You think that incompetence is evenly deployed no matter what the race of the accused?

I don't think incompetence is something that can be deployed evenly or not. The article provides no information that I can see that makes it a racist cop targeting a minority. Or is it racist for any first nation/aboriginal person to be subject to a police investigation?

Theoretically, incompetence can be unevenly deployed if you assign incompetent people more predominantly to specific regions or cases.

So theoretically the police chief is racistly deploying non-racist but known incompetent officers in the hopes their incompetence is going to adversely affect those specific regions or cases. That's leaving an awful lot to chance. I can think of more efficient and surefire ways to ensure those areas/cases are racially targeted, you could take Baltimore city as an example. But we're surely getting beyond any reasonable speculation of the information provided in the article?

I think they are saying not that it is some grand plan by racism at the highest level, but that it is people at the higher levels not caring about certain people and the justice they get.

People hear 'racism' and they think of that speech in the 60s 'segregation now, segregation forever' and firehoses, but it can be much more insidious than someone hating a subsection of people. It can be systemic in the sense that some people are not afforded the things most of us take for granted, like the protection of law, or due process of law, or innocence until guilt is proven, because there j isn't a will do it at the levels that matter.

Fictional example: a cop is a problem, he tends to be heavily aggressive in his actions but he is also stupid and unlikeable. People he works with complain and he pissed off some people in the district. District administrator decide it is easier to transfer him to bumfuck, where if there are any complaints they can ignore them because they have no political power or pull, rather than let him mess with people who have the ability to get the media or politicians involved.

This isn't even a conscious decision -- people in bumfuck don't complain because they are used to shitty treatment and no recourse, so they don't bother, whereas people like you or I would treat it as a travesty and get worked up and make a huge stink. The fact that it works like this makes it easy and the admin doesn't have to worry about it any more. Wash hands, done deal.

I can fully appreciate what you are saying. I'm not denying racism, (structural, systemic, or otherwise, conscious, unconscious) exists. Or that you fictional example might play out in reality. What I'm saying is that we can speculate until we are blue in the face, but based on the information in that article you can't simply conclude racism.

A good number of people here can read that article and incorporate a decade or more of past knowledge of reported interactions between the RCMP and indigenous communities in Canada.

Call it one part racism, three parts utter indifference, with an occasional dash of one or two exceptions actually giving a damn and attempting to do the right thing.

You're correct that no simple definite conclusion can be reached here on logic alone, however from context many can distinguish a hawk from a heronsaw given a favourable wind.

I think you have a good point. There are definitely historical wrongs that may influence someone's reading of a situation. Unconscious bias is a thing that we should all try and avoid, hard as is may be.

I get it, but your response regarding incompetence being weaponized to me demonstrated a reductive and unsophisticated understanding of the causes and effects in 'racism'[1]. I get that you were most likely being hyperbolic to make a point, but unfortunately many people who are not personally familiar with such things tend to think in that way.

I know that this is frustrating and sometimes can look very much like opportunistic virtue signaling, and many times it can be, but I would caution against immediately dismissing such claims when they are made and defended by parties that otherwise would not have reason to do so.

[1] I wish we had a different word that didn't have all the loaded connotations inherent in 'racism' especially with its use in the past as a excuse for slavery, but we don't...

I don't think I advocated anywhere about "weaponizied" incompetence. I believe I was arguing that weaponizied incompetence is far fetched. My whole point engaging here with the many people I have has been to bring it back to what we know from the information we have. I'm more than willing to accept racism is the primary factor if racism was at all obvious from the article or even further information provided. The initial post I was replying to was a blanket statement that the accused person was first nation/aboriginal so the incident was racist. What has followed is ever more far fetched reasons for why it might be racist but no information to say it is so.

I was enjoying reading what you'd previously written but changed, about domain knowledge and how domain experts can guess based on the outcome what was likely going on inside the system (EDIT: paraphrasing from memory, so I hope I got it right). I'd never thought about it like that before, very interesting perspective. But even then you'd have to be careful to make bloody sure your assumption, experience based though it is, was actually factually correct before tarring someone with racism.

I hope my interactions here don't coming off as me dismissing people concerns/claims. I'm simply trying to take an objective view of the situation as presented. I'm aware that some people consider objectivity a problem in and of itself.

Sorry for my edit but I didn't want to get into a conversation about something I am not actually comfortable trying to be an authority about. I realized I was reaching past what would be reasonable for me to represent in a substantive way.

I hope you understand my hesitancy in such a public medium, and I appreciate your feedback.

Definitely no need to apologise at all I can fully understand. I have edited my own responses in this conversation, given the topic, so as to show (I hope) I am being reasonable and open minded. I am myself no expert in these topics and can see that it's divisive enough for the reply button to be delayed in appearing on posts (I'm assuming for moderation purposes, though this might be something that always happens but I've never noticed before).

Either way I've enjoyed this discussion and have learned from it. I wish you all the best.

Police incompetence has a way of being disproportionately common depending on your race. Knowing definitively that is what is happening here without a lot more context is difficult, but it's entirely possible this is textbook racism.

But as you say, based in the information provided that conclusion is speculative at best. The sensible conclusion based on the information provided is incompetence. I think hanlons razor is applicable here

Yes, I do not think one can draw conclusions. However, much as one might wish to apply Hanlon's razor, Occam's razor also applies, and from a lot of people's perspective it cuts towards racism.

But surely the fewest assumptions here points to incompetence? Or more kindly a lack of knowledge about the way the fraud was commited? Based on the information provided I'd side with belligerent incompetence.

Based on the information would you conclude it was racist if the accused person was white? Would you conclude it was racist if the cop was also a first nation/aboriginal? I doubt it. What would your conclusion be then?

A little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Remote postings don't get star officers. And the RCMP has a famously ugly history with the natives of Western Canada. And some officers at a remote detachment might feel freer to act against some than others. What do you think the RCMP was even for?

Why not both, right?

What parts in those columns (I'm on mobile and only have one column, do you mean paragraphs?) show this was racist? I fully accept historical injustices occurred, and the possibility that remote places might not attract "star" officers and maybe that some remote officers could feel that a remote posting is an opportunity to enact their racist desires. But even if these are true it doesn't make this interaction racist.

> What do you think the RCMP was even for?

To police their communities? Or, based on your preceeding sentences are you suggesting that the RCMP's purpose is racism?

To protect the 'common man' from indigenous tribes at the borders. I think originally it's a military Corp designed to protect settlers.

TIL. Not being Canadian I didn't know this.

That isn't a very accurate characterization.

At the time, there was no significant population of settlers in the area. Most people were either fully or at least partly Indigenous like the Metis.

The goal was to protect First Nations from American settlers and prevent violence between the two which would trigger US military intervention.

This occurred in the wake of the Cypress Hills Massacre:

> The Cypress Hills Massacre occurred on June 1, 1873 [...]. It involved a group of American [...] hunters, and a camp of Assiniboine people. [...] The Cypress Hills Massacre prompted the Canadian government to accelerate the recruitment and deployment of the newly formed North-West Mounted Police.

> [Canadian Prime Minister John A.] MacDonald's principal fear was that the activities of American traders such as the Cypress Hills Massacre would lead to the First Nations peoples killing the American traders, which would lead to the United States military being deployed into the NWT to protect the lives of American citizens on the grounds that Canada was unable to maintain law and order in the region.

> The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.[9]

Establishing trust and security with the First Nations was a key motivation:

> The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.

The North-West Mounted Police was established in 1873 by the government of John A. MacDonald. The Cypress Hills massacre as well as the increasing number of conflicts on the U.S border due to alcohol smuggling are often cited as the main reasons the MacDonald government passed the bill creating the new military-style police force. However, most historians agree that the primary reason for establishing the force was to control First Nations and Métis populations, as the government sought to populate the West with settlers. Under the central authority of Ottawa, the NWMP marched West in 1874. The NWMP served as an arm of colonial control for politicians and lawmakers in Ottawa. For Indigenous communities in the Northwest, it represented an additional source of repression. The newly formed para-military style force was entrusted with wide-ranging powers and duties. Officers acted as Justices of the Peace, able to apprehend and sentence offenders, as well as impose Indian Act polices such as the Pass System. Since western courthouses did not exist at the time on the Prairies, NWMP barracks were often used for court proceedings and as temporary prisons. The NWMP assisted Indian Agents with the ration system, as well as enforcing laws obliging Indigenous students to attend residential schools. Government policies such as the Residential School system, the Sixties Scoop and gender discrimination in the Indian Act subjected Indigenous families to violence, cultural dislocation and land dispossession. The NWMP was successful in instituting a system of surveillance and curtailment, restricting Indigenous people to their reserves, regulating their land use and criminalizing livestock theft to benefit settler farmers and ranchers.

https://gladue.usask.ca/index.php/node/2853

> But surely the fewest assumptions here points to incompetence?

Don't call me Shirley. ;-)

As I said, that's very much a matter of perspective about which is more prevalent or more likely to be prevalent in the RCMP: incompetence or racism. If you include the context of the RCMP's history, racism does indeed seem more prevalent.

> Based on the information would you conclude it was racist if the accused person was white? Would you conclude it was racist if the cop was also a first nation/aboriginal? I doubt it. What would your conclusion be then?

I said I don't think one can draw a conclusion from the information provided, so I'm not sure why you are asking these questions. No, nothing you said would lead me to draw a conclusion.

The razor doesn't apply to the police.

Interesting. Why not?

Hanlon's razor is "never attribute to malice that which could be attributed to stupidity". However racism itself might be stupidity and not malice - much of everyday racism isn't the malicious KKK kind, it's much more similar to stupidity.

So if this interaction was either down to malice or stupidity it's racist? Seems like a neat tautology...

It's less a "neat tautology" and more a demonstration that Hanlon's razor isn't as useful in this situation one might think.

It doesn't. It's an attempt to make both sides of hanlons razor equal racism with no proof that either side is such.

Stupidity = racism Malice = racism

Sigh. No, it doesn't mean that both sides of Hanlon's razor equal racism. It does mean that Hanlon's razor doesn't rule out racism. Hanlon's razor isn't about proof. It's about recognizing that one often projects intent onto circumstances where none exists. While racism can fuel malice, it is entirely possible for racism to exist without any malice.

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first point. Though...

> Hanlon's razor isn't about proof. It's about recognizing that one often projects intent onto circumstances where none exists.

Exactly. That is my point. I'm not denying that racism can exist with or without malice, though I'd argue intent has to play a part. My point is based on the information from the article you cannot determine the interaction was racist and calling it so is projecting an intention on it that you cannot say exists.

You might argue that intent has to play a part, but it doesn't. Maybe just accept that you're interpreting meaning that is not there.

Halon's razor applies to the totality of the evidence, not just instance by instance. If you have a pattern of "incompetence" when dealing with First Nations issues that doesn't arise when not, that's really no longer adequately explained by incompetence.

Have we established a pattern of behaviour for this particular officer in this regard?

No, we haven't. Could be both a fair minded and competent officer for all we know.

The police in Canada have a long history of poor interactions with aboriginal peoples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#:~:t....

Now called "Starlight Tours"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/25/darrell-night-...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-investigate-two-freezing...

2017 death in custody

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/02/canada-rcmp-of...

I'm not denying any of that. But those examples don't make this particular interaction racist.

That's part of how systemic racism works. It leads to stochastic events where systemic "incompetence" punishes members of a minority group.

But surely punishment requires intent behind the action? I think this is important because intention has to play a part here.

Plausible deniability?

Baffling

The RCMP in Canada has a long and well documented history of racism against indigenous people.

Im possibly as far removed a personality type as you could find from your typical woke crowd of fanatics who see racism behind every shadow, but truly, you'd have to be blind to miss the RCMP's seemingly endemic indifference to seriously investigating crimes in the native canadian community. Even right up until the present day, the RCMP has shown a glaring, almost shocking level of seemingly willfull ineptitude when their investigative resources are applied to any major sequence of crimes involving ntive canadians (what in canada are often called aboriginals). The list of persistent RCMP fuckups is long and storied, but just for one crucial example, I suggest your read about the "highway of tears".