Cameras or more Social Workers?

As part of the renewed interest in the police and the obvious systemic injustices within our legal systems, one of the quick fixes that have been suggested is that all police wear cameras. The assumption is that the police if all of their actions were recorded, would be better behaved, less likely to do or say things that are inappropriate or just plain wrong. If something did happen that needed to be investigated - then we would no longer need to accept the word of the officer - we would just have to watch the movie.

Cameras are an easy and quick fix. But like all easy fixes, wearing a body camera will not address any of the real issues. The cost would be prohibitive and I suspect that the results with the inevitable technological failures would not be anywhere as useful as people think.

According to the CBC "Since 2000, there has been an average of 27 police gunshot deaths a year" (1). On the surface that seems like a remarkably small number especially as compared to the approximately 1000 individuals killed every year by police in the USA. But what is important is not how many were shot and killed, but rather who they were. Not surprisingly almost all who were killed were male and almost half were white. However, the number of indigenous and black people killed was disproportionate to the relatively small number of such individuals living in our communities. What is particularly alarming is that in BC, 34 % of the individuals were unarmed, 64% were in mental distress and 75% had discernible mental health or substance abuse issues

 The issue is not whether or not police wearing cameras would reduce the misuse of force, but rather are we sending out the wrong professionals? If the latter is true - then the question becomes - who is the right person to send out. An even better question should be what could we have done to prevent the individual from being in crisis? A corollary to the above question is - how much are we prepared to spend on such things as mental health or drug abuse prevention? Unfortunately, we do not have very good answers to any of the above questions.

 It has been argued that social workers or nurses might be the more appropriate professionals to deal with at least some of these critical situations. The assumption is that nurses or social workers are less likely to be racially biased may not be true - it is an assumption that has never been tested (consider all of the social workers who willingly participated in the 60s scoop of young indigenous children or continue to support the various foster care programs for such children).  Furthermore, not only have we demonstrated very little interest in developing strategies that are effective in dealing with mental health and substance abuse issues, taxpayers have clearly demanded that both they are kept safe and that they pay as few taxes as possible.

 On the other hand, the issues have been discussed and examined for far too long. It is time to be proactive. It is time for the government and the communities need to look at effective solutions that are implemental in the short term. There is not a single solution that will address everyone's concerns. What is needed in parts of Vancouver is profoundly different from what is needed in the more northern part of the province. Different skillsets, different professionals, different teams need to be considered on an area by area basis. We need to get rid of the rhetoric that is driven by the anger in the US and look for solutions in our towns and cities.

That will require those who control the law enforcement budget to meet with those who are living in those communities, to listen to them, and to allow a significant portion of that money to be allocated to at the very least, creating a different response system.

 (1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/police-related-deaths-canada-bc-vancouver-boyd-edey-database-1.4603820

 

 

Protest #3

I would have thought that perhaps the protest against systemic injustices, that constant subtle and not so subtle discrimination that affects the lives of so many people of colour would have either slowly been reduced in its intensity or become even more violent. That is -  either people would get bored with the topic and move on to the next issue of the week or that their level of frustration and anger would increase as some institutions over-reacted (again). Instead, there seems to still be a number of marches and while the number of people has remained consistent, the destruction of property and the rage seems to have lessened or at least it is not as obvious. Which is good news. Those who have been oppressed may be tired of hearing the words "meaningful dialogue", but no one listens when too many people are screaming.   I wonder how many of those who are marching know the roots of the modern protest movement.

A few decades before the US's war between the states, a young man, who at best could be described as an aspiring writer, wrote an essay on civil disobedience. In it, he argued that men (he was a chauvinist as were most men of his era), if they disagreed with the actions of their government, had the responsibility to refuse to follow that government; that a citizen was not obliged to support their government when they knew they were wrong. The writer disagreed with the USA's intervention in Mexico and therefore refused to pay a portion of his taxes. He was fined, refused to pay the fine and was sent to jail. A relative paid the fine and he only spent one night in jail. Like so much of Henry David Thoreau's work, his essay on civil disobedience did not attract a lot of attention during his lifetime.

Almost fifty or so years later, a young lawyer from India was working in South Africa independence movement -specifically trying to ensure that individuals of Indian descent were not discriminated against. On his way to Britain to discuss these issues, he read a copy of Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience. When he returned to South Africa and later to India, Gandhi used Thoreau's work as part of the philosophical underpinning of his non-violent protesting.

A few decades later another young man was doing graduate studies at Boston University. He read about Gandhi's peaceful protest and the power of gathering so many people together in a non-violent way. He read about Gandhi's connection to Thoreau. If you read some of Martin Luther King's speeches, you can hear some of Thoreau's words. It took just over a hundred years before people listened and understood what he wrote.  

I think most of the above story is true. I have always liked it for the synchronicity of it all. I have liked it in part because it took two men of colour to interpret the words of a reasonably privileged white man. But there is something else to the story that is worth remembering. All three of the individual took action on their own. They did not wait for someone to pave the way or to make it safe for them to protest. They did not expect anyone to do what they did. They did it because it was right.

Gandhi simply said that he was going to the sea to make salt (something that was not allowed). He did not ask his fellow members of the Ashram to come, he just said he was going. King did not moan about the police and their dogs blocking his way crossing the bridge in Selma, he did not expect anything of anyone. He just walked across. Thoreau did not ask anyone to pay his fine or to not pay their taxes.

The extraordinary thing about these three men is that they did what they did because it was right. The fact that two of them were followed by thousands of other individuals is irrelevant. They would have done it if they had been all alone. They did not blame others for their actions or lack of actions - they just stood there - convinced that they had the obligation to disagree with their government when they knew the government was wrong.