Selwyn: discrimination

Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Friday, October 14, 2016

Selwyn A. Pieters, The U.K. Asylum Determination System Is there a need for it in Canada, 26 IMMLR-ART 197. Immigration Law Reports (Articles). 3rd Series.

"A good refugee determination system is one that demonstrates a willingness to protect victims of severe individual or systematic human rights abuses as provided for in the Geneva Convention and also people in need of protection as provided for in the ECHR, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the various other international treaties and conventions that concern themselves with the protection of human dignity and fundamental human rights."

Friday, June 05, 2015

Rohan Roberts Files Human Rights Complaint for Racial Profiling against Toronto Police

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public

TORONTO -- A Human Rights Application has been filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by Mr. Rohan Roberts alleging racial profiling by Toronto police.

The Toronto police services board, Retired Chief William Blair, Current Chief Mark Saunders, Superintendent Tony Riviere, Detective Dion Monahar, Constables Andrew Keown and Ryan D'Sena are named in the Application filed Wednesday evening by Lawyer Selwyn Pieters on behalf of Rohan Roberts.

The complaint alleges racial profiling and differential treatment in the provision of services and facilities based on race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

The application arose as a result of a December 16, 2014 encounter in a Jane & Finch neighbourhood between Rohan Roberts and Constables Andrew Keown and Ryan D'Sena.

On Tuesday December 16th, 2014, or about 1:30 am officers The Applicant exited through a fire exit door of his apartment complex at 5 Needle Firway. As The Applicant walked along the sidewalk he observed a marked police cruiser entering his apartment complex. The Applicant observed that shortly thereafter the police cruiser turned off its lights and was following The Applicant as he walked along the parking lot of his complex.

The Respondent police officers Keown and D’Sena then drove up alongside the Applicant demanded his identification and questioned The Applicant about whether or not he had marijuana on him and/or was smoking. The Applicant responded in the negative.

The Respondent police officers Keown and D’Sena spent some time running my name through their various databases. After some time, The Applicant's identification was returned to him and he was was advised that he was free to go.

The Applicant then collected his identification and as he was walking away he stated to the officers “you guys always like to harass people.” This utterance was made by The Applicant because in his apartment complex and neighbourhood he has been subjected to numerous stops and searches by Toronto Police Officers working out of 31 Division and TAVIS.

One of the officers then said to the Applicant "what did you say to me" “You are going to shoot You Pussies?” No such utterance was made by the Applicant.

The Applicant was then rushed by the officers, arrested, handcuffed and dragged to a grassy area just outside of the door leading to the parking lot and beaten by the officers.

The Applicant had no alcohol or illicit drugs on his person at the material time, date and place. The Applicant did not consume any alcohol and/or illicit drug at the material time, date and place.

The Applicant faced trumped up charges of assault with intent to resist arrest and threatening death. The Applicant pleads that these charges which were withdrawn on April 28, 2015 on the basis that no reasonable prospect for convict exist were meant to criminalize The Applicant.

The Applicant was assaulted in the police vehicle in responding to a question as to whether he believed the Respondent officers’ conduct was racist.

The Applicant pleads the actions of Keown and D’Sena that is pleaded herein caused him injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The Applicant was subjected to humiliation; victimization; and was vulnerable in the face of the conduct of the Respondent officers.

The Applicant experienced a loss of dignity and self-worth that is the direct result of the infringement by the Respondents of his right to equal treatment with respect to goods, services and facilities without discrimination and/or harassment based on race, colour and ethnic origin or a combination thereof contrary to section 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

Senior Toronto police officers, including the Chief, have spoken against the practice of racial profiling in the past. However, in 2014 and 2015, Toronto Police Chief William Blair and now Mark Saunders seemed unperturbed, and their comments seemed to imply that there is nothing wrong with police discriminating by skin colour. Mark Saunders referred to the persons complaining about the pernicious police practices as "collateral damage" in his first press conference as Chief of Police on April 20, 2015.

Thus, the Respondents, Police Services Board, the police administration and Keown and D'Sena, violated the Applicant's human rights in policy, practice, and effect, by engaging in racial profiling.

Officers D'Sena and Keown are also involved in another matter in the Jane & Finch area involving Black Youth Michael Duru in January 2015 that was captured on video that went viral: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/video-of-alleged-violent-takedown-by-officer-being-investigated-by-toronto-police/

Michael Duru video

Jeff Gray Toronto police face human-rights complaint over alleged beating Globe and Mail, June 05, 2015

Mark Carcasole, Reporter, Global News, Toronto man launches human rights complaint against police, Global TV, June 05, 2015

Greg Ross, Toronto man files human rights complaint after alleged police beating CBC TV, June 04, 2015

Tammie Sutherland, EXCLUSIVE: Charges dropped against man who alleged Toronto police brutality CityNews, April 28, 2015

Copyright © 2015 Selwyn Pieters. All rights reserved. Please use citation if using or relying on my analysis.

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20 and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.); the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: 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.).

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. BCHRT, 2015 BCSC 534 - Causal Nexus Rejected

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)
Posted on April 24, 2015

In Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534, the Honourable Madam Justice Sharma had cause to consider the test for establishing discrimination.

Of course, in Moore v British Columbia (Education) 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360, Justice Abella stated that to demonstrate prima facie discrimination, claimants must show:

That they have a protected or equivalent characteristic;

That they experience an adverse impact, and

That the characteristic was a factor.

In 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.), the Court of Appeal reject the requirement of a "causal nexus" or "Causal connection" or causal link instead holding that:

[54] The Court did not indicate from where it derived this test. The term "causal nexus" does not appear in Tranchemontagne, which the Divisional Court cited before setting out this test. The test is not one that human rights tribunals have traditionally applied. (...)
[59] While the word “nexus” is perfectly acceptable, I think it preferable to continue to use the terms more commonly used in the jurisprudence developed under the Code. All that is required is that there be a “connection” between the adverse treatment and the ground of discrimination. The ground of discrimination must somehow be a “factor” in the adverse treatment.
[60] I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier “causal” to “nexus”. Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires. The Divisional Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus” or a “causal link” between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause.
[61] I conclude that the Divisional Court erred in law by applying an incorrect and stricter test of discrimination in deciding this case (…)

This issue of causal link, causal connection or causal nexus was also recently argued on January 23, 2015 at the Supreme Court of Canada in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (decision reserved), as that is a requirement to prove discrimination under the civil law of Quebec.

I was therefore quite interested in reading the decision of Madam Justice Sharma, particularly paragraphs 59 and 60 that squares with Moore and Pieters:

[59] In my view, there is a significant difference between proving personal characteristics are “causally” connected to adverse treatment versus them being “a factor” in the adverse treatment. Requiring claimants to prove a causative connection elevates the legal burden on the claimant beyond what the SCC stated in Moore and would be inconsistent with the equality jurisprudence under the Charter.
[60] The essence of discrimination is the disproportionate impact of a law or activity and, therefore, the focus of the legal test must also be on effects. The definitions of the prima facie test in both Coast Mountain and Moore do require claimants to demonstrate a relationship between the personal characteristics and adverse treatment. But proving a causative connection imports a “cause and effect” analysis; the claimant would need to establish that the protected ground was the factor that caused the adverse treatment, rather than simply a factor. This neglects the practical reality of situations in which discrimination is found. Adverse impacts are often the result of a constellation of factors, where the protected grounds are but one factor, but a factor nonetheless. The test in Moore properly recognizes this distinction. Furthermore, undertaking a “cause and effect” analysis could improperly focus on the design or intention underlying the actions or system at issue. As discussed below, this would be a further source of potential error, as one does not need to prove an intention to discrimination to find a violation of the Code.

I am not sure where the the confusion lies with some courts and/or tribunals, however, the common law is settled requirement of such a “causal link” is inconsistent with prevailing contemporary burden of proof in discrimination in Canada whereby it is only necessary to prove that a prohibited ground of discrimination is a factor in the challenge act or practice (O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536 at 28; Saskatchewan HRC v. Whatcott [2013] 1 SCR 467 at 54; Moore v. British Columbia [2012] 3 SCR 360 at 33).

Copyright © 2015 Selwyn Pieters. All rights reserved. Please use citation if using or relying on my analysis.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 how the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on a text-book case of racial profiling

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 how the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on a text-book case of racial profiling and Stereotyping in law enforcement investigative and decision-making processes

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)

Posted on October 18, 2014

Setting the scene – My own experience of racial profiling at Canada’s Port of Entry

On the long Victoria Day weekend, between May 21 and May 24, 1999, I took a trip From Fort Erie, Canada to New York by way of a Amtrak Train to Grand Central Station in New York City. The idea was to rest, sight-seeing and catch-up with family members in New York City.

On my return to Canada, I was the only Black male in a car with approximately 90 passengers. I presented my Customs Declaration Card (E311 ) and answered questions from the Customs Officer about the purpose of my trip out of Canada. I also had produced both my Canadian Citizenship Card and my Immigration and Refugee Board identification card identifying me as a middle level bureaucrat (Refugee Claim Officer [PM-04]) with the Federal Civil Service.

The Customs Officer, however, determined that he was searching my luggage. No reasons were given for the search. The search was conducted in a manner that humiliated me. I then requested to speak to a supervisor who made things worse by addressing me as "Billy Jack" in the face of my demands for answers for the search.

I filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), against the Department of National Revenue (now the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) wherein I alleged that I was subject to differential treatment while crossing the Canada - U.S. border at Fort Erie on May 24, 1999. In particular, the substance of my complaint was I was singled out by a Customs Officer for a search of my luggage because of my race.^{^[1]}

Student Customs Officer, Ryan Timmins stated that he proceeded with a routine inspection of my baggage for the purpose of verifying my declaration and to confirm that I did not have any contraband or improperly reported goods. Mr. Timmins listed the indicia that triggered the search as follows:

I conducted examination of Mr. Pieters' luggage under the authority of 99 (1) (a), (b), and (c) of the Customs Act, which do not mention reasonable grounds. However, I would like to elaborate on, what I am convinced is reasonable grounds for an examination of Mr. Pieters.

· he was alone

· had been away for only three days

· was traveling from a drug source city

· he was exhibiting behaviour which indicated he did not want his baggage to be examined

· finally, he appeared abnormally agitated during primary examination

All of the indicia above can be explained away and in their totality does not give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminality.

The CHRC investigated the complaint and determined the matter warranted a public hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.^{^[2]} This was the first complaint alleging racial profiling^{^[3]} by a law enforcement agency to get sent on by the CHRC for a public hearing before the CHRT.^{^[4]} In this case, having regards, to the factors listed by Customs for the search and the failure of the Officer conducting the search to provide reasons at the material time, CBSA has in effect failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory, reason for searching my luggage and/or suspecting that I fit the profile of a drug courier.

On January 30, 2002, on the eve of the commencement of a hearing into the matter, I settled the human rights complaint with Canada Border Services Agency, that amongst other remedies mandated the collection of demographic data on passengers referred to secondary inspection at Canada's Ports of Entry. This was one of the first human rights cases against a law enforcement agency that mandated such a process in Canada.^{^[5]}

How is the Tam case instructive for lawyers on discrimination and racial profiling?

Racial profiling can be defined as:

Criminal profiling based on race. Racial or colour profiling refers to that phenomenon whereby certain criminal activity is attributed to an identified group in society on the basis of race or colour resulting in the targeting of individual members of that group. In this context, race is illegitimately used as a proxy for the criminality or general criminal propensity of an entire racial group.^{^[6]}

In Moorev. British Columbia 2012 SCC 61, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:

[33] As the Tribunal properly recognized, to demonstrate prima facie discrimination, complainants are required to show that they have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Code; that they experienced an adverse impact with respect to the service; and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact. Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the conduct or practice, within the framework of the exemptions available under human rights statutes. If it cannot be justified, discrimination will be found to occur.

In Canada(Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 the Federal Court of Appeal conducted no meaningful examination of the test to be applied in cases of discrimination and racial profiling nor did it applied the test to the facts of Ms. Tam’s case.

To the extent that this case is instructive to lawyers on discrimination and racial profiling it reinforces to human rights lawyers to be eternally vigilant as a Court in one decision and without the proper context and/or analysis can render a decision that adds a judicial stamp to discrimination and racial profiling.

Any concerns regarding the extent to which customs officers can use their on-the-job experience to inform decisions about whom to stop and search?

Canada Border Services Agency has undertaken since 2002 “that the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry shall not include criteria that discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin or gender, or other prohibited grounds.”

If that is the case then the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on the test for discrimination since it only requires “race, colour, national or ethnic origin” to be a factor in the investigative and/or enforcement action for a finding of discrimination to be made out. Thus when the Federal Court of Appeal accepted that “The officer simply asserted in his statement that in his experience it was not uncommon for Chinese persons to bring agricultural products with them upon returning from China” it put the judicial stamp of legitimacy on the stereotypical action of the Customs Officers that referred Ms. Tam to secondary examination.

That she “did bring into Canada pork products which she failed to declare upon entry” does not end the matter. The question is how many Chinese persons returning from China are referred to secondary examination on the basis of the “officer’s hunch, based on his experience and his observance of the respondent’s demeanour” that in the end turns out to be non-resultant.

Reliance of an “officer’s hunch” and “experience” interacting with travelers at Canada’s Port of Entry is precisely why in 2002, it was agreed that Customs would:

implement a pilot project intended to develop statistics on referrals to secondary examination, based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin and gender of referrals in the context of all passengers passing through ports of entry. The time frame and location(s) of the pilot project will be determined by the Respondent in consultation with the external contractor, the CHRC and the ACLC. The project will also analyze, on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin and gender, the impact of the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry and make appropriate recommendations.[7]

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, in its Departmental Performance Reports observed that the Pieters case against Canada Customs presented an opportunity to deal constructively with systemic problems:

In the Pieters case, a settlement agreement was reached between the complainant and the respondent, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) which impacts on the treatment of visible minorities at Canadian ports of entry. Mr. Pieters alleged that CCRA discriminated against him when he was returning by train from a trip to New York City. Passengers on the train including Mr. Pieters were orally examined by Customs officers at Fort Erie, Ontario. Mr. Pieters alleged that unlike Caucasian passengers, he was asked questions about his citizenship status and his purchases and that his bags were searched. He alleged that when he objected to this behaviour believing it to be discriminatory, a Customs officers made a slur to him that he perceived to be racist.

Through the years, the Commission has received a number of complaints by visible minorities alleging that they have been unfairly singled out for secondary searches at Canadian ports of entry. However, such allegations are very difficult to confirm in light of the fact that the CCRA has not collected information with respect to the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of individuals subject to such searches. In settling the Pieters case, CCRA has agreed, among other things, to work with the Commission to develop and implement a special pilot project which will generate statistical information (race, colour, national/ethnic origin, and gender) on individuals entering the country who are referred to secondary examination, analyse the data and make appropriate recommendations.^{^[8]}

The current lack of an efficient and effective means of collecting latitudinal and longitudinal data disserved both Canada Boarder Service Agency in measuring its efficiency in crime control and the citizens whose expectations are that Customs Officers exercising discretion would do so in a manner that does not in effect or impact discriminate based on race, sex, age or any other Code or Charter related grounds.

It is beneficial to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on stop, secondary examinations and searches by Customs Officers with the need to examine, re-evaluate and redefine the exercise of discretionary authority and its impact or effect on ethno-socio and racial minorities.

Perhaps if Mr. Justice Marc Nadon had statistical data or the analysis of counsel experienced in litigating racial profiling and discrimination cases he would have been forced to confront the assumptions of the Customs Officer and his own assumptions that led to the judgment in Tam.[9].

********

Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn most recently litigated the racial profiling case of:

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349

M. (R.)v. Toronto Police Services Board was recently settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: 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.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has appeared in Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

[1] Pieters v. Canada (Department of National Revenue) [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 42 (Q.L.),

[2] Canadian Human Rights Commission, Press Release “Tribunal Will Hear Discrimination Complaint Against Canada Customs” (May 23, 2001), online: Canadian Human Rights Commission <http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/news-comm/2001/NewsComm230501.asp?l=e> (date accessed: January 02, 2003).

[3] Definition for “racial profiling” “investigative or enforcement action initiated against a member of an identifiable group by an individual officer based on his or her stereotypical prejudicial or racial perceptions of who they believe to be in wrong doing or crime”. Source: Association of Black Law Enforcers, Minutes of General Meeting - December 7, 2002, p. 1.

[4] The referral to a Tribunal generated print, radio and television coverage. See, for example, John Saunders, “Black traveller calls search racial profiling: Rights body to hear Selwyn Pieters's case involving two Canada Customs agents over train incident, JOHN SAUNDERS reports”, The Globe and Mail (June 04, 2001), p. A16.

[5] See, for example, Paul Waldie, "Customs to gather racial data to see if officers use profiling" The Globe and Mail (December 16, 2002), p. A1.

[6] R. v. Richards, (1999), 26 C.R. (5th) 286 at 295, Rosenberg J.A. (ON C.A.), quoting the African Canadian Legal Clinic definition in its submissions

[7] Pieters v. Department of National Revenue Canada Human Rights Tribunal (Minutes of Settlement as approved January 30, 2002. Tribunal File No.: T650/3801)

[8] Canadian Human Rights Commission, Departmental Performance Reports, 2001-2002, 3.1.2.3 Litigation

<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/dpr/01-02/CHRC/chrc01-02dpr02_e.asp>

[9] The Court’s record reflects that Ms. Tam was self-represented: “This matter comes on for hearing on 30-SEP-2014 at Ottawa before The Honourable Mr. Justice Nadon The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Scott Appearances: Mr. Adrian Bieniasiewicz - Tel: (613) 670-6312 for the applicant Ms. Ting Ting Tam & her cousin for the respondent. Total duration: 1h30min Before the Court: Judicial Review Result: allowed Reasons delivered from the Bench Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 213 page(s) 206 - 209 Abstract of Hearing placed on file"

Update: CRARR granted intervener status by the Supreme Court of Canada in Latif v. Bombardier

On October 16, 2014, Mr. Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on applications for leave to intervene in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) by six intervenors:

AND UPON APPLICATION by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario for an extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to intervene;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to intervene of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario is granted.

The motions for leave to intervene of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario are granted and the said interveners or groups of interveners shall be entitled to each serve and file a factum not to exceed ten (10) pages in length on or before December 11, 2014.

Interveners shall consult to avoid repetition in their written arguments.

The requests to present oral argument are deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The interveners are not entitled to raise new issues or to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their interventions.The respondent, Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), is permitted to serve and file a single factum not exceeding five (5) pages in reply to all interveners on or before January 8, 2015.Allowed

The Center for Research-Action on Race Relations, one of the parties granted intervenor status prepared the press release below:

Republished from: <http://www.crarr.org/?q=node/19630> October 17, 2014

Montreal, October 17, 2014 --- The Supreme Court has granted CRARR intervener status in the case Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse et al c. Bombardier et al.

The case involves a Canadian pilot of Pakistani background, Mr. Javed Latif, who in 2004 was offered a job to pilot Bombardier Challenger aircrafts and who was denied training (which took place in Quebec, Canada and Texas, U.S.A) by Bombardier due his being listed as a security threat by U.S. authorities. (In order to access training under a U.S. Federal Aviation Authority license, he had to pass a security check required by the U.S. government’s Alien Flight Students Program given that part of the training was to be offered in the U.S.)

As a result, he was denied employment and had problems finding work as a pilot. He filed a complaint of ethnic discrimination with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, which upheld his case and brought it before the Human Rights Tribunal. In 2009, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered Bombardier to pay him $385,000 in damages and to cease U.S. national security screening criteria in dealing with Canadian applications for a pilot training license.

Bombardier appealed the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed the Tribunal's decision in the fall of 2013 and left Mr. Latif with no compensation. The Human Rights Commission sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, seeking the latter’s clarification on a number of issues.

One of these issues, which has far reaching consequences for all discrimination cases in Quebec and elsewhere, is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in requiring evidence of a “causal connection” between ethnic origin and discrimination. Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination usually requires evidence that a ground, such as race or gender, be only a factor in an action or practice, which is a lower threshold to prove discrimination.

While the Quebec Court Appeal requires a “causal connection”, the Ontario Court of Appeal in June 2013 overturned a similar test in last year’s groundbreaking racial profiling case of Peel Law Association v. Pieters. In that case, which involves a highly respected civil rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters and another Black individual being racially profiled by a librarian, the Ontario Court unanimously maintained a more liberal position and ruled against the lower Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.” In the words of Mr. Justice Juriansz:

I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier “causal” to “nexus”. Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires. The Divisional Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus” or a “causal link” between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause.

The consequences for civil rights are obvious if the more conservative and restrictive standard of proof of the Quebec Court of Appeal is allowed to stand. The case also marks the first time that the Supreme Court will address racial profiling.

CRARR's co-counsels in this case are Mr. Pieters and Aymar Missakila. CRARR is the only Quebec intervener and will make the case for a “consistent, uniform and unequivocal evidentiary requirement for assessing discrimination claims (that) can more effectively establish a harmonized and coherent national approach to guide all equality-seeking individuals and groups as well as all courts and tribunals in Quebec (and) in the rest of Canada, in their common pursuit of the equal protection and benefit of the law.”

“It is a rare opportunity for the Supreme Court, and for our country as a whole, to address racial profiling and discrimination in this decade. We are very honored and grateful to have as co-counsel Mr. Selwyn Pieters, who has made significant contributions to the advancement of racial equality in our justice system and beyond,” said CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi.

Other groups that were also granted intervener status are the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario.

CRARR welcomes donations to help defray the costs of this intervention.

********

Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn most recently litigated the racial profiling case of:

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349

M. (R.)v. Toronto Police Services Board was recently settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Joseph Hamilton

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)
Posted on June 13, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry.

Joseph Hamilton a former House of Israel member provided evidence. In examination in chief he described himself variously as an oppressor, suppressor, oppressed. He claimed to have received military and bomb-making training from an officer of the Guyana Defence Force. Claimed to be a whistleblower. The evidence of Joe Hamilton covered a spectrum of areas and the areas that are of interest are excerpted below:

Documents available that were not produced prior to giving his evidence:

Mr. Pieters: Mr. Hamilton, do you have any documents at all, of whatever nature with respect to
your involvement with the House of Israel between 1978 and 1980? Do you have any documents
at home or in any other place that you have control?
Mr. Hamilton: I might have documents. I might have photographs. I suppose my sons might
have photographs of the period when I was in the House of Israel.
Mr. Pieters: Can you make an undertaking to provide that to the Commissioner through its
Counsel?
Mr. Hamilton: I would if that is the request of the Commission?
Mr. Pieters: This is the request of one of the Counsels and my understanding is that you can make an
undertaking to provide it to Commission's Counsel. Counsel can make that request of you, if you
have those documents.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, if I can locate photographs of the time that I was in the House of Israel, I will certainly make those copies available to the Commission.
Mr. Chairman: We would appreciate it if you can.

Opinion Evidence from a lay witness:

Ms. Rahamat: We had some difficulties with the photocopier yesterday even in the evening and Secretariat had to sort that out, my apology; the copies were not made available for everyone at this time. I would read from paragraph 480. “Suddenly the crowd of demonstrators was charged from in front of the gang of young men led by members of the House of Israel group carrying staves, cutlasses and bayonet-looking knives. They attacked the crowd, they scattered in all directions. Some running back down Brickdam, others into the house opposite the police station. Mike James was attacked by three men and received a blow on the head that stunned him. From the other side of the road, Father Darke started to take photographs of the attack on Mike. Three of the gangs started towards Father Darke, he saw them coming and started to run, but was encumbered by his cameras strung around his neck. After a few yards, he tripped and fell. They started to beat him with staves, and as he fell on the grass verge, they continued to beat him. One of them took his camera and started beating him with it and then one of then drew an old bayonet from his waistband and stabbed him in the back. The plain clothes policemen fired two shots in the air to scattered the assailants and then effected an arrest.”
Now, I refer to this passage Mr. Hamilton, and I would seek your opinions because your evidence yesterday was I had a full view of the scene. If you had a full view of the scene, and you said you were approximately the same distance you are away from me today. This eyewitness account that I have read, did you see what the gentleman said he saw?
Attorneys for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: Mr. Chairman, before he answers that question, he has already answered the question: “Did you see that Mike James was beaten?” and his answer was that “not that I can recall”. He has no place here regardless to what the rules of evidence is in this tribunal to give opinion evidence. He is not an expert and if he says that he did not recall or he did not see regardless of what my friend reads into the record he has not give opinion on it.
Mr. Chairman: Do not make too much of the use of the word “opinion” there. I think it is a little out of place, but do not make too much of it. Is your recall of the scene of that day, I think that is the question.
Mr. Pieters: Well then let her ask that question as opposed to asking for an opinion.

Hamilton's explanation in Chief of his regrets

Ms. Rahamat: Mr. Hamilton do you regret your involvement in the activities you were involved in, in relation to the House of Israel between the period 1978/1980?
Mr. Hamilton: I will answer that question this way. A 60-year-old grandfather sees the world differently to a 23-year-old young man and therefore, if the 60-year-old grandfather would be speaking to his 23-year-old young son, what he will say is that you made a bad choice, you made a bad decision, and your decision caused great harm to people, so yes, there are regrets.
12.30hrs
Mr. Hamilton: I continue to live with that past, it is here with me and so, I have no difficulty presenting the past as I know it, as I participated in it. As I said, I think when I came to the Commission the first time, I think Mr. Hanoman asked the question about whether I am prepared for this. I indicated to him that the only hurdle I had to cross is having a conversation with my wife and children, and once they indicated that they are prepared to have me stand public scrutiny, what any other one said about what I am doing, it matters not to me.
Ms. Rahamat: With reference to paragraph 22 of your written statement, Mr. Hamilton, what would you give as one of the contributing factors or the reason behind the behavior and the attitude of yourself and the House of Israel between the period 1978 to 1980?
Mr. Hamilton: I said in my statement, without seeking to excuse the behavior and attitude of myself and Members of the House of Israel, I would want to say that Rabbi Washington and the House of Israel were victims of the specific time because the time was framed in the mantra of you are either with me or against me. The House of Israel chose to be with Burnham and the PNC Government of the day. I suspect because of two reasons, firstly, Rabbi Washington being a fugitive from the US refusing to accede to Burnham’s and the PNC’s request would have found himself on the first plane out of Guyana and secondly, we bought the argument that Walter Rodney and the WPA were tools of the Indian dominated PPP party, who was seeking power from the African dominated political party, the PNC.

Hamilton's explanation when I cross-examine him on his failure to apologize to Eusi Kwayana and Dr. Rupert Roopnarine at the first opportunity

Mr. Pieters: Yesterday you were questioned by Commission Counsel and at page 67 and page
68 of the transcript... I will read it to you and then I will pose my question. The Commission
Counsel asked you, "Mr. Hamilton, do you regret your involvement in the activities you were
involved in, in relation to the House of Israel, between the period 1978/1980?" and your
response was, Mr. Hamilton, "I will address the question this way. A 60-year-old grandfather
sees the world differently to a 23-year-old young man and therefore if the 60-year-old
grandfather would be speaking to his 23-year-old young son what he will say is that you made a
bad choice, you made a bad decisi.on and your decision caused great harm to people, so yes, there
are regrets." And you continued. "I continued to live with the past. It is here with me and so I
have no difficulty presenting the past as I know it, as I participated in it. As I said, I think when I
p. 133

came to the Commission the first time, I think, Mr. Hanoman asked the question about whether I
am prepared for this. I indicated to him that the only hurdle I had to cross is having a
conversation with my wife and children and once they indicated that they are prepared to have
me stand public scrutiny, what any other one said about what I am doing, it matters not to me." I
am going to suggest this to you yesterday 89 year old Eusi K wayana was sitting in the audience
watching you give your evidence, Mr. Roopnarine was in the audience as well, Mr. Kwayana is
no· longer here because he had return to the United States why did you not stand up yesterday
look at Mr. K wayana who you heard testify about the suffering he and his colleagues
encountered at the material time and say you were sorry. Why didn't you express that remorse?
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners Mr. Pieters is pre-empting me it was my
intension when I am concluding to speak to the specific matter that he has raise and other things.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Kwayana is no longer here. You were asked that question.

The Murder of Father Darke and His Camera Being Stolen while he lay there dying

Mr. Pieters: Now on the day that the arson five appeared at the Georgetown Court you testify
that you were in Buxton.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Right and you later travelled to Georgetown after things died down somewhat so
you were not an eye witness to most of the events that took place
Mr. Hamilton: That is when things were starting, not dying down. The Court had concluded
Mr. Pieters: The Court had ... You were in Georgetown when the real action began.
Mr. Hamilton: If you want to categorise it as "real action" yes
Mr. Pieters: The extent to which you were involved in it was to take Father Darke's camera
after he was stabbed.
Mr. Hamilton: I never said that at that time Father Darke was stabbed. I could not speak to
when he was stabbed. My statement said and I repeat that I saw a white guy who had a camera
with Mike James who I knew stumbled somewhere in the vicinity of Ministry of Home Affairs .
His camera was released when he stumbled that camera was handed to me by a brother that I
named. So I never said that I saw when Father Darke was stabbed.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that with your "thuggish" mentally at the material time
you were the one that robbed Father Darke of his camera so you can sell it to make a quick
dollar.
p. 132
[Laughter]
....
Mr. Hamilton: You cannot suggest that I was in any bad economic position to sell a camera. No
part of my evidence suggested that so I would ask, Mr. Commissioner, that Mr. Pieters withdraw
and refrain from suggesting that I sold some camera
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
.... Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, the witness in the box answered my question so I am prepared to
move on to my last question.
Mr. Chairman: He rejected your suggestion, yes.
Mr. Pieters: That is right and so I am prepared to move on to my last question.
Mr. Williams: How much did he get if for?
[Laughter]

On the Guyana Defence Force supplying weapons to the House of Israel

Mr. Pieters: You mentioned that the first time you saw that the Guyana Defense Force was
provided with high power weapons was when you met with Commission Counsel and he showed
you the requisition.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me ask you this: why would you have been left out of the circle of
knowledge that the House of Israel posed high powered G3 riffles capable of firing 7.62 rounds
of ammunition? Why would you have been left out that circle?
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, again, when that document was shown to me, I indicated that as
far as I know nothing, except for Browning pistols, and I could not say

McCallister was a Skills at Arms Expert - yet the witness evidence is he trained him to make bombs

Mr. Pieters: So you are saying Me Allister was not involved in training you in the use of
firearms?
Mr. Hamilton: No. not at all
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that your evidence before this tribunal that Mr. McAllister trained you in the use of bombs is false, patently false.
Mr. Hamilton: Well I am denying that it is false
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you, and the evidence could bear that out, that Mr. McAllister was a Skill-at-Arms expert in the Guyana Defense Force at the material time and not a
bomb expert.
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know in what capacity Mr. McAllister functioned in the Guyana
Defense Force.
Mr. Pieters: Well I am telling you ...
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know. I am saying I know Mr. McAllister was an officer at that time,
but as to what capacity functioned in; I do not know and could not say.

Context: Lawrence Edward Rodney evidence on the House of Israel and Joseph Hamilton

Mr. Hanoman: Can you give us an idea about the activities of the House of Israel in 1978, 1979 as well as 1980? Especially in terms of any association that they may have had with the Guyana Police Force?
Mr. Rodney: Well, the House of Israel, as is generally known, was led by one Rabbi Washington. There was a hierarchy comprised perhaps of Deacons and Elders, both male and female.
Commissioner [Mrs. Samuel-Brown, Q.C.]: Deacons and…?
Mr. Rodney: Elders, yes. Thank you. …based in Alberttown, where I think the offices or the structure remains, dilapidated. The House of Israel spread out to different parts of the country. Where I worked, for example, there was a House of Israel contingent, that is to say, the Ministry of Agriculture. I want to believe that National Mobilisation would have also had House of Israel elements. Where I was employed, in Mon Repos, there were about six or seven, it could be more, House of Israel types who resided in Triumph. So, you had a central hierarchy and you had a community element. I want you to follow what I am getting at.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Rodney: Mon Repos, Triumph and then there were House of Israel elements along the East Bank of Demerara and on the West Bank of Demerara and possibly the West Coast so the House of Israel was not just a concentrated element. It had different branches. Now, where I worked they would sometimes come in their uniforms, because they felt free – the red and black uniforms.
Mr. Hanoman: Can you describe the uniforms for us?
Mr. Rodney: Okay. A red top, sometimes with the green appellate and black so red, green and black and sometimes they would have the Star of David, whatever insignia, but that was the colour of the uniform.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know what the PNC colours were at the time?
Mr. Rodney: Well, the PNC colours also, I think were, if I remember correctly, Sophia and places like the annex of the Appeals Court, green, red and black.
Mr. Hanoman: The same colours as found in the House of Israel uniforms?
Mr. Rodney: The same colours, yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know the names of some of the persons that were in the hierarchy of the House of Israel in those times?
Mr. Rodney: Well, it is difficult to know the names, unless you are part of the organisation but what I do know it the term ‘brother’ was being used a lot. You would hear ‘brother’. You would hear ‘shalom’. ‘Shalom’ was being used and perhaps other nomenclature or descriptive terms that they used amongst themselves. I had an experience, for example, at the Public Hospital, where there was a group of House of Israel selling plantain chips and peanuts and they would come to you and just say, ‘well purchase one of these’ and if you did not purchase it, they would get, you know, ‘anti’. So you purchased it just to…
Mr. Hanoman: If you did not what?
Mr. Rodney: They would get ‘anti’. They would get antagonistic.
Mr. Hanoman: I see.
Mr. Rodney: They were a kind of bullying type, if you like. They were a sort of local bullies. Not everyone, but for the large part.
Anyway, to continue about the House of Israel, at my workplace, there were both male and female, young and middle-aged and they would have children with them. It was a kind of sect and this sect recruited people. If you were not a member of the House of Israel, they did not attack you or do you anything but they made it very clear, that they were privileged compared to other persons working in the same worksite.
During that period, we tried to get the workers organised to become members of Unions. Myself and another Comrade, who lived on the East Coast, mobilised the workers to join GAWU because the workers were being victimised and there was no representation and that created …
Mr. Hanoman: The workers were being victimised by whom?
Mr. Rodney: By their bosses, the people who ran the operations and they were being exploited. There were people working in the warehouses. There were ‘weeders’. There were people working in the seed bond. There were people working in different parts of Mon Repos. They would work late hours and not get their overtime pay or they would have to go and ask for it and they would have to go to the Ministry building in Georgetown to get their money so we tried to get the workers organised and that led to a very bitter situation whereby they made it very clear that if you try to organise the workers, you would do it at your own peril.
This is, the House of Israel now. A vehicle would pick them up and take them from the public road or on the line top, the old railway line, to the work site because it was quite a distance to go in, probably, you would know this yourself. If you were not a member of the House of Israel and that vehicle passed and even of there were two seats there, they would not pick you up. However, there were occasions where, if I was travelling in a taxi and they stopped the taxi and the taxi man stopped, they would join the vehicle and come along, just as if it was ordinary and nothing was wrong. It was a bullying type of operation.
There was one particular Deacon there by the name of Hamilton.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you happen to know the first name of Hamilton?
Mr. Rodney: I cannot remember his first name, but he is presently in the system.
Mr. Hanoman: Could the first name be Joe Hamilton?
Mr. Rodney: It will be Joseph, yes. He worked there at Mon Repos. As a matter of fact, he was the counterpart to what we were trying to do for the workers by getting the members becoming members of GAWU.
Mr. Hanoman: What do you mean by counterpart?
Mr. Rodney: Well, he was a kind of Deacon and he had the influence because he lived in…
Mr. Hanoman: Joseph Hamilton was a Deacon in the House of Israel…?
Mr. Rodney: A kind of Deacon, yes.
Mr. Hanoman: ... at that time?
Mr. Rodney: Yes, he was a kind of senior.
Mr. Hanoman: A senior member?
Mr. Rodney: Yes, in other words, he had influence. There was a branch of the House of Israel in Triumph, one of the side streets so he would be there sometimes and at other times he would be at the workplace, but he made it very clear that if you try to organise the workers in the seed bond, the weeders, the people working in the nurseries, you would be doing this at your own peril. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, I am not too sure that I am much clear about the nature of this organisation. Was this a political or religious or a religious quasi-political? Was it a trade union type of organisation? Let us get some specifics? Who so constituted its membership? Does it still exist? Did it have political ties to any Parties? I want some specific things. I am not clear.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you have any information as to those many questions posed by the Chairman?
Mr. Rodney: Yes, well the learned Chairman is quite right. One has to be specifics. What I do know is that there is a body of literature, a wealth of literature perhaps, on the House of Israel. This could be accessed; however, this information does not give you the details about the modus operandi, if you like, of the House of Israel. For example, if there were cases being heard in the Georgetown Magistrates Court, the House of Israel would take contingents of people and occupy almost all the seats. When there was the trial…
Mr. Hanoman: Do you mean ordinary cases, at the Georgetown Magistrates Court?
Mr. Rodney: Not ordinary cases.
Mr. Hanoman: What types of cases?
Mr. Rodney: Cases involving the WPA.
Mr. Hanoman: I see.
Mr. Rodney: If there were Magistrates hearings of any matter that was political in the sense of being opposed to the PNC at that time, the House of Israel presence would be there. Additionally, the House of Israel operated not only as a religious or quasi-religious grouping, but also as a kind of hit squad. They were violent people.
Mr. Hanoman: A kind of ‘what’ squad?
Mr. Rodney: A hit squad.
Mr. Hanoman: What do you mean by “hit squad”?
Mr. Rodney: Well to be specific, you probably recalled the murder of Fr. Bernard Darke.
Mr. Hanoman: Could you tell us a little about that?
Mr. Rodney: Well, Fr. Darke was actually knifed to death in 1979, in Brickdam, not far from here and his assailants were proven House of Israel members.
Mrs. J. Samuel-Brown: Proven how? If I may ask and also since I have engaged, was the House of Israel in existence when the witness returned to Guyana? Can we get some indication of when it came into being? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to pause for those of whom, may wish to go to the bathroom, may do so. A brief bathroom break.
Hearing Suspended at 10:36hrs.
Hearing resumed at 10:46hrs.
Commissioner [Mr. Seenauth Jairam, S.C.]: The two, the witness statement and the... they were not…
Mr. Hanoman: Thank you for pointing out that omission. We will attempt to do so now, please.
Mr. Chairman: If those who are coming in from outside could…
[Commissioners were in discussion]
Mr. Hanoman: Mr. Rodney, you earlier spoke of two documents which were signed. I will ask you to look at them now and verify that those were the documents you were speaking about.
Mr. Rodney: Yes, these are the documents.
[Commissioners were in discussion]
Mr. Chairman: I just want to assure the public that you really have not missed anything. We had a comfort break, of about ten minutes, and we then ran into a technical problem with the microphones, but it think that we have resolved that and are about to resume. Thank you, Counsel.
Mr. Hanoman: Could I be guided as to the stage we were at when we stopped?
Mr. Chairman: I think we were last describing the House of Israel; or rather it was being described as a quasi-religious organisation which operated as a hit squad.
Mr. Hanoman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: I think we should take it from there.
Attorney for People’s National Congress (PNC) [Mr. Williams]: Mr. Chairman, he had gone past that. He spoke about Deacons and all of that, but could I ask if he has identified the two statements?
Mr. Rodney: Yes, I have.
Mr. Hanoman: I will get into that, we will move to that now.
Mr. Chairman: I had hoped that you would do that at a more convenient point, rather than break the House of Israel, but I will leave it to you, Counsel.
Mr. Hanoman: At this stage, I wish to ask for the statements identified by this witness, or the documents identified by this witness to be firmly tendered, I believe as LER1, and LER2. LER meaning “Lawrence Edward Rodney”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: And my understanding is that the statements you refer to are the ones dated the…
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, thank you.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: If you could identify it by the 19th April, 2014, and the extract from the testimony given in relation to the inquest by the witness in 5th February, 1988.
Mr. Chairman: 1988. Thank you.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: And is certified by him to be true and correct.
Mr. Hanoman: I am guided please, Madam Commissioner. I wish to ask for the signed witness statement which is dated the 19th April, 2014. Perhaps to be marked with the letters LER and the number one. The other document that I am seeking to tender also has the same date, but it is a reflection of the Coroner’s Inquest proceedings, and those proceedings were held in February of 1988. We are hoping that you will ascribe the marking LER2 to that particular document. I think the witness has already given evidence that he verifies both of them to be accurate and that he adopts the contents of those documents.
Mr. Chairman: The two identification markings suggested LR1 and LR2?
Mr. Hanoman: LER, if it pleases you.
Mr. Chairman: LER1 and two.
Mr. Hanoman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: It has been so tied, and I think we can continue now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Before you proceed, when we took the break, I had asked a question as to trying to date the formation or the existence - the initiation of the time of existence of the House of Israel.
Mr. Chairman: I will now try to elicit that information, thank you very much.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thanks.
Mr. Hanoman: Mr. Rodney, you are required to tell us, if you do know, about the early formations of the House of Israel. Are you aware of when it was first formed, do you know when it was in existence in the late 70s, and do you know whether it was in existence now?
Mr. Rodney: Well, there are three parts to your query. If we deal with the second one, the House of Israel, to the best of my knowledge came into existence when the Rabi Washington arrived in Guyana. After he arrived in Guyana, and that would have been after 1971. Practically, and for the rest of Guyana, House of Israel would have come on stream when they would have begun their radio programmes. Some years ago, looking through the old newspapers, the House of Israel had a radio programme called the “House of Prophecy”. So, it would have been roughly the latter part of 1971, perhaps, onwards, coming into existence with their own radio programme, their own offices or headquarters and their own, if you like, community of people or members.

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: 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.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Friday, October 14, 2016

Friday, June 05, 2015

Rohan Roberts Files Human Rights Complaint for Racial Profiling against Toronto Police

Friday, April 24, 2015

Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. BCHRT, 2015 BCSC 534 - Causal Nexus Rejected

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 how the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on a text-book case of racial profiling

Update: CRARR granted intervener status by the Supreme Court of Canada in Latif v. Bombardier

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Joseph Hamilton

About Me

Blog Archive