What About The Men? Morning File, Saturday, June 10, 2017

1. Entrepreneurship

Men, are you tired of being discriminated against by ladies?

Do you worry that men just can’t get a job anymore now that men only make up 190 out of 200 airport drivers?

Are you sick of being made to look bad by women talking about being raped by men? Why is no-one talking about how unfair men raping women is to men?

Do you believe in the right of men to drive up on women conducting media interviews on sexism and interrupting them to prove that sexism doesn’t exist?

Do you hate the sound of women’s voices, and it just grates on your ears when your female cab driver won’t stop talking by saying bitchy things like “what address, please?” Ugh, so shrill.

Are you frustrated with being called sexist just because you don’t want a driver who’s on her period and keeps getting all emotional and she can’t see the road because she’s crying and she’s stuffing ice cream in her face and stopping for tampons every 10 minutes? That’s totally a thing that happens when you let ladies drive, right dudes?

Are you tired of long waits for cabs because the politically correct drivers are busy picking up black people?

Then you need What About The Men? taxi services.

What About The Men? taxi services meets the demand for men who are tired of being the only people it’s okay to oppress in society today.

Every single cab driven by What About The Men? will have a GRABHER licence plate. Oh, your wife gets in at the airport at midnight? No problem! One of our male drivers will go GRABHER. What you going to do about that, snowflake Liberal government?

All What About The Men? cabs are equipped with spacious seats so that men can spread their legs freely without being shamed by feminazis screeching about “manspreading.” What About The Men? understands you need to sit that way because of your balls.

At What About The Men?, we don’t assume you’re a rapist just because you’re a man. That’s why every What About The Men? cab will feature screens in the backseat that display statistics about how 90 per cent of all rape reports by women are false, how 100 per cent of white men are killed by black men, and how 80 per cent of domestic violence is committed by women. True facts!

Ask about our special “Blurred Lines” taxi service to Ladies’ Nights downtown. We hold the meter for your peter.

What About The Men? taxi services reserves the right not to drive female customers to abortion appointments, child custody hearings in court, or feminist marches as these are places that oppress men. In fact, if you are a man using What About the Men? taxi services, if you go to nine divorce hearings, you get your 10th ride to court for free! You’ll need it with the way the courts let women take men for a ride, HAHA.

Special group rates for strip club tours available.

With What About The Men? taxi services, you don’t have to worry about your driver talking about shopping, or her pregnancy, or listening to Katy Perry or Taylor Swift on the radio. With What About The Men? drivers, you can talk about manly things like sports, or your submerged homoerotic feelings that express themselves in homophobia, or sexually harass women on the sidewalk without being oppressed! Woooooooo! What About The Men? taxis are a place where YOU can be YOU freely without women telling you you’re “a misogynist.”

Consider What About The Men? taxis your mobile man cave home away from home.

All What About The Men? cabs will be beautifully decorated with Confederate flags. It’s about being a rebel, just like you, you marginalized white, straight, Christian man!

Topless female drivers are welcome to apply to What About The Men? No chubby chicks, please. Shaving your armpits and wearing heels is mandatory, and not sexist at all except to jealous ugly chicks.

Call 902-MAN-BABY to reserve your What About The Men? drive today! That’s 902-626-2229.

2. Police Checks

Over at the Nova Scotia Advocate, Robert Devet has been following the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission response to the street check data.

As Devet reports, in April the NSHRC announced they would be hiring an expert to look into the data, with an expected report in July.

When Devet asked for an update, however, it was revealed that the commission is still in the process of hiring the expert, and they are now suggesting fall as the new deadline for the results to be released.

In his editorial here, Devet rightly points out the “disingenuous” way street checks are being dealt with by the commission. The “lengthy and secretive” analysis of “what the data really tells us” ignores the Black community’s calls for a moratorium on carding, and pretends that there could be other explanations for racial profiling.

As Devet writes:

In March, Black community members attending a meeting at the North End public library left no doubt that in their lived experience police racism is very much the reason for these statistics. Nobody at that meeting asked for an analysis of what these numbers really mean. Black people in Halifax know all too well how racism manifests, and they are tired of being stopped and entered in police computers for no valid reason.

The response of hiring an expert is insulting for a number of reasons. For one thing, the group demanding an end to carding includes Shawna Hoyt, Robert Wright, and Lana McLean. Who does the Human Rights Commission think they can find with more expertise? It’s bad enough that Black people’s lived experience of racism is dismissed, but it’s even more appalling when Black people with the professional credentials that are supposed to be accepted as giving some authority are still ignored. Black people, of course, are always assumed to be reacting out of emotion, unlike rational white people, who therefore must validate Black people’s experiences of racism or they don’t exist.

The very same characterization of Black people that leads to our intellectual analysis being denied is the exact same stereotyping that sees Black people as more criminal. Both stem from the image of Black people as less-than-civilized, and as incapable of rational decision.

Along with denying the expertise of Black lawyers and clinical social workers nationally recognized for their analysis of race and racism in the justice system, as Devet points out, putting the issue to more study allows more dodging of accountability by police and government. Of course, white people must be given the benefit of the doubt.

By arguing a need to continue to study the issue despite numerous studies in a number of jurisdictions repeatedly proving racial profiling, what the commission is saying is that white people are inherently assumed to have good intentions and to not be racist, while Black people’s accounts of racism are inherently assumed to be suspect.

This new approach is very much a victory for the Halifax Regional Police. From the time the CBC first broke the story it has argued that more analysis is required. This from the same police department that earlier was ordered by the NSHRC to keep race statistics after it was found to have engaged in racial profiling in the Kirk Johnson case, and for eleven years did not bother to examine these very same stats.

It’s also a victory for all the politicians who know a hot potato when they see one, and beat a hasty retreat. Racism within the Halifax police department is not something anybody in power wants to talk about it. Can’t have politicians telling the police what to do, said Stephen McNeil, as if there isn’t provincial legislation that aims to do exactly that. “Fix the tool, don’t throw out the toolbox,” said mayor Savage.

Naturally, while white police must be given all benefit of the doubt and we must never assume that their racist practices are racist, Black people can be criminalized and assumed to be guilty. No matter what mountains of evidence exist showing systemic racism in policing, police will still be assumed to be innocent and for there to be other explanations showing street checks are just a coincidence.

No matter how many studies show bias in policing and the justice system, it would be outrageous to assume bias without thoroughly attempting to exculpate white people first. Black people, on the other hand, the victims of that bias, can be freely assumed to be guilty and therefore to deserve being checked.

Fundamental to the argument in favour of further analysis of the kind that is now scheduled is the Halifax police contention that somehow carding in Halifax is different from what transpires in Ontario and elsewhere in North America.

“A lot of those fields are populated through prior contact with the criminal justice system,” HRP research coordinator Chris Giacomantonio told the Coast’s Kaila Jefferd-Moore yesterday. “By and large, the street checks that Halifax Regional Police conduct are involving people who have past criminal history or past involvement with the justice system in some other way.”

That’s somehow supposed to make it alright. Unlike Ontario, where there was a clear anti-Black bias, folks subjected to street checks in Halifax are bad people, who just happen to be disproportionately Black. Or so goes the argument. Couple of things that strike me as pretty elementary.

Past criminal history or past involvement with the justice system does not mean you’re a bad person now, if ever.

As well, note the “by and large,” as in “by and large street checks are involving people who have past criminal history.” Others who end up being street checked in Halifax do not have a criminal past at all, but are carded only because they associate with these supposedly bad people. Like somebody’s little brother, or even somebody’s lawyer.

If “past involvement” is an indicator of present behaviour, then the police’s past involvement in racial profiling, proven in the Kirk Johnson case, should be evidence of their racism now. If “prior bad acts” is a signifier, then the failure of the police to follow up on the data they were ordered to gather on racial profiling should be evidence of their bad faith in working with the Black community and their lack of accountability about racism.

The police are quick to protest “not all cops,” and put down any misconduct to “a few bad apples.” The public will be completely outraged about “judging cops” if police are asked not to march in Pride, and people will froth at the mouth about “discrimination to one group.” But stop a bunch of Black people repeatedly and disproportionately, and as long as some of them have criminal records, it’s totally okay to keep stopping Black people all over the place, that’s just data-driven policing and keeping our communities safe.

Meanwhile, while an “expert” is being hired to report on whether racism is really racism, Black people’s complaints to the commission will continue to be backed up, taking years for people to get hearings or reach any resolutions. And while the burden continues to be on Black people to prove beyond any kind of unreasonable doubt whether we experience racism, the message continues to be that pointing out racism is worse than actually being racist. Better that thousands of Black people continue to be traumatized by police stops, unfairly arrested, and disproportionately incarcerated than we suggest the existence of institutional racism. Unfairly accusing white people of racism is an injustice. Unfairly accusing Black people of being criminals is just good policing.

3. Sports!

Let’s check in on local hero Sidney Crosby, officer of the Order of Nova Scotia:

Oh. Oh dear.

Hi, Cole Harbour? Yes, this is 1991 calling.

I only put that joke in because I know how Examiner readers yearn for sports coverage.

In Crosby’s defence, Subban did dance for 30 seconds in warm ups a few days ago, so he deserved it for being uppity.

4. Bus to Fredericto

My bus trip to Fredericton was going normally, until we changed in Moncton.

In Moncton, the bus driver gets on the bus, and after taking our tickets, he stands in the middle of the bus and demands, “has anyone had me as a driver before?” We sort of glanced around at each other. He waited for us to confirm, that no, we were not regular commuters on this particular route.

He proceeded to announce, “This bus is under federal law. It has more than fourteen seats, and that makes it subject to federal jurisdiction. If I catch anyone breaking the rules I WILL CALL THE RCMP ON YOU. I SMELL A WHIFF OF ALCOHOL OR SEE A PLUME OF SMOKE, I CALL THE RCMP.”

I looked at the woman across the aisle, and mouthed, “what is happening?” She looked stunned.

He kept going. “YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE REGULATIONS ATTACHED TO THE TICKET. I WILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED.” Keep in mind, nobody was actually smoking or drinking.

Having threatened us with arrest, he continued with, “This bus route is tight for time. IF YOU GET OFF THE BUS I”M LEAVING YOU. THAT’S WHY YOU SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT A BOTTLE OF WATER. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS READ THE REGULATIONS.” Mom, is that you?

At this point I couldn’t help myself and I started snickering, and just like in junior high, the more I tried not to laugh in his face, the more I couldn’t help cracking up. Maybe dude had some rough rides lately, I don’t know. It was like if Chris Farley was our bus driver.

Hopefully this is his normal speech and not a special one because there happened to be like five Black people on the bus.

After lecturing us some more about how if we dare to step foot outside the bus, he’s slamming the door in our face, and how he knows we didn’t read the regulations on the ticket, he mercifully decided to drive. People seemed scared to use the bathroom, lest he suspect people of smoking in there and call a SWAT team to raid the bus.

Man, where’s Lady Drive-Her, the bus version, when we need it?