In our report made public on June 22, we recommended to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) that a moratorium be decreed on any police arrest that is not justified by the investigation of a specific crime or by the reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
Formulating a single recommendation at the end of a report of several hundred pages, and this, after more than two years of research, may seem unusual to say the least. However, this is the choice we made after analyzing the large quantity of quantitative and qualitative data collected.
Three strong findings emerge from these data. First of all, we do not observe any significant change in the disparities in treatment experienced by certain racialized minorities in Montreal, despite the new policy and the “cultural shift” announced by the SPVM management.
Then, because taking into account the reason for the arrest, as well as its source (a citizen call? an initiative of the police?) does not in any way exempt the police from their responsibility vis-à-vis – against discrimination. As with the first report, crime rates do not explain these differences in treatment either.
Finally, the interviews with the members of the SPVM show that there is no awareness of the need to make a change in their practices, which leads us to conclude that it is impossible to see in the short term and in the medium term an improvement in the situation with regard to racial discrimination in arrests.
Added to this observation is the fact that studies on the positive impacts of arrests in terms of public safety do not justify the continuation of this practice, the negative effects of which on part of the population are the opposite. amply demonstrated. Thus, even if the police seem convinced that arrest plays an essential role in the fight against crime, the scientific evidence for such allegations remains weak.
Discrimination or safety
Now is not the time to carry out further studies to ensure that we fully understand the figures associated with these disparities. Now is the time to act.
And the only action that needs to be taken is to put an end to an undoubtedly discriminatory practice, which nothing justifies at this stage. The very strong convergence of the results does not make it possible to consider another path, unless one decides explicitly and in full knowledge of the facts to perpetuate racial discrimination.
The head of the SPVM, Fady Dagher, rejected our recommendation and the City of Montreal immediately ratified this decision without further debate. We are well aware that the idea of a moratorium on arrests without reason may be poorly received by the SPVM, and especially by a large majority of its members, as well as by the Fraternity of Montreal police officers.
In this regard, we hear the argument about the need to “let the police do their job” and about the supposed inescapable nature of arrests in the prevention and fight against crime.
However, we would like to firmly disavow any opposition between the fight against racial discrimination and public security. As we have seen in the police speeches collected in our study, allegations of racism and criticisms made of the practice of arrest are very often associated with a threat to public security. Supervising and limiting police powers and their capacity for action would inevitably amount to playing into the hands of criminals and would potentially result in an increase in crime.
Consequently, if racial discrimination is no longer denied, it is put in competition with the objectives of the fight against crime: “Do you want to reduce discrimination? Well, that can only be done at the expense of your safety. »
To this argument, we want to oppose two replies. First of all, such a rationalization which opposes reduction of discrimination and reduction of security has no scientific basis. In addition to the numerous studies which show that arrests are not a strategic tool for consolidating public safety, research confirms that it is also possible to act simultaneously on both, that is to say to reduce racial disparities in policing while increasing public safety. To assert that the end of arrests will necessarily be accompanied by an increase in crime is simply false.
Secondly, and above all, it is completely unacceptable to consider that a choice should be made between reducing racism and reducing crime. Would we accept that a health service discriminates against people on the basis of their racialized identity because that would make it possible to better treat the majority of people? Would we be proud of a school that kicked out non-white students on the spurious pretext that it increased its graduation rate? Should we accept that the police in Quebec disproportionately target racialized minorities because it hypothetically serves to improve the security of the majority?
To all these questions, the answer can only be negative. A police force that discriminates according to the racialized identity of individuals is a police force that undermines the security of citizens. And that is why we hope that both the SPVM management and the various levels of government will have the courage to reconsider this decision to improve the safety of the entire population.
* Co-signers: Alicia Boatswaine-Kyte, Assistant Professor of Social Work, McGill University; Mariam Hassaoui, professor of sociology, Teluq University