March 3, 2003
Can you ever remember reading in your morning newspaper how police forces in several Canadian cities were somehow overnight accused of wholesale racism?
In a huge country like Canada, where thousands of miles separate the cities, how is it even possible that the police forces of several urban centres can be facing charges of racism on the same day?
Have you ever noticed how the same anti-police activists are almost always quoted in ongoing ‘investigative’ news stories relating to police and racism?
CanadaFreePress.com calls this media phenomenon "racism by coincidence", or "coincidental racism".
Jonathan Kay of the National Post calls it "the smear campaign".
"The smear campaign being waged against the Toronto Police Force is going on all across North America," Kay wrote in the Post on Feb. 26.
CFP is not so much surprised it is going on all across North America--but that it is going on at the same time.
Nor is it expected to end soon. In the words of the Toronto Star, the newspaper which continues to lead the charge against Toronto police…"Judging from U.S. and British experience, Toronto’s highly charged debate over race and policing isn’t unusual--and it will probably last for years."
"In city after city, the pattern is the same," wrote the Post’s Kay. "Activists dig up data that shows blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted than whites. They then ignore the obvious explanation--that, for a variety of reasons, blacks commit more crime--and eagerly skip to the conclusion that the cops are acting on racial prejudice."
Jay noticed how the campaign waged against Toronto police by the Toronto Star "closely resembled the one waged against New Jersey’s highway patrolmen.
"A few years ago, Peter Verniero, then the state’s attorney-general, released a report showing that 53 percent of consent searches on the New Jersey Turnpike involved black drivers--despite the fact blacks make up just 14 percent of the state’s population. State governor Christie Todd Whitman immediately accused her police of "racial profiling." The New York Times, which inevitably strikes the same hypercorrect postures on race issues as our own Star, began referring casually to the troopers’ "racial bias."
Kay: "The crime numbers in Toronto are similarly illuminating: Blacks represent about 27 percent of those arrested for the most violent offences, yet make up only 8 percent of the city’s population."
Scholarly and independent reviewers recently debunked the Star’s campaign against Toronto police as "junk science".
Even more disturbing was their conclusion that "it doesn’t contribute anything to the public debate about important issues. They simply pour gasoline and throw a match on it."
With other news media throwing in their weight to criticize the Star for its flawed racial profiling report, it could be hoped that policing would regain its confidence and blacks murdering blacks brought sooner to justice.
Just when it seemed the tables had turned, the province’s Human Rights Commission weighed in with an exercise to elicit "personal accounts" of racial profiling from the public at large. Activists were gleeful, and within days the Commission reported back that its telephones were already ringing off the hook. To date, some 600 citizens have reported racist treatment by police to the Commission.
This measure will undoubtedly unearth a plethora of impossible-to-substantiate horror stories that will once again vilify Toronto cops.
Worse still, as Kay and others anticipate, the Star will likely use them as cover to make everyone forget about how thoroughly its "investigative report" on racial profiling was trashed.
Not so long ago, Ontario Human Rights Commission head honcho Keith Norton was publicly accusing private religious schools of racial bias.
Last summer Joseph Y. Adler, of the prominent law firm Kronis Rotsztain Margles Cappel, filed a formal complaint under the Human Rights Code to the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Norton. Norton had publicly branded private religious schools as "breeders of hatred and discrimination".
Adler, who once worked for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, described himself as only one of "several thousand Ontarians--who have been similarly offended by Commissioner Norton’s remarks."
"The Commissioner has clearly overstepped his bounds and has offended several minority groups in one fell swoop," Adler wrote. "Instead of promoting an environment of religious tolerance and co-existence for which his office is responsible for doing, he has contributed to the very thing he wishes to avoid. That is, his damaging comments have the potential to create, if they have not already created, serious divisions in Ontario’s society. The commissioner’s lack of sensitivity in this regard is truly troubling and inexcusable."
If the Commission is headed by a man so quick to portray private religious schools as "breeders of hatred and discrimination", what can be expected of a commission-led call for "personal accounts" of police racial profiling?
Meanwhile, who are the proponents of racism by coincidence?
Cop bashing seems to be the province of left wing agitation. At the local level, the cop bashing movement is led by the Jack Laytons, the Olivia Chows, and the Pam McConnells, aided and abetted by councillor opportunists like the Sherene Shaws.
The left led a long successful march through some of our institutions like our churches and education system. It has now turned its agenda on police.
The attack on our institutions is dangerous. But if the left’s agenda to bring down the police is successful, in the aftermath, expect anarchy.
Canada Free Press founding editor Most recent by Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement