As soon as the river judgment on “racial profiling” came out, the Premier of Quebec said that we had to “let the police do their job”.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Sure. But not like this, I hope…
Has he read what the witnesses said in this case? Arrests without any reason of black people?
François Legault thus half relayed the fears of the police community. This decision could “cost lives”, according to Laval police chief Pierre Brochet.
Is this really the case?
Allow me to doubt it. Nothing proves it, in any case.
Let’s start by seeing what the decision of Judge Michel Yergeau says. It only targets the power of the police to randomly stop, without any reason or suspicion, a motorist.
This controversial power was incorporated into Quebec’s Highway Safety Code in 1991, following a 1990 Supreme Court decision. In that case, an Ontarian named Gerald Ladouceur was accidentally arrested and police discovered that he didn’t have a driver’s license.
The Supreme Court found that his arrest and detention were arbitrary, contrary to the Charter. But given the “carnage” of the road accidents, the violation was deemed altogether minor, acceptable, and the practice, authorized.
Already at the time, four of the nine judges found the police power far too vast, which could allow arrest for ulterior motives, or based on prejudice, etc.
No one was talking about “racial profiling” then, even though the debate had long since begun in the United States.
Thirty years later, however, we realize that this power was exercised in a largely discriminatory manner. Statistics are nearly impossible to establish, but a study based on internal data from the Montreal police concluded that black or Arab people were stopped “randomly” much more often than white people, disproportionately – in order three to one.
This is only one of the exhibits put forward in this case to declare invalid this power of the police officers included in the Highway Safety Code – and recognized in the “common law”.
Joseph-Christopher Luamba, who led this legal action, told the judge that he was arrested several times for no reason, simply to “check” his papers. Never received a ticket. He called a dozen witnesses who had had similar experiences. Like Ottawa Senators player Mathieu Joseph, arrested in Laval for no reason while driving his BMW. His brother, a simple passenger, was summoned to identify himself as well. When the policeman realized he was dealing with a hockey player, he returned to the vehicle, all honey.
Witnesses said they experienced this repeatedly.
For Mr. Luamba, this power is exorbitant and applied in a totally discriminatory way against black people. He therefore asked the Superior Court to declare it unconstitutional.
Direct proof of racial profiling is practically impossible to do, recognizes the judge. There is no playbook for getting police to arrest black people more often.
In addition to individual witnesses, who recounted essentially the same type of experiences of arbitrary arrests, the judge heard from experts in the field.
Judge Yergeau emphasizes that he is not accusing the police of racism. Racial profiling invites itself “slyly” into police practice “without the police officers in general being animated by racist values”, he writes.
But now, this power of interpellation “without reason” was validated by the Supreme Court in 1990. In principle, the Superior Court is bound by the decisions of the highest court in Canada. Except that for 30 years, the social context has evolved, and the evidence reveals a discriminatory misuse of this power which justifies revisiting the validity of this power.
In short, “the situation has changed radically,” said Judge Yergeau.
The Attorneys General (Quebec and Ottawa) argued that it is not the rule that is discriminatory; it is (sometimes) its application. The police “culture” has evolved a lot, training too, and everyone recognizes the illegality of racial profiling. For them, the tool of arrest “without cause or reasonable suspicion” is valuable for public safety. And to combat racial profiling, there are other less radical tools: training, ethics, cancellation of charges, withdrawal of evidence, etc.
The problem is that the proof of the need for this power has not been made, concludes the judge. To fight against drugs and drunk driving, supervised operations are possible – police roadblocks, for example, which the judge does not question.
If the police have a reasonable suspicion in front of a motorist, their power to arrest remains. But we still need rational, explicable elements.
Finally, the necessity of these arrests without reason has not been demonstrated. While the practice of profiling has been widely.
The negative impact of this judgment on road safety or public safety remains to be demonstrated.
First, the judge gives the authorities six months to manage the transition and find other techniques that do not open the door wide to discrimination. Then, there is a strong risk of being called upon. This would be completely normal, because the issue affects all police forces in Canada and raises several delicate issues.
And if, in the end, this judgment is maintained (that of 1990 was decided five against four…), it would not be dramatic, because there are several other possible alternatives.
We would also like to hear those in charge, including the Prime Minister, worry not only about the effectiveness of police work, but also about what black, Arab and other citizens experience on a daily basis.
The testimonies of these moments of humiliation and petty abuse should also disturb François Legault.
Given that he is the premier of “all Quebecers”.