Building a more inclusive Canada
It’s been a month since George Floyd was killed under the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. During that time, initial protests focusing on police violence have given way to a larger discussion about racial injustice — including here in Canada. From educational outcomes to unemployment to police brutality, these communities have every reason to seize on this moment to express their frustrations and educate the rest of the country about their plight. Some Canadians are doubtful that “systemic racism” — biases and policies in many societal institutions that lead to poorer outcomes for minority groups — exists. We believe it does. And so long as these inequities remain, the burden of moral proof will remain on policy- makers, civic leaders and employers to tear down barriers, create new opportunities and otherwise take practical steps to create a more equal society. On these broad principles at least, we hope, Canadians can agree.
But even among those who accept systemic racism is real, where consensus breaks down is often on the question of what those practical steps should look like.
On one hand, there are those who view Canada as a flawed but fundamentally humane country, and who believe racism is best addressed through the established democratic toolset — including a functional social safety net and anti- discrimination policies built around the principle of race neutrality. On the other side of the political spectrum, there’s emerged a highly progressive faction that, inspired by Black Lives Matter, opposes modern liberalism’s posture of nominal race neutrality, demands explicit race- based hiring and promotion in all sectors, and champions radical policies such as the abolition of police services.
All voices must be heard. And we hope that even dedicated conservatives consider what progressive activists say about the militarization of police and unions that shield officers who behave deplorably from accountability. Skepticism of big government and organized labour are well- established themes in conservative thought. So is an acceptance that even well- meaning institutions, if too large, unwieldy and immune from true accountability, produce dysfunctional outcomes, regardless of the goodwill of most people working in them. It isn’t unrealistic to imagine that there may be common ground here that could lead to meaningful reforms.
Unfortunately, many of the voices we now hear in elite circles aren’t focused on finding common ground, or even on nuts- and- bolts policy reform more generally, but instead communicate their anti- racism zeal in a performative style that blurs into sermonizing. Last week, to take a representative example at random, medical staff at Vancouver Coastal Health got an email blast from their executive director confessing to “the presence of systemic racism in our own organization and in health care more broadly. … We recognize that … those of us who are white and have been raised in and benefited from colonial and racist structures have work to do to unlearn and relearn.” It goes on for several paragraphs in this self- flagellating vein — yet never gets around to citing actual examples of racist behaviour or practices.
During recent weeks, Canadians have been bombarded by messages of this type. The boilerplate language casts racism as an invisible and permanent smothering miasma that permeates all areas of life. As the example of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals shows, this can actually hinder activists’ efforts to hold governments accountable, since every problem now can be sloughed off as a vestige of defects that transcend politics. Trudeau has had five years to reform the RCMP. Yet, like NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, he now not only asserts that the RCMP is racist, but demands that everyone else do so as well. This could easily deter the most educated, diverse and sought- after recruits from joining a police force that would greatly benefit from, and be improved by, their service, as front-line officers and leaders.
It is important to recognize that views on these issues do not break down neatly along racial lines. At The New York Times, opinion editor James Bennet lost his job for publishing an op- ed that urged the deployment of troops in cities beset by looting. Yet survey data indicate that this opinion was embraced by more than a third of Black Americans — including 48 per cent of Black respondents 45 or older. Like certain journalists in other countries, Bennet wasn’t punished for offending rank- and- file members of minority communities, but for violating taboos set down by his privileged peers.
These issues are, to put it mildly, contentious. But they are also critical, and need to be discussed. Most of us will come to these debates with preconceived notions. But we must all be open to hearing other views. After all, that’s the way good-faith policy discussion is supposed to take place.