A blog that is organized around the lawyering experience of Criminal and Human Rights Lawyer Selwyn Pieters and things that interest him!!!!!
Showing posts with label anti-racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-racism. Show all posts
Sunday, November 28, 2021
Monday, June 26, 2017
BADC Closing Arguments - Andrew Loku Inquest (notes)
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created June 26, 2017
I want to thank you, members of the jury for taking the time to be here for a case that is of great importance to our communities and taking time out of your lives to be the jury in this case.
Sir Robert Peel stated that "The police are the public and the public are the police." So that if we break this down in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial society it means that the police must have experientially interacted with citizens including Black men and women and persons with mental health exceptionalities."
Sir Robert Peel stated that "The police are the public and the public are the police." So that if we break this down in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial society it means that the police must have experientially interacted with citizens including Black men and women and persons with mental health exceptionalities."
"One of the Black Action Defence Committee (BADC) Directors reminded me at lunch today that we are on one ship so that if we sink you will too.
The Relationship between police and black community must be look at holistically. If relationship continues to be strained and steps aren’t taken to ameliorate that relationship, no one is safe in this city. Black lives matter. Our lives matters.
Constable Doyle testified that he had a Black partner but never had experience interacting with Black men. You heard the evidence of Professor Nicholas Rule where he spoke of the implicit bias and the shift of perception of Black men from "happy go lucky to Black men to being stereotyped as being angry and aggressive."
Implicit bias affects all of us. 35% of all fatal shootings, at least, are black men. This has led to a fear of the police in our communities. So our fear of police is not irrational. There is disparity in policing and how we are policed. That goes to recommendation with respect to compiling of statistics. We want official statistics. We want use of Force form to be amended to document race of person, and mental health issues. Race, gender, ethnicity of anyone killed or seriously hurt. Dr. Rule spoke of being collect and analyze data on implicit bias of individual officers from recruitment to advancement through the service. He also speak of tracking this data on a systemic level. Dr. Kwame McKenzie also spoke of the important of statistics in respect to the institutional racism including the use of force. So for both experts the collection of statistics are important.
We all worked collaboratively to come up with slate. Also join recommendations of Across Boundaries, that speak about intersectionality of mental health and anti-black racism. Some people would want you to believe that racism has nothing to do with this case. Race and mental health is at the core of what this case is about. We are not taking colour blind approach to this case. Race has something to do with it. That’s why this room was filled when Constable Doyle testified. Our community wanted to hear from him. W e are disappointed that the officers said they wouldn’t change anything they did in that same situation.
We have had inquests before where jury recommended tasers. You have seen the evidence that each Toronto Police officer has a gun, three magazines of ammo (15 rounds each). We're arming them for war, not peace.
You job is very important and I echo what Mr. Morton said, it is the most important thing you will do to make recommendations to governments, agencies and the police sop that lives are saved, deaths are prevented.
See also Dr. Carlise ruling on racism
See also Dr. Carlise ruling on racism
Monday, June 12, 2017
Cross-examination of Nicholas Rule on Racial Bias in Judgments of Physical Size and Formidability
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created June 12, 2017
On June 12, 2017, at the Andrew Loku Inquest I crossed examined Professor Nicholas Rule on an article he coauthored: Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O Racial Bias in Judgments of Physical Size and Formidability: From Size to Threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000092
--- E x T R A C T ---
NICHOLAS
RULE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SELWYN PIETERS:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Rule.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I am Selwyn Pieters. I represent the Black Action Defence
Committee. Now, you spoke about implicit
bias as perceiving or having Black men stereotyped as angry and aggressive.
A. I did. Yes.
Q. And you spoke about the shift of Black men
being happy go lucky or Black people being perceived as happy-go-lucky people.
A. That’s right.
Q. Right.
This angry and aggressive posture that comes from implicit bias, would
you say that that is something that infects society as a whole?
A. It certainly affects
society as a whole, yes.
Q. Then so if that is the case, then the fear of
a Black man is based on implicit thought processes rather than objective fear,
would you agree?
A. I would agree.
Q. You mentioned a shopping mall example with respect
to a wallet and a gun. You recall that?
A. I do.
Q. And you mentioned that it is likely that the
perception would be the Black person having the gun?
A. That’s what the studies
have shown, yes.
Q. Right.
So, if that situation is replicated in real life in a shopping mall
where a White man has a gun and the Black man has the wallet, would it be the case,
taking what you said or say -- the association of black with crime is and
implicit association of Black people with crime -- that the Black person would
be at risk of violence from the police or a negative reaction?
A. You mean as opposed to
the White person --
Q. Yes.
A. -- with the gun? I don’t know that it would necessarily go
that far, actually. So I think that it
would be more likely that the presence of an actual gun would be a more salient
stimulus to draw attention. So I -- it
is -- the studies do show that people are more likely to mistake the wallet for
a gun in the hands of Black person and that they’re then faster to make a shoot
decision, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they would mistake a gun for a
wallet per se in the case of a White person.
Q. Very well. You’re familiar with the Diallo situation in
the U.S. where a Black man was shot taking a wallet out of his pocket?
A. I am.
Q. Very well.
You mentioned, you spoke about implicit bias and then you spoke about
implicit racism.
A. That’s right.
Q. Define implicit racism for us.
A. Implicit racism would
be beliefs about a group defined by its race that are held implicitly and are
of negative valence against that group.
Q. Very well. Now ---
A. If I can -- I would say
implicit racism is a specific type of implicit bias.
Q. But it’s racism nonetheless?
A. That’s right. Yes.
Q. Right.
Would you say it’s possible for Toronto Police to compile social science
data on implicit bias in relation to individual officers from the time they
join the force and as they progress through the force?
A. It is certainly possible
for us to measure implicit associations held by a particular individual and to
track those for changes over time.
Q. What about systemically within the
organization?
A. Within the organization
you would need to make those individual assessments and then you could perhaps
aggregate them to say that, you know, a given group of individuals is more
prone towards a particular level of bias. Though, I don’t know that that would necessarily
constitute the same idea as an institutionally endorsed or a reiterated notion.
Q. I’m going to put some propositions to you and
you can tell me whether you agree or whether you disagree or you can explain
it.
A. Sure.
Q. I’m going to suggest to that the perpetuation
or the perpetration of implicit bias is a form of violence based on what you
described today in respect to how Black men are perceived and treated.
A. It would depend on the
way that one defines violence. If one
defines violence as a physical behaviour then I would not agree. If one defines violence as, you know, including
aggressive thoughts, that might be possible.
However, I might still disagree, actually, because I think in that case
they would need to be conscious thoughts for them to be considered violent.
Q. Yes. But
if someone has implicit thoughts of violence against someone, are you saying that
that would be excused?
A. No. I don’t think that one would necessarily have
implicit thoughts of violence. So, the
nature of the way that, you know, a human would think about violence or
particular actions wouldn’t necessarily be at an implicit level. Those would have to occur somewhat more
explicitly. The implicit level would simply
be the associations between two concepts, so it’s a -- it’s a much more basic
thing. But to actually consider a
violent act, or any behaviour of that sort, would require a -- an either
explicit or semi-explicit level, I think.
Q. I take it from your testimony, you can agree,
disagree or explain it, that this implicit bias that you spoke about and that
you researched and wrote about, it perpetrates oppression against a specific
race and that’s Black people.
A. I think I could agree
with that.
Q. I also take it from your study and what you
said today that the relationship between discrimination on the basis -- there
is a relationship between discrimination on the basis of race and implicit bias?
A. There is and that would
be implicit racism.
Q. And that there is a relationship between
prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination and implicit bias?
A. There certainly is,
yes.
Q. And that discriminatory attitudes and implicit
bias are mutually exclusive? Or they go
-- sorry, not mutually exclusive. They
go hand in hand?
A. Yes. But not in a bidirectional manner. So, as I said earlier, implicit bias would be
present when there are discriminatory attitudes, but implicit bias can be
present without discriminatory attitudes as well.
Q. You said something here and I’m going to put
something to you and you can tell me what your position is. You said we favour people who look like us in
very important ways.
A. That’s right.
Q. So, I’m going to put this to you: Colour
blindness and excuses are the means by which the dominant group maintains its
position. I can put it differently.
THE CORONER: Perhaps if
you did rephrase it might be easier for the witness.
BY MR. PIETERS:
Q. If what you said today in evidence is true
and this implicit bias has its most virulent or its most devastating impact on
Black people, let’s say in Canada or in Toronto, then we can’t really boil down
implicit bias or any of these things in a colour-blind way.
A. Well, what I can say
about colour blindness is that it’s typically regarded as an ineffective
strategy for dealing with race relations.
Colour blindness typically -- so the idea of colour blindness is the
notion that if we ignore differences between groups -- in this case racial
groups, groups defined by colour differences, typically -- that there won’t be
problems. That if we just, you know, if
we don’t see the differences then there aren’t issues to discuss. The data have clearly shown that that is not
effective but rather it masks the underlying issues. But rather an approach that acknowledges
differences and discusses those differences is more effective for ameliorating
any discrepancies that are based on those differences.
THE CORONER: Mr. Pieters,
a time warning. You have two minutes.
MR. PIETERS: Very
well. I’m going to finish way before
then, Dr. Carlisle.
THE CORONER: Anything you
can do to help.
BY MR. PIETERS:
Q. What effect does denial from a systemic level,
for example, a president of a police association denying that police act on implicit
biases, have on managing that association or managing its members in dealing
with issues of implicit bias or racism?
A. I think that that would
likely be problematic. I think any time that
-- if we’re truly discussing denial as a concept whereby one knows one thing
but does not wish to accept it, as denial is often used in the psychological
literature, then that wouldn’t be -- that is not a productive step towards
making any kind of change. It’s
important that one acknowledges a phenomenon before one can potentially even
deal with.
Q. What would be your recommendation to the jury
for a police service to confront this issue and deal with it?
A. That’s a very big
question. I think that, you know, if
there are differences in the way that suspects are being treating on the basis
of their race, then certainly an examination is required to understand why this
is occurring, how it’s occurring and then steps would need to be taken. If it’s determined that this is based on implicit
biases, that is associations or expectations that people from one racial group are
more prone to criminal behaviour than another, then some of the training
exercises that we discussed earlier today might be appropriate for attempting
to correct those biases.
Q. Than you, Dr. Carlisle. Thank you, Dr. Rule.
A. Thank you.
THE CORONER: Thank you,
Mr. Pieters.
See also, Wendy Gillis, Black men perceived as more threatening, expert tells Andrew Loku inquest, Toronto Star, June 12, 2017
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Racial profiling in the Courtroom, the classroom, Lsuc and other legal spaces
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created February 15, 2017
Stereotypical Identification of Black Men as accused Person is Typical in our System of criminal (in)justice. Those who disagree has not walked in my shoes so cannot persuade me otherwise. Here is an encounter at Old City Hall for which I had to educate the Crown lawyer.....
I am a Black male who is a Barrister & Solicitor. I write with respect to your conduct this afternoon in courtroom 111 at Old City Hall... I had signed in on the Counsel sheet representing an accused person (Male, White, 32, blue eyes, brown hair). I then sat in the counsel area directly behind you waiting for the case to be heard. This was a matter that was screened for diversion as it was a theft under from LCBO $12.95 bottle of Liquor.
When you stated to the Justice of the Peace that there were no more counsel matters, without me hearing you call the matter for which I was providing representation, I stepped forward from counsel area to alert you to the fact that there was indeed one more counsel matter. Instead of listening to me, you pointed to where the unrepresented accused persons were and directed me to go and join the line. I had to remind you that I am a lawyer. You did not even apologize. I have been in courtroom 111 where you were crown on numerous occasions and I was very shocked, surprised, embarrassed and in some way humiliated by your behavior. All you had to do if you were not sure whether or not I was a lawyer is ask the question, not assume I am an accused person who should join the back of the line.
You may or may not know that Black male lawyers are fed up being treated as though they are accused person when practising before the courts......
I believe there is a need to record today's incident because it reinforces certain stereotypical attitudes and notions that indeed results in racial profiling.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Systemic Racism in Ontario Legal Profession
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created January 17, 2017
This video is a collection of thoughts on the Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group (“the Working Group”) Final report, Working Together for Change: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Professions (November 2016). I have also added my thoughts as a subject matter expert.
Discussion of Systemic Racism
Systemic
discrimination consists of practices or attitudes that have, whether by design
or impact, the effect of limiting an individual’s or group’s rights to
opportunities because of attributed rather than actual characteristics. If the practices or attitudes affect certain
groups in a disproportionately negative way, it is a signal that practices that
lead to this adverse impact may be discriminatory.[1] Establishing systemic discrimination depends
on showing that practices, attitudes, policies or procedures impact
disproportionately on certain protected groups,[2]
such as African Canadians.
Evidence
related to systemic and individual discrimination is often interwoven. It is difficult to untangle systemic
discrimination in practice from its application in particular circumstances.[3] In Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission)
v Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare),[4]
the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that the applicant was entitled to adduce
systemic evidence in support of allegations of discrimination against him
personally
The
relevance of social science and contextual evidence
in racial profiling cases cannot be understated:
[118] After making this finding, the
Vice-Chair, in para. 91, quoted a passage from Nassiah discussing the social science evidence
led in that case:
… racial profiling
social science evidence is relevant because it speaks to, not just the initial
decision to stop, detain, pursue an investigation, but also supports the
general phenomenon that the scrutiny
applied to the subsequent investigation is
different, more heightened, more suspicious, if the suspect is Black. The
stereotyping phenomenon is the same, whether it manifests itself in the
discretion to stop/arrest/detain a person in part because they are Black, or
whether it manifests itself in the form of greater suspicion, scrutiny,
investigation in whole or part because a suspect is Black. [Emphasis in
original.]
In a racist blog < http://chimpmania.com/forum/showthread.php?97617-Canadian-groid-apettorney-ooks-raycizz&p=903356>
that showed up after this case got into the public domain someone wrote:
“In Toronto, nigger
apettorney Selwyn Pieters shuffles up to the law society headquarters, and an
astute security guard suspects something is wrong. The guard asks to see the
ape's law society identity card, which turns out expired, and the ape is denied
entry. Chimpout ensues.”
“Look at this thing. Would
you allow it entry ANYWHERE, short of Apefrika?”
“Things like this should
not be allowed!”
“I'm suprised anyone hires
it, ever. Nasty beast.”
“I'm sure everyplace the
nigger shows up this happens. Humans don't want fat greasy niggers around.”
Another wrote “The only way
it would belong in the building is if it was there to clean the toilets.”
I was treated as an
imposter not because I am not a lawyer but it is because of stereotypes based
race, ethnicity, ancestry, creed and the intersection of these grounds. The
intersecting grounds are the basis of the racial profiling and unequal
treatment that I was subjected to. Had the security guard believed I was a
lawyer he was have followed the procedures set out in paragraphs 23-24 of the
LSUC response and would have dealt with me in a customer service friendly
manner as a member of the LSUC. It is for this reason that I cited the overtly
racist comments herein. While these were direct examples of racist words that
some people would find offensive, the treatment experienced by me and other
Blacks and racial minorities at the LSUC and by the LSUC is consistent with the
racist views above.
I do not believe that had I
been white or Jewish, I would not have been subjected to differential treatment
by the security guard and the LSUC. The lack of scrutiny of the suspended
licencee Ari Benjamin Kulidjian for three years as he entered those doors of
the LSUC, whilst not entitled to carry a LSUC identification card supports my
view.
Further, the Human Rights
Tribunal Application in Arlene Spence v.
Law Society of Upper Canada et al. 2016-24316-I is an employee complaint of racism at the LSUC Spence v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2017 HRTO 31 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gww66>,
In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan
McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, a case that involved professional misconduct
findings against McSween by a Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel, in
concurring reasons, adjudicators Clayton C. Ruby and Constance Backhouse
examined McSween's personal background, antecedents, training and the nature of
discrimination and wrote the following, which though lengthy deserve quoting
liberally:
3.
Racism in the Context of Law
[68]
In 1999, the Working Group on Racial Equality in
the Legal Profession of the Canadian Bar Association published Racial Equality
in the Canadian Legal Profession. The report examines racism in the legal
profession and reveals that students from racialized communities have fewer
opportunities to secure articling positions and first jobs. They do not benefit
from the same articling experience as their non-racialized colleagues who are
introduced to clients, assist more senior lawyers on important cases, and who
conduct research on a broader range of files. There is no evidence to
suggest that circumstances have changed for the better; in particular,
articling opportunities have diminished. See: Working Group on Racial
Equality in the Legal Profession, Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal
Profession (Canadian Bar Association: Ottawa, 1999).
[69] More recently, in 2004, the Law Society commissioned a study entitled Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario. This report attempted to establish a baseline for tracking diversity and equity in the Ontario legal profession. It found that, when surveyed, lawyers of racialized communities are more likely to reveal that they were denied opportunities to take responsibility for cases because of client objections, and they also were more often subject to inappropriate comments by judges and other lawyers. See: Kay, F. M. et al. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario (A report to the Law Society of Upper Canada) (Queen’s University: Kingston, 2004).
[70] It is reasonable to infer that as a group, Afro-Caribbean Canadian lawyers are economically and professionally disadvantaged when compared with their colleagues, and that many face diminished opportunity as alleged in this case by Mr. McSween.
[72] The research into Canadian legal history shows that systemic racism has had a substantial impact on the legal profession. It demonstrates that ideas of legal “professionalism” have been used to exercise power and exclusion based on gender, class, religion, and race. The first minority individuals who sought admission to the legal profession faced significant barriers. Those who succeeded in obtaining entry found that those barriers continued to impact upon their careers when they attempted to practise. Significantly, an increased risk of disbarment was one such barrier for racialized lawyers.
[73] It would be misguided to be aware of this history and yet ignore its contemporary incarnations simply because the legal profession has today become much more diverse. The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of the racism inherent in the practice. As the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face barriers not experienced by their colleagues.
[69] More recently, in 2004, the Law Society commissioned a study entitled Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario. This report attempted to establish a baseline for tracking diversity and equity in the Ontario legal profession. It found that, when surveyed, lawyers of racialized communities are more likely to reveal that they were denied opportunities to take responsibility for cases because of client objections, and they also were more often subject to inappropriate comments by judges and other lawyers. See: Kay, F. M. et al. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario (A report to the Law Society of Upper Canada) (Queen’s University: Kingston, 2004).
[70] It is reasonable to infer that as a group, Afro-Caribbean Canadian lawyers are economically and professionally disadvantaged when compared with their colleagues, and that many face diminished opportunity as alleged in this case by Mr. McSween.
[72] The research into Canadian legal history shows that systemic racism has had a substantial impact on the legal profession. It demonstrates that ideas of legal “professionalism” have been used to exercise power and exclusion based on gender, class, religion, and race. The first minority individuals who sought admission to the legal profession faced significant barriers. Those who succeeded in obtaining entry found that those barriers continued to impact upon their careers when they attempted to practise. Significantly, an increased risk of disbarment was one such barrier for racialized lawyers.
[73] It would be misguided to be aware of this history and yet ignore its contemporary incarnations simply because the legal profession has today become much more diverse. The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of the racism inherent in the practice. As the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face barriers not experienced by their colleagues.
In Law
Society of Upper Canada v. Terence John Robinson, 2013 ONLSAP
18 following from the principles in McSween, an appeal panel
observed that:
[78]
In our view, McSween supports the
proposition that systemic racism and discrimination which explains or provides
context to why a licensee engaged in misconduct or conduct unbecoming is
relevant. This is not unique to Aboriginal licensees. What is unique are the
systemic and background factors that affect Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal
lawyers and how these factors have affected them.
Recently, The Challenges
Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group (“the Working Group”) Final report, Working Together for
Change: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Professions
(November 2016):
117. It is clear from the Working Group’s
engagement and consultation processes that discrimination based on race is a
daily reality for many racialized licensees; however, many participants stated that
they would not file a discrimination complaint with the Law Society for various
reasons, including fear of losing their job, fear of being labeled as a
troublemaker, and other reprisal related concerns. Participants also noted that
although racism can be experienced on an individual basis, racial
discrimination can also be institutional or systemic in nature. Participants did
not believe that an effective process was available at the Law Society to
address systemic complaints. The Working Group heard from a number of
participants who stated that a system of anonymous complaints would assist in
alleviating some of the concerns about reporting cases of racial
discrimination.
University of Ottawa
Professor (and LSUC Bencher) Joanne St. Lewis in her Slaw column made the following incisive comments about the
micro and macro aggressions that Black lawyers face due to racism and its
deleterious effects:
The legal profession has a heightened
awareness of issues of mental health. Ignoring the role of racism in worsening
or causing mental illness, points to the underlying failure to address the
realities of racism in legal workplaces. Experiencing everyday microaggressions,
being the subject of direct racism, absorbing injustices in silence – all take
a toll that cannot simply be masked by individualized terms such as stress,
depression etc. The Challenges Report missed the opportunity to build on the
Law Society’s mental health initiatives by recommending strategies specific to
racialized licensees. The report ought to include a recommendation that the
profession’s designated health care provider (Homewood Health) develop the
necessary staffing and substantive expertise to address these concerns as part
of a comprehensive mental health support strategy to racialized licensees.
Ms. Joanne St. Lewis was the
co-chair of the 1999 Canadian Bar Association Working Group on Racial Equality
and author of Virtual Justice: Systemic Racism and the Canadian Legal
Profession. She was the first Black woman to be elected to serve as a Bencher
of the Law Society of Upper Canada in its 207 year history. She has served as
legal counsel for the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations in Lavoie v.
Canada [2002] S.C.J. No. 24 (where she appeared before the SCC) and was
representative for the co-intervenor NOIVMW (National Organization of Immigrant
and Visible Minority Women) on the LEAF legal committee on R. v. R.D.S. [1997]
3 S.C.R. 484.[5]
In its submissions to the
LSUC Working Group, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers wrote:
CABL notes that the process
of recalling, reliving and publicly discussing systemic and sometimes overt
racism is gruelling and uncomfortable. Our members shared intimate details of their
experiences in order to draw attention to the challenges faced by black and
other minority lawyers in Ontario.
…
CABL is fully in support of
the LSUC addressing the challenges our members and other minority groups face
in the practice of law. The members of the Bar have failed in their obligation
not to “discriminate on the grounds of race, ancestry, pledge of origin, colour,
ethnic
origin, citizenship, creed,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of
offences, marital status, family status or disability with respect to
professional employment of other lawyers, articled students, or any other
person or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person (as
defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code)”2
[See The Rules of Professional Conduct
section 6.3.1-1] It is for this very reason that we believe the report places
too much faith in the ability of the Bar to self-monitor and correct the
systemic issues recognized in the report. There must be direct regulation from
the LSUC. We believe that the recommendations should be strengthened to reflect
LSUC regulation rather than suggestion
[1] Canadian National Railway v
Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1987] 1 SCR 114 at para 34
[2] Brome v Ontario (Human Rights
Commission), (1999) 171 DLR (4th) 538 at para 16 (Ct J (Gen Div)); Brome v Ontario (Human Rights Commission),
[1999] 171 DLR (4th) 538 (Ct J (Gen
Div)), leave to appeal to CA refused, [1999] 89 ACWS (3d) 1238 (CA).
[3] Kelly v British Columbia
(Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2009 BCHRT 363at para 29.
[4] [1998] 85 ACWS (3d) 647. This decision has been applied numerous
times to find that statistical evidence of a larger systemic problem within an
organization can be used to support an
inference of discrimination in a particular case.
[5] It is highly likely that at a hearing in this matter I will be
serving a summons on this Bencher to provide contextual evidence on the LSUC in
respect to anti-black racism.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Digging Down Deep: Racism in the Nova Scotian Legal Profession
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created October 19, 2016
Black Crown prosecutor Perry Borden and Black Lawyer Lyle Howe face-off at the hearing in what was described as a tense encounter. Mr. Howe apparently described Borden's presence in the Dartmouth prosecutors' office as being "so quiet he was almost nonexistent." Mr. Borden said Howe's comment made Borden appear to be the "house nigger" of the Public Prosecution Service. One of my colleagues J.H. reminded us that this was "Similar to how Johnny Cochran viewed (at least publicly) Chris Darden during the OJ trial."
Alonzo Wright Crown Attorney with Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service of Canada who is a special prosecutor handling mostly fraud matters testified about racism at Howe's hearing about his experience as an Black man in Nova Scotia in a way that is so real:
This was reported by Blair Rhodes, CBC Journalist based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Of course, Mr. Wright's testimony resonated with me because I have been chronicling my own experiences as a Black man with dreadlocks in legal spaces.
In my October 17, 2016 blog post I wrote:
This then goes back to the reality that Black people, whether in a profession or not face everyday.
Wright testimony was important because it in some way exposes the lack of diversity in the various facets of the legal profession in Nova Scotia and the difficult conversations that are required to make the profession more welcoming and more diverse.
See, Selwyn Pieters bio for subject matter expertise.
Resources
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created October 19, 2016
I have been following Lyle Howe's Nova Scotia Barristers' Society hearing which Blair Rhodes reports on via his twitter account @CBCBlairRhodes and through various other means including orders and decisions of the Discipline Panel hearing the case. What is clear is that the NSBS has dug in its heels and is going after Mr. Howe with all of its resources, legal, regulatory and financial. What is also evident, much to his credit, is Lyle Howe is clearly determined to fight this application to strip him of his law licence and he is fighting it with everything he can muster. .
On October 17, 2016 CBC Nova Scotia reported the Disciplinary Hearing as "shaping up to be the longest hearing of its kind in Nova Scotia history. The push is in to try to finish by year's end."
On October 17, 2016 CBC Nova Scotia reported the Disciplinary Hearing as "shaping up to be the longest hearing of its kind in Nova Scotia history. The push is in to try to finish by year's end."
October 17, 2016, was interesting in that two Black Crown Attorneys testified under subpoena. Interestingly enough, the "nigger" word was raised when both attorneys were in the witness box.
Alonzo Wright Crown Attorney with Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service of Canada who is a special prosecutor handling mostly fraud matters testified about racism at Howe's hearing about his experience as an Black man in Nova Scotia in a way that is so real:
1) Wright identified as African Nova Scotian.
2) Wright says he has experienced racism all his life.
3) Wright says he and teammates were called "niggers" during competitive games in an attempt to get them off their game.
4) Wright says even today he experiences racism: he wears his hair in dreads and gets singled out on occasion.
5) Wright says as he prosecutes across the province he is frequently the only black man in the courtroom and often in the community.
6) Wright says when he walks into court, people are often "shocked" to see him sit in the crown side in the courtroom.
This was reported by Blair Rhodes, CBC Journalist based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Of course, Mr. Wright's testimony resonated with me because I have been chronicling my own experiences as a Black man with dreadlocks in legal spaces.
In my October 17, 2016 blog post I wrote:
Assumptions, everyday racism and micro-aggression
What evidence was/is there to justify such an assumption that I have no right to 1) be in the Lawyers’ lounge at Peel Law Association: See, Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.) 2) access the door that lawyers use at the Law Society of Upper Canada (See, Alex Robinson, "Lawyer alleges discrimination by LSUC security guard" July 25, 2016 <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201607255550/headline-news/lawyer-alleges-discrimination-by-lsuc-security-guard>, LSUC responds to discrimination allegation <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201608225590/letters-to-the-editor/letter-lsuc-responds-to-discrimination-allegation> and Narrative to application to the Human Rights Tribunal was filed on September 07, 2016) or 3) Even access my office where I have 24 hours access? NONE.
This is why in most cases I boil it down to racial profiling because the assumptions that a Big Black man with Dreadlocks has no right to be in certain legal spaces are covert, insidious, and pervasive. The assumptions, everyday racism and micro-aggression, in most cases, are unintentional attitudes and behaviors that are learned in conditioned in people so that they act event without self-awareness.
This then goes back to the reality that Black people, whether in a profession or not face everyday.
Wright testimony was important because it in some way exposes the lack of diversity in the various facets of the legal profession in Nova Scotia and the difficult conversations that are required to make the profession more welcoming and more diverse.
See, Selwyn Pieters bio for subject matter expertise.
Resources
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia — Nova Scotiasexual assault — sentence — victim — offender — woman
- 3.Nova Scotia Court of Appeal — Nova Scotiahonest but mistaken belief — jury — stupefying drug — sexual activity — evidencecited by 1 document
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia — Nova Scotia
subpoenas — prosecutorial discretion — ripeness — witnesses — evidence
- Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiabias — interruptions — differential treatment — recused — question
- 15.Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiasubpoena — evidence — immunity — independence — judicial
- 16.Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiaadvocacy — lawyer — professional misconduct — mislead — cross-examination
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiareasonable — lawyers — person — bias — presumption of impartiality
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiasecond recusal motion — tight timelines — recusal application — adjournment — time
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Hearing Panel — Nova Scotiaconflict — bias — disqualify a decision-maker — named prosecutors — concern
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Selwyn Pieters Reply to Robert Lapper on Racism at the Law Society of Upper Canada
By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created August 25, 2016
Updated: September 09, 2016
Updated: December 08, 2016
Update: An application to the Human Rights Tribunal was filed on September 07, 2016, the crux of the application is:
The letter sought to refute my allegations that on July 05, 2016, I was racially profiled at the Law Society of Upper Canada, treated differently from other lawyers and denied access to the door that is normally accessible to lawyers and members of the public alike.
Interrogating Racism and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):
Robert Lapper wrote: "The Law Society has standard procedures for all non-staff licensees who seek to enter controlled access areas of the building. Access to these parts of the building is gained through the main reception area of the Law Society. The standard procedures call for security staff to ask licensees to show their Law Society identification card. If this card is expired, security staff will check the Law Society’s database of licensees to confirm the licensee’s status. Once security staff have confirmed the licensee’s status, he or she is permitted entry to those areas of the building."
Mr. Lapper continued: "It is true that some individuals are not stopped at the main entrance. Staff of the Law Society are not subject to the standard procedures outlined above and move frequently through the controlled access doors without interacting with security. Staff of the Law Society are issued staff identification cards and security passes, which they use to gain entry to controlled access areas of the building directly."
He then wrote: "We very much regret that Mr. Pieters was upset by his experience with the Law Society on July 5. However, I am satisfied that standard procedures were followed and there was no discrimination. "
What Occurred in Pieters Case?
1) Pieters is a member in Good Standing at the Law Society of Upper Canada;
2) On July 5, 2016, Pieters took his student to the Society;
3) The guard on duty was shown Pieters LSUC Card;
4) The Guard aggressively demanded that the card be removed from the wallet;
5) The Guard invaded Pieters space and grabbed the card out of his hands;
6) The Guard denied Pieters and his student entry through the door;
7) The Guard never checked LSUC Database to see whether or not Pieters was a lawyer in Good Standing;
8) What concerned me more than anything else is the security guard's conduct was not customer service oriented. He treated me, and the student obseved that and related it to the security supervisor as though "you cannot possibly be a lawyer."
9) A video exist that shows the conduct of the Guard, prior to, during and after the interaction with Pieters.
The Student Witness Independent Account:
"We commenced our tour after entering the main doors. There was a group of people (all Caucasian) ahead of us who passed security without any issues and were admitted via a card controlled door into the wider facility. On approaching that same door, we were met by the security guard on duty who was the same individual who had admitted the group that was ahead of us but did not leave his desk which was a few metres away from the door when attending to them. I stepped back as the guard approached and he began engaging with you. The guard’s comments to you suggested that you could not be a lawyer and he demanded to see your LSUC ID card. From my observation at this point the guard had come very close to you and had invaded your personal space. You then reached into your pocket to get the ID and showed it to him through the clear plastic covering. That did not satisfy the guard and he then asked you to remove the ID completely from the wallet. The guard became impatient and then attempted to grab the wallet and ID closer to him for further inspection. You then informed him that this was inappropriate behaviour and that you were a member in good standing with the Society. After giving him the ID, he then informed you that it had expired and that you needed to renew it before you could enter the wider premises. The guard did not offer to show you where to go for the renewal of the ID. You were obviously familiar with the premises so you knew where to go to renew the ID."
A Breakdown of how discrimination at the Law Society of Upper Canada works:
"Esteemed professionals are careful and discrete. They manage discrimination and harassment to avoid detection, or undue scrutiny. Preventing any perception of discriminatory practice is the basis of their actions not avoiding the practice itself. If policies have been violated, they simply adjust their practices to remain under the radar."
In “Race Talk and the Conspiracy of Silence: Understanding and Facilitating Difficult Dialogues on Race” New York: Routledge, 2016, page 90, author Derald Wing Sue made these trite observations: “The existence of institutional racism shields the operation of white privilege through what is called Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), which represents the rules, habits, procedures, and structures of organizations that oppress people of colour while favoring Whites. The SOPs may apply equally to all groups but serve to maintain the status quo.”
In effect, these SOPs are used as masks to hide racism or exclusionary impact or effect. However, as recently observed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Briggs v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 966 (CanLII), "If the police officers involved in the applicant’s stop were not acting in accordance with applicable protocols and training materials, this factor could support an inference of discrimination in this case."
My Rejection of the Comments of the CEO that Standard Operation Procedures were followed
The CEO's comments are duplicitious and quite frankly is an insult to my experience and intelligence, as he knows or ought to have known that the LSUC security guard did not follow the Standard Operation Procedures that he says the LSUC has in place. Is this SOP in writing? When was it formulated? I would like to see that SOP if it is a written document.
As I mentioned in my letter to the CEO, I have no issues with the LSUC Guards doing their jobs but they must interact with lawyers and members of the public with tact and diplomacy.
Other Observations:
After the initial Law Times Article was published: Alex Robinson, "Lawyer alleges discrimination by LSUC security guard" July 25, 2016 <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201607255550/headline-news/lawyer-alleges-discrimination-by-lsuc-security-guard>, some lawyers approached me telling me they have never had a LSUC identification card. One of those lawyers practised law for over 40 years.
Another was quite incredulous that a "lowly security guard" could have denied me access.
Other lawyers stated that they are admitted through the use of various law associations cards.
Conclusion
I wrote in my letter to the CEO that “The LSUC and its staff have to get it right when dealing with Black people. Treating a Black lawyer in good standing as an imposter is not acceptable.”
Progressive racialized and non-racialized members of the LSUC knows that there is not only racism in the legal profession itself but that racism exist at the LSUC. See, for example, Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.), a racial profiling case involving two Black lawyers and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks.
At the LSUC the attacks on Black lawyers is disciplinary with race as the subtext. In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, a case that involved professional misconduct findings against McSween by a Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel, in concurring reasons, adjudicators Clayton C. Ruby and Constance Backhouse examined McSween's personal background, antecedents, training and the nature of discrimination and wrote the following, which though lengthy deserve quoting liberally:
If that is the case, one can conclude that the adverse treatment was linked to discrimination based on race and that racism was a factor in the treatment.
Postscript
Selwyn is running for a seat as a Bencher in the 2019 Law Society of Ontario elections
Selwyn Pieters, Subject MatterExpertise: Racial profiling, race & ethnicity, anti-black racism (law enforcement, security, education, law, criminal justice system), racial bullying, African-Canadian urban culture and race relations, social inequality, law enforcement, policing culture in Ontario, Canada; Guyana and Trinidad
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created August 25, 2016
Updated: September 09, 2016
Updated: December 08, 2016
Update: An application to the Human Rights Tribunal was filed on September 07, 2016, the crux of the application is:
On July 05, 2016, I was racially profiled at the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), treated differently from other lawyers and denied access to the door that is normally accessible to lawyers and members of the public alike. I believe that I was subjected to racial profiling in the provision of services in contravention of section 1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
I am discriminated and/or harassed with respect to membership in a vocational association because of race (Black), colour (Black), ancestry (African), ethnic origin (African-Canadian), creed (dreadlocks, perceived rastafarian) in contravention of sections 6 and 9 of the Code.On August 22, 2016, Robert Lapper, Q.C., Chief Executive Officer of the regulator of lawyers, The Law Society of Upper Canada, published a letter in the Law Times: LSUC responds to discrimination allegation <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201608225590/letters-to-the-editor/letter-lsuc-responds-to-discrimination-allegation> (Date accessed: August 25, 2016).
The letter sought to refute my allegations that on July 05, 2016, I was racially profiled at the Law Society of Upper Canada, treated differently from other lawyers and denied access to the door that is normally accessible to lawyers and members of the public alike.
Interrogating Racism and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):
Robert Lapper wrote: "The Law Society has standard procedures for all non-staff licensees who seek to enter controlled access areas of the building. Access to these parts of the building is gained through the main reception area of the Law Society. The standard procedures call for security staff to ask licensees to show their Law Society identification card. If this card is expired, security staff will check the Law Society’s database of licensees to confirm the licensee’s status. Once security staff have confirmed the licensee’s status, he or she is permitted entry to those areas of the building."
Mr. Lapper continued: "It is true that some individuals are not stopped at the main entrance. Staff of the Law Society are not subject to the standard procedures outlined above and move frequently through the controlled access doors without interacting with security. Staff of the Law Society are issued staff identification cards and security passes, which they use to gain entry to controlled access areas of the building directly."
He then wrote: "We very much regret that Mr. Pieters was upset by his experience with the Law Society on July 5. However, I am satisfied that standard procedures were followed and there was no discrimination. "
What Occurred in Pieters Case?
1) Pieters is a member in Good Standing at the Law Society of Upper Canada;
2) On July 5, 2016, Pieters took his student to the Society;
3) The guard on duty was shown Pieters LSUC Card;
4) The Guard aggressively demanded that the card be removed from the wallet;
5) The Guard invaded Pieters space and grabbed the card out of his hands;
6) The Guard denied Pieters and his student entry through the door;
7) The Guard never checked LSUC Database to see whether or not Pieters was a lawyer in Good Standing;
8) What concerned me more than anything else is the security guard's conduct was not customer service oriented. He treated me, and the student obseved that and related it to the security supervisor as though "you cannot possibly be a lawyer."
9) A video exist that shows the conduct of the Guard, prior to, during and after the interaction with Pieters.
The Student Witness Independent Account:
"We commenced our tour after entering the main doors. There was a group of people (all Caucasian) ahead of us who passed security without any issues and were admitted via a card controlled door into the wider facility. On approaching that same door, we were met by the security guard on duty who was the same individual who had admitted the group that was ahead of us but did not leave his desk which was a few metres away from the door when attending to them. I stepped back as the guard approached and he began engaging with you. The guard’s comments to you suggested that you could not be a lawyer and he demanded to see your LSUC ID card. From my observation at this point the guard had come very close to you and had invaded your personal space. You then reached into your pocket to get the ID and showed it to him through the clear plastic covering. That did not satisfy the guard and he then asked you to remove the ID completely from the wallet. The guard became impatient and then attempted to grab the wallet and ID closer to him for further inspection. You then informed him that this was inappropriate behaviour and that you were a member in good standing with the Society. After giving him the ID, he then informed you that it had expired and that you needed to renew it before you could enter the wider premises. The guard did not offer to show you where to go for the renewal of the ID. You were obviously familiar with the premises so you knew where to go to renew the ID."
A Breakdown of how discrimination at the Law Society of Upper Canada works:
"Esteemed professionals are careful and discrete. They manage discrimination and harassment to avoid detection, or undue scrutiny. Preventing any perception of discriminatory practice is the basis of their actions not avoiding the practice itself. If policies have been violated, they simply adjust their practices to remain under the radar."
In “Race Talk and the Conspiracy of Silence: Understanding and Facilitating Difficult Dialogues on Race” New York: Routledge, 2016, page 90, author Derald Wing Sue made these trite observations: “The existence of institutional racism shields the operation of white privilege through what is called Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), which represents the rules, habits, procedures, and structures of organizations that oppress people of colour while favoring Whites. The SOPs may apply equally to all groups but serve to maintain the status quo.”
In effect, these SOPs are used as masks to hide racism or exclusionary impact or effect. However, as recently observed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Briggs v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 966 (CanLII), "If the police officers involved in the applicant’s stop were not acting in accordance with applicable protocols and training materials, this factor could support an inference of discrimination in this case."
My Rejection of the Comments of the CEO that Standard Operation Procedures were followed
The CEO's comments are duplicitious and quite frankly is an insult to my experience and intelligence, as he knows or ought to have known that the LSUC security guard did not follow the Standard Operation Procedures that he says the LSUC has in place. Is this SOP in writing? When was it formulated? I would like to see that SOP if it is a written document.
As I mentioned in my letter to the CEO, I have no issues with the LSUC Guards doing their jobs but they must interact with lawyers and members of the public with tact and diplomacy.
Other Observations:
After the initial Law Times Article was published: Alex Robinson, "Lawyer alleges discrimination by LSUC security guard" July 25, 2016 <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201607255550/headline-news/lawyer-alleges-discrimination-by-lsuc-security-guard>, some lawyers approached me telling me they have never had a LSUC identification card. One of those lawyers practised law for over 40 years.
Another was quite incredulous that a "lowly security guard" could have denied me access.
Other lawyers stated that they are admitted through the use of various law associations cards.
Conclusion
I wrote in my letter to the CEO that “The LSUC and its staff have to get it right when dealing with Black people. Treating a Black lawyer in good standing as an imposter is not acceptable.”
Progressive racialized and non-racialized members of the LSUC knows that there is not only racism in the legal profession itself but that racism exist at the LSUC. See, for example, Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.), a racial profiling case involving two Black lawyers and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks.
At the LSUC the attacks on Black lawyers is disciplinary with race as the subtext. In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, a case that involved professional misconduct findings against McSween by a Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel, in concurring reasons, adjudicators Clayton C. Ruby and Constance Backhouse examined McSween's personal background, antecedents, training and the nature of discrimination and wrote the following, which though lengthy deserve quoting liberally:
3. Racism in the Context of Law
[68] In 1999, the Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession of the Canadian Bar Association published Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession. The report examines racism in the legal profession and reveals that students from racialized communities have fewer opportunities to secure articling positions and first jobs. They do not benefit from the same articling experience as their non-racialized colleagues who are introduced to clients, assist more senior lawyers on important cases, and who conduct research on a broader range of files. There is no evidence to suggest that circumstances have changed for the better; in particular, articling opportunities have diminished. See: Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession, Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession (Canadian Bar Association: Ottawa, 1999).In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Terence John Robinson, 2013 ONLSAP 18 following from the principles in McSween, an appeal panel observed that:
[69] More recently, in 2004, the Law Society commissioned a study entitled Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario. This report attempted to establish a baseline for tracking diversity and equity in the Ontario legal profession. It found that, when surveyed, lawyers of racialized communities are more likely to reveal that they were denied opportunities to take responsibility for cases because of client objections, and they also were more often subject to inappropriate comments by judges and other lawyers. See: Kay, F. M. et al. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario (A report to the Law Society of Upper Canada) (Queen’s University: Kingston, 2004).
[70] It is reasonable to infer that as a group, Afro-Caribbean Canadian lawyers are economically and professionally disadvantaged when compared with their colleagues, and that many face diminished opportunity as alleged in this case by Mr. McSween.
[72] The research into Canadian legal history shows that systemic racism has had a substantial impact on the legal profession. It demonstrates that ideas of legal “professionalism” have been used to exercise power and exclusion based on gender, class, religion, and race. The first minority individuals who sought admission to the legal profession faced significant barriers. Those who succeeded in obtaining entry found that those barriers continued to impact upon their careers when they attempted to practise. Significantly, an increased risk of disbarment was one such barrier for racialized lawyers.
[73] It would be misguided to be aware of this history and yet ignore its contemporary incarnations simply because the legal profession has today become much more diverse. The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of the racism inherent in the practice. As the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face barriers not experienced by their colleagues.
[78] In our view, McSween supports the proposition that systemic racism and discrimination which explains or provides context to why a licensee engaged in misconduct or conduct unbecoming is relevant. This is not unique to Aboriginal licensees. What is unique are the systemic and background factors that affect Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal lawyers and how these factors have affected them.Any form of racism, particularly anti-Black racism will continue to fester and continue to pervade the halls of power when those in authority and with the power to prevent it take a bureaucratic approach that our staff were following procedures, when, as we know in this case, a thorough interrogation of the racism and/or circumstances would show that there were no procedures of the sort and if they were such procedures that the CEO says exist were not followed.
If that is the case, one can conclude that the adverse treatment was linked to discrimination based on race and that racism was a factor in the treatment.
Postscript
Selwyn is running for a seat as a Bencher in the 2019 Law Society of Ontario elections
Selwyn Pieters, Subject MatterExpertise: Racial profiling, race & ethnicity, anti-black racism (law enforcement, security, education, law, criminal justice system), racial bullying, African-Canadian urban culture and race relations, social inequality, law enforcement, policing culture in Ontario, Canada; Guyana and Trinidad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)