Donate
Rapport d’examen spécial
Dons de livres
Racial Profiling in Toronto: Discourses of Domination, Mediation and Opposition
| 
| 
By Dr. Frances Henry and Ms. Carol Tator
Published by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (...)On October 19, 2002, The Toronto Star began its series of stories on racial profiling1. The articles were based on a two-year probe of race and crime statistics gathered from a Toronto police database that documents arrests and charges laid. The database details more than 480,000 incidents in which an individual was arrested or ticketed for an offence, and nearly 800,000 criminal and other charges laid by police from late 1996 to early 2002. The data was accessed through the Freedom of Information Act after police denied The Star access. A statistician from York University examined the methodology and analysis. The analysis of the crime data revealed significant disparities in the ways in which Blacks and Whites are treated in law enforcement practices. More specifically, the data showed: (1) a disproportionate number of Black motorists are ticketed for violations that only surface following a traffic stop; (2) Black people, charged with simple drug possession, are taken to police stations more often than Whites facing the same charge; and (3) once at the station, accused Blacks are held overnight for a bail hearing at twice the rate of Whites.
The publication of The Star series on race and policing has provoked what can be described as a ‘discursive event,’ or ‘discursive crisis.’ These terms have no singular point of origin. However, many scholars have used this framework to analyze the processes of racialization and criminalization and the constitution of power relationships in the context of public discourse (Hall, 1978; Hier and Greenberg, 2002). Fairclough and Wodak (1997) suggest that any discursive event can be seen as a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and a form of social practice.
Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, and Roberts (1978) believe that periods of crisis are constructive in terms of providing an opportunity to analyze ad hoc formulas that have served to reinforce existing systems of hierarchy; these are rendered unworkable, and new forces begin emerging that threaten traditional positions of power and their social hegemony. The discursive crisis, which has continued over a period of a year, exposes a set of conditions that have a profound impact upon the broader society, and more specifically, the state of minority/majority relations.
A ‘discursive event’ can be understood as an occurrence that, as it progresses, reveals structural and attitudinal contradictions within the very values and norms of societal institutions. While the dominant political, economic, and social structures, and the individuals who staff these structures and institutions, struggle to maintain the status quo, forces of opposition inevitably arise to challenge them. A discursive crisis can act as a catalyst that uncovers the deep conflict between dominant and largely conservative/static political, cultural, and social systems, and those who suffer from their disenabling and marginalizing effects. As the process continues, forces of resistance emerge, demanding changes to the existing social order, and a series of jurisdictional, ideological, philosophical, and political polemics develop. The crisis may have a short duration. However, often, as is the case in the subject of this research paper (racial profiling), the situation has very deep roots and has persisted for decades.
The crisis that The Toronto Star series evoked takes the form of a highly charged and conflictual set of public discourses reflected in the everyday ‘text and talk’ of individuals, communities, organizations, and institutions. These discourses circulate within the discursive spaces of White mainstream dominant systems and in the marginalized spaces of marginalized communities. A discursive ‘crisis,’ such as that which unfolded in Toronto over The Star’s series, provides us with an opportunity to understand the importance of “who uses language, how, and when” (van Dijk, 1997, p. 2), and to what purpose. (...)
Published by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (...)On October 19, 2002, The Toronto Star began its series of stories on racial profiling1. The articles were based on a two-year probe of race and crime statistics gathered from a Toronto police database that documents arrests and charges laid. The database details more than 480,000 incidents in which an individual was arrested or ticketed for an offence, and nearly 800,000 criminal and other charges laid by police from late 1996 to early 2002. The data was accessed through the Freedom of Information Act after police denied The Star access. A statistician from York University examined the methodology and analysis. The analysis of the crime data revealed significant disparities in the ways in which Blacks and Whites are treated in law enforcement practices. More specifically, the data showed: (1) a disproportionate number of Black motorists are ticketed for violations that only surface following a traffic stop; (2) Black people, charged with simple drug possession, are taken to police stations more often than Whites facing the same charge; and (3) once at the station, accused Blacks are held overnight for a bail hearing at twice the rate of Whites.
The publication of The Star series on race and policing has provoked what can be described as a ‘discursive event,’ or ‘discursive crisis.’ These terms have no singular point of origin. However, many scholars have used this framework to analyze the processes of racialization and criminalization and the constitution of power relationships in the context of public discourse (Hall, 1978; Hier and Greenberg, 2002). Fairclough and Wodak (1997) suggest that any discursive event can be seen as a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and a form of social practice.
Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, and Roberts (1978) believe that periods of crisis are constructive in terms of providing an opportunity to analyze ad hoc formulas that have served to reinforce existing systems of hierarchy; these are rendered unworkable, and new forces begin emerging that threaten traditional positions of power and their social hegemony. The discursive crisis, which has continued over a period of a year, exposes a set of conditions that have a profound impact upon the broader society, and more specifically, the state of minority/majority relations.
A ‘discursive event’ can be understood as an occurrence that, as it progresses, reveals structural and attitudinal contradictions within the very values and norms of societal institutions. While the dominant political, economic, and social structures, and the individuals who staff these structures and institutions, struggle to maintain the status quo, forces of opposition inevitably arise to challenge them. A discursive crisis can act as a catalyst that uncovers the deep conflict between dominant and largely conservative/static political, cultural, and social systems, and those who suffer from their disenabling and marginalizing effects. As the process continues, forces of resistance emerge, demanding changes to the existing social order, and a series of jurisdictional, ideological, philosophical, and political polemics develop. The crisis may have a short duration. However, often, as is the case in the subject of this research paper (racial profiling), the situation has very deep roots and has persisted for decades.
The crisis that The Toronto Star series evoked takes the form of a highly charged and conflictual set of public discourses reflected in the everyday ‘text and talk’ of individuals, communities, organizations, and institutions. These discourses circulate within the discursive spaces of White mainstream dominant systems and in the marginalized spaces of marginalized communities. A discursive ‘crisis,’ such as that which unfolded in Toronto over The Star’s series, provides us with an opportunity to understand the importance of “who uses language, how, and when” (van Dijk, 1997, p. 2), and to what purpose. (...)