
Police across Canada are using predictive policing algorithms, report finds - pseudolus
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/k7q55x/police-across-canada-are-using-predictive-policing-algorithms-report-finds
======
icegreentea2
Honestly, better just to skip straight to the linked report that Vice is just
lifting from - ([https://citizenlab.ca/2020/09/to-surveil-and-predict-a-
human...](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/09/to-surveil-and-predict-a-human-rights-
analysis-of-algorithmic-policing-in-canada/))

The executive summary does a far better job at articulating the situation, its
problems, its negative implications, and proposed mitigations than most of us
will be able to manage in an HN comment.

Note that the report suggestions are not to ban predictive approaches. I think
the report recommendations are reasonable under the assumption of competence
and good faith among all parties. If you don't think that the limitations the
report suggests are sufficient, I think that's a reasonable sign that you're
not assuming good faith and competence - which is fair, but does totally shift
the argument.

If you're just assuming that the police will abuse this regardless of safe
guards (that's fair), you can just make that argument up front, and cut
through all the shit, and then you can get down to arguing over real conflict
points.

~~~
ramshorns
The police have shown us that they don't act in good faith. But maybe if we
decide to keep them around, these recommendations, along with better civilian
oversight to ensure they're actually implemented, will mitigate the dangers of
predictive policing.

~~~
mbostleman
>>The police have shown us that they don't act in good faith.>>

There are ~650k police officers in the US employed by ~18k agencies. Can you
provide more detail on how it is that that group has shown us a lack of good
faith?

~~~
adamsea
By not publicly and consistently condemning and/or holding their fellow
officers accountable when they should be.

The blue wall of silence.

To be fair after the murder of George Floyd you did see some officers and
police chiefs doing this in the initial round of protests.

Generally speaking though police departments have proven incredibly difficult
to reform - there’s a lot of entrenched behavior, such that even if one
officer isn’t engaging in anything illegal themself, the police culture brings
huge pressure to bear against anyone who might condemn another officer for
breaking the law.

~~~
jmnicolas
The US situation seen from French eyes is quite surprising. Here we have the
IGPN, which is "the Police of Police" so when an officer does something wrong
there's an inquiry about it. But more importantly, there are sanctions.

The system isn't perfect by any mean but to give you an example of how
infrequent Police murders are, our local BLM movement had to find a 4 year old
case as their "George Floyd".

~~~
dominotw
> The system isn't perfect by any mean but to give you an example of how
> infrequent Police murders are, our local BLM movement had to find a 4 year
> old case as their "George Floyd".

Thats not same comparison though, people dont' own firearms in france like
they do in USA.

~~~
jmnicolas
You're right about legal firearms, there are much less of them in France.
However criminals have no trouble equipping themselves, and Kalashnikov
shootings are quite frequent between rival gangs.

~~~
adamsea
It’s no excuse but my understanding is the issue here in the US is sort of the
random traffic stop - what if the person the cop stops has a gun?

Thus every interaction with a probably “non-criminal” citizen or whatever
carries fear and danger.

Again, no excuse at all. But I do think there’s a relation between racist (and
all) police violence, and the overall violence in our society - which firearm
ownership is one aspect of.

------
mabbo
Isn't this just computerization of what already existed? "Hey, I need to get
my arrest numbers up so let's head on down to <area of town> where we know
we'll pick up at least a couple people for <mostly harmless activity>". Now
the police are just optimizing the algorithm to maximize their goal.

The problem isn't the means, it's the goal itself.

Where the police can predict they're going to be arresting a lot of people,
maybe instead we should be focusing on how we can reduce the problems in those
areas that lead to crimes and arrests. Send some social workers, some youth
outreach, open a food bank, get health workers in there.

"Tough on crime" policies gets expensive when you have to house and jail all
those "criminals". It's a lot cheaper to just prevent future crime by helping
people.

~~~
ticmasta
>> just prevent future crime by helping people.

OK "just" prevent future crime via... helping people.

What does that even mean? Have you costed out your helping program to show
this is true. We have more social programs, care agencies and food banks than
ever before, yet the problems and problem areas are as bad as ever. Let's see
if you change your tune after being the victim of serious crime

~~~
camgunz
In the US, the criminal "justice" system is _phenomenally_ expensive.
According to EJI [1], it cost us $182 billion in 2017. There are ~2.3 million
people in US prisons [2]. That's almost $80k/prisoner/year. That's a lot of
social services.

[1]: [https://eji.org/news/mass-incarceration-costs-182-billion-
an...](https://eji.org/news/mass-incarceration-costs-182-billion-annually/)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

~~~
Natsu
How will those social programs stop, e.g., rapists from committing more rape
when they're freed on bail when none of the prison reform programs so far are
doing that?

Are we not better simply containing the rapists so that they cannot access a
vulnerable population instead?

~~~
camgunz
Please don't strawman me by implying that I'm advocating for freeing rapists.
That's not productive, nor is it discussing in good faith.

Let me give you some stats from the Wikipedia article I linked, which I
encourage you to read:

"tough-on-crime" laws adopted since the 1980s have filled US prisons with
mostly nonviolent offenders.

46% of state prisoners serving > 1 year are serving time for a nonviolent
offense. (I flipped this around from "54% of state prisoners serving > 1 year
are serving time for a violent offense).

15% of state prisoners have been convicted of a drug offense as their most
serious infraction.

And here's the source the Wikipedia article links called "Why Texas is closing
prisons in favour of rehab" [1].

That's hundreds of thousands of people serving harsh sentences for nonviolent
and drug offenses. It's pretty well known at this point that the US criminal
justice system has serious problems and is--again--extremely expensive. I
encourage you to google around and read up on it.

[1]: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-30275026](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30275026)

~~~
s1artibartfast
For what it is worth, Your position cant be strawmanned if you don't explain
it.

If your core position is that money can be saved by avoiding incarceration,
you would probably get a more productive response by stating it explicitly as
well as how it relates to the post you respnded to:

>What does that even mean? Have you costed out your helping program to show
this is true. We have more social programs, care agencies and food banks than
ever before, yet the problems and problem areas are as bad as ever. Let's see
if you change your tune after being the victim of serious crime

~~~
godelski
It is a strawman because the response made suppositions that the gp did not
imply. That is not a good faith argument. Forcing positions upon people is not
a productive means of discussion.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I felt that the post was just interjecting with a fact and did not explain how
it relates to or modifies the parent post. It is hard to respond without
supposition if they fail to put forth an argument. I read the interchange as
follows.

>mabbo: states that we should focus on crime reduction, not enforcement

>ticmasta: questions if crime prevention is economically or practically
viable. They propose that increased expenses have not and will not result in a
reduction of "serious crimes".

> Camgunz: points out that incarceration is expensive and this could support a
> lot of social services.

> Natsu: questions again how social programs will stop violent crimes like
> rape when existing programs have failed.

> Camgunz: Dont strawman me, Nonviolent incarceration is expensive.

Camgunz seems to be talking past the question of if social programs can work
and reiterating that incarceration is expensive.

~~~
godelski
I think the crux comes down to this section of the exchange.

> Camgunz: points out that incarceration is expensive and this could support a
> lot of social services.

> Natsu: questions again how social programs will stop violent crimes like
> rape when existing programs have failed.

How __I__ read this (and I'm guessing Camgunz) is that camgunz provides
context to ticmasta's questions about being economically viability by noting
how much we spend within the prison system. Implying that this is the metric
that we are working with. There was an assumption made here, which is
extremely common, that policy just adds cost and does not reduce it somewhere
else. What Camgunz is suggesting is that by spending money elsewhere we can
reduce the costs mentioned. IMO a net even would be a gain in the sense that
we are being more humane and maximizing individual freedom (considering being
in jail means pretty low individual freedom as well as potential long term
consequences like being unable to vote in the future).

Natsu then made a non-sequitor argument that is commonly associated with dog
whistling (it may not have been intended this way, but that is part of the
power of dog whistling. By definition it is coded language). The supposition
that Natsu implied was that rapists are going to rape and this cannot be
prevented, therefore we should just contain them. The data does not support
this nor is it effective because we can only prosecute those who have already
committed an action or are in the act (this isn't Minority Report, we don't do
pre-crime and I think we'd all agree that is highly immoral). Further Natsu
said that prisons already do not solve the problem, therefore we should just
contain them. The context of the discussion was about reform, which
acknowledges the fact that prisons do not accomplish this. Starting with mabbo
we get a claim that we should be focusing on crime prevention, which would
include (presumably) changing how prisons work. With a focus on reformation as
opposed to punishment. Additionally, Natsu's statement is associated with an
"all or nothing" approach, which is not what anyone here is suggesting and is
a common technique used to derail a conversation, because there will always be
outliers in data (i.e. letting perfection get in the way of improvements).
Simply, the discussion is about reduction not abolition. Lastly, the jump to
rape is one to extreme cases. A drive to an emotional appeal above everything
else.

Simply, the response was not in good faith and had a high potential to be
intended to derail the conversation. It exhibits many of the tactics that
people use to perform such a task (again, it resembles dog whistling enough
that it is reasonable to be taken that way).

I will also direct you to my response to Natsu where I link evidence of a
negative cost policy (legalizing and taxing prostitution) that fulfills said
objectives. I also stress the focus on reduction over abolition. There are
many other policies similar to what I mentioned, including reform around
marijuana laws (referencing back to Camgunz, which would you rather have?
Spending 80k/yr for a non-violent pot dealer (max punishment is several years)
or taxing pot, regulating to increase safety, de-stigmatizing and allowing
people to seek professional help if it is negatively impacting their lives,
and reducing funds that go to cartels that also contribute to migrants fleeing
their countries and heading to America? The former costs a significant amount
of money while the latter distributes money through the economy and allows
taxes to be taken off the top). Not all policies will end up working like
this, but again, this isn't an "all or nothing" situation, it is about
improvement through iteration and utilizing the data that we have to make
better policy. These two are low hanging fruit but do illustrate the point
being discussed here.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I read your post a couple times and I think I get where you are coming from.

I think the disconnect between us comes from the different assumptions and
emphasis _we_ made filled in for each post. You assumed that Ticmasta ignored
indirect costs in a cost/benifit analysis. Camgunz addressed this as you point
out. And I assumed that tomasita's central point was that additional spending
does not reduce crime or recidivism, and camgunz sidesteped the issue. I
imagine Natsu's reading would be the same, given that they restated the same
ting, but with more inflammatory language.

I tend to agree with you and camgunz that decriminalization of many activities
is attractive based on it's own merits. That said, I think that it is also
important to acknowledge that not all problems can be solved by dumb money,
solved by smart money, or solved at all.

~~~
godelski
The problem comes down to a few parts. 1) The language is similar to that used
by dog whistlers. 2) We have higher expectations from people on HN and expect
them to be more familiar with subjects they are responding to. 3) We require
good faith arguments here [0] 4) that aren't lazy 5) and can't be disproven
with a simple search. ( 6) (which wasn't violated in this case) we expect
people to read the article). HN has always had higher standards and
expectations than other forums. I'm happy to get conversations back on track,
because it is a problem we're facing a lot in society (in general), but now
the conversation is derailed.

[0] There's three parts to communication. 1) The idea intended to be conveyed.
2) The words said. 3) The idea that was heard. The three things can convey
three different ideas. A good faith argument means that you are trying to
understand what was intended. It usually means giving the benefit of the
doubt.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I agree with everything you said about communication and still stand by my
original point and suggestion.

Camgunz would have a more productive conversation if they added more context
to their post, describing how it relates to the parent.

I agree that the other posts could be improved as well.

I don’t think that there was any dog whistling. As I understand the the term,
it Requires a hidden meaning, and rape is simply inflammatory and hyperbolic.
The exception is if you think that the poster was intentionally using
“rapists" as code for blacks and Hispanics. If so, I didn’t pick up on the
intentional racist angle.

------
motohagiography
There are lots of good arguments against the use of these technologies, but
disproportionate effect on marginalized communities may be ironically a less
powerful one to people who believe in them, because the intent is to find
indicators independent of the experiences of individual enforcers. Anyone with
experience in marginalized communities knows it is a good bet to predict the
self-sustaining effects of marginalization, which are violence, drugs, mental
illness and exploitation by people there to take advantage of it. Doesn't take
rocket science to predict where that's going to happen and to be there when it
does.

The real solutions are way upstream of a police encounter, where these
predictive models would have a way more viable impact in elementary and high
schools where people can be nudged and diverted from police encounters in a
more subtle and constructive way.

But even then the tech still reinforces and systematize the aggregate bias (or
experience) of the data analysts, with the real danger it just becomes a
justification, the same way statistics are always used, which is the way a
drunk uses a lamp post - for support and not illumination. Whether it's
teachers using it to mark and isolate kids from positive peers, or police
using it to divert them from a bigger incident, it's the same underlying
belief in social engineering that problematizes "other" people and tries to
"fix," them.

We should begin by recognizing that these ML systems are weapons, not
"solutions," and regulate the use of them in the context of weapons against an
enemy other, then ensure someone holds personal individual accountability for
that decision, including the social and political aspects of it.

The second order effect is that more-focused enforcement methods will
necessarily mean more confrontations with people prone to violence, which
creates a selection bias toward violent encounters with police, which makes
these systems all the more dystopian.

~~~
3pt14159
Eh, I'm not sure I agree.

I was contracted by The Government of Canada to help them with a
recommendation engine that was built to help people. The problem? Some
criminals had reverse engineered the algorithm and were using it for really,
really horrible ends.

What would you have had me do? Not reverse engineer the criminal's reverse
engineering? Did I help GC make a "predictive policing" app because they could
now alert the RCMP to these bastards?

It's a balance. We need privacy, but we also need security. My take on it is
that we should start with good faith and only surveil where it makes sense
(embassies, airports, etc) unless there is some sort of signal (in the ML
sense) of bad faith. From that point on it should go through the crown's
lawyers (like it does in Canada), but ultimately we need to stop murderers,
human traffickers, and other people that make the world worse.

I agree that some ML systems are weapons, but I don't think they all are. Some
are benign. Some start off off as benign then get turned into dual use, like
the one I worked on. But not all weapons are necessarily bad. We need a
government that can actually protect us.

There is real evil in the world.

~~~
motohagiography
I'm saying the tech is a weapon you use to target something, ideally for good
reasons, but it's still a weapon and it's the targeting decision that needs
accountability. Knowing what I do about tech, I don't think privacy and
security are a trade off or zero sum.

I do think privacy and _surveillance_ are a trade off, and surveillance is
what you have when you don't have security or trustworthy systems. I agree
there is actual evil in the world, and it's particularly where you don't
expect it.

The law isn't designed to fight evil. As a society, a better cultural
understanding of evil would do more to improve our ability to deal with it
than blunt technical weapons to surveil it.

~~~
3pt14159
I agree that _the law_ isn't designed to fight evil, but many laws are
designed to fight evil. It's a subtle distinction, but one worth pointing out.

Surveillance is part of sense-making for law enforcement and even though I
don't think that security and privacy are always at odds, and there are
definitely cases where they are not zero-sum, when dealing with persons of
interest in criminal investigations it tends to be the case that degrading a
suspects privacy improves societies security. But it should be done right.
Warrants, probable cause, etc.

------
Ensorceled
There are two entirely different matters being conflated here:

"Where will crime happen" prediction, which is based on crime reporting data
for the most part and, as a sibling by comment by motohagiography articulates
very well, the solution is upstream. This tool is useful, but problematic.
Especially with "more encounters with police lead to more charges of all
types" issues.

"Who will commit crime" predictions are just plain problematic; they discard
the entire premise of innocent until proven guilty that is supposed to
underlie Canadian enforcement and jurisprudence as well as tend to be self
fulfilling prophecies.

~~~
oh_sigh
In what manner is it problematic? No one is being punished by the system
predicting that they will commit a crime.

~~~
mLuby
So you would be okay with police driving behind you for years, waiting for you
to make a mistake?

Uneven application of even a just law is still unjust, and also undermines
trust in the justice system.

~~~
oh_sigh
Again... is tracking and following potential future-criminals actually what
this tech is used for?

~~~
Ensorceled
[https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...](https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-
pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/)

------
ideashower
This is dumb. Predictive policing algorithms predict where the police will be,
not where crime takes place: as crime data is simply a measurement of policing
activity.

If there is bias in policing, it would therefore be amplified.

Ban police from using this technology.

~~~
ghostpepper
This is my first thought as well. If police go to a place, there is more
likely to be a recorded instance of a crime investigated in that place, and
thus the algorithm will be more likely to send the police there in the future.

The crime map for Vancouver is interesting - I'm glad to see that the tool
reported in the article is at least exposed to the public.

[https://geodash.vpd.ca/](https://geodash.vpd.ca/)

~~~
at_a_remove
In some sense, if you did not send police anywhere at all, you would have no
crime to report.

The solution to end crime, then, is to never send the police anywhere.

~~~
ramshorns
I'm not sure if you're kidding. Of course police presence leads to escalation
and more crime, and many places would be much safer without police.

~~~
google234123
This is not a good position. What you would get is vigilantism instead as
people take matters into their own hands.

------
mLuby
Let's algorithmically predict which police officers are most likely to commit
misconduct, and then follow them to catch them in the act if and when they do.

Seems only fair…

~~~
ciarannolan
Unfortunately non-white police are more likely to use deadly force [1], so
you'd get the same social justice outrage. Good idea in principle though.

[1]
[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/32/15877.full.pdf](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/32/15877.full.pdf)

~~~
mLuby
The second page of that link shows the authors retracted the paper, and they
also issued a correction.

> we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been
> quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot
> minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to
> estimating Pr(shotjrace, X). As we estimated Pr(racejshot, X), this sentence
> should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-
> involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be
> of a racial minority.’

~~~
ciarannolan
They retracted the paper because of political pressure, not because of any
factual errors (this is pretty clear in both the timing of the retraction and
the retraction statement).

> While our data and statistical approach were appropriate for investigating
> whether officer characteristics are related to the race of civilians fatally
> shot by police, they are inadequate to address racial disparities in the
> probability of being shot.

That's not what my comment addressed. It addressed the probability of non-
white officers shooting to kill being higher than that of white officers. I
think that conclusion is still supported by the paper (as in the last line of
your quote).

------
gentleman11
Being profiled so deeply by government on an individual level using automated
systems is the holy grail of the police state and is the most advanced and
worrisome form of mass surveillance. It is possibly fine today, but over the
course of 50-100 years there will surely be severe and scary problems with
this

~~~
core-questions
Perhaps you should stop simply giving all of your data away, then? Nobody's
making you post all your thoughts and pictures and location and plans.

------
just_myles
Of course understanding that this is Canada: I don't recommend this kind of
approach. It might solve the immediate problem but, does not address the
cause. Having police visibility during "peak" times will resolve the issue of
crime in a specific area and time but, will not solve the crime from not
happening somewhere else. Also, I don't know who is working on these reports
and whether or not they apply their own biases. The US already has an issue
with over policing. This would definitely exacerbate it.

------
jariel
Social scientists have wanted to predict when victimization, abuse, suicide is
going to happen for a long time.

This is the other side of the coin.

I suggest that as long as 'individuals are not targeted for culpability' \- ie
they are looking in 'general terms' and especially for 'victims' then maybe
this might work?

'Jane Doe is at very high risk of abuse from a family member' -> maybe we
should just check in.

'123 ABC St. is at very high likelihood of break-in - maybe just cruise on by
to 'show a presence'.

All of this said, I often wonder if these 'algorithms' just reproduce with
cops on the ground, managing relationships _already know_.

'Yes, thank you computer, Jane Doe who's been beaten by her husband 3 times is
'at risk''.

'Yes, thank you computer, 6th and Finch, aka 'crack corner' is at 'high risk'
of crime'.

------
dleslie
Part of the problem is that police are being tasked with the impossible: to
increase closure rates on crimes for which they have little evidence.

This is part of us in Canada both underfunding social services _and_
offloading the defence of person and property on to the state.

If we properly funded mental health, low income housing and food banks and
also allowed citizens to defend their property and their family... Well I
suspect that police would have less to do.

------
dghughes
I recall a former RCMP officer who created something similar only it was for
historical data not used to try to predict anything. This "Person of Interest"
(sci-fi TV show) level of prediction seems impossible.

Although giant powerful computers are used by stock analysts to predict
trends. Stocks aren't people but there is a direct link between human emotion
and stock buying and selling.

------
michaelcampbell
"Weapons of Math Destruction" by Cathy O'Neil has a section devoted to this
sort of thing. Good read, IMO.

------
LatteLazy
I don't know whether PP algos work or whether they're fair or what the trade
off between fairness and effectiveness should be. But I am amazed the number
of commentors here who think the devs behind the algos are not smart enough to
normalise data for police numbers in an area!?

~~~
wdevanny
It's a difficult problem area. I would bet naively normalizing the data would
introduce many new concerns. Does the amount of crimes reported scale linearly
with police presence? If not, your data is now going to be skewed. How do you
count police numbers in an area? Man hours, individual officers, or something
else? Keep in mind that not all officers are going to be responding to the
same type of crime and so police hours are not interchangeable.

IMO machine learning algorithms are brittle and prone to breaking in
unexpected ways. In the past, organizations who should have known better and
should have been smart enough have produced bad machine learning systems.
Policing is a highly sensitive area. It's okay to be very concerned.

------
jdc
Source article: [https://citizenlab.ca/2020/09/to-surveil-and-predict-a-
human...](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/09/to-surveil-and-predict-a-human-rights-
analysis-of-algorithmic-policing-in-canada)

------
AtHeartEngineer
Palantir is just getting more and more scary everytime I read it hear anything
about them

------
VLM
The concept of criminality as a protected career category is a political
litmus test of no other content. May as well just ask if people are "D" or
"R".

------
kwhitefoot
Do they work? Are they cost effective?

~~~
save_ferris
Name one commercial ML algorithm that works with 100% accuracy all the time.

~~~
luckylion
Nobody needs 100% accuracy though, they just need better-then-current
accuracy.

------
jbob2000
This is no different than the human profiling that Police engage in. Except
now we have logs and we can track the decisions that are being made. We can
adjust the algorithms rather than re-train humans. We can replace an algorithm
quickly if it doesn't give us the results we want, whereas removing bad cops
takes years, if it's even possible.

Secondly, Canadian police operate differently than American ones. They aren't
perfect, but don't read this article with the lens that American media has
shaped for you about their own police forces.

~~~
colejohnson66
You’re right: there is no difference; they both don’t work and are unethical.
The idea that someone _may_ commit a crime based on things they are doing is
abhorrent. It runs against the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

It’s the same idea as “violent video games cause violent people;” It’s _not
true_. If you play an online FPS like COD, should we be watching _you_ more
closely because you _may_ end up shooting up some place?

EDIT: previously said “guilty until proven innocent”

~~~
jbob2000
You aren't contributing honestly. The police systems work, but they have
problems. And again, _don 't view Canadian policing with an American lens_.

Toronto, for example, has an independent division of police called the SIU,
Special Investigations Unit. Any time an officer is involved in a violent
altercation, the SIU is onsite and investigating. Not perfect, but better.
They also have a mental health unit that responds to non-violent calls where
people are in distress. Again, not perfect, but better. Toronto and Vancouver
both operate safe injection sites. Toronto recently put up hundreds of
homeless people into vacant apartments to get them off the street.

All this to say, I don't see these programs in the US. You guys aren't even
trying to improve your Police. Don't view canadian police with an American
lens.

~~~
klyrs
Nope, they're not the same, but I've lived on both sides of the border and see
a high degree of similarity. Out West, we don't have much of a black
population. The issues with policing here are stark when comparing indigenous
to non-indigenous populations. We had an analogous incident to Trayvon Martin
a few years back; white dude murdered an indigenous dude, was tried by at
white jury and got off scott free: it's not _just_ the police, it's also the
broader culture that has seen indigenous peoples as vermin since first
contact. We have police shooting to kill instead of de-escalating. Even in
Vancouver, I see cops treating white arrestees with dignity and respect
whereas I see them pinning black and indigenous people to the ground as their
first move -- almost every single interaction that I've witnessed. Toronto had
a program very similar, and with similar impact, to NYC's stop and frisk
program. White criminals go largely unmolested, while even middle class black
and indigenous people get harrassed on the regular.

Militarized cops carrying long guns and wearing body armor show up to
nonviolent oil protests and do what they can to escalate the scene. Liberals
were outspoken against declaring nonviolent oil protests an act of terrorism
until they got in power, and then the story was "we don't want to take this
enforcement tool from the police." Generational trauma from the residential
schools, a "soft genocide," remains unaddressed to this day and white
citizenry doesn't seem to understand why folks want to topple statues of John
Macdonald. The medical system is still forcably sterilizing and removing
children from indigenous women.

The main difference is that the genocide in canada was largely effective; the
black population in the US wasn't eradicated to the same degree, so the
racialized politics aren't as visible here.

We need to remove a bunch of duties from police, and hand them to social
services, mental health care workers, and unarmed bylaws enforcement. Just
like the US. That will free the police up to investigate actual crimes, and
work to improve the lives of people who are shat on by our society.

~~~
core-questions
> Even in Vancouver, I see cops treating white arrestees with dignity and
> respect whereas I see them pinning black and indigenous people to the ground
> as their first move -- almost every single interaction that I've witnessed.

This is nothing but an anecdote; you don't know the whole situation in these
cases, you're probably just walking by, you don't know what happened
beforehand, you don't know what level of threat these individuals posed. It's
also almost certainly a case of bias confirmation, you're paying attention to
the demographics during an arrest and chalking up datapoints when you see what
you're looking for. Are you everywhere in the city? Do you have a
representative sample of policing? Not even close.

You're just looking to see this happening, and nowhere in your mind does it
possibly occur to you that these perps might have been disrespectful, might
have fought back, might be "known to police" already as a troublemaker that's
causing yet again another incident despite living in a city with nothing but
programs and handouts and tolerance for the antics of the homeless.

> nonviolent oil protests

Illegal trespassing, in many cases, and the show of force is to make it clear
that there will be no violence, because none will be tolerated. If anything,
it should help make it far more clear cut that there cannot be any pushback on
these issues. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on the subject, it
matters what has been decided by the government, and it's probably better that
a protestor realizes that they have no hope of violent resistance rather than
giving it a try.

> The main difference is that the genocide in canada was largely effective

Is this really how my fellow citizens view their own history? What an
incredibly biased, anti-White narrative. No wonder folks like you want to
deconstruct everything that is well-built, predictable, and good about our
nation as we have it today: you view it all as an evil inheritance that was
stolen, rather than a beautiful workable system hewn out of cruel nature.

> We need to remove a bunch of duties from police, and hand them to social
> services, mental health care workers, and unarmed bylaws enforcement.

I'll give you this: it might actually have a chance of working here, to some
extent, because of how nonviolent people generally are and because we don't
have a massively armed population.

Still, there will be incidents where these unarmed support officers are going
to be physically overpowered, abused, beaten, even raped; there will be
incidents when people get away who should be caught; and when it happens,
we'll all just have to remember that that wouldn't have happened if sufficient
force had been present.

> work to improve the lives of people who are shat on by our society.

One of the big dichotomies between people like you and people like me is that
it never seems like your side is willing to admit to the large numbers of
people in this position who themselves shit on society rather than the other
way around. Again, we have as many opportunities for a leg up here as there
have ever been, anywhere in the world.

~~~
JamisonM
> Is this really how my fellow citizens view their own history? What an
> incredibly biased, anti-White narrative

It seems like perhaps there is a lot of Canadian history that you haven't
reckoned with.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Canada)

In particular I think the Beothuk in particular might have opinions on this.

There is a good reason to have an honest reckoning with history and then move
forward from there, not for the purposes of blame but rather to start with a
sound basis in fact for making decisions about the future.

~~~
core-questions
> It seems like perhaps there is a lot of Canadian history that you haven't
> reckoned with.

Perhaps instead it's simply that I am an adherent to the great Western
tradition of the last two thousand years: namely, the sins of the father are
not the sins of the son.

I see narratives like this as an attempt to bludgeon Canadians into accepting
blame for the actions of others which are deliberately contextualized by
"historians" to make them sound as evil as possible.

Great, there were some battles in the past. My ancestors, like everyone
else's, fought battles for their existence from the dawn of time. How many
subgroups were wiped out in Europe as they vied for dominance? Should I feel
bad for them, too? Do you? Should people just be passive, do you think that
will work game-theoretically in the long term?

> an honest reckoning with history

All "honest reckonings" that have come out in the last hundred years or so are
used to demonize western people; small wonder that people are beginning to
question whether it's really honesty, or an attempt to disenfranchise us
within the nations we created and brought to greatness.

~~~
JamisonM
I think that if accepting the truth of what actually happened is viewed by you
as being "bludgeon[ed] into accepting blame for the actions of others" is a
problem with how you personalize the actions of others in the past that you
view as part of your identity group as opposed to an attempt to blame you
personally.

If I quote John A Macdonald saying ".. refusing food until the Indians are on
the verge of starvation to reduce the expense" and then quote Mackenzie's
response that he's not starving them enough - how is that offensive to you
personally? It seems like it could only hurt you if you believe that you are
on the "team" of the governments of that day - why would you think that? Let's
all be on the team of justice and fairness and not take personal offense at
the ignorance of the leaders of the past (or the present for that matter)!

~~~
core-questions
> a problem with how you personalize the actions of others in the past that
> you view as part of your identity group as opposed to an attempt to blame
> you personally.

I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that it
needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it
implies any requirement of action. I can accept what happened without
accepting that it is okay for it to be used as a method of attacking my
identity group, none of the living population of which have committed such
acts.

The fact that the deaths of these people will be brought up for hundreds of
years with no path to redemption on the part of my identity group is a
problem. What I take from this is that there is to be no "burying the
hatchet", so to speak; that my children will also be blamed for this with the
same severity that I am, as will my grandchildren, as will people in the year
2300.

It will NEVER stop being a bone of contention as long as it continues to have
narrative power to attack my group; it will never stop having this power until
it is simply denied its power and shrugged off as the actions of another
century.

> If I quote John A Macdonald saying ".. refusing food until the Indians are
> on the verge of starvation to reduce the expense" and then quote Mackenzie's
> response that he's not starving them enough - how is that offensive to you
> personally?

It is offensive to me personally because quotes like this are not part of the
mere study of history, but are brought up specifically to be used as a
justification to literally behead the statues of the founders of my country.
These statues, like all public art and memorials, are supposed to stand as
historical artifacts and truths regardless of the actions these people
committed. This justification to tear down statues in turn becomes one of the
many steps on the road towards overthrowing my country and my culture
entirely. One look at what is happening in the USA today is all it should take
to make it clear that this is just the means to an end: once every statue is
removed it will be on to the museums, and they're already working on the
textbooks.

> Let's all be on the team of justice and fairness

As long as the old-stock, historical Canadian nation gets a seat at the table
and gets to be represented for what it is, that's fine; I want justice as much
as the next person. In fact, I am of the belief that we've got just about the
best justice system in the world here, and I only want to see it improve. It
is clear to me that for this to work, the improvement needs to come in a form
that doesn't demonize White Canadians as genocidal people, or as inheriting
the sin of genocide, as though we came across the nation and murdered everyone
we saw with impunity. Such a thing could not be further from the truth.

~~~
JamisonM
> I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that
> it needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it
> implies any requirement of action.

Apply this logic to me walking up to you on the street and beating you and
stealing all your money and two days later saying, "I acknowledge what
happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement
of action to remedy."

Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your parents when
you were an infant and then you as an adult approach me about this and I say,
"I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or
implies any requirement of action to remedy."

Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your grandparents
when your father was an child and then you as an adult approach me about this
and I say, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to
today or implies any requirement of action to remedy."

Without worrying about why I might have done those things above when I did
them or just how much responsibility I might have for the actions, the various
mitigation or explanations, that an injustice occurred and that consideration
should be given to righting it seems trivial to acknowledge. Just
consideration, it doesn't even cost anything!

