The Consequences of Anti-Police Rhetoric

The cause and effect of demoralized police officers

Photo by Erick Zajac on Unsplash

Today’s essay concerns a heartbreaking example of the very real and violent consequences of wokeism and the incessant narrative that police, and other public institutions are systemically racist.

Below I offer some comments on the news reportage around an announcement made last summer claiming Toronto Police Services (TPS) were found to be “systemically racism” in an internal study. It is my view that when studies like these, and the discussions around them, use ideological language full of unsubstantiated assumptions, they are often tainted by the acceptance of politically motivated narratives.

It is well known that both numbers and words are often manipulated and deployed disingenuously in the service of narratives that suit political purposes. But what may not be as well understood, is the extent to which radical anti-west activists, through subversion and the force of unrelenting repetition and dissemination, have embedded their anti-police narrative into the public consciousness. Through the forwarding of their political goals, radical activists have convinced the public that so many unsettled matters are in fact, settled. This is the case with woke terms like “systemic racism,” which get repeated so often they become accepted as truth, and eventually, become spoken of with the surety that one has in knowing the earth revolves around the sun.

But there are consequences which are devastating for people like Constable Andrew Hong and his family. When the public receives a message, delivered with confidence and authority, that a particular group, be it a race, or an institution like the police, is responsible for another groups problems, and no other rationale is considered, how then can we expect that some members of the “victimized” group will not lash out? Why doesn’t anyone talk about the danger to police that is apparent when activists and media conspire to make everyone believe that their politically motivated interpretations of data are in fact unequivocal determinations of solid truth?

I see a link between the political theater involved in the media’s coverage of the announcement that a TPS internal study determined “systemic anti-black racism,” and the ambush style execution of Constable Andrew Hong by Sean Petrie, a black man, which happened three months after the TPS press conference.

The Cause

On June 15, 2022, the announcement was made by Chief Ramer of the Toronto Police Services, that an internal study had indeed found TPS to be systemically racist (primarily against the black community). Keen observers will know that this means data related to police interactions with the black community was intensely focused on, while data related to rates of criminality of that community was not.

The accepted interpretation is what critics of radical activists have always known those activists would claim: the police are systemically awful, and this study just “proves” what was already “known.” (I feel like I’ve heard this line somewhere else).

It is notable that some cringe-worthy political performance took place when a local black activist, Beverly Bain of the No Pride In Policing Coalition, in a melodramatic address during the proceedings, proclaimed the apology from chief Ramer was “not accepted.” 

The following looks closely at two particularly telling sentences from an Oct. 4, 2022, Global News report with the title ‘A narrative that already exists’: How Toronto police prepared to publish data confirming systemic racism. The title is referring to internal Police documents that Global News received through a freedom of information request, detailing how the police were planning to communicate the bad news of their “systemic racism” at the June 15, 2022 press conference.

At that press conference in June, the way in which the data “proving” systemic racism was discussed, reveals the hidden-in-plain-sight totalitarianism that has captured police management and permeates the anti-police discourse. The following two sentences say everything:

1. “(Chief) Ramer and police spokespeople were urged to avoid offering excuses for the data, warning that ‘any goodwill will be lost if we fail to be open and honest about what the findings mean and present some tangible solutions’.

Decoded: This prohibition, of course, extends to bringing up competing interpretations of the data, or counter-data related to rates of criminality. In other words, do not in any way undermine the conclusion that TPS are systemically racist. The radicals have the public in their grip, there is no option but to tow this line.

2. “ ‘At this point, the public’s perspective is the issue of racism has been active for a very long time so any indication that solutions are vague or still being thought through will not be well-received’.”

Decoded: The long march through the institutions continues. Resistance is futile.

Some of the data from the study is offered in the Global News report, including facts like - Toronto’s black population (10% of the total by 2020 numbers), were subject to 22.6% of police enforcement action, and that 39.4% of use of force incidents involved black people.

From the report:

“Black people were 1.5 times more likely than white people to have a gun pointed at them when they were perceived to have a weapon and 2.3 times more likely when no weapon was perceived. In both situations, white people were more likely than Black people to face lower levels of force.”

While I do not doubt that any of these figures are real, it is entirely in how they are interpreted that I take issue. In regards to the reporting on the matter, we need to look just as closely at what is not said - which in most cases, like in the shoddy Oct. 4th Global News report, clearly reveals the disinterest of journalists to present balanced and objective commentary. But also, concerning the larger picture, we must contemplate the pervading ideological biases, before we can really understand what is going on.

Similar to what was mentioned briefly in my essay Grievance and Victimhood, the absence of any discussion of the role of personal responsibility of those “visible minorities” deemed victimized is shocking. To not look reality in the face, leaves one bereft of the means by which to identify the very real problems faced by some groups of “visible minorities.” But never-the-less, this is where we are.

An examination of the Global News report mentioned above, and other major news reports on national platforms, reveals the narrow political bias in the reporting. Like when they give detailed and specific data related to disparate racial outcomes - ie. 39.4% of use of force incidents involved black people - but not data related to the criminality, or levels of violence of the populations involved (of which, at least in the U.S. there is ample data) , and they offer no discussion of the rich scholarly discourse including the many theories of academics like Thomas Sowell, linking poor socio-economic outcomes (including criminality), to cultural characteristics.

When journalists use radical ideological language and accept woke assumptions, the only thing they do is mis-lead. In some cases it is fair to ask: does this practice make members of the public (like police officers) less safe? How could it not?

On the left is Sean Petrie. On the right is Constable Andrew Hong

The Effect

Three months after the Toronto police made the announcement of their so-called “systemic anti-black racism,” a 22-year veteran Toronto Police constable (of Asian ancestry), named Andrew Hong, was randomly shot and killed while on duty, at close range, by a black man named Sean Petrie.

Discussed above was the importance of what is both said and not said. Looking close at Sean Petrie’s shooting rampage which, along with the ambush style execution of Const. Andrew Hong included two other murders, what was not said is the most telling. Aside from right here and now, has the reader come across one politician or journalist who has asked if there might be a link between the harsh public judgment that holds the police are “systemically racist,” and the crazy people who then lash out and murder police in unprovoked attacks?

Why would we alienate and demoralize the only organization capable of protecting us from violent criminals? I am sure Toronto Police Services have all kinds of internal problems, and I am quite sure there are some racist cops among them. But there are ways to address problems perpetuated by individuals without exaggerating those problems as system wide, or using them for virtue signaling and political theater.

The police will always be desperately needed. Full stop. Why isn’t that obvious to everyone? Who you gonna call when a criminal enters your home? Ghostbusters? Get real.

___

Thanks for reading. For more from this author on this topic checkout - Reinvesting in the police - by James Pew . And if you haven’t already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support independent Canadian truth-seeking.