Human Rights Report on Anti-Asian Racism
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has released a report on the recent wave of white racist attacks against Asians in the Canadian fishing industry. As Resist Racism and Angry Asian Man have suggested, this is not strictly a Canadian problem, because the trend of “n-ppertipping” (i.e. sneaking up behind Asian fishers, pushing them into water, stealing their gear) extends south at least to the Chicago area where Du Doan was murdered in this manner last year, and I’d be surprised if Asian fishing and shrimping boats in California and Louisiana didn’t face some of the same treatment. I would also lump these incidents together with the spate of killings of people of Hmong descent, especially hunters. The unifying theme is that white nativists see Asian folks (and The Brown in general) as perpetual foreigners helping themselves to natural resources which people of European ancestry already acquired via a combination of maniacal violence and pieces of paper whose magical markings determined who owned what. And indeed they’re still playing that same game, knocking out a hate crime here and a legal proceeding there, a racist media stereotype here and a xenophobic legislative act there, a suspicious sideways glance here and an ICE raid there. Racism is like a hellish mosaic whose imagery and meaning can only be seen from a certain distance and with a certain developed ability to discern the patterns at multiple levels of abstraction.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission, working in partnership with the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic as well as a number of other municipal organizations, deserves some credit for doing what it can within its rather tepid mandate “to conduct inquiries into incidents and conditions leading to tension or conflict based on prohibited grounds of discrimination and to take action to eliminate the conflict. The Commission is also responsible for assisting and encouraging organizations from the public and private sectors to engage in programs to alleviate tension and conflict based on prohibited grounds of discrimination.” Personally, I’d probably favor a much more, shall we say, tersely vigorous mandate; perhaps something along the lines of, “Crush racists and bigots of all stripes, see them driven before you.” But hey I suppose one must work within civilized constraints. In any case, the report asserts:
Effective responses to racial discrimination and racial profiling start with acknowledging that racism exists. While often displayed overtly, racism can also take on subtle, unconscious or covert forms. In the Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination (“Policy”), the Commission noted that great stigma attaches to allegations of racism, leading to a tendency to deny its existence in general or in a particular situation. In the Inquiry into Assaults on Asian Canadian Anglers, individuals from many institutions were ready to engage in dialogue about racial profiling and saw the benefits of combating it. However, many individuals also expressed that racism was difficult to discuss and were reluctant to include strong messages about it as part of their commitments. Many had concerns that by naming the issue, it paints the whole community or organization as “racist,” generates problems where they may not exist, perpetuates negativity, or was not seen as part of the mandate of the organization.
These strong stigmas associated with discussing racism and racial discrimination present a challenge to the Commission in moving forward generally on initiatives to combat racial discrimination. Although it may be difficult to discuss, the Commission maintains that when racism is named as a problem, organizations become better equipped to appropriately address and prevent it, and are better able to give voice to people who experience it. The Commission is committed to continuing to raise awareness of racial profiling and racial discrimination with public and private institutions in order to provide a forum for open dialogue.
That’s pretty clearly stated for a mealy-mouthed government report. The Commission appears to reject the often-heard sentiment that protecting white professional reputations and fragile emotions from accusations of racism is more important than protecting people of color from actual racism. After all, when a white person’s reputation is attacked, it’s serious business! With careers and livelihoods and the ability to feed children on the line! Whereas a brown person’s life is only a brown person’s life, right? So goes the unconscious yet glaring orientation in many fair-haired skulls.
A subsequent portion of the report reads:
Throughout this Inquiry, the Commission has been concerned that some people have relied on stereotypes that Asian Canadians are more likely than people from other communities to engage in over-fishing, fishing in sanctuaries, fishing without a licence, and other activities that are against the law. Further, the Commission has been concerned that these stereotypes may to be used to “explain” or justify the reported assaults. Racial profiling occurs when individuals act on stereotypes about Asian Canadians and illegal fishing and use these stereotypes as a rationale for greater scrutiny, discriminatory treatment or even violence (which is portrayed as vigilantism). Engaging in this kind of discriminatory behaviour is against the law and strong messages need to be provided that it is not tolerated.
As was noted in the Commission’s preliminary findings report, there is no evidence to suggest that Asian Canadians are more prone to fish illegally than people from any other community. In any of the incidents that were recently investigated by police, there has been no evidence reported that suggests that victims engaged in activities that were against the law.
The Commission is concerned that a focus on fishing regulations as a solution to this problem misplaces the debate and minimizes the experiences of people who have been harassed while fishing.
Apparently, though not surprisingly, some people who spoke to the Commission prefer to make this all about fishing regulations rather than directly challenging and combating the hatred and violence facing Asian Canadians. It’s a typical defocusing tactic most persons of color instantly recognize when deployed by their white colleagues, associates, compatriots: when talking about racism, plunge the discussion into a labyrinthian examination of peripheral issues. Talk about economic class. Talk about legal or medical minutia. Talk about convoluted philosophical nuances of human perception. Talk about whatever arcane knowledge you happen to possess which might position you as an expert and thereby allow you to recenter attention away from the original subject. Just don’t talk about interrogating or confronting or transforming one’s own participation in the million little machinations which make up modern racism.
Of course you never know how much of a positive impact a report like will end up having, if any. The Commission’s conclusions, and the public commitments it obtained from a variety of local authorities and governing bodies, are fairly impressive; particularly the Ministry of Education’s agreement to incorporate anti-racism initiatives in community-reviewed school curriculums, as well as the involvement of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration in ensuring equal protection. According to the Globe and Mail:
The Ontario Provincial Police have agreed to expand their public education on hate crimes, and police in York Region have “Operation Safe Shores” planned for the coming season. Also, a number of school boards have committed to expanding anti-racism and anti-bullying lessons.
The Ontario government has reacted to the commission’s findings by stressing the province’s efforts to combat hate crimes.
“Ontario is a destination of hope throughout the world because of our vigilance against racism and violence,” said Attorney General Chris Bentley. “The Human Rights Commission’s report gives voice to victims of racism by adding to our ongoing progress in preventing hate crimes through victim support, prosecutorial expertise and public education.”
Easy there, tiger, this is a work in progress, at best. It occurs to me that despite all the good words from on high, there doesn’t appear to be a system of measurement and coercive enforcement in place to make sure that organizations are not only following through with their commitments, but that initiatives are successfully achieving their desired results. That just might prove to be a bit of a hold-up, don’tcha think? Moreover, I’m not so sure this report really “gives voices” to victims of racism so much as it gives them a minimally fair hearing. Nevertheless, the government in Ontario does appear to be responding to this situation with more seriousness than I’ve seen from official agencies facing similar scenarios here in the US. The Human Rights Commission report, with its clear call for collective action and its detailed table of concrete commitments, offers a straightforward model for the kind of work that US civil rights and human rights agencies should be undertaking and publicizing.
[ Cross-posted at Zuky and The Sanctuary ]
Loading ...
