgt Andrews.

‘The public have a right to expect that the police will always act with their safety and welfare as their first priority.

'This is especially so when in police custody and considerable effort and importance is placed on ensuring that processes, systems, training and staff attitude is directed towards facing up to that responsibility.

‘Some 16,000 people a year are dealt with in police custody centres in Wiltshire and the public will understand that this environment is a very difficult one with hostility, conflict, violence towards staff and unpredictability.

'That does not excuse any unacceptable or unlawful behaviour by police officers or staff but it is important to put this difficult job into context.

‘Since this incident two years ago, in excess of 30,000 people have been dealt with in custody centres in Wiltshire.

'During that time there have been no further serious assaults of this nature but there have been a total of 13 complaints of assault, none of which were substantiated following investigation.

'No matter how good our systems and training, it is impossible to give a 100 per cent assurance that acceptable guidelines will never, on occasion, be broken.’

Toronto Police Services and Racial Profiling

July 12, 2005

Late last month, the Toronto Star published a series of articles on the Toronto Police Service and racial profiling of African-Canadian communities. Using data from the Police Services, obtained through Access to Information, the reports raised serious questions about the practice of racial profiling and its impact on Black communities in Toronto.

A coalition of over 30 organizations including OCASI and some of its member agencies came together to call on the Premier to take a leadership role in responding to the findings of the Toronto Star. We encourage all of you to make your voices heard.

Midaynta, an OCASI member agency, presented at the media conference. Below is the text of their presentation.

Midaynta Association of Somali Service Agencies
Queens Park, Media Studio

On behalf my agency, Midaynta Association of Somali Service Agencies, Continental African communities in the City and the Canadian public, I am concerned and deeply disturbed by the targeted actions of the Toronto Police towards the Black community in Toronto.

The Police are criminalizing us...because of the colour of our skin, or the way we dress or what we believe in.

Most of us came here as immigrants and refugees running away from oppression and we are still being oppressed. The Police are chasing our youth through the sidewalks, Plaza parking lots, Shopping Malls, and the Parks. The Police are criminalizing us and fingerprinting our youth for trespassing in public places. The Police are stopping and questioning our youth for driving decent cars, jogging or just talking in the lobby of their buildings. ALL of this is happening to us because of the colour of our skin, or the way we dress or what we believe in.

As newcomer communities, we, especially the Somali community, the largest Continental African Group in Toronto, are confused. We would like to become part of the society without labels and negative profiling. We want to be part of the Canadian family and contribute to the development and maintenance of a crime-free and civic society. We want the Police to understand the special needs of the newcomer communities, instead of criminalizing us. The Police MUST work for the society and NOT on the society. There is a mountain of evidence, through numerous studies and reports of special task forces, that the Toronto Police Department is laden with systemic racism. We want this culture to cease at once. And in the light of these studies and reports, we demand that Premier Ernie Eves instigates an immediate plan of action comprising of the following:

1.

Implementation of all recommendations contained in these reports;
2.

Establish an independent Auditing/Monitoring mechanism to be conducted by a mutually agreeable third party on bi-annual basis;
3.

Reinstatement of the complaints procedure/process; and
4.

Support the Black communities in developing and collecting data/stories of Police bias.

Finally, as community developers/leaders, we are willing and obliged to build and protect our nation and its diversity.

Ibrahim Absiye
Executive Director,
Midaynta, Association of Somali Service Agencies

Cheadle claims racial profiling

By WENN.COM

Last Updated: May 10, 2010 10:59pm

Don Cheadle.

Iron Man 2 star Don Cheadle was left fuming after a recent flight from hell - because he insists he was the victim of racial profiling.

The Hotel Rwanda and Ocean's Eleven star was travelling back to Los Angeles from a concert when he encountered rude airline staff who thought he was trying to sneak into first class to sit next to his partner Bridgid Coulter.

But he insists he was just asking if the couple could be seated together.

He recalls, "We get up to the ticket counter and we're trying to get our seats together. As we walk up to the counter there's a crowd and we hear, 'Everybody just back off! Just back off!' So I walk up to her (airline worker) and say, 'Don't you mean back up?' And she goes, 'Yeah, you're right. Back up and back off!"

Cheadle decided to try a different approach and ask a stewardess when the couple boarded the aircraft - but he was shocked to find she was even ruder.

He explains, "I go up to a flight attendant on the plane and say, 'Ma'am, we're seated in different seats...' and she says, 'Well I can't change seats on the plane.' I said, 'No, I'm aware of that,' and she goes, 'What you (sic) want me to do about it?' (I said) 'Nothing, that's fine.'

"So later I go up to her (again) and ask her what was the problem. She went, 'Well, what did you want me to do about it?' So I said, 'I just wanted you to attend, help me.' So I turned around (to sit down) and she goes, 'Don't you turn your face to me. I will get you thrown off the plane.' The woman had to be on some drug, I imagine! So I used a colourful expression to her and kept moving to my seat..."

The flight attendant finally came to her senses and apologized to Cheadle: "Right before the end (of the flight) she puts two bottles of Courvoisier (cognac) between our seats. I said, 'What is that? Why are you giving it to me?'

"She said, 'I'm sorry, this is my way of apologizing. I was told there was a black guy with a hat on sneaking into first class and I thought that was you.' So that's just racism? That's cool!"

To make matters worse, the airline crew member mistook the Oscar nominee for U.S. TV funnyman Tim Meadows.

Toronto Police Racial Profiling Data Released
Submitted by Editor on February 7, 2010 – 11:25 amNo Comment

By Faisal Kutty

Kudos to the Toronto Star for last week’s in-depth expose on racial profiling by the Toronto police. While officials have routinely denied that they use racial profiling, critics have always insisted that the evidence was simply being suppressed. It seems like the critics may have finally won out. The Star tried to address the issue a number of times in the past but without having the benefit of full data. Now, after filing a series of freedom of information requests over the past seven years, the evidence is finally out. The police initially denied the request but the Star fought it all the way to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Here is a snippet from the story published last week:

“Male blacks aged 15-24 are stopped and documented 2.5 times more than white males the same age…In each of the city’s 74 police patrol zones, the Star analysis shows that blacks were documented at significantly higher rates than their overall census population by zone, and that in many zones, the same holds true for “brown” people — mainly people of South Asian, Arab and West Asian backgrounds.”

Star investigation finds racial profiling rampant in Toronto
Posted by James Sanders, Osgoode Hall Law School, February 9th, 2010

An investigation by the Toronto Star has recently found that police are three times more likely to stop black people in Toronto than white people. The newspaper reached this conclusion after examining 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto police officers between 2003 and 2008.

The contact cards document personal information about an individual questioned by police, and also explain the justification for the encounter. These cards arguably serve a valuable purpose – the Star indicates that at least one murderer has been convicted thanks to information contained on such a card. However, the cards also appear to evidence a disturbing trend in policing patterns.

Police Chief Bill Blair acknowledges in the article that racial profiling remains a problem, stating:

“We’re not trying to make any excuses for this. We recognize that bias in police decision-making is a big, big issue for us, and so we’re working really hard on it.”

However, Chief Blair also emphasizes that large numbers of police are being deployed to areas with high levels of poverty and crime, and that those areas unfortunately tend to have large ethnic populations as well.

TORONTO - A 29-year-old real estate broker acquitted of drug charges last fall after a judge ruled he was stopped by police merely because he was a black man driving an expensive car, has filed a lawsuit against Toronto police.

Kevin Khan is seeking damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and abuse of public office in a statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court. The defendants include former Toronto police chief Julian Fantino, who is alleged to have been negligent in the way he dealt with the issue of racial profiling.

Mr. Khan was exonerated by Justice Anne Molloy in a decision that is believed to be the first time a Canadian court has explicitly ruled that police stopped a suspect simply because he was "driving-while-black."

Webpage: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...4c2e-9f0f-135f

Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2005 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/

News Clippings on the subject of Racial Profiling of Black Officers in the Toronto Police Service

4/8/05 Toronto Star B01

Toronto Star
April 8, 2005

New chief, new hope Blair offers an honest take

Royson James

Toronto Star
News

Mere minutes after the new police chief Bill Blair was introduced to the
media Wednesday, questions were raised about racial profiling, an insidious
practice among some Toronto police officers.

We know the practice exists. We know from the testimony of black man after
black man across Greater Toronto. We know that from the mouths of judges,
justices of the peace, teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, bums, thieves
and saints.

We know it because police officers tell us. We know it because some brave
black officers of senior rank, speaking for a number of visible minority
officers on the Toronto force, brought it to the attention of police brass.

We know it because the frustration of these senior officers recently became
front page news and Bill Blair, days before he was to be named chief, was
assigned to resolve a complaint of profiling officer to officer, minority to
minority, constable to inspector, Asian to black.

Insp. Dave McLeod, having complained about his experiences and that of others
being racially profiled and stopped while off duty "for no good reason";
having told the senior brass of inappropriate racist comments and practices by
fellow officers, in the presence of minority officers; having become fed up
with the toll, challenges a young Asian officer who asks him for ID as the
senior officer fills up at a police gas station in Scarborough. Now, it would
have been so much more predictable and stereotypical had the constable been
white. No doubt, the fact he is Asian gives the police union more impetus to
flex its muscle and attack the very idea that racial profiling exists. The
association wants an investigation by an outside agency.

What some might miss is that, the more ingrained and systemic a problem
becomes, the more widespread the practice by members of the organization. So,
racial profiling isn't limited to white officers or black officers. It's lazy
policing that unfairly targets and brings targeted individuals into contact
with the police when those individuals did nothing that would normally arouse
suspicion.

So Blair was asked Wednesday if racial profiling exits. And he danced around
the subject by admitting to racism in general, which exists everywhere. When
pressed, he said "Racial profiling is not and must never be part of this
organization." It sounded like a denial. What's the difference between this
and ex-chief Julian Fantino's blanket denial of racial profiling?

It was Blair's first day, his first few minutes on the job. You could see the
wheels turning in his head. Thousands of the men and women he must lead in one
of the most difficult jobs in the city were hanging on every word. He had just
told the city this "will be the greatest honour in my life to be their chief."

Does he blow them up by admitting to systemic racism, meaning that the ugly
practice had seeped into the culture and practice of the services? Or
soft-peddle it? He took a stab at one of his new roles - playing politician by
straddling the fence.

But to his credit, showing the character trait some board members saw in him
when they made him chief, he faced the music before the sun went down. "I
don't want to leave any wrong impression here," he told the Star in an
interview. "I think racism and racial bias in policing is a problem. I do not
deny the existence of racial profiling. As a matter of fact, if we deny its
existence, how can we ever take the steps so it doesn't happen in our
relationship with the public.

"In the police services I now lead, racial profiling will not be tolerated. I
want to make that statement as strongly and as unequivocally as possible. It
will not be tolerated in the way in which we deal with the public and it will
not be tolerated in the way in which we deal with each other."

Blair said it "took great courage and conviction" for the senior black
officers to "come forward" with their racial profiling concerns from minority
officers. "They deserve our support and they have mine."

I'm okay with that. I suspect most Torontonians will be. And so we watch and
wait and hope.

Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email rjames @
thestar.ca

Toronto Star A13
April 4, 2005

Section: News

Police union rejects truce; Handshake not enough leader Dispute brought racial
bias to light

Philip Mascoll

The handshake that ended a dispute between two visible minority members of
the Toronto police force is not sufficient, says the police union.

The Board of Directors of the Toronto Police Association yesterday called for
"a complete and thorough investigation" into the conduct of Insp. David
McLeod, one of the force's four most senior black officers.

An agreement between McLeod and Const. Alex Chung that was brokered by top
police brass must be put aside, said Dave Wilson, union president.

"When a situation like this occurs, and a senior officer treats a junior
officer with this kind of contempt, they must be held accountable," he said in
a release.

The call came three days after a handshake that police brass said resolved an
incident that occurred between McLeod and Chung at a police gas pump.

That incident six weeks ago caused the results of a 2003 internal police
focus group to resurface. The group looked into the impact of allegations of
racial profiling by police.

Despite what the force was saying publicly at the time, all 38 black officers
in the group said they believe racial profiling exists. Most had been stopped
by police while off-duty, and three reported being stopped more than once in a
single week.

In the gas pump incident, Chung, who was born in Hong Kong, was filling his
marked cruiser behind the 42 Division station in Scarborough when McLeod, from
14 Division in Parkdale, in plainclothes and an unmarked police car, pulled up
to do the same.

Pumps behind police stations are in parking lots closed to the public.
However, Chung asked the older black officer for ID.

Chung said McLeod replied inappropriately and he filed a complaint against
him. McLeod in turn filed complaints against a staff sergeant and an
inspector, who became involved.

McLeod's lawyer, Selwyn Pieters, said last week McLeod saw it as another
instance of the differential treatment he had experienced too many times.

The handshake resolution was brokered by some of the force's most senior
officers, led by Acting Deputy Chief Bill Blair, who said there was no
wrongdoing on McLeod's part. Both Chung and McLeod agreed.

Wilson says his call for an investigation comes after the attempt to
informally resolve a conduct complaint by members of the association failed.
"Officers at 42 Division have been instructed to be vigilant and to request
identification from people they do not know. ... Our officer did exactly what
he was supposed to do," he said.

Wilson's release also says an informal resolution would have let McLeod
simply apologize.

Racial profiling: an issue in Canada?
LawNow, August-Sept, 2004 by Linda Mckay-Panos

On February 12, 2004, Libby Davies, NDP Member of Parliament, introduced Private Member's Bill C-476." An Act to Eliminate Racial Profiling. The Bill would prohibit racial profiling, in particular by enforcement officers, and it would require the collection of data to determine whether officers have engaged in racial profiling. Why did Ms Davies introduce such a Bill? What is racial profiling? Is it an issue in Canada?

Several other officials have also taken up the cause. In 2003-2004, Senator Mobina Jaffer held hearings across Canada on racial profiling. On February 26, 2004, Senator Jaffer spoke to the Senate about how her husband was stopped at the Ottawa International Airport and questioned based on his appearance. In March 2004, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, Jean Augustine, opened a Conference on Racial Profiling Analysis and Best Practices, organized by the African Canadian Community Coalition on Racial Profiling. Also, in March 2004, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Doudou Diene, tabled a report that recognized that racism does exist in Canada. Finally, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan indicated in April 2004 that a cross-cultural roundtable will be held to address the issue of security. Ethnocultural and religious communities will be provided with the opportunity to contribute to a discussion on "how to manage security interests in a diverse society."

In 2003, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) launched an inquiry into the effects of racial profiling on individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole. The final report, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling (2003), reflected the increase in the public debate on the issue of racial profiling. This report focused on the impact of racial profiling.

The OHRC defines racial profiling as "... any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment."

Whether racial profiling is actually occurring has been debated. For example, in October 2002, the Toronto Star published a series of articles suggesting that the Toronto police were engaging in racial profiling. In response, the Toronto Police Service commissioned an independent review by a criminal lawyer and a University of Toronto sociology professor, who determined that the conclusion of the articles was completely unjustified. The Toronto Police Service then launched a $2.7 billion lawsuit for libel against the Toronto Star. In a review of the situation, Ron Melchers, in the July 2003 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology concluded that while it is "highly plausible" that there are differences in the treatment of groups according to rate, there could be other explanations for this difference. However, he noted that the "possibility of discrimination [could] not be excluded." Lawyer Alan Gold cautioned that anecdotal evidence of racial profiling speaks more to beliefs about it than facts, and can actually result in high social costs (Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, July 2003).

However, as noted by the OHRC, racial profiling is a form of racial stereotyping. We know that racial stereotyping and discrimination exist in Canadian society. Thus, it is bound to exist in our institutions, such as law enforcement agencies, educational institutions, the criminal justice system, etc., which are all microcosms of our broader society. Racial profiling is not just about police or customs officers making and acting on decisions about people because of their race; it is widespread in Canadian society. It exists on many levels: from the blatant to the systemic to the subtle. So, while we may not have good scientific evidence about racial profiling, we have clear anecdotal evidence, which is being acted upon across the country by our officials.

What are the effects of racial profiling? The OHRC indicates that there are many effects. These include

* significant impacts on children and youth, which could compromise their and our future;

* development of significant mistrust of our institutions (e.g., fear of the police);

* alienation and a diminished sense of citizenship;

* stress in minority communities;

* changes in behaviour (e.g., not driving an expensive car to avoid negative stereotyping that you area drug dealer);

* impact on human dignity, self-esteem, and self-worth;

* physical effects (e.g., being subjected to a body search); and

* economic effects (e.g., people avoiding businesses where they are profiled).

The OHRC commits a separate portion of the report to the particular impact of racial profiling on the Aboriginal community in order to reflect the significant differences in profiling experienced by that community.

Lawsuits drive up legal bills for police
Published On Mon Feb 26 2007

Robert Schisler was awarded $600,000 when he won a lawsuit against Toronto police for false arrest, assault, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR
Betsy Powell Crime Reporter

Racial profiling lawsuits and other civil actions are threatening to drive up the Toronto police force's legal bills just as the Supreme Court of Canada prepares to rule in a case that could open police to even more litigation.

An upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether a Hamilton man charged with robbing banks can sue police for negligent investigation could encourage others to go after police, according to law enforcement officials.

While Toronto doesn't release details about how much litigation costs taxpayers, the agenda for a recent conference on municipal and provincial liability stated that lawsuits against Toronto police have cost more than $30 million since 1998.

George Cowley, director of legal services for the Toronto Police Service, disputes any suggestion that lawsuits are exploding but admits the force is seeing some new trends in civil actions, with the largest number of claims relating to racial profiling, Charter violations, false arrest and imprisonment.

Lawsuits are a fact of life for the country's largest municipal police force, with 5,200 officers and an untold number of inherent risks on the job, says Cowley.

"We're not in the business of pleasing all of the people all of the time," he said after appearing on a panel at the Provincial and Municipal Government Liability Conference held earlier this month at a downtown hotel.

Cowley was a Toronto police officer for 29 years before he was called to the bar in 1999.

Right now there are 400 outstanding claims against the force, some going back 14 years. One file is now marked closed after city insurers cut a $600,000 cheque to Robert Schisler, a man who sued Toronto police for false arrest, assault, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

On July 22, 1999, Schisler was charged with dangerous driving and assault resisting arrest, but the charges were stayed in 2001 for Charter violations. He sued police, alleging he was beaten when he was arrested without reasonable cause at Isabella and Church Sts.

Following a three-week trial, "a jury concluded there did not exist reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff." In December an appeal was dismissed.

While the police service and city are typically tight-lipped about lawsuits, the liability conference provided a rare peek into the world of risk management and the strategy involved in public liability litigation. Part of the conference mandate was to examine "tips on the best ways for governments and police forces to protect themselves."

The public, for instance, is not told of the legal costs associated with hiring outside lawyers to defend lawsuits where the police board is a defendant – as is usually the case. The city's "general negligence insurance" policy covers most judgments and costs, less the deductible, against municipal services. Many cases are negotiated and settled behind closed doors with confidentially agreement provisions.

Occasionally, details slip out. For example, the board last month was asked to approve payment of legal fees charged by Torys LLP of $8,148.85 and $4,722, for "professional services" involved in defending an action filed by former board chairman Norm Gardner. Details of the suit were addressed at an in-camera meeting.

Toronto police occasionally come across what they consider frivolous, nuisance suits – such as paralegal Harry Kopyto suing them for $1 after a justice of the peace booted him out of a courtroom for his colourful attire.

Cowley plays down the suggestion that the force is besieged with lawsuits, and says the service is almost always ready to "vigorously defend" itself. "We don't roll over with these claims."

Those who have been on the other side know that all too well.

"The police tend to be defended very, very aggressively by very competent counsel," says Steven Stauffer, a lawyer representing Said Jama Jama, who is suing Toronto police after a judge convicted Const. Roy Preston of assaulting him in the summer of 2004. The officer was convicted and has appealed.

"Any litigation involving suing the police means you're in for a good fight ... They always fight it to the end, based on my experience."

Civil litigator Louis Sokolov, known as a "frequent flyer" in policing circles for the number of times he's represented clients who sue them, says he would never advise anyone to proceed against a police service "unless they had a meritorious case because they are well-resourced defendants who will fight hard and there is no easy money there."

The number of cases where people have gone to trial and won can be counted "if not on one hand then on two hands," he says.

From the perspective of Toronto police, it's the nature and complexity of the claims that are ever-evolving.

Last month, for example, a Brampton couple, Henry and Eloney George-McCool, and their daughter filed a $2.75 million claim against the board and several high-ranking officers, including Chief Bill Blair.

They are seeking the compensation after police arrested their son, Henry George-McCool Jr., and laid charges against him as part of the 2005 gang takedown called Project Flicker. None of the wide-ranging allegations has been proved in court. But the statement of claim alleges the police board failed in its statutory duty under the Police Services Act "to provide members of the African-Canadian community with adequate police services which would enable them to infiltrate and bring to justice the gangs which are responsible for the numerous killings in the community."

Last fall, the Supreme Court of Canada heard oral arguments in the case involving a Hamilton man, Jason George Hill, who was eventually acquitted in a robbery case. He sued police in that city, alleging negligent investigation.

Sokolov argued the case and notes it's been permissible to sue police for negligent investigations in Ontario for about a decade, since two notable cases, including the lawsuit filed by the defendant known as Jane Doe. In 1998, she was awarded $220,000 after a judge ruled Toronto police were negligent in their handling of the investigation into the so-called Balcony Rapist. He was released from a B.C. prison last week after 20 years behind bars.

Prior to that, police were held to be immune from prosecution.

In the case of Hill, the Court of Appeal, Ontario's highest court, was unanimous that police can be sued for negligent investigation, though that doesn't extend to other provinces. The split decision found, however, the police weren't negligent in Hill's case.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on both sides last November and sometime this year will affirm whether police can be sued for negligent investigations, not just in Ontario, but across the country.

Some police interests have argued that affirmation will open floodgates to claims, but "that's simply not the case," says Sokolov. It's existed in Ontario for 10 years and Quebec for decades "and the sky has not fallen."

Aboriginal man subjected to racial profiling by Toronto cops
Published On Tue Mar 22 2011

Peter Edwards Staff Reporter

An aboriginal man was the victim of racial profiling when he was wrongly arrested in Toronto for possessing a stolen bicycle, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has found.

The complaint stemmed from an incident early in the morning of July 9, 2003, when Garry McKay and another aboriginal man were stopped by police while walking in a laneway with his new-looking bicycle around St. Clair Ave. W. and Caledonia Road.

McKay, who is Oji-Cree, was starting his workday delivering flyers for a pizzeria.

Tribunal adjudicator Ena Chadha noted in her decision that McKay was polite and cooperative, and provided police with his name, date of birth and address, but had no identification on him.

A police computer check that morning found there were no outstanding warrants on McKay or the man with him.

But Const. Christopher Fitkin of 13 Division remained suspicious, in part because he thought McKay looked dishevelled, according to Chadha’s 59-page decision.

Fitkin told the hearing that he believed someone with such a pristine bicycle would take better care of his clothes.

McKay was placed under arrest, even though the colour and speed of the blue Kona 24-speed bicycle did not match a bicycle with the same brand listed in the police computer as stolen in Manitoba.

McKay, who was 51 years old at the time, was arrested for possession of stolen property, patted down for weapons, handcuffed and placed in a cruiser for 19 minutes.

“McKay told Fitkin that it was a crazy idea to think he had stolen the bike because he would never had been able to ride the bike all the way from Winnipeg,” Chadha said in her decision, released last week. McKay also insisted he could produce a receipt.

The officers said the questioning of McKay was not racially based, but a matter of routine, and that McKay was initially arrested because identification records indicated the bike had been stolen in Winnipeg.

“I find the personal respondent discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race,” Chadha wrote.

McKay said he and his friend that day both had long black hair and dark complexions.

“Fitkin testified that nothing unusual had occurred on the patrol shift leading up to the laneway stop,” Chadha wrote. “There were no specific reports of criminal activity in the area that night, nor had McKay ... behaved suspiciously (other than enter the laneway) so as to attract police attention.”

A hearing will be held in the future to determine whether police will be fined. Arguments on liability and compensation haven’t yet been made by police lawyers or McKay’s legal team of Kimberly Murray, Mandy Eason and Amanda Driscoll.

Submitted by Saran7 on Tue, 03/16/2010 - 11:16am

Source: Toronto Police Accountability Bulletin No. 52, March 12, 2010. This
Bulletin is published by the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition, a
group of individuals and organizations in Toronto interested in police
policies and procedures, and in making police more accountable to the
community they are committed to serving. Our website is http://www.tpac.ca

Racial profiling in Toronto

In an explosive series of articles in early February, reporters for the
Toronto Star, led by Jim Rankin, published their analysis of police data
that recorded the 1.7 million individuals stopped by Toronto police between
2003 and 2008. (The Star had to take the Toronto Police Services Board to
the Court of Appeal before it could get this data - see Bulletin No. 45,
February 9, 2009.) That's about 300,000 people stopped each year, or about
one person every second shift by an officer - not everyone who is stopped is
carded, but some are. Analysis shows that black and brown youth are 2.5
times more likely to be stopped than white youth, three times more likely
to be charged with a driving offence, three times more likely to be held in
jail rather than released. (For the complete series of articles, and an
interview with Chief Bill Blair, see www.thestar.com/racematters )

In 2002 when the Toronto Star published articles showing that if you were
black you were treated more harshly by police in certain circumstances than
whites, and also more likely to be ticketed for certain traffic offences,
the news was greeted with angry denials and law suits (which were rejected
by the courts.)

This time around, authorities seemed entirely unperturbed. Chief Bill Blair
implied there's nothing wrong with police discriminating by skin colour -
although he didn't put it that way. None of his statements to the Star
indicated that the police were doing anything wrong in who they stopped.

One reason given was that some crime involved black youth, guns and murders and so why shouldn't police stop and search black youth. Sure, it might be an inconvenience to the good guys, but, as Lorry Goldstein of the Toronto Sun said, what else should police to do? It's sort of what you have to put up with if you are young and black.

Another reason given is that filling out cards (called 208 cards) and
recording name, race, age, reason for the stop, time and date, and who the
individual is with, allows police to create a profile of the individual.
That data can be pulled up when someone is arrested to see who else they
might find related to the crime. Police claim to have destroyed several
alibis this way.

Windsor Professor David Tanovich, who wrote the powerful book `The Colour of Justice', cites Ontario Court judge Harry LaForme (now sitting on the Court of Appeal) from a case in 2004: " One reasonable - although very
unfortunate - impression that one could draw from the information sought on
these 208 cards - along with the current manner in which they are being used - is that they could be a tool utilized for racial profiling.. They are but
another means whereby subjective assessments based upon race - or some other irrelevant factor - can be used to mask discriminatory conduct.

".This kind of daily tracking of the whereabouts of persons - including many
innocent law-abiding persons - has an aspect to it that reminds me of former government regimes that I am certain all of us would prefer not to
replicate."

On the random stop approach: is it worth stopping 100 innocent black youths to find that a few of them are carrying something illegal, such as drugs, or even a gun? Judges will not allow evidence in court which has been obtained by police engaging in racial profiling to determine who they will stop.

According to studies done by criminologist Scot Wortley in Toronto, if the
police were stopping white youth at the same rate as they are black youth
they would find a higher number of them were committing crimes. But if white youths were stopped as often as police are stopping black youths, there would be a loud outcry about civil rights being infringed.

We all want to stop black kids (and other kids) from committing violent and
anti-social acts. Discriminating against them will never achieve this goal.
As Roy McMurtry and Alvin Curling point out so persuasively in their report
`The Roots of Youth Violence' we need to spend money on strengthening the lives of these children and of their families. These are not problems
police can resolve.

What is absolutely astounding and frightening, is that in the month since
the Star stories were published, not a single elected politician - at the
city, provincial or federal level - has spoken out against this
discrimination by the Toronto police. Not one. We have laws that prevent
racial discrimination and penalize those who engage in it. Not a peep from
those who enforce those laws. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has said
nothing.

We need a police force that does not engage in racial discrimination. The
first step is for those in charge to say it is wrong. That has yet to
happen.

Jim Rankin STAFF REPORTER
Related

Special Report: Race Matters
Video: Profiling - or practical policing?
Resources: Data and background
2002 Race and Crime series
Interactive: Police Patrol Zones
Interactive: Police Contact Cards
Interactive: Criminal Charges in Toronto

10 … 9 … 8 …

Rohan Robinson begins the mental countdown. A police cruiser has pulled up beside his Acura, an officer has peeked in the driver’s side window, and the cruiser has dropped back in behind his car...

7 … 6 … 5 …

Usually, he sees the flashing lights in the rear-view mirror before he reaches zero. “It’s so routine now that I know,” says Robinson, 32, an elementary school teacher with the Toronto District School Board.

Robinson, who is black, estimates that since 2001, he has been stopped close to 30 times while driving in Toronto without being ticketed. On a few other occasions he was handed tickets, and he says he deserved them.

Before he was old enough to drive, beginning when he was 15, he would be stopped while on foot.

Toronto police question hundreds of thousands of people, both walking and driving, every year. In many cases, officers fill out a “208” card, police lingo for an index-card-sized document used as an investigative tool and, according to Chief Bill Blair, a way to “get to know” the neighbourhood.

Robinson does not know how many have been filled out on him.

In a freedom of information request that spanned nearly seven years, the Star obtained six years’ worth of contact-card data from Toronto police.

The Star analysis shows race, age and gender are big factors in who gets stopped. Looking at blacks and whites of all ages, blacks are three times more likely to be stopped.

Male blacks aged 15-24 are stopped and documented 2.5 times more than white males the same age.

In each of the city’s 74 police patrol zones, the Star analysis shows that blacks were documented at significantly higher rates than their overall census population by zone, and that in many zones, the same holds true for “brown” people — mainly people of South Asian, Arab and West Asian backgrounds.

“It doesn’t matter what type of neighbourhood you live in or what type of neighbourhood you’re travelling through, if you are black you are much more likely to attract the attention of the police and therefore have a contact card filled out,” says University of Toronto criminologist Scot Wortley, who reviewed the Star analysis.

In one of two interviews for this story, Blair said he understands that people may think they are being unfairly stopped. He said police are targeting neighbourhoods where the highest level of “victimization” occurs. He said these are often “racialized” neighbourhoods.

The collateral damage is law-abiding civilians who feel they are being treated unfairly because they are black. Although blacks make up 8.4 per cent of Toronto’s population, they account for three times as many contact cards.

Robinson, who wears his hair in short dreads, is troubled by this. And he’s far from alone. Max Rose, 16, who is regularly questioned by police in the Jane and Finch-area building he lives in, says he feels embarrassed when neighbour gather to watch.

Kasim St. Remy, 14, was recently stopped and questioned by police. He hadn’t done anything wrong. This bothers his mother, Clemee Joseph, yet she sees the stopping of young men of colour as necessary, if imperfect.

“It is hard for me when the police stop him to question him and have him on their radar but, as you know, in the past it has been all black young men killing each other,” says Joseph, 39. “I know that my son is a good kid, but sometimes his friends may not be.”

For Joseph, the other side of this issue is preserved under glass, in the framed pictures of her other son that crowd a living room table in her west end apartment. Last May, Jarvis St. Remy, 18, was killed in what she believes was a case of mistaken identity. St. Remy had no history with police, who have yet to make an arrest.

“I don’t like the stereotyping of this ... they get the good kids and the bad kids all in one,” she says. “But that is what is happening with the black kids, so that’s who they have to stop.”

Differences between black and white carding rates are highest in more affluent, mostly white areas of the city, such as North Toronto and the Kingsway, the Star found. Criminologist Wortley calls this the “out-of-place” phenomenon.

It’s a natural thing to expect from officers on the lookout of for things unusual or different, says Wortley, who oversaw a police stop data-collection pilot project by Kingston police.

Neither Blair nor Police Services Board chair Alok Mukherjee had a ready explanation for the city-wide pattern of disparity. Mukherjee said he would like to know more about whom police choose to document, and the reasons why. Blair suggests that every patrol zone has its “main street” where police are more active, and the demographics of people in those areas may account for this city-wide pattern.

The Star’s analysis of contact-card data found that most people police documented had not been charged criminally in the previous six years. Looking at 2008, four out of five who were carded did not show up in a criminal database also obtained by the Star.

There is a much smaller number of repeat offenders with serious criminal histories who are being checked up on with greater frequency.

Chief Blair estimates Toronto has 1,400 hard-core gang members and another, larger group of people suffering from mental health and addiction problems. Both end up receiving a disproportionate amount of intentional police attention. Two of Toronto’s most documented people in 2008 are female street prostitutes working in the downtown core. Another in the top 10 is a middle-aged panhandler from Newfoundland.

The cards pay off when police investigating serious crimes find links to associates, potential witnesses and suspects. The cards have also been used to obtain search warrants and are sometimes entered as evidence in criminal trials.

The Star found cases where convicted murderers had many 208 cards in their past, and some where they had none.

Colves “Jacko” Meggoe was a 50-year-old community activist who was gunned down in the foyer of his apartment building in 2006. At trial, one of the accused, 39-year-old Mark Cain, produced an alibi. Police used a 208 card to prove the man providing the alibi was not with Cain. Cain and his nephew were both recently convicted of the murder. Together, the two men had 33 208s. The man who offered the alibi had nine.

“That 208 tied everything together,” Homicide Det. John Biggerstaff says.

Mike McCormack, newly elected police union president, was working as a cop up until four months ago in 51 Division. He had spent 10 years in major crimes and gang intelligence. He calls the cards “invaluable.

“You’re recording data, setting up associations, knowing who’s involved (in gang activity). It puts people in certain locations.”

McCormack recalled a recent case in which two men were caught on video during a home invasion. Police knew the identity of one man but not the other. So they pulled the 208 card of the first man and looked up his associates. One of them had a criminal history, and thus there was a mugshot on file. “Lo and behold, it was the same guy as on the video.”

Senior officers with Toronto Police Service also provided an example of the cards working. They closed a sexual assault case at a York University residence in 2007 when, with one suspect in hand, they searched his 208 cards and found the accomplice. Both have been convicted.

The carding of citizens in non-criminal encounters is something most police services do. It has been beefed up in Toronto under Blair’s tenure as chief as part of the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS), introduced in 2006 in response to a spate of violence that led to 2005 becoming known as the Year of the Gun. The strategy involves a two-pronged approach: old-style community policing combined with a continued, heavy presence wherever and whenever required.

These officers are culled from units across the city and are often unfamiliar with the areas they flood.

Ask people in affected areas and they will say there has been a notable drop in drug dealing and violent crime since the advent of TAVIS. Police statistics bear that out. While some of the criminals have ended up locked away, others have dispersed.

“Once (the police) presence is there, (the dealers) go somewhere else, it just moves on to another space,” says Winston Larose, a community activist in the Jane-Finch area and a psychiatric nurse. “But some people in the area are saying there is some relief. All we know is that it is quiet, but the quiet is at the price of people’s freedom, and sense of freedom.”

Blair said nine out of 10 youths stopped and documented on a street corner may be perfectly good kids, and the encounter might leave them “pissed at us.”

“Those relationships are the toughest things,” says Blair. He expects his officers to be sensitive to how the youth feel and explain themselves. Even then, he acknowledges, the encounters may not go well.

While there are myriad social and economic factors and other explanations for this unbalance, Chief Blair says racial bias can be part of the mix. And it comes in different forms, from intentional racial profiling to automatic, or implicit, bias that can affect decisions made by good people who do not think of themselves as biased.

It is to be expected, says Blair. “We recruit from the human race.”

A request for contact data and another for police arrest, charge and ticket data were made in 2003, as a follow-up to the Star’s groundbreaking 2002 series on race, policing and crime in Toronto, which used police arrest and charge data to show that black people, in certain circumstances, were treated more harshly than whites. The data also showed that blacks then were 3.3 times more likely to be charged with violent crimes.

The series led to an Ontario Human Rights Commission inquiry into the impacts of racial profiling on society in general.

A repeat of the 2002 analysis looking at arrest and charge data from 2003 to 2008 shows those results have changed little.

Internally much has changed. Immediately upon taking over as chief in 2005, Blair acknowledged that racial bias is a problem in policing, as it is elsewhere in society, and took steps to deal with it. Since then, Toronto police have notably improved the number of minority recruits and have promoted members of visible minorities into higher ranks. They’ve also embarked on a unique partnership with the Ontario Human Rights Commission to improve human resources practices, and how police serve the public.

“Police services, not just in Ontario, but across the country, and to some extent, internationally, are watching with great attention the work that we are doing,” says Barbara Hall, Ontario’s Human Rights Chief Commissioner. “There’s no question that having chief Blair stand up, you know, to his peers, and acknowledge racial profiling exists within the Toronto Police Service ... gives permission in a sense to other services to acknowledge it.”

Meanwhile, stopping and carding individuals is considered good police work. And although Chief Blair says there is no quota or promotion incentive, card counts are used to measure officers’ performance. Some who are carded may never know that they have become part of the data collection.

Chief Blair points to slight decreases in the number of cards filled out in the past two years. “And it’s because we now have a much better understanding of (who) those who represent the greatest risk are.

“It doesn’t mean that we’re having less contacts. In fact, we’re having more. But now that we know who the bad guys are, and there are bad guys out there, they’re getting much more focused attention from us.”

The Star analysis shows police begin documenting youth in certain “at-risk” neighbourhoods in serious numbers when they are on the cusp of becoming teenagers. The carding peaks in the late teens and gradually diminishes as people reach their 30s and 40s.

Young people interviewed by the Star say they don’t feel they have any choice but to stop and answer police questions in these encounters. They are often asked to prove who they are. To walk away or refuse to produce ID, which in many cases is their constitutional right, might result is arousing further suspicion and hassle. In some cases, basketball games come to a halt as police do their work. Complying, which sometimes involves the emptying of pockets, means the play resumes sooner.

“It’s hard,” says Max Rose, 16, who lives in an apartment on Tobermory Dr. “I spent a weekend in Vaughan, and I can go outside and play basketball all day and all night. But in Jane and Finch, the police will come on their bicycles in the summertime and then, like, they stop your game to ask you your name, ‘What are you guys doing?’ Dumb stuff like that. They’re just like a pestilence in people’s life.”

While a cop can walk up to anyone and ask questions, a citizen does not have to answer those questions, said Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young. If in a vehicle, the driver may be compelled to show identification or give a statement. An officer can do a “protective pat-down” and search the person if he feels anything resembling a weapon.

David Tanovich, a University of Windsor law professor and author of The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada, has been a critic of the documenting of people in mostly non-criminal encounters, calling it a “no walk” list for young men in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where more people tend to be of colour. He questions whether the practice of detaining people and requiring identification in order to document and track them is even legal.

“And if it is that kids can’t walk to school without having to stop, show their ID and have the officers fill out contact cards, that’s heightened surveillance, which is exactly what the essence of racial profiling is all about.”

In a letter replying to the Star, Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers also took issue with the questioning and carding practice.

“Regardless of intentions, police questioning can be intimidating and coercive,” writes Des Rosiers. “When perceived as excessive of discriminatory, it can create distrust in law enforcement, undermine public faith in police, and, ultimately, weaken efforts to root out and punish crime.”

Elementary school teacher Robinson wanted to be a police officer when he was younger. In 2003, he gave anonymous testimony in the human rights inquiry into racial profiling regarding 10 encounters he had had with Toronto police between 2000 and 2002, in which he believed his skin colour was a factor. Out of the 10 incidents, nine involved traffic stops and most resulted in no ticket. He was in his mid 20s then.

The Star tracked Robinson down at Oakridge Junior Public School to see what’s changed for him. He’s just bought a house, is working on a master’s thesis and is coaching both the boys’ and girls’ school basketball teams. He also recently wrote a paper on student perspectives on having police officers in their schools.

The number of times he’s been pulled over by police since he testified? He smiles and says he’s lost count. About 20, he guesses. He does not have a criminal record.

Robinson has taken to hanging his TDSB ID card from his car’s rear-view mirror. He says police change their tone when they see it.

“Policing is important,” he says. “I totally support the police, but I support them when they go at it from an objective perspective, where, no matter who you are, if you did the crime, you get the consequences. If I am speeding, I’m supposed to get the same consequence as someone else who is speeding, no matter what. If I’m driving and I get pulled over for no reason, it should happen to everybody, not just me, and that’s how I see it.”

It’s a Friday morning in December, and in his seventh floor office at Toronto police headquarters on College St., Chief Blair learns that one of four people shot overnight on Falstaff Ave. has become the city’s 55th homicide victim of 2009. Not good, but not bad, considering totals from previous years, including 2005, when 79 people were killed, many by guns.

Perhaps cards will help detectives piece this one together.

Blair points to a police map showing violent crime hotspots and describes a pattern that creeps up again and again in studies of Toronto neighbourhoods facing challenges. It’s an unlucky horseshoe shape, more of a “Nike swoosh,” as Blair puts it. It’s where there is poverty and lack of opportunity. And more of the people in these situations are members of visible minorities.

“Everybody knows exactly what we’re pointing at,” says Blair, “and it’s where the violence takes place, the shootings, and it’s tragically consistent.”

These areas, the Star found, are also where the gap between the number of contact cards filled out and arrests made is greatest.

Deputy Chief Keith Forde, the city’s first black deputy, would like to see the disparity in who is carded shrink away, but he believes black people are carded more often because black people are disproportionately being charged with violent crimes and disproportionately the victims of violent crimes. Seeking out suspects based on witness descriptions in areas where more black people live, he explains, results in more blacks being stopped.

“These are things that you cannot dispute,” Forde said in an interview. “So, yes, you can see the contact cards being out of proportion. Are we doing something to try and alleviate that? Sure we are. Sure we are.”

Have “Blacks Made Progress” or Have “White People Gotten Less Crazy”?
by Lisa Wade, 22 hours ago at 10:20 am

Chris Rock makes a downright profound observation about race discourse in this 2 1/2-minute clip, sent along by Collin College sociologist John Glass:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/

YOUR RIGHTS
- You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
VIDEO
» Watch the video >>
MORE
» Spanish: Qué debe hacer si la policía, agentes de inmigración o el FBI lo detienen
» Mobile: Know Your Rights When Encountering Law Enforcement
» Button: Get an Image for Your Website or Profile

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
- Do stay calm and be polite.
- Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
- Do not lie or give false documents.
- Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
- Do remember the details of the encounter.
- Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

If You Are
...Stopped For Questioning
...Stopped In Your Car
...Questioned About Your Immigration Status
...Approached By Police Or Immigration Agents at Home
...Contacted By The FBI
...Arrested
...Taken Into Immigration (Or "ICE") Custody
If You Feel Your Rights Have Been Violated

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS
You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)
If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you. If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.
Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.

IF THE POLICE OR IMMIGRATION AGENTS COME TO YOUR HOME
If the police or immigration agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have certain kinds of warrants.
Ask the officer to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed on the warrant, but officers can only search the areas and for the items listed. An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent.
Even if officers have a warrant, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak to the officers, step outside and close the door.

IF YOU ARE CONTACTED BY THE FBI
If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.
If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don't give any explanations or excuses. If you can't pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don't say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
- Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
- Don't discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
- While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
- Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.

IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR "ICE") CUSTODY
You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.
You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number ("A" number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.

IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling.

This information is not intended as legal advice.
Produced by the American Civil Liberties Union 6/2010

From LegalLine.ca:

743 Can the police stop and question you?

When police can stop you
The police can stop you under three general circumstances. First, the police can stop you if they suspect that you have committed an offence. Second, the police can stop you if they actually see you committing an offence. And third, the police can stop you at any time while you are driving to determine whether you have consumed alcohol or drugs, whether you are insured, and whether the car is mechanically fit to be driven. In all cases, once the police stop you, you have the right to know why, and the right to speak to a lawyer within a reasonable period of time.

What you should do
Although under the law you have the right to remain silent when questioned by police, it is best to cooperate with the police, and identify yourself. In some circumstances, you could be charged with the offence of obstructing the police if you fail to tell them your name. You could also be charged with an offence if you give the police a false name.

Being detained by the police
If the police continue to ask you questions and they do not allow you to leave, then in law it means that they are detaining you. When you are detained, you have the right to know why they are detaining or arresting you, and you have the right to talk to a lawyer.

Right to remain silent
Regardless of whether you have or have not been arrested, anything you tell the police can be used as evidence against you. This also applies to any physical tests that you are asked to perform or any samples that you are asked to voluntarily provide. Even though you may think that what you are telling the police could not hurt you in court, what you say or write could later become evidence against you. To be safe, you should consider talking to a lawyer before making any statements to any police officer, or before performing any test or providing any sample.

745 Can the police enter and search your home?

When the police can enter your home
The police can enter and search your home in two general circumstances. First, they can enter and search your home if you give them permission. Second, they can enter and search your home if they have a search or arrest warrant. The police also have the power to enter, but not search, your home in certain emergencies.

Entry with your permission
First, the police can enter and search your home if they are given permission. Permission means that someone who lives in the home allows the police to enter. Generally, permission can only be given by an adult. If the police ask to enter your home without a warrant, and you do not want them to come in, you should tell them clearly that you do not want them to enter. Otherwise they may think that you have agreed to let them in. However, if you give the police permission to enter and they do not have a search warrant, you can ask them to leave at any time if you change your mind.

Entry with a warrant
Second, the police can enter and search your home if they have a search warrant or an arrest warrant. A warrant is a piece of paper signed by a judge that states who is to be arrested or what place can be searched. It gives the police the power to enter and search your home even if you don't want them to. You should not get in the way of a lawful search or arrest - if you do not let the police inside, you may be charged with obstructing the police.

Search warrant
A search warrant gives the police the right to enter and search your home for the things listed in the warrant. It gives the police the right to search for and take these things if they are found. The police must have the search warrant with them and you have a right to see it. While searching, the police cannot destroy things unnecessarily. They can also only search in places where the things listed in the search warrant might be found. For example, they can't look inside a drawer if they are looking for a stolen bicycle. Once the police have found the things listed in the search warrant, they must leave your home. They cannot continue to search. Ask for the name and badge number of the officer who appears to be in charge of the search.

Arrest warrant
An arrest warrant gives the police the right to enter a home to arrest the person whose name is listed on the warrant. An arrest warrant also gives the police a limited power to search a home. If an arrest is made in your home, generally the police can only search the immediate surroundings.

If the police enter your home with a search warrant or an arrest warrant, they can also take other illegal things or evidence of crime that they find during their search. For example, if the police have a search warrant to look for a gun and while they are searching, they find illegal drugs, the drugs can be taken and used as evidence for a drug charge against you.

Entry in emergencies
Finally, the police also have the power to enter your home in certain kinds of emergencies. There are three general circumstances that are considered to be emergencies. First, the police can follow someone into your home if that person has just committed an offence, or if the police believe that person is about to commit an offence. Second, the police can enter if they believe someone in your home is about to harm another person. And third, they can enter to give emergency aid to someone inside. This power to enter your home in an emergency does not give the police the right to search your home. However, while they are in your home the police can seize anything illegal or any evidence of crime that they see.

If during a search, the police take something from your home, you may be entitled to get it back. You should consult a lawyer for further assistance.

More information at: LegalLine.ca

Copied with permission from a card produced by our friends at the Organic Traveller (formerly the Great Canadian Hemporium) in London (see also www.pivotlegal.org):

Officer, please understand I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself until I consult with my lawyer. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any premises under my control or which I have in my possession, proprietary or privacy interest including my car, body or effects. I further refuse to consent to the taking of my breath, bodily fluids or tissue for scientific analysis without an opportunity to consult with my lawyer. As a Canadian, I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed to my by THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA TO BE FREE FROM INTERFERENCE WITH MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS. If you attempt to question me I want my lawyer present. I further refuse to participate in any line-up or perform any physical acts, speak or display my person and property at your discretion without first consulting with my lawyer. If I am under arrest I wish to know under what charge and wish to INVOKE AND EXERCISE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If you ignore my rights and attempt to produce a waiver I want to consult with my lawyer prior to any conversation with you. If I am not under arrest, I wish to leave. If I am free to leave please tell me so that I may return to my business.

And here's a recommended (sorry, don't remember where I found this) answer to the question "May I search your vehicle?":
"I do not consent to your search of my car. If you are going to search it without my consent I will give you the keys after you note in your notebook that I have not consented."

An American take but still useful info for Canadians.

http://www.rense.com/general72/howto.htm

How To Deal With Police Officers - Magic Words?

Author Unknown
6-14-6

When dealing with the police, keep your hands in view and don't make sudden movements. Avoid passing behind them. Nervous cops are dangerous cops.

Also, never touch the police or their equipment (vehicles, flashlights, animals, etc.) - you can get beat up and charged with assault.

The police do not decide your charges; they can only make recommendations. The prosecutor is the only person who can actually charge you. Remember this the next time the cops start rattling off all the charges they're supposedly "going to give you."

Questioning

Interrogation isn't always bright lights and rubber hoses - usually it's just a conversation. Whenever the cops ask you anything besides your name and address, it's legally safest to (respectfully) say these Magic Words:

"I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

This invokes the rights which protect you from interrogation. When you say this, the cops (and all other law enforcement officials) are legally required to stop asking you questions. They probably won't stop, so just repeat the Magic Words or remain silent until they catch on.

Remember, anything you say to the authorities can and will be used against you and your friends in court. There's no way to predict what information the police might try to use or how they'd use it. Plus, the police often misquote or lie altogether about what was said. So say only the Magic Words and let all the cops and witnesses know that this is your policy. Make sure that when you're arrested with other people, the rest of the group knows the Magic Words and promises to use them.

One of the jobs of cops is to get information out of people, and they usually don't have any scruples about how they do it. Cops are legally allowed to lie when they're investigating, and they are trained to be manipulative. The only thing you should say to cops, other than identifying yourself, is the Magic Words: "I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

Here are some lies they will tell you:

"You're not a suspect - just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."

"If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"

"If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."

"All of your friends have cooperated and we let them go home. You're the only one left."

Cops are sneaky buggers and there are lots of ways they can trick you into talking. Here are some scams they'll pull:

Good Cop/ Bad Cop: Bad cop is aggressive and menacing, while good cop is nice, friendly, and familiar (usually good cop is the same race and gender as you). The idea is bad cop scares you so bad you are desperately looking for a friend. Good cop is that friend.

The cops will tell you that your friends ratted on you so that you will snitch on them. Meanwhile, they tell your friends the same thing. If anyone breaks and talks, you all go down.

The cops will tell you that they have all the evidence they need to convict you and that if you "take responsibility" and confess the judge will be impressed by your honesty and go easy on you. What they really mean is: "we don't have enough evidence yet, please confess."

Jail is a very isolating and intimidating place. It is really easy to believe what the cops tell you. Insist upon speaking with a lawyer before you answer any questions or sign anything.

The Golden Rule: Never trust a cop.

The Miranda Warnings

The police do not have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer of other agent of law enforcement (c) while the suspect is in police custody (you do not have to be formally arrested to be "in custody"). Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops â€" you know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying the Magic Words, "I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

If you've been arrested and realize that you have started answering questions, don't panic. Just re-invoke your rights by saying the Magic Words again. Don't let them trick you into thinking that because you answered some of their questions, you have to answer all of them.

Police Encounters

There are three basic types of encounters with the police: Conversation, Detention, and Arrest.

Conversation

When the cops are trying to get information, but don't have enough evidence to detain or arrest you, they'll try to weasel some information out of you. They may call this a "casual encounter" or a "friendly conversation". If you talk to them, you may give them the information they need to arrest you or your friends. In most situations, it's better and safer not to talk to cops.

Detention

Police can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion (see below) that you are involved in a crime. Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and go into your bag to make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they feel a weapon.

If the police are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you should say the Magic Words: "I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer" and nothing else.

A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. For example, if someone gets pulled over for speeding (detained) and the cop sees drugs in the car, the cops will arrest her for possession of the drugs even though it has nothing to do with her getting pulled over. Cops have two reasons to detain you: 1) they are writing you a citation (a traffic ticket, for example), or 2) they want to arrest you but they don't have enough information yet to do so.

Arrest

Police can arrest you only if they have probable cause (see below) that you are involved in a crime. When you are arrested, the cops can search you to the skin and go through you car and any belongings. By law, an officer strip searching you must be the same gender as you.

If the police come to your door with an arrest warrant, go outside and lock the door behind you. Cops are allowed to search any room you go into, so don't go back into the house for any reason. If they have an arrest warrant, hiding won't help because they are allowed to force their way in if they know you are there. It's usually better to just go with them without giving them an opportunity to search.

Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than a hunch - cops must be able to put their suspicion into words. For example, cops can't just stop someone and say, "She looked like she was up to something." They need to be more specific, like, "She was standing under the overpass staring up at some graffiti that hadn't been there 2 hours ago. She had the same graffiti pattern written on her backpack. I suspected that she had put up the graffiti."

Cops need more proof to say they have a probable cause than to say they have a reasonable suspicion. For example, "A store owner called to report someone matching her description tagging a wall across the street. As I drove up to the store, I saw her running away spattered with paint and carrying a spray can in her hand."

Searches

Never consent to a search! If the police try to search your house, car, backpack, pockets, etc. say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search." This may not stop them from forcing their way in and searching anyway, but if they search you illegally, they probably won't be able to use the evidence against you in court. You have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search and lots to gain. Do not physically resist cops when they are trying to search because you could get hurt and charged with resisting arrest or assault. Just keep repeating the Magic Words 2 so that the cops and all witnesses know that this is your policy.

Be careful about casual consent. That is, if you are stopped by the cops and you get out of the car but don't close the door, they can search the car and claim that they though you were indicating consent by leaving the door ajar. Also, if you say, "I'd rather you didn't search," they can claim that you were reluctantly giving them permission to search. Always just say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search."

If the cops have a search warrant, nothing changes - it's legally safest to just say the Magic Words 2. Again, you have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search, and lots to gain if the search warrant is incorrect or invalid in some way. If they do have a search warrant, ask to read it. A valid warrant must have a recent date (usually not more than a couple of weeks), the correct address, and a judge's or magistrate's signature; some warrants indicate the time of day the cops can search. You should say the Magic Words 2 whether or not the search warrant appears correct. The same goes for any government official who tries to search you, your belongings, or your house.

Man mistaken for murder suspect says police beat him

Last Updated:

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 5:08 PM ET

CBC News

Back to accessibility links

Supporting Story Content

Story Sharing Tools

Share with Add ThisPrint this storyE-mail this story

End of Supporting Story Content
Back to accessibility links

Man mistaken for murder suspect2:12

Beginning of Story Content

Sharmake
Abdi alleges Toronto police mistook him for another man with the same
name who was wanted on suspicion of murder and assaulted him. (CBC) A
man who says he wanted to be a police officer is rethinking his future
after allegedly being beaten by a group of Toronto police officers.

On July 22, Sharmake Abdi, 26, was picking up a paycheque for work he
did during the G20 summit for the Commissionaires security company. But
as he left the company's office at 80 Church Street in downtown
Toronto, he was confronted by police.

"[They] put me right there and dragged me all the way here," said
Abdi on Tuesday, pointing out where he was grabbed. "Two [officers] sat
on my back. One of them was even punching me."

Abdi, who is of Somali origin, says there were at least eight
officers with guns drawn taking part in his arrest. They handcuffed him
and put him up against a wall.

"I'm telling them, 'You're making a mistake, you're making a mistake,
you're making a mistake.' But then no one is listening to me. [They
said] 'Face the wall. Don't turn around. Shut up'."

Police apparently thought they were arresting another man named Sharmake Abdi, who is the same age and ethnic origin as Abdi.

The Sharmake Abdi police were looking for was wanted in connection
with the stabbing death of 37-year-old David Darcy on July 14 in
Scarborough.

Abdi said police let him go after they saw his birth date wasn't the
same as the suspect's — but the damage was done. Abdi had bruises to his
head, shoulders and arm.

"I'm throwing up. I'm still having difficulty breathing," Abdi said.
"And the pain and the things that are going through my mind — how can I
sleep after all that?"

The Toronto Police Service says Abdi matched the suspect's
description and that the arresting officers didn't use excessive force.

"You have to understand, they're dealing with a situation where a
person is wanted for a homicide investigation where he's allegedly
killed someone and he's armed with a weapon," said Toronto police
spokesperson Const. Tony Vella.

Abdi wants compensation and an apology from the police, but Vella says that won't happen.

"The officers didn't do anything wrong," Vella said. "They acted
appropriately. If he wants to file a complaint, that's his right to do
so."

Abdi says he had dreamed of one day becoming a police officer — but not anymore.

"This is the way they treated me? How am I supposed to now be like them," he said.

Abdi says he will file an official complaint and pursue legal action.

The Sharmake Abdi suspected in the Scarborough homicide was taken
into custody on July 25 and has been charged with first-degree murder.

Racial profiling is institutionalized. This means you may not realize you are being profiled due to color and or ethnicity. An institution that is notorious for racial profiling is the MFDA. Take a look at the article below. Is nepotism and patronage here to stay? Whose responsible for guarding the hen house when the hen is out anyway?

 
The Mutual
Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) doesn’t have much to say yet
about a British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) decision to
censure the self-regulatory organization over how it solicits proxies.

“We are in the process of reviewing the BCSC decision with counsel
and have no further comment at this time,” said Ken Woodard, director,
communications & membership services, Mutual Fund Dealers
Association.

The news about the BCSC’s censure has caused much furore in the
industry with experts weighing in with sharp comments about the MFDA
board for conducting the proxy solicitation process, terming the
decision as dicey at best.

“Apart from whether pressuring members was the intent, it would have
been obvious to an objective observer that the process was fraught with
risk of members’ feeling pressure to vote, and to do so in favour of the
amendments,” said Vancouver-based Stuart B. Morrow, a partner at law
firm Davis LLP.

Morrow, who has been actively involved in contested meeting and proxy
fights for over 20 years, said, “as such, it is inappropriate for the
MFDA board and executive to play a partisan role in seeking members’
input on the corporate governance amendments proposed.”

The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) criticized the
manner in which the MFDA board went about seeking its members’ approval
in October, 2009 of important bylaw amendments affecting future
governance of the organization.

Get more on the story
Special Section: Proxygate

 
The commission found that the MFDA’s board and management actively
solicited members’ support for the amendments, and stated: “The facts
show that the process for directors chose to solicit proxies was
calculated to maximize participation, not by all members, but only by
those who would vote in favour.”

The commission went on to observe that, as the SRO for the mutual
fund industry, the MFDA has the responsibility of establishing and
enforcing rules of conduct for its members.

Exercising its jurisdiction as principal regulator of the MFDA, the
BCSA issued several directives, including the requirement that the MFDA
use an independent proxy solicitation firm to solicit proxies relating
to members’ meetings and that members’ votes are to remain confidential
and unknown to MFDA directors, officers and staff, all aimed at ensuring
a process which “leaves no room to question the integrity of [the
MFDA's] governance, procedures and practices.”