Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford's speech on policing: if he becomes Premier of Ontario in June 2018 he will pump more money into The Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). Tavis was a unit that collected personal information on mostly Black and Brown males. It was feared and hated for criminalizing a community based on racial stereotypes.
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 carding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carding. Show all posts
Sunday, April 08, 2018
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
Friday, February 17, 2017
Discussion of Racial Profiling decision in Victor Whyte c. Ville de Montréal (SPVM) -et- Mathieu Hypolite
Commentary (in English) on the Human Rights decision in Centre d’action-recherche sur les relations raciales (CRARR) pour Heather Johnson alors tutrice de son fils mineur Victor Whyte c. Ville de Montréal (SPVM) -et- Mathieu Hypolite - racial profiling decision rendered today $17,000.00 in damages awarded to thew victim - Victor Whyte.... <https://www.facebook.com/DistinguishedRadical/videos/10155058362070799/>
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.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Questions and Answers from Selwyn Pieters in Andrew Pfeifer first appearance at Police Disciplinary Hearing
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 December 17, 2016
1. Can you describe where this matter is in the process.
Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service face one count of discreditable conduct in that he acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Hamilton Police Service by engaging in an unjustified and arbitrarily street check contrary to section 2 (i)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, as set out in O. Reg. 268/10 of the Police Services Act. This matter has been brought to hearing following an investigation conducted by Independent Police Review Director (the "OIPRD").
The first appearance was on December 15, 2016. A hearing by telephone conference is scheduled for January 31, 2017 to permit counsel for the complainant and police officer to review disclosure and be in a position to set a date for trial.
2. Have the facts been established or is part of your role to draw out the facts?
There were facts established during the investigation that brought the matter to a hearing. However, any facts that are acceptable by the hearing officer can be established by the parties agreeing as to the facts (Agreed Statement of Facts or ASF) or alternatively a full blown hearing on the merits of the charge in the Notice of Hearing in which examination in chief, cross-examinations and re-examinations take place. At this point no facts have been established for the purpose of the hearing as we only made a first appearance. Any established facts are what the Tribunal accepts as credible and trustworthy.
.
3. What would an appropriate outcome look like. In other words, what result is being sought by going through the hearing process?
The prosecutor would be seeking to establish misconduct on the part of the officer.
Mr. Green is a complainant and a witness in the proceeding with standing he is there to ensure that his version of the evidence is found to be credible. As well, on a broader level since this is an officer misconduct complaint that raises racial profiling as an issue, Mr. Green has an interest in ensuring the Hearing Officer adjudicate this case in a manner that recognizes its subtle, pervasive and unconscious nature of racism and that his decision is consistent with human rights principles set out in numerous Court of Appeal decisions.
4. In your estimation, how clear is this case? Is this unquestionably a case of police carding based on race? What challenges, if any, do you anticipate?
This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. Importantly however that the only Black City Councillor would have this experience in his own city is illustrative of the fact that a Black person’s status, education, wealth or privilege does not immune him/or her from being targeted, arbitrarily stopped, questioned and sometimes detained by law enforcement officials, particularly police.
We will make the case that this was an unjustified and arbitrary street check and that it based in part on the race of Matthew Green.
5. Is there anything else you would like Hamiltonians to know about this matter or the issue of carding in general?
The “declaration of principles” in section 1 of the Police Services Act, proclaim the importance of the Human Rights Code and Charter in this statutory scheme. One of the enumerated principles of the provision of police services is:
Racial profiling is a serious issue of great concern to the public particularly racialized residents of Ontario, including residents of Hamilton. Regulations come into force in January 2017 that prohibits such action. Hamilton Police Service enacted a policy in December 15, 2016. Statistics shows Blacks are four times as likely to be unjustifiably and arbitrarily stopped by police in Hamilton.
In a case where racial profiling is alleged:
Once the police discipline proceeding is engaged, whether by a complaint about officer misconduct by a member of the public, or by an “internally” generated complaint about officer conduct, the Part V PSA proceeding must proceed in accordance with the statute, including situations where the complaint raises a Code issue. The decision-makers at various stages in the PSA Part V process have no power to decline to deal with the Code issue on the basis that another more appropriate forum exists – they are not permitted to decline and defer to some other tribunal.
6. Other issues
It appears that a larger room and venue would be necessary for this hearing. It is a public hearing and I am concerned with the comments reported in the Hamilton Spectator and CBC that HPS Union Boss Client Twolan called the case a "circus" and claimed that Councillor Green is making a spectacle “to further his own political agenda.” See, Samantha Craggs, Police union says Matthew Green creating spectacle over carding complaint CBC Hamilton, December 15, 2016 and Molly Hayes, Police union boss calls Hamilton councillor’s carding case political theatre, Hamilton Spectator, December 15, 2016
I have already written to all concerned stating “I would suggest a venue that is not a police building. Comments like this can poison the atmosphere.”
Obviously, I will have to obtain instructions from the client on motions to be brought including for additional disclosure, change of venue etc.
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 17, 2016
Human Rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters who represents Councillor Matthew Green at the Police Services Act hearing related to the substantiated OIPRD finding of the April 26th, 2016 carding complaint issued by Councillor Green against Constable Andrew Pfeifer #406 of Hamilton Police Service answers some question in respect to the hearing that commenced in Hamilton, Ontario.
Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service face one count of discreditable conduct in that he acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Hamilton Police Service by engaging in an unjustified and arbitrarily street check contrary to section 2 (i)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, as set out in O. Reg. 268/10 of the Police Services Act. This matter has been brought to hearing following an investigation conducted by Independent Police Review Director (the "OIPRD").
- A hearing officer Deputy Chief Terence Kelly, York Regional Police (Retired), will preside.
- Brian Duxbury and T. David Marshall are the Prosecutors appointed by the Chief of Police.
- Bernard Cummins and Ben Jeffries will be representing the Police Constable
- I am representing Councillor Matthew Green.
The first appearance was on December 15, 2016. A hearing by telephone conference is scheduled for January 31, 2017 to permit counsel for the complainant and police officer to review disclosure and be in a position to set a date for trial.
2. Have the facts been established or is part of your role to draw out the facts?
There were facts established during the investigation that brought the matter to a hearing. However, any facts that are acceptable by the hearing officer can be established by the parties agreeing as to the facts (Agreed Statement of Facts or ASF) or alternatively a full blown hearing on the merits of the charge in the Notice of Hearing in which examination in chief, cross-examinations and re-examinations take place. At this point no facts have been established for the purpose of the hearing as we only made a first appearance. Any established facts are what the Tribunal accepts as credible and trustworthy.
.
3. What would an appropriate outcome look like. In other words, what result is being sought by going through the hearing process?
The prosecutor would be seeking to establish misconduct on the part of the officer.
Mr. Green is a complainant and a witness in the proceeding with standing he is there to ensure that his version of the evidence is found to be credible. As well, on a broader level since this is an officer misconduct complaint that raises racial profiling as an issue, Mr. Green has an interest in ensuring the Hearing Officer adjudicate this case in a manner that recognizes its subtle, pervasive and unconscious nature of racism and that his decision is consistent with human rights principles set out in numerous Court of Appeal decisions.
4. In your estimation, how clear is this case? Is this unquestionably a case of police carding based on race? What challenges, if any, do you anticipate?
This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. Importantly however that the only Black City Councillor would have this experience in his own city is illustrative of the fact that a Black person’s status, education, wealth or privilege does not immune him/or her from being targeted, arbitrarily stopped, questioned and sometimes detained by law enforcement officials, particularly police.
We will make the case that this was an unjustified and arbitrary street check and that it based in part on the race of Matthew Green.
5. Is there anything else you would like Hamiltonians to know about this matter or the issue of carding in general?
The “declaration of principles” in section 1 of the Police Services Act, proclaim the importance of the Human Rights Code and Charter in this statutory scheme. One of the enumerated principles of the provision of police services is:
2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
Racial profiling is a serious issue of great concern to the public particularly racialized residents of Ontario, including residents of Hamilton. Regulations come into force in January 2017 that prohibits such action. Hamilton Police Service enacted a policy in December 15, 2016. Statistics shows Blacks are four times as likely to be unjustifiably and arbitrarily stopped by police in Hamilton.
In a case where racial profiling is alleged:
a. There is no need to prove intention or motivation to racially profile;See, for example, R. v. Brown (2003), 2003 CanLII 52142 (ON CA), 64 O.R. 161 at paras. 7 to 9; Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services, 2006 CanLII 37566 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1pz1n>; Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/2608k>; Nassiah v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1rgcm>, Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fz590> and Naraine v. Ford Motor Co. [1996] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 23 and R. v. Steele, 2015 ONCA 169 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ggpng>
b. Racial profiling can rarely be proved by direct evidence;
c. Racial profiling will usually be the product of subtle, unconscious beliefs, biases and prejudices;
d. Race need only be a factor in the adverse treatment to constitute racial discrimination;
e. Racial profiling is a systemic practice;
f. Racial profiling is not limited to initial stops;
g. African Canadians may, because of their background and experience, feel especially unable to disregard police directions, and feel that assertion of their right to walk away will itself be taken as being evasive;
h. A person may experience racial profiling based on several overlapping and intersecting aspects of their identity; and
i. The use of abusive language by an individual who has experienced racial profiling at the hands of police cannot justify further differential treatment
Once the police discipline proceeding is engaged, whether by a complaint about officer misconduct by a member of the public, or by an “internally” generated complaint about officer conduct, the Part V PSA proceeding must proceed in accordance with the statute, including situations where the complaint raises a Code issue. The decision-makers at various stages in the PSA Part V process have no power to decline to deal with the Code issue on the basis that another more appropriate forum exists – they are not permitted to decline and defer to some other tribunal.
6. Other issues
It appears that a larger room and venue would be necessary for this hearing. It is a public hearing and I am concerned with the comments reported in the Hamilton Spectator and CBC that HPS Union Boss Client Twolan called the case a "circus" and claimed that Councillor Green is making a spectacle “to further his own political agenda.” See, Samantha Craggs, Police union says Matthew Green creating spectacle over carding complaint CBC Hamilton, December 15, 2016 and Molly Hayes, Police union boss calls Hamilton councillor’s carding case political theatre, Hamilton Spectator, December 15, 2016
I have already written to all concerned stating “I would suggest a venue that is not a police building. Comments like this can poison the atmosphere.”
Obviously, I will have to obtain instructions from the client on motions to be brought including for additional disclosure, change of venue etc.
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Monday, December 12, 2016
Selwyn Pieters to Represent Councillor Matthew Green at Police Disciplinary Hearing
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Selwyn Pieters to Represent Councillor Matthew
Green at Hearing of
Constable Andrew Pfeifer Badge # 408
Hamilton, ON – December 12,
2016 – Civil rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters will represent Councillor Matthew
Green at the upcoming December 15th Police Services Act hearing related to the
substantiated OIPRD finding of the April 26th carding complaint issued by
Councillor Green against Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service.
“Given the unique structure
of the Police Services Act hearing process, I felt it important to retain the
nation’s foremost expert on matters related to my complaint. I am grateful to
have Mr. Pieters’ counsel throughout this process. I am confident that with his
support, the facts of the case will bear out,” says Councillor Matthew Green.
Selwyn Pieters has appeared
at all levels of court up to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has been counsel
in arguing numerous cases of racial
profiling, including carding, and discriminatory use of force including
successfully representing himself, citizens, and police officers before the
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and other administrative Tribunals. Selwyn is
also a member of the Bar of the Republic of Guyana and the Island of Trinidad.
The Police Services Act
Hearing is scheduled for 10:00 am December 15, 2016 at the Hamilton Central
Police Station at 155 King William St.
-30-
For Media Inquiries:
Selwyn A. Pieters,
B.A.,LL.B., L.E.C.
Email:
selwyn@selwynpieters.com
Phone: 1-416-787-5928
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)