The Growing Problem of Systemic Racism in Canada

 

The Toronto Star has published a piece on why Canada is racist.

 “In a Facebook group, a white woman responds to a post about new government funding for clean water at an Indigenous reserve, complaining that Indigenous people already get too much support and should do a better job of looking after themselves.”

A point worth making. Local government is responsible for clean water. Why are we blaming and billing the federal government, and not condemning or at least investigating the band council?

“At a bar, a man of European descent joins a discussion about police treatment of Black people and insists that racism and racial profiling happens in other countries, but not in Canada.”

It is incumbent on the author to demonstrate that racism and racial profiling is common in police treatment of black people in Canada. Otherwise he is simply begging the question here, assuming what he claims to prove.

The author then cites a survey of 6,601 participants on how they would respond to a white person who was:

• Speaking up when someone tells an insensitive joke;

• Appropriating Indigenous or Black attire;

• Asking where an Indigenous or Black person came from;

• Claiming racism doesn’t exist in Canada;

• Intervening when an Indigenous or Black person is hassled in public;

• Making a derogatory comment on Facebook; or

• Making a racial gesture at a hockey game.

Notice, to begin with, that the survey is interested only in the actions of white people. This is racial discrimination from the start. Can you imagine a survey that asked respondents to judge and condemn the actions of black people?

- Speaking up when someone tells an insensitive joke.

What counts as insensitive in a joke is entirely in the ear of the perceiver. We may simply be measuring the respondent’s lack of a sense of humour.

- Appropriating indigenous or Black attire.

“Cultural appropriation” is civilization. Is it wrong for “Whites” to buy records by black artists? Should Aryans refuse to patronize Jewish doctors? Is it, conversely, cultural appropriation for indigenous people to wear pants instead of loincloths and paint? Ought we to object, and insist on them having to wear distinctive dress? Perhaps for the Jews gabardine, a yellow star?

- Asking where an indigenous or Black person came from.

By definition, if someone is asking an indigenous person where they came from, they are not aware that they are an indigenous person. Therefore, this cannot be evidence of prejudice towards indigenous people.

If a black person is asked where they came from, how do we know this is because of their skin colour, as opposed to their having a foreign accent? To show this to be racial discrimination, you would have to control for this variable.

- Claiming racism does not exist in Canada.

Another perfect example of begging the question. If systemic racism does not exist in Canada, this is a correct observation. The present article claims to demonstrate that systemic racism does exist in Canada.

- Intervening when an Indigenous or Black person is hassled in public.

Surely this is a good thing, and understood to be so here. But to be evidence of racism, this would have to be compared to the likelihood of intervention when a white person is hassled in public, or an Asian person.

- Making a derogatory comment on Facebook

This is moot, because Facebook will block any racially “derogatory” comments. In other words, those who answer yes to this question are simply shown to be unreliable witnesses. Then too, what is “derogatory” has to be clearly defined to make this meaningful—for Facebook or here.

- Making a racial gesture at a hockey game

Bizarre to include this, since hockey is pretty racially homogenous. Why would anyone make a “racial” gesture at a hockey game? What exactly counts as a “racial gesture”?

Further down, the article gives an example: “a vigorous tomahawk gesture with a loud whooping cry.”

This is a traditional fan gesture for the Atlanta Braves and Kansas City Chiefs. Wrong country, wrong sport. Again, anyone answering yes is probably only showing themselves to be unreliable. And, of course, the American fan gesture is not racist—it is meant to express support and solidarity, not condemnation.

On the evidence of this article, racism is indeed a problem in modern Canada. 

Racism against “whites.”

Resolved: Philosophy Is Racist

Hegel, hapless victim of his own racism.

We suddenly find ourselves in the belly of the beast: an essay explaining why philosophy itself is racist: “Philosophy’s Systemic Racism.”

Or at least it seems to claim to. Then it focuses on Hegel. So that the case, even if made, would appear to be not systemic racism, but individual racism.

But the inconsistencies or confusions of terms do not end there. The author calls “explicitly racist” the postulated view that “Black and Indigenous peoples the world over were savage, inferior and in need of correction by European enlightenment.”

Only one element of that statement implies racism: that black or indigenous people might be “inferior.” Savagery is not genetic; neither is being in need of correction. Yet these are all thrown together, as though one’s culture and one’s system of government were racially determined. An ideal justification for colonialism or indeed slavery, coming from the present author.

Does he go on to make a case that Hegel considered black or indigenous people inferior?

“Hegel certainly was an explicit racist. He believed, for example, that Black Africans were a ‘race of children that remain immersed in a state of naiveté’. He further wrote that Indigenous peoples lived in ‘a condition of savagery and unfreedom’. And in The Philosophy of Right (1821), he argued that there is a ‘right of heroes’ to colonise these people in order to bring them into a progress of European enlightenment.”

Nothing here implies racial inferiority. It implies that their social organization, their government, is inferior. By this logic I would be guilty of anti-black racism for saying the black slaves in the antebellum US South were being held in a state of unfreedom. And if I do not support the government of Michigan, I am an anti-Michigander racist. “Explicitly.”

At the same time that he condemns Hegel for supposedly thinking that indigenous social systems or culture were inferior to European ones, and calls this “racist,” he condemns Rousseau as “racist” for thinking that indigenous social systems or culture were superior to European ones. “Unlike Hegel, however, he thought that he was reading about people leading idyllic lives.” He then condemns Schiller as racist for thinking that European and indigenous cultures simply had characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and could learn from one another through contact.

On this basis, the only possible conclusion, surely, is that “racist” is simply for this author a synonym for “European.” Or, to use the racist term beloved of racial theorists, “white.” 

Further Thoughts on Systemic Racism

Canada is not a racist country. This should be so obvious that it feels wrong to have to say it. Are we mad?

Yet that is suddenly a common charge. That is the charge when we hear of “systemic racism.”

Of course, there is and has been racism in Canada. We humans are herd animals. Just as we instinctively favour members of our own family over strangers, we instinctively favour people who look like us. This tendency is unworthy of us as Christians, objectively unjust, and we must fight it daily. As St. Paul tells us, there is no Jew nor Greek in Christ. We are all children of the one Father, and so are all brothers.

Claiming racism is systemic in Canada is different. Envy and lust are also instinctive. It does not follow that they are encouraged by “the system.” Rather, the system, our social norms, is designed to restrict them.

Most of the world’s nations are based on race. This is a simple truth. This is considered normative. Black’s Law Dictionary gives its first definition of “nation” as: “A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usually constituting a political entity.” Common origin is usually assumed. Yet Canadians have no common origin.

The first article of the United Nations Charter, repeating a principle of international law, reads: “All peoples have the right to self-determination.” “A people” generally means an ethnic group; Europe’s borders were redrawn after WWI on this premise.

Unlike other nations, Canada is not, and never has been, based on race or ethnicity. In part, no doubt, this has been a lucky accident of our history. But at a uniquely early stage, before, say, Britain, France, or the US, all were accepted as civil equals, despite race, creed, or place of origin. If you are born in Canada, you are Canadian. If you were not, Canada has pursued for the most part unusually open immigration policies.

The Canadian system of government and Canadian society more generally has developed in a variety of ways to ensure human equality and prevent racial discrimination. One has the right to a fair public trial following established laws and procedures; one has the right to present one's case; one has the right to be judged by a jury of one's peers. Our constitution formally prohibits any laws that discriminate due to race. Our federal system allows minorities to be largely self-governing in order to protect their distinct cultures or regional interests against the majority.

It has been charged that Canada is systemically racist because a disproportionate number of black Canadians—and aboriginal Canadians—are in prison. However, an equivalently disproportionate number of black and aboriginal Canadians report being the victims of crime, with the perpetrators being black or aboriginal. There is, accordingly, no way of saying whether the judicial system, if it is discriminating on the basis of race, is discriminating against, or in favour of, these minorities.

It has been charged that Canada is systemically racist because of the different legal treatment accorded our aboriginal citizens. The charge of different legal treatment is indeed fair here—but this is imposed by treaty, and cannot unilaterally be changed. The Canadian government has long wanted to retire the Indian Act, and cannot without Indian consent.

It has been charged that Canada once allowed slavery. This is technically true; but all nations have allowed slavery at some point. Canada probably had the fewest slaves, for the briefest of times. Most of the documented history of slavery in Canada is the one decade or so between the arrival of the UE Loyalists and the first court cases brought over the matter, which declared slavery illegal. Upper Canada, Ontario, was one of the first jurisdictions anywhere to formally outlaw the practice. 

It has been charged recently that Canada is systemically racist because some ice cream trucks perhaps operating in Canada play the tune “Turkey in the Straw” as their jingle. If there could be something racist about a tune, this would still not constitute systemic racism. It would only be unintentional racism. An interesting debate might then be held on whether unintentional racism is possible: whether we can think thoughts without thinking them. That such a thing is raised as an example of Canada's “systemic racism” is a measure of how hard it is to find racism in modern Canada.

We have no right, no doubt, to be proud of any of this. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors, either good or bad. That itself is racist thinking.

But it is no trivial thing to declare this Canadian system, this Canadian society of peace, order, and good government, carefully constructed over these many years by this remarkably diverse population to prevent racism and unequal treatment, itself racist. Perhaps it can be improved in detail; perhaps in some cases it fails to operate as intended. That is not what the term “systemic racism” means. It implies scrapping the system; tearing down all the statues, everything, and starting over. Given that all other systems known to man are more racist than this one, this demand to overturn the system is hardly likely to improve things. It seems rather intended to allow racist instincts free rein.

Given our ethnically and racially diverse population, it almost amounts to a demand for race-based riot in the streets. 

No, strike “almost.”

Systemic Racism under Every Bed!

Keanu Reeves, star of The Matrix, is Canadian. Coincidence, or ...?

Jeff McLaren, a local councilor, writes a guest column in the Kingston Whig-Standard warning of Canada’s “systemic racism.” It seems to me a model of the type. Everyone now is writing columns condemning “systemic racism.”

McLaren begins, “Systemic racism is like the matrix. It is all around us but most can’t see it.”

If we are speaking of a thing most people cannot see, we have reason to ponder whether, in fact, like leprechauns, unicorns, witchcraft, or Jews poisoning wells, it does not actually exist as a thing independent of a few people’s perceptions of it.

We who cannot see it need some evidence.

And evidence ought to be easy to find. For a thing to become “systemic,” assuming the absence of psychic powers, it must be communicated among the members of that system. We will see it in the laws and regulations that constitute that system. If there are no such written laws or regulations, asserting systemic racism requires positing a vast conspiracy. Such vast and longstanding conspiracies are, for a variety of reasons, inherently unlikely to exist. Especially conspiracies of which the actual members are unaware.

McLaren’s stated evidence is that “federal and provincial law and city bylaws … all were predominately written by white, rich, educated, Christian, men.” Surely this is true: Canada was formed by a variety of ethnic groups, but most of them had and have skin that was relatively pale. Had they intended to, they presumably could have created a system that favoured people who looked like themselves. We have seen it in other times and places: in the US South before about 1965, in South Africa, or in the Indian caste system.

But that they could have done so is not evidence that they did. For that, we still need to see actual laws or bylaws that discriminate against “non-whites.” McLaren offers no evidence of this.

Surely it is his duty to do so: not only to prove his allegation against Canada, but also to combat racism. Any such laws or bylaws are in violation of the Canadian constitution. It is the duty of all of us to bring them before the courts, and have them overturned.

Other than this, McLaren’s argument seems to be that we should not consider racism wrong: “One example of an unhelpful distortion of ourselves is the older starting point of calling out racism as a moral failing.” It is hard to read this as anything other than a defense of racism. Systemic racism, if it exists, cannot excuse us from our individual moral obligation to resist it. “Everybody else was doing it” is not a moral argument.

Racist Calls Only Non-Racist in the Commons a Racist

Jagmeet Singh

Jagmeet Singh has been ejected from the Commons for a day for calling a Bloc Quebecois MP a racist. For non-Canadian readers, Singh is the leader of the NDP, Canada’s social democratic or democratic socialist party. 

I am glad to see this discipline applied. Debate in Canada’s Commons has long devolved to the schoolyard level. The Speaker even tried to dodge the issue by claiming he had not heard the remark; Singh forced the issue by immediately repeating it.

Singh called Alain Therrien a racist because the member for La Prairie refused unanimous consent to a motion “recognizing the existence of systemic racism in the RCMP.” “The motion points out that ‘several Indigenous people have died at the hands of the RCMP in recent months …’ The motion also asked MPs to support a review of the RCMP's budget, to demand that the RCMP release all of its use-of-force reports and to call for a review of the RCMP's tactics for dealing with the public.”(CBC)

“Singh had asked the Commons to recognize there is systemic racism in the RCMP and to call on the government to review the force’s budget, ensure the Mounties are truly accountable and do a full review of the RCMP’s use of force.” (NatPost)

Therrien was right to block the motion. The alarming thing is that he seems to have been the only voice. This was mob rule, an attempted lynching of the RCMP, one of Canada’s unifying national symbols. And only a BQ member was ready to stand up for human rights and Canadian unity.

The motion presupposed, simply declared, that there was systemic racism in the RCMP. That is like declaring someone guilty without a trial.

That is classic hysteria. We elect people to prevent this kind of mob justice.

So is calling someone a racist for saying there might not be racism involved. That is like declaring someone a Communist for daring to doubt there are Communists in the State Department; or declaring someone a witch for doubting witchcraft was involved. It is frightening that any adult can think in these terms; much less an elected representative; much less a candidate for the leadership of the country.

To bring this charge of systemic racism against the national police is also pathetically childish in another way: a demonstration of Canada’s eternal kid brother syndrome. People in the US are currently agitated about police brutality; so little brother Canada has to foment its own scandal along the same lines. Monkey see, monkey do. Grownups, by contrast, think for themselves.

If it exists, systemic racism is a serious matter; far more serious than individual racism, because it has the force of government behind it. It deserves to be treated seriously, not in Singh’s pre-emptive manner. Systemic racism, happily, is easier to prove than individual racism. Unlike individual racism, finding it does not require reading anyone’s mind, or trying to infer anything from their actions. For racism to exist systemically, it must be communicated among the participants in that system. It will appear in the laws, bylaws, or regulations of that system.

It should indeed be investigated; in fact, it apparently is being investigated. Singh’s motion sought to short-circuit that process, by imposing a conclusion: a classic example of prejudice.

I would even say that there apparently is systemic racism in the RCMP. As I say, the matter of systemic racism is rather easily proven. Like other arms of the government, I would assume the RCMP requires racial preferences for aboriginal people, and probably blacks, in hiring. I would not be surprised if, like the courts, there is also a legal requirement that they treat aboriginal suspects differently from non-aboriginals.

These are indeed examples of systemic racism.

I would like to see such an inquiry.