Arbitrary "unwanted guests" ban in Regina stores

103 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2015-12-28 10:02

6079_Smith_W

lagatta wrote:

one thing that must be kept in mind is that poor people - who can't afford alarms and security cameras and are often working long hours in several precarious jobs - are very often targets of thieves.

Yup. Lots of people here assume that the wealthier east side of town is more a target of thieves and vandals (and part of that false assumption is that they all come from over on the west side).

The opposite is true, and violent crime and home invasions are particularly higher on the west side.

(edit)

This reminds me of a conversation we had some years ago about the riots in Britain, specifically that there were some in those communities who were trying to stop the violence, including shopkeepers who were doing shift work to guard their stores from looters.

The opinion was raised that these people were somehow working against the natural political will of the oppressed by not letting their homes and businesses get looted and burned down. That they were on the side of the racist oppressors, even though most were from the same suffering communities.

That situation was also complicated by the fact that once the looting started lots of people who had no political grievances joined in to get free stuff and break things, as did the mafia, which used the riot as cover to clean out department stores in places like Manchester.

Again, I can understand why people get so frustrated that they do riot, but it is not a solution, but rather an expression of how bad things are.

So again, I get that it seems like going against principles that anyone should speak against riots or stealing for food, and that those who don't go along with playing their traditional class roles that game are being spoilsports. But do we want to continue to have a society where people are so desparate that they have to steal or vandalize? And if not, what is the solution.

Neither these vigilante laws nor expecting people to be robbed until they leave do anything to solve that. In part because not everyone CAN leave.

Mon, 2015-12-28 11:08

#53

Unionist

[url=https://makingpeace.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/unwanted-guest-might-you-fa..."Unwanted Guest" - Might you fall into this category?[/url]

Quote:

TAKE ACTION

Visit the CHEW ON THIS website and learn how poverty can be eliminated in Canada.

If you belong to the dominant culture (i.e. are white and middle class) test out the “No Loitering” rule to see if it is being applied fairly. Go to an establishment that displays a “No Loitering” sign and stay for awhile without ordering. Observe who, if anyone, is asked to leave. If you are asked to leave, do so immediately.

Let your City Councillor know you do not approve of the “unwanted guest” initiative and why.

If you happen to be a lawyer, offer to test the constitutionality of the “unwanted guest” initiative or seek out a colleague who is trained in this area of law.

Mon, 2015-12-28 12:58

#54

lagatta

Oh, no question about that. Of course it is an anti-poor, anti-marginalized and anti-beggar initiative. I'd be interested in seeing where this has been successfully challenged.

I certainly agree with the right to panhandle, provided that the beggar isn't aggressive. There is also that aspect that must not be ignored either; intimidation, usually of women by men, or of otherwise fragile people (who may well be poor themselves) by people who are physically threatening. No, I'm not talking about their race or colour!

There are MANY rules and regulations that negate "the right to the city". Remember my thread on public toilets? Those are a very important aspect of access to all. Of course I feel the same about public transport - ideally it should be free, and if that isn't practicable, then there should be a drastically reduced rate for people under however we'd define the "poverty line".

And EVERYONE should have access to nutritious food.

The Grande bibliothèque here is usually very sensitive and sensible about how they deal with "street people" and other shabby-looking visitors. This central library (not only of Montréal, but of all of Québec) is located just north of le square Émilie-Gamelin, at the Berri-UQAM métro, where three lines converge in eastern-Central Montréal and many homeless (or precariously-housed) and other marginal people congregate, and have for decades. Obviously, many patronize the library, to keep warm, to read and use the computers like everyone, to use the toilets not only to relieve themselves but also to wash up a bit. And yes, a minority do shoot up, but there are safe needle disposal units in the toilet stalls. As long as they aren't violent, very noisy or extremely intoxicated (on drugs and/or alcohol), they are welcome. And some people buy them coffee or sanwiches at the library café...

At the other end of the dowtown core, at Atwater métro in the west, a café has been set up in Cabot Square, run by formerly homeless (or otherwise marginal) Indigenous people, and also a meeting place for them as well as other people who live or work in the area. There are many Indigenous people who stay in that square, most of them from the Far North of Québec (Inuit, northern Cree, Innu, Naskapi...). I don't know if it is continuing to operate now that the weather has turned cold.

Mon, 2015-12-28 13:52

#55

Sean in Ottawa

When talking about policing we look at the seriousness of a crime and the need for police response based on the economic value fo the item in real but not relative terms.

By this imagine two cases:

Case 1: Person makes $50k a year, has disposable annual income of $10,000 after basic expenses. Has a car worth $8k. It is stolen. Insurance covers 90% of the loss.

Case 2: Person is in poverty makes $7k a year, has disposable annual income of $100 after expenses. Has bike worth $200. It is stolen. There is no insurance.

In the two above made-up cases, it is clear that the devastation outlined in the second case is much more severe, in every respect: mitigation through insurance, ability to replace, relative value to the person.

However, for the police the second loss is not enough to pursue and the resources will flow to tracking down the first.

If caught the person who stole the bike may get off without the crime being taken seriously while the car thief may be punished more severely. Our whole society and justice system fails to understand the relative value in a structure where some have so much more than others.

From a policing point of view it is also a problem becuase if you catch the person who stole the bike there is a chance you might turn the person around whereas the person who stole the car is less reachable by that point. The person who stole the bike may in a few years, if uncaught, steal a car.

A number of lessons here. The most important one is the unfair difference in protection from policing. Part of the problem with the stories of the stroes and policing is that they calmour for more policing but they are also the ones who could hire security or take other measures to mitigate their risk. Poor people don't get the attention of police and they also don't have other options.

I am not going off on an anti-business rant here but it is important to understand that if policing is limited, and one party gets more service, you have to ask -- who will get less? And is that the people who already get less as it is now?

Let's have another set of cases:

Case 1: business has a theft of a $100 bike as a thief went into the store grabbed it and left.

Case 2: person has a $100 bike stolen from his house.

It is clear that the second is more devastating to the person with the loss. Which do you think has the greater chance of the police attending? The business has a low chance of perhaps ten percent if the police are not busy as the value is low. The individual has a zero chance of the police showing up. They can go make a report and that will be filed to never be seen again.

I have first hand experience facing loss as a business, a low income person and as a middle income person and the differences are massive.

Mon, 2015-12-28 14:07

#56

lagatta

Oh, that is for sure, and it also reflects the social role of the police in enforcing "order"... the existing order. There are some places with fines based on income, but I don't know of any where the theft of a poor person's bicycle gets the attention of a middle class person's car ... or a wealthy person's luxury car. I always do report the theft, but very little chance of getting it back.

Mon, 2015-12-28 15:03

#57

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not going off on an anti-business rant here but it is important to understand that if policing is limited, and one party gets more service, you have to ask -- who will get less? And is that the people who already get less as it is now?

No need to temper it. I agree, and this bylaw is a prime example of the cops putting more focus on the wealthy, and on business (at least what they consider business interests) than on the poor. So much so that they are willing to accept accusations as proof of guilt without an investigation, and do security duty for free, without any evidence of crime.

And they state openly that their priority is protecting the business:

Quote:

Police say they are sympathetic to people without a home who might be looking for warm shelter in a downtown store.

However, if those people are considered disruptive, police have an obligation to protect a business owner.

Last year, police received 3,033 calls from businesses about unwanted visitors.

This year under the new procedure, they've given out only 38 tickets. However, it's believed shop owners have been handing out many more forms banning the problem visitors.

Those forms appear to be effective as far as discouraging repeat offenders goes, resulting in the 18 per cent reduction in calls, the police said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-police-report-fewer-tr...

Mon, 2015-12-28 16:00

#58

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So much so that they are willing to accept accusations as proof of guilt without an investigation

I think you're missing an important distinction. If police are called to eject some unruly customer, there's no criminal charge. There's no accusation of a crime having been committed. There's no "guilt", and an investigation isn't required.

It's a shopkeeper saying "this is my business, and this person is no longer welcome here and won't leave".

If it shouldn't be police who remove someone who won't leave, who should it be? Lou, the burly dishwasher?

Quote:
and do security duty for free, without any evidence of crime.

Evidently being obnoxious isn't a crime -- I'm sure we would all agree that that's a good thing. But as the library example upthread shows, sometimes even people who aren't committing a crime need to go. Or don't they? Can I just do whatever I want to in the library, so long as it's not a specific crime covered in the Criminal Code??

Mon, 2015-12-28 17:06

#59

6079_Smith_W

Problem is that once a person is banned, it is no longer a question of whether a person is causing a disturbance; that person is no longer welcome, and if they break that order they are subject to a fine, courtesy of the public security.

That sort of ban is a level of authority that even cops don't have; usually it is judges who authorize peace bonds, and they are usually granted based on evidence.

And if it wasn't unorthodox enough, there is no mention of any means of appeal .

It is bad enough that people within the justice system look differently at people based on whether they are white, male, affluent, or appearing to be not in their right minds (something which can be medical, not the result of impairment); giving that kind of power to a regular citizen, simply as a legal shortcut is completely out of line, probably illegal, and has been observed, potentially very dangerous.

And that all the cops seem to want to consider is that things are more quiet is equally alarming.

The library is a public place, Magoo.

Mon, 2015-12-28 17:26

#60

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Problem is that once a person is banned, it is no longer a question of whether a person is causing a disturbance; that person is no longer welcome

That's right. Someone has decided that they're no longer welcome on their property.

Quote:
That sort of ban is a level of authority that even cops don't have

Of course they don't. How would it make sense for a police officer to be the one to decide whether someone is or isn't welcome at Bob's Mini Mart??

Quote:
And if it wasn't unorthodox enough, there is no mention of any means of appeal.

If someone doesn't want me on their property, what right am I supposed to have to appeal that? And on what grounds?

Quote:
The library is a public place, Magoo.

And yet they evidently have, and use, a parallel policy of their own. Surely there must be some horror stories we could ponder. Steve, the harmless poor guy, banned for life for looking poor? Sarah, the single mother on social assistance, trying to read a book but instead being banned for life for having cornrows? If the library is going all Judge Dredd like this, there's gotta be some fallout.

Mon, 2015-12-28 17:46

#61

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
These vigilante laws are all based in the spirit of "home as castle" and "stand your ground", but it's not so nice when the "no Coloured, no Irish" signs go up.

1. this isn't a "vigilante" law

2. as has been noted, this law can't be used to ban all coloured people, unless some shopkeeper is willing to fill out 7,000,000 forms

Quote:
And I don't have absolute freedom to refuse service or bar entry to anyone just just because I don't like them.

But you feel this permits shopkeepers -- and libraries -- to ban people just because they don't like them?

Quote:
I don't actually have a problem with refusing to let someone in a store if they have repeatedly been a problem.

I guess the proviso is that the troublemaker has to voluntarily ban themself.

If the shopkeeper does it it's an abuse of power. If the police do it it's an abuse of taxpayer's money. If burly Lou does it, it's vigilantism.

Mon, 2015-12-28 17:47

#62

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If someone doesn't want me on their property, what right am I supposed to have to appeal that? And on what grounds?

These vigilante laws are all based in the spirit of "home as castle" and "stand your ground", but it's not so nice when the "no Coloured, no Irish" signs go up.

Stores aren't property in the same way as our homes. Like libraries and malls, they are semi-public spaces. And I don't have absolute freedom to refuse service or bar entry to anyone just just because I don't like them.

And no, I don't like rules giving a library authority to bar people without offense; but at least they are public institutions with a board that someone can appeal to. It is not the same as some person, who might happen to run the only store in your neighbourhood, deciding you aren't welcome.

Mon, 2015-12-28 18:11

#63

6079_Smith_W

It most certainly is a vigilante law. If you don't recognize it as such it may be because it is an unorthodox step up the judicial ladder allowing people to act as magistrate. They even have ready-made forms that cops consider legal.

Can't be used to ban all coloured people? No of course not. How could anyone possibly do that?

Of course in my old home town all you really would have had to do was ban the family which owned the restaurant.

(edit)

And it is interesting that the story notes the cops don't even have to get involved, and most people are cowed by that piece of paper issued on one person's say-so.

Why? My guess is it might have something to do with the fact that if your do experience abuse at the hands of cops, CFS, welfare, and other authorities, you aren't going to question it because you don't want to rock the boat and make things worse.

I actually have a personal angle on this - a family member who spent the better part of a year with no medical coverage for herself or her kids because she was told she was behind in her premiums, and she just accepted it because of course she was afraid of what they might do to her if she made waves.

Never even considered or dared to ask if it might be completely illegal.

In a way, this is a brilliant move, because the city and cops are counting on no one speaking up or defending themselves on this.

Mon, 2015-12-28 18:13

#64

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It most certainly is a vigilante law. If you don't recognize it as such it may be because it is an unorthodox step up the judicial ladder allowing people to act as magistrate.

I don't recognize it as such because I don't think it's unreasonable to tell someone that they're no longer welcome on your property.

If a shopkeeper could also say "... and I'm sentencing you to four years in prison", then I might see it as vigilantism.

But what of your comment in the OP?

Quote:
I don't actually have a problem with refusing to let someone in a store if they have repeatedly been a problem.

How shall we enforce this, if it comes to it?

Quote:
Can't be used to ban all coloured people? No of course not. How could anyone possibly do that?

I already acknowledged that if a shopkeeper is willing to fill out seven million forms, it can be done. If you know of another way, let's hear it.

Mon, 2015-12-28 18:46

#65

6079_Smith_W

The difference, as I also explained upthread, is that it wouldnt wind up with people having a police file and potential fines based on someone's whim.

And are you being deliberately obtuse, or playing games? You knew when you wrote it that it doesn't involve 7 million forms. For that matter a human rights complaint doesn't require that it affect every non-white person on the planet either.

All you have to do to make it a de facto racist or anti-poor ban is to target the locals who aren't dressed to your liking and aren't the right colour.

If I remember right they call it profiling.

Mon, 2015-12-28 18:52

#66

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The difference, as I also explained upthread, is that it wouldnt wind up with people having a police file and potential fines based on someone's whim.

You wouldn't receive a fine unless you decided that "nobody's the boss of ME" and felt empowered to go back to a place of business you'd been banned from.

Quote:
And are you being deliberately obtuse, or playing games? You knew when you wrote it that it doesn't involve 7 million forms. For that matter a human rights complaint doesn't require that it affect every non-white person on the planet either.

Again, just tell me how a shopkeeper could use this law to ban all brown people. Just tell me how.

Because my understanding is that it's administered on an individual basis -- a shopkeeper can choose to ban a person based on their behaviour, and must fill out a form in order to do so. I'm not aware that this law permits anyone to impose a blanket ban on entire groups based on their skin colour.

So, you'd need the names of all Canadians of colour, and you'd need to be willing to fill out a form for each one of them. Is this incorrect? Can you show me how?

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:06

#67

6079_Smith_W

To turn that point around, are you suggesting that a person has to meet everyone in the entire world before being considered a racist?

Seems like a bit of a high bar to me.

As I said, accusations of profiling aren't generally international cases. A record of targetting more people with certain qualities than others is usually enough to make the case.

As for my allusion to Jim Crow, plenty of bans, like the former policy keeping Jewish people out of Victoria Beach in Manitoba, weren't on paper. But they were no different.

And it is far more easy to use a bylaw like that to conveniently ban all homeless people in your neighbourhood if you are looking for a reason to do so.

And "nobody's the boss of me"? You mean the same privilege all of us enjoy... with the difference that no one fucks with us without a good reason?

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:16

#68

Mr. Magoo

I'll just ask again.

Quote:
So, you'd need the names of all Canadians of colour, and you'd need to be willing to fill out a form for each one of them. Is this incorrect? Can you show me how?

Just show me how.

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:29

#69

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You might want to take off the Inquisitor's hat Magoo; it's not your best side. I'll leave it to the rest of the room to make their own assessment of what constitutes tagetting people based on race and appearance.

This isn't a question of whether a shopkeeper might want to target every brown person on the basis of being brown. It's a question of whether this law would enable that. In other words, I'm not asking "does racism even exist?", I'm asking how this law would let some shopkeeper ban all brown people with a wave of his hand.

And since you seem to feel that this law would enable that, I don't think it's unreasonable -- nor "inquisitorial" -- to plainly ask you how.

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:29

#70

6079_Smith_W

You might want to take off the Inquisitor's hat Magoo; it's not your best side. I'll leave it to the rest of the room to make their own assessment of what constitutes tagetting and banning people based on race and appearance.

Non-white and poor people have enough experience with that in our communities to make it a real thing (and in many encounters with cops, don't survive to relate that experience). And it is exactly what people in that Regina protest were warning about

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:29

#71

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Because my understanding is that it's administered on an individual basis -- a shopkeeper can choose to ban a person based on their behaviour, and must fill out a form in order to do so. I'm not aware that this law permits anyone to impose a blanket ban on entire groups based on their skin colour.

So, you'd need the names of all Canadians of colour, and you'd need to be willing to fill out a form for each one of them. Is this incorrect? Can you show me how?

You only need the names of all minority people that try to enter your store not any one else. But that would be logic not disingenuous rhetoric. One is your strong suit the other not so much.

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:33

#72

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You only need the names of all minority people that try to enter your store not any one else.

I see. So if there are three brown people in my store, and I'm a horrible bigot, then all I have to do is get their names and ban them, and I'll never have brown people in my store ever again.

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:34

#73

6079_Smith_W

Didn't I answer that a couple of times already? In several different ways?

I did, which is why all I can offer is to let everyone else here reach their own conclusions about what this opens the door to.

Mon, 2015-12-28 19:59

#74

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

You only need the names of all minority people that try to enter your store not any one else.

I see. So if there are three brown people in my store, and I'm a horrible bigot, then all I have to do is get their names and ban them, and I'll never have brown people in my store ever again.

A perfect example of disengenious argument. I think that to ensure that no minority person ever entered your store you would need to do more than merely fill out millions of forms. Since some of those people might not abide by your form then you'd probably just have to start into the genocide program.

Mon, 2015-12-28 20:02

#75

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Didn't I answer that a couple of times already? In several different ways?

No, you didn't.

Let me ask it this way.

Suppose I'm a horrible shopkeeper who would like nothing more than to ban all brown Canadians from my shop. And I'd like to use this new law to do that.

What do I need to do?

Full disclosure: I'm not actually a shopkeeper, and I'm not actually horrible, so if you tell me how I could do this, I won't actually go do this. So there's no harm in you saying "here's how this law would help a horrible shopkeeper ban all brown people".

And if that's really too much to ask -- to ask you to back up your claims plainly -- could you at least share with us in which post in this thread you showed how a shopkeeper could use this law to ban all brown people from his place of business? There's a number to the right of all posts in a thread -- just tell us which number explains this claim.

Mon, 2015-12-28 20:05

#76

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
A perfect example of disengenious argument. I think that to ensure that no minority person ever entered your store you would need to do more than merely fill out millions of forms.

What?

A shopkeeper would have to do MORE than just fill out millions of forms?

Clearly this law is just a slippery slope!

I just filled out 7,000,000 forms and now I have to do MORE???

Mon, 2015-12-28 20:51

#77

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

First Magoo, pointing out that in my old home town all one had to do was ban one family, and later, that all one had to do was target all the locals in order to make it a de facto ban.

Second, pointing out that in the resort town I mentioned there was no actual anti-Semitic law. but the ban was there.

For that matter I don't think Abbotsford has any laws about dumping chicken manure on homeless people; they just got creative:

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/06/05/City-of-Abbotsford-admits-dum...

Thirdly pointing out your setting only one narrow and impossible term that will satisfy you, even though real cases don't require anything like that as evidence of discrimination.

And fourth, if this is to be a pedantic joust rather than a discussion, I should point out that I didn't say anyone was hanging out any "no Coloured, no Irish" signs, it was a statement that that is where the notion of "my home my castle" and terrible laws like this lead. And to my mind this is a de facto ban simply by the fact it gives people completely arbitrary powers.

Do you still want to gnaw on this bone? You can do it by yourself.

Mon, 2015-12-28 20:54

#78

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

First Magoo, pointing out that in my old home town all one had to do was ban one family, and later, that all one had to do was target all the locals in order to make it a de facto ban.

Second, pointing out that in the resort town I mentioned there was no actual anti-Semitic law. but the ban was there.

For that matter I don't think Abbotsford has any laws about dumping chicken manure on homeless people; they just got creative:

OK, but I'm asking about a new law in Regina, which I thought we were discussing.

So I'll ask again: how will this new REGINA LAW allow REGINA businesses to ban all brown people?

Quote:
Thirdly pointing out your setting only one narrow and impossible term that will satisfy you, even though real cases don't require anything like that as evidence of discrimination.

What's the "impossible" term? That you discuss this in terms of the law we're discussing?

Quote:
Do you still want to gnaw on this bone? You can do it by yourself.

Because you can't support your own claim?

Don't take your football and go home to sulk. All I've asked is that you support your claim. You feel that this new law empowers shopkeepers to ban all brown people. How? Or did you perhaps mis-speak?

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:04

#79

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The point is not having any accountability or process makes it susceptible to abuse. It could also be used by a racist who might only target some people who are of a particular race -- like if they return something or ask a question. The issue is not that they woudl have to ban all in order to ban a few but that they can ban anyone with out reason and be able to apply bias to the decision making for that.

As I understand it, the police are at their discretion as to whether or not to enforce any particular shopkeeper's ban.

And yes, I understand even as I'm typing this that that can be turned into "of course the police will use their own racist, sexist, ageist bias in choosing whether or not to enforce this ban".

But I'm not sure who else we're supposed to turn to for the unbiased ruling. The unbiased courts, maybe?

And oddly, I haven't been able to find or inspect one of these forms, though I'll say, sight-unseen, that I'd be very, very surprised if there's a checkbox for "skin colour" but no field for "reason for banning".

Quote:
I have no idea why you don't get this.

And I have no idea why you think I don't get this.

Other than not getting in line to denounce this as racist and sexist and ageist and what have you.

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:12

#80

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But I'm not sure who else we're supposed to turn to for the unbiased ruling. The unbiased courts, maybe?

Not that I assume they are unbiased, but yes. The courts.

That is what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

Biased or not, this is a step in the wrong direction, and as I said, I question whether it is even legal. A police record and fines based on heresay? How does that make sense?

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:17

#81

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
A perfect example of disengenious argument. I think that to ensure that no minority person ever entered your store you would need to do more than merely fill out millions of forms.

What?

A shopkeeper would have to do MORE than just fill out millions of forms?

Clearly this law is just a slippery slope!

I just filled out 7,000,000 forms and now I have to do MORE???

Are you kidding?

What is the point of this?

It is clear a store could develop a reputation as a racist store if there were no accountability for a measure like this.

A store in a small town with a handful of people of colour would not need millions of forms. After the first few the message would be out. The point is not having any accountability or process makes it susceptible to abuse. It could also be used by a racist who might only target some people who are of a particular race -- like if they return something or ask a question. The issue is not that they woudl have to ban all in order to ban a few but that they can ban anyone with out reason and be able to apply bias to the decision making for that.

I amn fine with a ban but it should be accountible so reasons would have to be provided and if found to be racist heavy fines. But not having to provide and record a reason is a terrible idea.

I have no idea why you don't get this.

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:22

#82

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The point is not having any accountability or process makes it susceptible to abuse. It could also be used by a racist who might only target some people who are of a particular race -- like if they return something or ask a question. The issue is not that they woudl have to ban all in order to ban a few but that they can ban anyone with out reason and be able to apply bias to the decision making for that.

As I understand it, the police are at their discretion as to whether or not to enforce any particular shopkeeper's ban.

And yes, I understand even as I'm typing this that that can be turned into "of course the police will use their own racist, sexist, ageist bias in choosing whether or not to enforce this ban".

But I'm not sure who else we're supposed to turn to for the unbiased ruling. The unbiased courts, maybe?

And oddly, I haven't been able to find or inspect one of these forms, though I'll say, sight-unseen, that I'd be very, very surprised if there's a checkbox for "skin colour" but no field for "reason for banning".

Quote:
I have no idea why you don't get this.

And I have no idea why you think I don't get this.

Other than not getting in line to denounce this as racist and sexist and ageist and what have you.

The problem is there is no requirement to provide a reason that can then be examined to see if it is based on racism etc. To leave it entirely to the businesses to decide and not require documentation or a process to turn to if you think it is racism is a major issue. Again I have no idea why this escapes you.

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:26

#83

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Not that I assume they are unbiased, but yes. The courts.

I see.

So a shopkeeper simply saying "please don't come back" is unjust and odious and a big waste of taxpayers' money, but it's a better thing if it gets escalated to the actual justice system, even as we acknowledge that they're not any less biased.

Quote:
That is what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

I feel your exasperation. In the spirit of that, can you just finally tell me how this law would empower a shopkeeper to ban all brown people? Or just say you mis-spoke, and can't?

Quote:
That is what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

My understanding is that if someone receives a fine, it's because they were banned, were told they were banned, had a form filled out with their name on it that says they were banned, but decided to return anyway. Can you tell us how that's "heresay"? What part of that is whispers and allusions?

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:34

#84

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The problem is there is no requirement to provide a reason that can then be examined to see if it is based on racism etc.

As I've said, I can't find the actual form itself, but I'd be very surprised if all it included was name and skin colour. And as I've said, the police are NOT actually under some magical obligation to obey the directives of every shopkeeper under this law.

If the form does include a field for the reason for banning, and if authorities are under no obligation to participate if this reason is simply bigotry, would that be the end of this for you?

Quote:
Again I have no idea why this escapes you.

And again, I have no idea why you think I'm giving no consideration to this.

Mon, 2015-12-28 21:50

#85

6079_Smith_W

Police accepting as legally valid claims that haven't been verified as true, or even been tested in court to see if they are justified.

That's hearsay.

That the accused person has no means of appeal. Even more of a miscarriage.

Mon, 2015-12-28 22:03

#86

Sean in Ottawa

Exactly there should be a documented reasons that can withstand review. There ought to be a process of review that does not cost money for the appellant.

Mon, 2015-12-28 22:06

#87

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

Police accepting as legally valid claims that haven't been verified as true, or even been tested in court to see if they are justified.

That's hearsay.

Library staff say "he seemed drunk, was verbally abusive, and entered the women's washroom" -- what's the litmus test for that? What else do we need do see to believe it's not just some lying library employees lying again?

Should we polygraph them, to be sure they aren't just racists getting their lulz?

Quote:
That the accused person has no means of appeal.

And what might the appeal be?

"Your Worship, I respectfully INVITED all the women within earshot to sit on my face. No woman was compelled to sit on my face. CASE DISMISSED!"

Mon, 2015-12-28 22:27

#88

quizzical

well there's library staff and then there's library staff.

magoo, you act as if racism isn't entrenched into Canadian society and those actions of yours indicate just how entrenched it is.

Mon, 2015-12-28 23:09

#89

6079_Smith_W

An article from back in the spring. Apparently Regina turned to this law after the one they had been using was declared unconstituitonal:

Quote:

Previously, Regina Police used the city’s Tag Day Bylaw to deal with aggressive panhandlers, but it was removed in 2009 because similar legislation had been struck down as unconstitutional. Until 2012, the Assault by Trespass law allowed officers to arrest anyone who refused to leave private property after being asked to do so.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2059947/new-regina-police-initiative-tickets-u...

And according to this article, the law doesn't specify what grounds are required for a store to decide on a ban:

(not so good, considering the person in the article above, who cites "intent to shoplift" and being "under the influence" and not wanting to buy things as cause)

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/regina+police+expand+initiative+help+busi...

Quote:

Tyler Gray, spokesman for Carmichael Outreach, said he understands that businesses have a right to protect their spaces, especially from incidents of theft.

But to issue bans and subsequent tickets amounts to "the breakdown of common places in our community" and "(criminalizing) the survival and experiences of homelessness or addictions or mental illness," he said.

"It's just another, further oppression of a group of people that face enough challenges on a day-to-day basis." Gray also questioned whether it was a good use of resources for the justice system to issue warrants for people who don't pay the ticket or show up to court.

"You have the justice system chasing somebody around now because they weren't wanted inside of a store or a mall versus actually dealing with issues of real criminality."

Tue, 2015-12-29 07:49

#90

lagatta

Present and past babblers from Regina can attest to the endemic anti-Indigenous racism there.

Tue, 2015-12-29 16:14

#91

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta wrote:

Present and past babblers from Regina can attest to the endemic anti-Indigenous racism there.

I think even if you have never been there -- it is known for that. This is a context that cannot be ignored.

Tue, 2015-12-29 18:01

#92

Mr. Magoo

Finally found that form.

Seems like there are some conditions for shopkeepers as well.

The business must have a customized ban form.
The person has to be banned for a specified period of time.
The “activity” that lead to the ban must be described.
The business owner or employee has to make attempts to identify the person: ask for identification, have video surveillance, photos, etc.

Tue, 2015-12-29 19:01

#93

6079_Smith_W

I know we're just supposed to trust that the cops know what they are doing, but you do realize that none of that bureaucratic nonsense actually means anything, eh?

There's no required limit on the ban.

They don't have to accuse the person of any crime.

They don't have to have any evidence of anything; they only have to say they tried.

Really the only concrete thing they have to have is a piece of paper, which for some bizarre reason the police are expected to honour as meaning something.

Just one more reason why this wouldn't stand up if anyone challenged it.

Tue, 2015-12-29 19:14

#94

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You do realize that none of that bureaucratic nonsense actually means anything, eh?

Well, it seemed to have been insinuated upthread that shopkeepers wouldn't need to provide any actual reason for banning someone, and could therefore just ban someone for looking poor, or whatever. I think the form itself shows that to be wrong. And I seem to remember it being suggested that this law would allow a shopkeeper to ban "all Irishmen" or whatever (was that perhaps YOU?) and again, I think the actual form shows that to be wrong as well. So unless these concerns were just nonsense, the disproof of them itn't nonsense either.

Quote:
There's no required limit on the ban.

Oh goodness.

Quote:
They don't have to accuse the person of any crime.

You keep coming back to this. This isn't about a crime. Unless you decide to return to a place from which you've been banned (and even THEN, I'm not sure a summary offence is a crime. Are parking tickets "crimes"?? Are speeding tickets "crimes"?? This is a ticket -- a ticket you only get if you say "fuck it".) You don't get a ticket for offending the delicate sensibilities of a librarian. You get a ticket if you've been told to leave and not come back, and then for some reason surely related to poverty or skin colour or oppression, and despite rilly rilly trying, you just cannot prevent yourself from coming back. Whoops! There you are again! How did *that* happen??

Quote:
They don't have to have any evidence of anything; they only have to say they tried.

They only have to say "this is my business and it's private property and I don't want this person on my private property."

Quote:
Really the only concrete thing they have to have is a piece of paper, which for some bizarre reason the police are expected to honour as meaning something.

How is this different from any other statement that any other citizen gives to the police? Aren't they all written down on a piece of paper, that (sometimes, at least) police are expected to honour? Is a claim of assault written on a sheet of gold leaf?

Quote:
Just one more reason why this wouldn't stand up if anyone challenged it.

Well, I suppose we'll see. Maybe that guy who came to the library all liquored up, kept drinking, and then decided to make a trip to the women's washroom can challenge it.

Tue, 2015-12-29 19:32

#95

6079_Smith_W

Good you noticed that the accused person doesn't have to commit any crime, break the law in any way, or even be identified properly in order to be banned. In fact, according to the article upthread the Act doesn't specify any reason required for banning, just that the owner accusses them of doing something s/he doesn't like, and the cops accept as valid.

And it is different than other statements made to police; I can't just tell the cops someone is guilty of something and expect them to believe it. That sure isn't what happened even in the case of someone who drove into a pedestrian, was pretty clearly driving drunk, and who I could identify. Unfortunately when the cops got to his place he was no longer drunk behind the wheel. THey didn't have the evidence, and I was the only one who saw it.

Too bad, but that's the law.

Furthermore, if I wanted to challenge any charge I have the right to take it to court. There's nothing like that on that form.

Tue, 2015-12-29 19:35

#96

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And it is different than other statements made to police; I can't just tell the cops someone is guilty of something and expect them to believe it.

Actually, you can tell the cops that "this person isn't welcome on my property anymore" and that's all you need to say. No crime required.

Tue, 2015-12-29 19:59

#97

6079_Smith_W

No. It is not that simple.

To bring the Lucky Moose case back into the picture, shop owners there weren't able to refuse entry. Whether one agrees with it or not, that decision was made by a judge, based on evidence, and an accused person who was clearly identified.

http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/career-shoplifter-barred-fro...

Again, the law Regina Police used before was ruled unconstitutional. We'll see if their attempt to use the Trespass to Property Act (2009) and a form that looks like it came out of a crackerjack box stands up any better.

Tue, 2015-12-29 20:15

#98

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
To bring the Lucky Moose case back into the picture, shop owners there weren't able to refuse entry. Whether one agrees with it or not, that decision was made by a judge, based on evidence, and an accused person who was clearly identified.

That could be because the Lucky Moose is in Toronto, not Regina. Where, I guess, if someone keeps swinging by to steal from you you're obliged to say "welcome to the Lucky Moose! Please take whatever!". Someone whose identity they know, shown on video stealing? Better call the CSI people and ask for some kind of DNA Fingerprint analysis on the off-chance that it might produce a useful lead!

Wed, 2015-12-30 00:37

#99

6079_Smith_W

I know where the Lucky Moose is Magoo. My point is that this relatively recent law and policy (which relies entirely on the whim of shopkeepers and cops) doesn't jive with how things are done in some other places.

Also to point out how these decisions should properly be made, and by whom.

Given this province's record of having half-assed laws shot down by the courts ( from essential services legislation to letting justices of the peace pick and choose how they are going to uphold marriage law) I'd say there's good reason to question how valid this policy is.

Might go the way of their last attempt to control the poor:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-repeals-anti-panhandli...

Wed, 2016-01-06 22:10

#100

6079_Smith_W

Very good podcast about IWW-based street people's unions:

http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/talking-radical-radio/2016/01/union-panh...

Reminds me of similar mutual aid organizations like street-level homeless shelters. When we were in Portland last month we were fortunate to visit a very well organized one, which was rented to the group by a supportive landowner for $1 per year.

Mon, 2016-01-11 11:58

#101

6079_Smith_W

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/first-nations-leader-questions-wh...

Quote:

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) grand chief Sheila North Wilson said she's experienced racism while shopping before. But on a recent trip to a St. James pharmacy, North Wilson said she was treated like a potential thief.

"I heard a lady on the intercom say, 'Security aisle five, security aisle five,' so I looked up and sure enough it says 'aisle five' and I'm the only one standing there," North Wilson said, adding she then approached management.

"I asked her, 'Why are you targeting me? Because I'm dressed like this? Because I have this face? Why did you decide that I needed to be checked on — to see if I was stealing anything?"

Arbitrary "unwanted guests" ban in Regina stores

Pages