“Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.” ~ Golda Meir

The post You have to believe in yourself when no one does first appeared on Common Humanity.

The challenge seems to suggest a viable alternative to police for contemporary democracy. There are numerous pilot programmes which are very promising. However, there isn’t a single instance in literature of a location where the police have been abolished anywhere in the world.

As shown in this paper, the majority of US cities (including Minneapolis and Seattle) where police were “effectively” defunded have now reversed the decisions because of the sharp rises in both general crime and violent crime, which disproportionately affects the least equitable neighbourhoods with a majority of black and racialised populations.

There is a zero-sum struggle to shift scarce resources away from the police and towards other institutions and organisations. There is an excellent analysis because there is little interest in learning from experiences elsewhere to understand how society can more effectively integrate (rather than weaken) institutions and organisations to increase the positive effects of limited resources.

Integration has been shown to release resources from inefficient, fragmented budgets and to increase overall social value. There is much research on how integrating services, organisations, and institutions can increase value and save costs.

This is a lovely piece that explores some crucial topics and makes the world safer, just, and more inclusive.

Defunding the police: Reflecting on the US experience and lessons learned for Canada | Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being

www.journalcswb.ca

The post Defunding the police: Reflecting on the US experience and lessons learned for Canada first appeared on Common Humanity.

We should have ‘common humanity’ groups, not ‘racial affinity’ groups in schools

Opinion

fairforall.substack.com

The post We should have ‘common humanity’ groups, not ‘racial affinity’ groups in schools first appeared on Common Humanity.

Council Post: The Power Of Common Humanity

How do we make the shifts that allow us to be more responsive?

Forbes

The post The Power Of Common Humanity first appeared on Common Humanity.

This is not surprising that ten Ottawa community groups released a statement Wednesday calling for a freeze to the police budget and investment in other services.

This is again that time of the year for heated budget discussions, including Ottawa Police budget. There are many divergent views. However, for those who want to know the ABC of why we need the police and what are the implications for cutting police budget, here are a few facts to keep in mind.

Public safety is police’s main responsibility. Police play a crucial role in maintaining public safety and preventing crime. Cutting the police budget results in a reduction of law enforcement personnel and resources, which could lead to an increase in crime and disorder as we have seen in many instances in police since some jurisdictions started cutting police budgets.

Despite other social service agencies active in many capacities, it is the police responsible for the primary response for emergency situations, such as natural disasters, active shooter incidents, and medical emergencies. Even for mental health related emergencies, there is no solid system in place to call services other than the police. Cutting OPS budget would hinder their ability to respond to these types of events quickly and effectively.

OPS is responsible for enforcing laws and maintaining order, which is essential for the functioning of society. Cutting OPS budget, while the city is expanding and the cost of living is increasing, would limit their ability to perform these duties, potentially leading to a breakdown in law and order. It just doesn’t make sense that all other areas in the City’s budget would go up with time but when it comes to OPS, the demand is reduction of funds – rather than a proper analysis of what to cut (responsibilities as well as resources), where to move, why and how?

Police also plays an important role in protecting vulnerable populations, such as victims of hate crimes, domestic violence and human trafficking. Budget cuts would reduce the resources available for these types of investigations and potentially put these populations at greater risk.

Freezing or cutting the OPS budget for the sake of cutting it – without a clear plan for alternative forms of public safety and crime prevention – could result in a vacuum of responsibility and leave communities without adequate protection.

Some potential implications of freezing or cutting OPS budget to consider include:

• A reduction in police resources and personnel could result in an increase in crime and disorder, particularly in high-crime areas.
• Defunding the police could lead to a decrease in public safety as law enforcement may be less equipped to respond to emergencies and prevent crime.
• If communities are left without adequate protection and support, it could result in a loss of trust in government and other public institutions. This could lead to increased crime as some might take up justice in their hands.
• Freezing or cutting the police budget would lead to mismanagement in reallocating funds from the police department to other areas, such as social services and community-based policing programs. However, without a throughout plan and alternative, throwing dollars at the problem would never lead to tangible, positive outcome.  Did we analysis the failure of upstream prevention? Where are social services failing that lead to emergencies that the police has to deal with? Where are inefficiencies in the social service work? How gaps in service could be filled in a collaborative way among various service providers? Could there be alternative join-programs with the police for upstream prevention and emergency response situations?
• We need for upstream preventative work to address the root causes that lead to crime and violence. In the absence of that, if we call for cuts to the police budget that would at least require alternative forms of public safety. We need to address the issue of inequity that leads to disparity among neighbourhoods, creates conditions for many quality of life issues which turns some communities into fertile grounds for crimes, drugs and violence. Did we consult experts, researchers and the community on this critical issue? Has the funding from other sources for such preventative programming increased or decreased in the past few years? What are the implications of funding cuts on the vulnerable communities? Is freezing the police budget an answer to addressing the inefficiencies in the social services sector? Cutting the police budget would require the development and implementation of alternative forms of public safety and crime prevention. Do we have any alternative? Could there be an alternative? How long would it need to be in place?

The question to ponder is: Do we have to consider all these questions, or is it important to just begin with freezing and cutting the OPS budget?

The post Reasons not to freeze or cut the OPS budget first appeared on Common Humanity.

This is not an encouraging news for those committed to address hate and violence in Ottawa. Some of the key strategies to address hate crimes and the status of our progress in Ottawa are:

1. Effective law enforcement: Fortunately, OPS has revived the hate crime unit, and there is full support for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes vigorously. Unfortunately, we have not seen a successful prosecution to date that could signal that such behaviour is unacceptable.
2. Community engagement: Building strong relationships between law enforcement and community groups can help prevent hate crimes and increase reporting of incidents. Work is still in progress on this front. United for All Coalition has engaged internal experts to guide organizations in Ottawa to take the lead on establishing Third Party Hate Crime Reporting Centres.
3. Education and Awareness: Raising awareness about the impact of hate crimes and promoting diversity and inclusion can help reduce the incidents of hate crimes. United for All and its partners are busy taking care of this piece within the limited resources at their disposal. Provincial and federal assistance will boot this work for sure.
4. Support for victims: Providing resources and support for victims of hate crimes can help them recover and prevent further victimization. Several service agencies provide victims service support. However, there is no dedicated and specialised victim service support regarding hate crimes in Ottaaa.
5. Encouraging bystander intervention: Condemning hate crimes when they happen and enabling individuals to speak out and take action when they witness hate crimes can help create a culture of intolerance for such behaviour. More investment in communications would lead to developing and discriminating a powerful counter-narrative and community-wide awareness.
6. Advocacy for effective hate crime legislation: Strong hate crime laws convey that such behaviour will not be tolerated and can enhance penalties for those who commit hate crimes. Unfortunately, Canada lags far behind in this area among Western nations. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of talks but not concrete action in this area at the provincial or federal government level.

The post More than one hate crime in Ottawa per day in 2022 first appeared on Common Humanity.

There is no denying that the so-called “Freedom” Convoy in Ottawa was just one act of a more significant movement, and there is a need to know how to avoid future manifestations of the hate that fuelled the convoy.

Researchers and analysts have concluded that organizers of the truckers convoy had a history of white nationalism, and the occupation in Ottawa was a manifestation of homegrown populist, right-wing extremism. We knew about this threat and its outcome as a national crisis in Canada.

Despite an amalgamated form of various shades of hatred and racism, some of us still tolerate the extremist movement and hesitate to consider it a threat to national security.

In the U.S., top law enforcement officials have long declared  white supremacists to be the “biggest domestic terror threat.” White supremacy has been declared a “motivating force behind domestic terrorism.”

Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Chad Fredrick Wolf, believes, White supremacy “poses a threat to the Homeland” and it “is anti-government/anti-authority violent extremism.”

Former Acting U.S. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, points out that by October 2020, “racially and ethnically motivated vinyl extremists were highlighted as the number one most persistent and lethal threat facing the homeland.“

While we are hesitant to consider white supremacist hate movements a threat to national security in Canada, we must not underestimate the potential of these groups, the influence they have and the threat they pose. An unclassified joint intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (May 2017) found that “white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal violence” and that White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement.“

White supremacy is considered a national security threat because of the hate ideology that has killed more people in the U.S. than any other form of extremism. In Canada, the same intense hatred is becoming a growing threat to national security. The associated risk factors set the conditions for a spark to turn a polarised environment into a national crisis at any time. For example, Staub[1] mentions economic situation to be a trigger for social unrest and mass crisis. During a touchy financial crisis like a recession, people are inclined to find someone to blame for their misfortune. According to Hamburg: “a sharp economic downturn can create a sense of crisis that makes a population ready to scapegoat a vulnerable out-group and softens popular reluctance to kill others.” [2]

Hate is a critical element of all acts of terrorism. Hate undermines our way of life and the community’s resilience. It tears our community and motivates violence against people of other races, religions, sexual orientations, and disabilities.

Incidents like the Quebec Mosque shooting or the mass shooting in Colorado and buffalo are the outcomes of hate. These qualify to be classified as national security threats. The complex, multi-layered problems posed by the perpetrators of hate raise serious questions for those within the policy, public/community safety and law enforcement domains.

We need to declare hate movements a threat to national security. We need to support grassroots, collective impact initiatives that build community resilience and address the polarisation caused by hate-mongering groups. The seeds of divisiveness need to be eliminated before they become more challenging because of the prevailing economic, political and social factors.

There isn’t a single solution to far-right extremism that breeds Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-Asian and anti-immigrant sentiments. The issue is pervasive and getting worse. A convoy 2.0 is already in the making. Failing to recognise the obvious threat to our existence as a free society would lead to potential insurrections and violence. To prevent a national security crisis, we need to:

• Allocate resources to hate prevention initiatives on a priority basis to adopt a whole-society approach for open rejection of hate and violence.
• Recognise hate movements as a threat to national security, and understand and address their root causes and any legitimate grievances.
• Develop multi-agency operational responses to hate and hate crimes.
• Ensure law enforcement has the tools it needs to do the job. Update hate crime legislation to help police forces to develop new operational guidance for staff, recognising new and emerging sets of threats, potential harms, new and emerging groups of “others,” and ways of responding to victims.
• Fund new research and evaluative work to support policy and law enforcement responses.
• Expand the hate crimes framework to stop ignoring the systemic and political nature of the violence committed by White supremacists.
• Demand politicians call out rhetoric that radicalises and openly shuns those who embrace supremacist and extremist ideas and conspiracy theories.
• Help organisations and professionals operating at the nexus of public safety, equity building, and community well-being find common ground to be mindful of extremism both on the right and left side of the political spectrum and address negative perceptions of the law enforcement side of the equation.
• Focus policies and interventions on building equity across geographies and vulnerable communities.
• Combat disinformation and reduce the spread of hateful ideas. Enforce existing laws and criminalise/regulate hate speech online and offline.
• Better screen members of the military, security and law enforcement to ensure the institutions remain committed to civil rights and other democratic values

 Abid Jan is a community safety and well-being expert working as Director Capacity Building with United Way East Ontario

[1] Hamburg, David A. 2008. Preventing Genocide: Practical Steps Towards Early Detection and Effective Action. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

[2] Staub, Ervin. 2009. ‘The Origins of Genocide and Mass Killing: Core Concepts’. In The Genocide Studies Reader, eds. S. Totten and P.R. Bartrop. New York: Routledge.

The post How to deal with the hate movements posing national security threat. first appeared on Common Humanity.

We cannot continue to draw the line between a terrorist act and a hate crime according to textbook definitions if we are serious about accurately tracking and addressing the root causes of our country’s hate crime problem.

In order to draw the appropriate conclusions, it is important to remember the white supremacist massacre of nine Black people at a Charleston church in 2015, the 11 worshippers killed in the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting in 2018, and the 51 fatalities and 40 injured in the Christchurch Mosque shooting in 2019.

Traditionally hate crimes are considered motivated at least in part by an offender’s personal bias and are disproportionately committed by individuals, acting alone, not under the direction of an organized hate group. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, are considered violent acts inspired primarily by extremist beliefs and intended as political or ideological statements.

Hate speech and non-violent incidents aside, all violent hate crimes are acts of terror. They serve as a message to other members of that community to intimidate them. This fulfils the requirements for terrorism.

In the Canadian context, Canadian police registered 2669 criminal offences in 2020 with a hate motive. This was the highest number ever tallied since similar statistics became available in 2009. Lack of preventative measures will increase the number of violent hate crimes over time. Due to the traditional distinction between hate crimes and terrorism, the government has paid less attention to perpetrators, prevention, and reactions connected to hate crimes than terrorism, which occurs significantly less frequently.

Federal, provincial, and municipal governments have treated hate crimes as a “local” issue separate from terrorism while addressing terrorism as a national security issue for criminological, legal, bureaucratic, and sociological reasons. Violent hate crimes are a national security concern, so this needs to change.

Despite some overlap between terrorism and hate crimes, the logical distinction between the two is not arbitrary. Terrorism is defined as ideologically motivated violence designed to affect a broader population than the physical target of the attack. Hate crimes are defined as crimes in which the victims are targeted because of their perceived identities.

Targeted communities are affected by hate incidences and crimes regardless of whether the perpetrators’ motivation was to injure the victim only or to harm the victim and impact the wider community. The harm that hate crimes do more generally is reinforced by the fact that some result in mass casualties.

Since terrorists and those who commit hate crimes have ideological motivations, they can and do come from the same physical and digital social networks. Violent hate crimes are often glorified and amplified on social networks. A hate crime can have the same psychological and political effects as a terrorist act, even if it wasn’t planned out or is part of a more extensive campaign of violence.

Hate crimes can generate opportunities for hostile foreign influence operations to exacerbate xenophobia, racism, gender identity bias, anti-Semitism and ultimately divisiveness, at orders of magnitude more frequently than terrorism.

In the past two decades, there have been no international terrorist attacks in Canada. Comparatively, the recorded hate crimes, including foreign-influenced hate campaigns, have ripped apart our community. Polarisation is growing. Foreign influence and global networks are reinforcing preconceptions, degrading potential victims, and sowing conspiracy theories, ultimately enhancing the risk of increased domestic terrorism. This will amplify the harm brought about by hate crimes.

Separating hate crimes from terrorism leads to incomplete, false, and misleading threat assessments, which already suffer from the questionable logical distinction between domestic and foreign terrorism. Domestic terrorists are already more numerous, lethal and active than international terrorists in Canada. Still, the disparities are exacerbated when we consider that over 90 percent of our hate crime database perpetrators targeted people of colour, religious minorities and/or LGBTQ people.

The prejudices that permeate domestic extremist bubbles and society at large were the driving force behind perpetrators of hate-based violence. Security agencies concentrate on a small number of ideologically motivated acts of violence, especially those committed by foreign terrorists and violent domestic extremists, based on incomplete threat assessments. This has several adverse effects, including ineffective resource distribution, inconsistent judicial and administrative responses, and—most notably, significantly greater success rates for violent domestic attacks than for international terrorism.

Underestimating domestic extremist threats can have dangerous consequences. For example, white supremacists, who uphold and spread many of the discriminatory ideologies that spur hate crimes, are increasingly endorsing revolutionary ideologies like calling for a racial holy war, undermining democratic institutions in the name of freedom, and engaging in violence against radicalised communities.

Given that white nationalists are increasingly using mass casualty methods both domestically and globally, this revolutionary shift is alarming.

A global white supremacist network has expanded since 2015. A rising number of American extremists are driven by bigotry against Muslims and immigrants. More than in the past, this ideological shift and its impact on Canadian extremist groups have made it possible for local white supremacists to link internationally and get xenophobic influence.

Similar to the globalisation of violent jihadism that has given extremists access to resources for training, funding, and recruiting and safe havens from which to plan attacks, the globalisation of white supremacy poses long-term threats to national security.

Because treating hate crimes differently from terrorism promotes systemic racism and jeopardises public safety, there are calls in legal circles to treat hate crimes as domestic terrorist acts.

We continue to consistently and rhetorically undervalue victims of hate crimes with our current position, even though they have been the targets of violence fuelled by ideologies. This failure increases polarisation and deepens mistrust between radicalised minorities, the government and the justice system.

The idea that some lives seem less valuable than others opens the door to misperceptions that fuel resentment and divisiveness. That, in turn, welcomes foreign influence operations and makes powerful narratives that disparage institutions of power and law enforcement more appealing on both sides.

Resource allocation must be done under comprehensive and integrated threat assessments of ideologically motivated violence conducted by the government and security services. Currently, the local police department looks at hate crimes, while CSIS and the RCMP concentrate on terrorism. A fusion cell between the police and national security agencies to liaise is required. In the US, dedicated domestic terrorism offices have been set up within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the FBI. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security has already declared hate crimes “a national security issue,” white supremacists as “the biggest domestic terror threat,” and white supremacy as a “motivating force behind domestic terrorism.”

Hate and violence prevention programs, such as the United for All, and law enforcement actions are equally applicable to both domestic and international terrorism threats. Preventative programmes should not be undervalued and underestimated. These are critical for national security.

The government and elected officials should never mention terrorism without simultaneously addressing hate crimes to combat the idea that terrorism and its victims are more significant than hate crimes and their victims. Canadians are harmed, injured, and killed by terrorism and hate crimes. Both terrorism and hate crimes strengthen our society’s dividing wedge issues and provide domestic and foreign adversaries with more ammunition. Both terrorism and hate crimes are a threat to national security and have no place in Canada.

The post Violent Hate crimes are a threat to national security first appeared on Common Humanity.

Abid Jan, January 04, 2023.

Director Capacity Building at United Way East Ontario

6 articles

The post Focusing on Neighbourhood Inequity for Community Safety first appeared on Common Humanity.

Police officers are not born and bread in police academies. They are part of the same society and reflect its values. They interact with community members 24/7 on matters ranging from homicide to kijiji sales issues. The most challenging job for the police is preserving human life while maintaining order, like the complexity of the “freedom” convoy in Ottawa. With police badge comes great responsibility – not a license to discriminate, as perceived.

Police officers work under constant stress. They face dangerous circumstances and attempt to resolve complex community issues. These include responding to unpredictable, stressful situations – including use-of-force decisions. There is no doubt that constant interaction with various social problems puts some officers under psychological strain.

In the reform conversation, accurate and comprehensive data on many factors is essential to an informed and productive discussion. Besides thorough use of force data in the context of community equity status, some of the additional factors that need to be scientifically assessed are:

1) The level of medical/mental stress – anxiety and PTSD – and its impact on officers’ behaviour.

2) Role of the race-factor vs outcome of split decisions under constant challenging job environments.

3) Frequency of use of force decisions in smaller towns vs their impact on community’s perception influenced by more systemic and frequent occurrence elsewhere.

4) The trend of media reporting certain events that causes a public frenzy vs portraying an accurate picture of the reality

5) The role of disparity, inequity and social determinants of health in the increased calls for service from certain areas vs comparative use of force stats in various communities.

6) A thorough use of force database showing police brutality and misconduct in general vs actions of offenders in specific geographies/communities and circumstances before the officer opted to use force.

When it comes to providing any insight into the specifics of the use of force by the police and other instances of prejudice, the research is obviously lacking. The number of calls from the most inequitable communities, mental health status, weapons possession, aggression type, nature of police call/pursuit, the specific location, etc., are all predefined indicators that have received little scholarly study.

To avoid blaming the police alone for systematic racism or limiting the core causes of discrimination to that alone, researchers must approach it with a high level of curiosity that mirrors the proverbial devil is in the detail.

The importance of such study is crucial for reducing the use of discriminatory force by police and for addressing unfavourable opinions of the police.

Post
#equity #useofforce #policereform #police #community

‘It’s changing’: As officers quit in droves, departments see an opportunity for police reform

Police departments are trying to attract candidates who reflect the communities they serve, focusing on women, people of color and the LGBTQ+ community.

USA TODAY

The post Opportunities for police reform first appeared on Common Humanity.