POLICE USE OF FORCE & WORTLEY REPORT

In 2016, Black people made up 8.8% of the Toronto population. However, from 2013-2017, they made up:

25.4% of Special Investigations Unit investigations;

28.8% of police use of force cases;

36% of police shootings;

61.5% of police use of force cases that resulted in civilian death;

70% of police shootings that resulted in civilian death.

The Wortley Report notes that over-representation of Black civilians increases with seriousness of police conduct. Wortley confirms that Black people are much more likely to experience force against them by Toronto Police, often leading to serious injury or death. The data is disturbing and raises serious concerns about racial discrimination and the use of force. Little to no change is noted since early 2000, when explicit evidence identified how Black people are over-represented in police use of force.

| LET THE RECORD STAND | LET THE RECORD STAND | LET THE RECORD STAND |

TORONTO POLICE’S HISTORY

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION &

RACIAL PROFILING OF BLACK PEOPLE.

| ANDREW “BUDDY” EVANS | ALBERT JOHNSON | MICHAEL SARGEANT |

| LEANDER SAVOURY | LESTER DONALDSON | SOPHIA COOK | MARLON NEIL |

| JONATHAN HOWELL | ROYAN BAGNAUT | RAYMOND LAWRENCE | IAN COLEY |

| ALBERT MOSES | TOMMY ANTHONY BARNETT | ANDREW BRAMWELL |

| HENRY MUSAKA | ALEXANDER MANON | REYAL JENSEN JARDINE-DOUGLAS |

| ERIC OSAWE | MICHAEL ELIGON | FRANK ANTHONY BERRY | SAMMY YATIM |

| DANIEL CLAUSE | ANDREW LOKU | KWASI SKENE-PETERS | ALEXANDER WETLAUFER |

| DAFONTE MILLER | ANDREW HENRY |

| LET THE RECORD STAND | LET THE RECORD STAND | LET THE RECORD STAND |

REVIEW TORONTO POLICE VIOLENCE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS

2010

ALEXANDER MANON, 18, died in custody of Toronto Police officers.

REYAL JENSEN JARDINE-DOUGLAS, 25, died after being shot several times by a Toronto Police officer.

ERIC OSAWE, 26, was killed in his Etobicoke apartment by a Toronto Police officer.

2012

MICHAEL ELIGON, 29, was fatally shot by a Toronto Police officer.

FRANK ANTHONY BERRY, 48, was fatally shot by Toronto Police officers.

From 2013-2017, the Black use of force “death” rate (3.34 per 100,000) was 11.3 times greater than the White rate (0.30 per 100,000) and 37.1 times greater than the rate for other racial minorities.

2013

SAMMY YATIM, 18, was fatally shot by a Toronto Police officer. The officer shot him eight times, six of which reportedly occurred once Yatim had already fallen to the ground.

DANIEL CLAUSE, 33, was killed by a Toronto Police officer after being shot four times.

2015

ANDREW LOKU was shot and killed by a Toronto Police officer.

KWASI SKENE-PETERS, 21, was killed by Toronto Police officers.

2016

ALEXANDER WETLAUFER, 21, was shot and killed by Toronto Police officers.

DAFONTE MILLER, 19, suffered serious injuries after being beaten in Durham region by an off-duty Toronto Police officer.

2017

ANDREW HENRY, 43, was arrested after allegedly assaulting Toronto Police officers. While he was face-down on the pavement, he was Tasered twice and repeatedly stomped on by a Toronto Police sergeant.

With the exception of Sammy Yatim, all of the victims were Black. This is not an exhaustive list of incidents and activities.

Between 2013 and 2017, a Black person was far more likely than a white person to be involved in an incident involving Toronto Police use of force that resulted in serious injury or death. A Black person was:

3.1 times more likely than a white person to be involved in a Special Investigations Unit investigation;

3.6 times more likely than a white person to be involved in police use of force;

4.9 times more likely than a white person to be involved in a police shooting that resulted in serious civilian injury or death;

11.3 times more likely than a white person to be involved in police use of force that resulted in civilian death;

19.5 times more likely than a white person to be involved in a police shooting that resulted in civilian death.

Between 2013 and 2017, a Black person in Toronto was nearly 20 times more likely than a White person to be involved in a fatal shooting by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). Despite making up only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, data obtained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) shows that Black people were over-represented in use of force cases (28.8%), shootings (36%), deadly encounters (61.5%) and fatal shootings (70%). Black men make up 4.1% of Toronto’s population, yet were complainants in a quarter of SIU cases alleging sexual assault by TPS officers.

POLICE PROFILING & CARDING

Reports reveal a lack of legal basis for police stopping or detaining Black civilians in the first place; inappropriate or unjustified searches during encounters; and unnecessary charges or arrests. The information analyzed by the OHRC also raises broader concerns about officer misconduct, transparency and accountability. Courts and arms-length oversight bodies have found that Toronto Police Service officers have sometimes provided biased and untrustworthy testimony, have inappropriately tried to stop the recording of incidents and/or have failed to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

TULLOCH REPORT

The Honourable Michael H. Tulloch is a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Tulloch conducted an independent review of Regulation 58/16 (Ontario Reg. 58/16) and its implementation. Regulation 58/16, introduced in 2016, outlines Ontario’s new rules on the collection of identifying information by police in certain circumstances, a practice that is commonly known as street checks (and sometimes referred to as carding). The Honourable Michael H. Tulloch considers emergency situations and threats to public safety and still finds that the tools police already have, without random street checks, allow them to effectively address its mission. He recommends discontinuing the use of random street checks altogether.

LEGAL DEFINITIONS

ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: A face-to-face encounter in which a person is asked to identify themselves or to provide information for the purpose of identifying themselves, whether or not the information is actually collected. An attempt to collect identifying information, therefore, includes an actual collection of identifying information.

CARDING: Situations in which a police officer randomly asks an individual to provide identifying information when there is no objectively suspicious activity, the individual is not suspected of any offence and there is no reason to believe that the individual has any information on any offence. That information is then recorded and stored in a police intelligence database.

RACIAL PROFILING

In May 2019, Gervan Fearon (Brock University President) and Carlyle Farrell (Ryerson University’s School of Management) submitted a review of the Toronto Police, including community perceptions and adherence to regulations related to the practice of carding. Regulation 58/16 (O. Reg. 58/16) refers to Ontario’s 2016 updated rules for the police collection of identifying information also called street checks and carding. Police officers would record the information provided by those stopped on contact cards which would subsequently be entered into a database for possible use in future criminal investigations.

Roughly 50% of those interviewed did not know the details of new legislation—Regulation 28/16. The right of refusal is not universal. Nonetheless, the new procedures ensure this right; police officers now have an obligation to inform those stopped of their right to refuse. Citizens have the right to disengage from any officer who stops and solicits personal information; Toronto police officers must inform individuals why their information is being collected; and anyone stopped must be offered a receipt, which documents the details of the episode. Despite these changes, the report highlights a community skepticism that the implementation of new legislation can effectively eliminate police bias

11% of respondents indicated they were carded by Toronto police (170 from a total of 1 503 individuals); the reporters seem surprised that 42% of these participants are black, “the highest of any of the other ethnic groups under study” (54). Differences in perception of the police fluctuate among the city’s demographic groups. Blacks and other minority groups clearly do not view the city’s law enforcement in the same light as white citizens. Of course, being Black or South Asian significantly increases one’s chance of being stopped by police; in addition, men and lower income brackets increase one’s odds. Personal income is of note—for every twenty-thousand dollar decrease in income, the odds of being carded increase by 7%.

Study results suggest 52% of the city’s residents think the Toronto police should have the legal right to card individuals. When couched in terms of community safety support for carding increases by 12%. As a result, the report infers a focus on how this intervention is framed. Police practices of carding led Toronto residents to imply “a perceived arbitrariness and abuse of power” (65), yet, the practice of carding for community safety trumps individual freedom.

Half of black respondents believe that Toronto police officers hold racial biases or prejudices; the report contrasts this finding with the overall population estimate, pointing out that Blacks were 30% more likely to believe racial biases are held by Toronto police. The report also notes that Black residents report the second highest incidence of interactions with Toronto police. From another point of view, survey participants were asked about their perceptions of Toronto Police’s tendency to demonstrate favoritism based on ethnic variables. There are widely held beliefs that Toronto Police show favouritism; whether Black, Latin American, Asian or white –more than half support the notion of police favoritism. 42% of Torontonians agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that police officers may at times have to use force against members of the respondents’ community.

PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE

I ask that you contrast this report “Perception of the Toronto Police and Impact of Rule Changes Under Regulation 28/16: A Community Survey” with the graphic reports in CARDED & COPOGANDA. How do the other reports (Wortley’s & Tulloch’s) measure the impact of police violence and the practice of carding? What is the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission? What is the role of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association?

As Jon Olbey unpacks glorified media portrayals of cops – and deeply ironic casting choices, his legal expert, Bryant Greenbaum, raises the case of 19-year-old DaFonte Miller and the PUBLIC EXPECTATION of HOW LAW is applied.

The Dafonte Miller matter affected everyone in the Black community because it was so egregious. Yet, it was hidden and was allowed stay hidden; all of this makes up the community’s collective experience. When someone in your family experiences some sort of trauma with the police, we are all triggered back to that event and its collective impact.

QUESTIONS

Of the three reports shared and reviewed (TULLOCH REPORT, WORTLEY REPORT and FEARON & FARRELL REPORT), how do account for similarities and differences?

What are the differences between race, racism and racialized people?

Define and explain systemic racism? Anti-black racism?

Do random street checks actually work?

Do you think police interventions involving carding promote community safety?

Is carding a violation of civil liberties and personal freedoms? How?

How is carding similar to or a form of surveillance?

Should random street checks or carding ever be allowed?

Do you believe that random street checks by police are biased?

What are your options if a police officer stops you for a random check? Do you know your rights? What would you do?

What about police oversight? Who should be held accountable?

After all the protests, how does change actually happen?

RACIAL JUSTICE: RACE TO THE COURTS!

v A.K., 2014 ONCJ 374: The Ontario Court of Justice found that a Black youth, who was arbitrarily detained, carded, dropped face first to the ground and searched, had his Charter rights breached, specifically sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter.

R v Smith, 2015 ONSC 3548: The Ontario Superior Court found that Mr. Smith was stopped by Toronto Police officers because he was a young Black male driving a Mercedes in an area known for gangs, drugs and guns.

R v Ohenhen, 2016 ONSC: The Superior Court of Ontario found no legal basis for Toronto Police officers’ detention, arrest, and search of a Black man.

R v Thompson, [2016] OJ No. 2118: The Ontario Court of Justice found the stop of a Black man was racially motivated, and a result of racial profiling. The evidence from the illegal stop was excluded, and the charges dismissed.

Elmardy v Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 ONSC 2074: In a civil proceeding, the Superior Court of Ontario found that a Toronto Police officer committed battery against Mr. Elmardy, and violated his ss. 8, 9 and 10 constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He was awarded $25,000 in punitive damages for the police conduct. Elmardy appealed the decision and argued that the trial judge should have made a finding that he was racially profiled, and the damages were not enough to deter and punish police officers who engage in racial profiling. The Divisional Court agreed and awarded Elmardy damages of $80,000. To date, this is the largest damage award in history for a victim of racial profiling.

REX vs LE: A WIN for CANDADIAN RACIALIZED MINORITIES

This case highlights how small differences in the ways that judges appreciate the facts of a case cause radically different consequences for the parties involved. What is missed from this discussion is any lesson about how police or citizens might want to understand the content of their s. 9 rights. When the analysis is so precise and dependent on the facts, the jurisprudence can lead to confusing results that make it difficult for police to determine how to govern their interactions with individuals.

At the third trial, at the Supreme Court of Canada, this was the first ruling to highlight the ways that race and socioeconomic status impacted encounters between racialized people and the police. This example of attention to a “social context” requires a reassessment of police procedures and actions. The final decision considered the situation from Mr. Le point of view. When three officers entered a small, private backyard, without warrant, consent, or warning, late at night, to ask questions of five racialized young men in a Toronto housing co-operative, these young men would have felt compelled to remain, answer and comply.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA [Docket 37971: R. v. Le]

Tom Le v. Her Majesty the Queen <https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2019/37971-eng.aspx>.

CASE IN SUM from Supreme Court Docket 37971:

Evidence found on a young racialized man who was detained by police without reasonable suspicion cannot be used against him the Supreme Court has ruled.

One evening in 2012, Mr. Le and four friends were hanging out in a backyard talking. Three police officers saw them. The officers had not been called for any specific reason. They didn’t have a warrant. They were told this was a problem address for drug dealing. They did not see the men doing anything wrong. Even so, the officers came into the yard without asking permission. They questioned the men, told one of them to keep his hands visible, and asked for ID. Mr. Le said he didn’t have ID with him. The officer asked what was in the bag he was carrying. At that point, Mr. Le ran away. He was arrested and found to have a gun, drugs and cash. He was charged with ten crimes related to these items.

At his trial, Mr. Le said the items found on him could not be used as evidence against him. He said police breached his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 9 says that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.” This means that police can’t detain people, or put them in jail, without a legal reason. Section 24(2) says that evidence taken by breaching someone’s rights cannot be used if it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” That means the evidence cannot be admitting because it could make people lose faith in the justice system and the laws meant to protect them. Everyone agreed the police had no legal authority to make Mr. Le and his friends answer questions, follow directions or show ID. Everyone agreed that Mr. Le was detained at some point.

The question was exactly when, and whether there was a legal reason for it.

The first trial judge said Mr. Le wasn’t detained until he was asked about his bag. He said the detention was legal because the officers had reasonable suspicion of a crime by that point (they thought Mr. Le might have a gun). He found Mr. Le guilty. On his initial appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeal agreed.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the detention was illegal.

It said the police actions were so shocking that the items they found by detaining Mr. Le couldn’t be used against him in court. The majority of judges ruled that someone is “detained” when an ordinary person in the same situation would think they weren’t free to leave and had to comply with police demands. Mr. Le was a member of a racialized community in a low-income area. Members of racial minorities and people living in low-income areas often have more negative police contacts. This social context justifies the ruling: Mr. Le was detained as soon as the officers entered the backyard. The officers came in without warning and without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. Since there was no reasonable suspicion, what they did was illegal.

This is exactly the kind of thing the Charter is meant to protect people from. Police have to follow the Charter in all neighbourhoods and for all people, no matter their racial background or income. This helps people trust the law and the police and makes our communities safer. The Supreme Court ruling said the evidence that police found on Mr. Le could not be used against him. It entered not-guilty verdicts for the charges. This result wasn’t because the Charter doesn’t care about violence, drugs or community safety. It was because the illegal police actions were so serious.

BREAKDOWN OF THE DECISION 3/2

Majority: Justices Russell Brown & Sheilah Martin allowed the appeal (Justice Karakatsanis agreed). Dissenting: Justice Michael Moldaver said the trial judge’s findings about how the police acted should stand, and since their actions weren’t serious and there was a strong public interest in prosecuting the charges, he would have dismissed the appeal (Chief Justice Wagner agreed). DECISION from MAY 31^ST 2019. <https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17804/index.do>

IN SUM: THE FINAL RULING

1. focused on how the lived experiences as racialized men would inform their lived experience of police interactions;

2. provides a new generation of critical race lawyers with analytical weapon to combat biased policing;

3. held that a detention, and most other police interactions are experienced differently by racialized people;

4. police encounter triggered only one reasonable response from the accused and his companions: COMPLIANCE;

5. set the reasonable person test, which accounts for the beginning on a detention, as it exists in detained person eyes;

6. set the objectively reasonable test, which accounts for the lived experience of conducting oneself in a structurally racists society, which results in social exclusion, loss of trust, perpetuated criminalization and that any investigative detention is arbitrary.

HOWEVER, the RULING WARNS

7. that the deployment of this new case law must be strategically aligned with suspected racial profiling and if psychological detention is at its nexus, based on racialization. Be warned the deployment of this case, if applied otherwise, can generate ‘a boy who cried wolf’ type resistance to race.

QUESTIONS

What makes street checks or carding a racialized intervention?

To what extent, will body cameras worn by police officers mitigate these challenges?

Are you aligned with the Supreme Court ruling?

How is the ruling an analytic weapon for a new generation of critical race lawyers?

Why did they overturn the rulings of two other courts? What would your answer be? Why?

Does the case of Tom Le shed light on your understanding of BlackLivesMatter?

Why does the Supreme Court ruling offer a WARNING?

When it is appropriate to recognize social exclusion as a context for judgments?

BIPOC = BLACK, INDIGENOUS & PEOPLE OF COLOR

Help build a bank of RESOURCES that support the collective goal to dismantle systemic racism (in the arts and beyond). This list is forever growing!

I identify the RESOURCES listed as incomplete; there are so many other rich RESOURCES not captured here. Our collection of RESOURCES is a living, non-exhaustive list intended to help us develop a deeper understanding of anti-Black racism, racism toward Indigenous folks and people of colour; as well as provide tools to engage in anti-racism work across our campus and community.

To ALLIES&ACCOMPLICES reviewing these RESOURCES

How do these RESOURCES speak to your role on campus and in your community? Consider ways RESOURCES can inform your active commitment to embedding anti-racism into all spaces you occupy. Reviewing RESOURCES and attending training are a great first step in working toward anti-racism and equity and are tools to inform your present, ongoing and life commitments.

THE INVISIBLE WEIGHT OF WHITENESS

This current social movement for a more just society—including Black Lives Matter & BIPOC people in our communities—asks white people (including me) to DECENTRE our point of view. WE ALL NEED TO PRACTICE our LISTENING skills.

What are DEEP LISTENING practices? How can you sharpen and enhance your REFLECTIVE LISTENING skills? LISTENING to understand; not to quizzically figure out what you have to say. To DECENTRE our white experiences, we must first learn to LISTEN.

Learn how to SAVE or PARK your opinions about white supremacy. You may not need to utter any words about racial justice and related issues like capital, colonialism, heteropatriarchy, law enforcement.

HOW CAN YOU ENABLE someone else to RISE and SPEAK?

You may feel offended for not “having a say.” You may feel awkward. You may still want help processing negative reactions. Engage your personal communities in conversations about these challenging issues—in private spaces. In private spaces, find people to trust. In private spaces, ask your trusted people how they are feeling? In private space, share your feelings. LEARN to LEAN into these spaces as sacred. Don’t demand your BIPOC community to listen to you; don’t demand your BIPOC community account for larger social moments. Don’t confuse private discussions with public discourse.

White supremacy & hate HAVE NO ALLIES.

Our communities and institutions must work against white supremacy & hate.

HOW can you be an ALLY for others? HOW can you work as an ACCOMPLICE against oppressive forces? Set your mind to these tasks. What do you need to do so as to realign your values and actions with calls for justice? REALIGN yourselves with the calls for BIPOC justice.

Anyone who feels disconnected from this tide spring of change is invited to learn. Everyone possesses the capacity to grow into a compassionate person, able to care for others and the world. Black Lives Matter & BIPOC people invite you. You have access to the many opportunities for learning and growth.

QUESTIONS

What’s in your invisible knapsack?

Is this an apt metaphor? What is the underlying tenor of its comparison?

Describe key similarities between McIntosh and Kluttz, Walker & Walter.

APPLY the concept of HEGEMONY to McIntosh and Kluttz, Walker & Walter.

Do you see White Privilege in any of your behaviours or observations of others?

How do these readings make you feel?

Are you able to share any awkwardness?

Where do your responses come from?

Are you open to other points of view? How do you know?

With whom can you discuss your responses to this material?

How did these conversations work for you?

Have you noticed HEGEMONIC forces stepping into the BLM arena?

Do you see statements from large companies & organizations that claim to support wide-scale measures for change?

Do you think our current cultural hegemony is near the collapse? Why or Why not?

Do you recognize how HEGEMONY works? How PROPAGANDA works?

Have you noticed any world events suggesting A perilously steep, sharp drop?

CAREFUL. Are you standing too close to the edge?

IN A RACIST SOCIETY, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO NOT BE NON-RACIST, WE MUST BE ANTI-RACIST.

Angela Davis

FROM NON-RACIST TO ANTI-RACIST

BIPOC lives DESTROYED by the hands & minds of white supremacists and law enforcement.

You have BENEFITED from BIPOC suffering?

NOW IS WHEN things change. SPECTACULAR!

WELCOME to the REVOLUTION.

Black Lives Matter is NOW mainstream. This is a revolution looking for alternatives to the capitalist status quo. (OR alternatives to BRAIN SURGERY).

FACE your PRIVILEGE. You are BRAVE.

BEGIN deconstructing current systems that oppress BIPOC people.

Our conversations about racial oppression and white privilege are a beginning. A first step. MAINTAIN course. You are on the path with others who seek a better world.

AVOID LIP SERVICE. To continue this journey, we must apply a concerted effort to KEEP our conversations HONEST. Does your value for white supremacy TRUMP your value for equality or justice? HONEST? The next step is to close the gap between words & actions.

THE OLD WORLD IS DYING AWAY & THE NEW WORLD STRUGGLES TO COME FORTH. NOW IS THE TIME OF MONSTERS.

Antonio Gramsci

Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci introduces the concept of HEGEMONY to stand for the ideological or moral leadership of society. Simply, HEGEMONY refers to a dominant group’s social, cultural, ideological and/or economic influence and power. HEGEMONY describes how the ruling class (its authority) maintains and exerts its dominance and influence over society.

HEGEMONIC dominance plays out in two distinct ways: (1) COERCION & (2) CONSENT.

COERCION: By using the military, police, prisons and court systems of the capitalist state to force others to accept its role;

CONSENT: Through media messages and other communication systems (propaganda), dominant ideas and values are disseminated and persuade subordinate classes that its rule is legitimate.

The current hegemonic system in the west refers to the entrenchment of capitalism by repeated acts of state force and mind-numbing ideology transmitted through social and political propaganda. Capitalist ideology is reinforced and propagated by the bourgeoisie as “common sense” to ensure it remains the status quo —a hegemony over culture.

As long as the capitalist rulers hold dominion over major cultural concepts (like, what is normal? civil? natural?) OUTSIDER ideas (like socialism or sharing) can never break through into legitimate public discourse because OUTSIDER VALUES are seen as the antithesis to the dominant DESIRABLE values.

Have you noticed HEGEMONIC forces stepping into the BLM arena?

Do you see statements from large companies & organizations that claim to support wide-scale measures for change? HEGEMONIC powers use all channels of communication, like social media platforms, to affirm an ideological stance.

BE ANTI-RACIST

FOCUS ON INACTION

If you asked Microsoft, for example, if they are a company that believes Black Lives Matter, they certainly will agree: YES. In fact, Microsoft uses its corporate Twitter account to post powerful statements, like how systemic racism impacts its Black employees. However, only 4.4% of their massive workforce is black. ACTIONS speak louder than words. What testimony speaks louder? Microsoft’s propaganda or the number of BIPOC employees?

This isn’t just Microsoft. This is HEGEMONY. Countless companies engage in the same corporate tactics. This is how social and political PROPAGANDA works.

QUESTIONS

Do you think our current cultural hegemony is near the collapse? Why or Why not?

Do you recognize how HEGEMONY works? How PROPAGANDA works?

Have you noticed any world events suggesting A PERILOUSLY steep, sharp DROP?

CAREFUL. Are you standing too close to the edge?

Every person must begin this challenge by looking inward. First, address and update your own implicit biases. Only then can we unite to change the systems around us. To create a world that works for all, we must realize that it is not enough to be non-racist. We have to be actively and vehemently anti-racist.

NON-RACISM OR ANTI-RACISM

To be non-racist is to be passive (COMPLICIT) in issues of social justice; it is to believe in the humanity of your BIPOC neighbours but take no steps towards change. Passive non-racism (otherwise known as, “I’m not racist!”) has no place in a progressive society. As things stand, non-racism means you are COMPLICIT.

To be ANTI-RACIST requires ACTION. ANTI-RACISM requires folxs to be proactive and demonstrate ANTI-RACIST initiatives. To be ANTI-RACIST means you are ready and willing to do the work to destroy the structures that marginalize BIPOC people, even if it means going out of your way to having tough conversations that dismantle oppressive systems. You are going to feel very uncomfortable along the way.

To be ANTI-RACIST means that you understand that a threat to the freedom against one of us is a threat to all of us. Injustice for one of us is an injustice for all of us. It’s the responsibility of every citizen to fight back against unjust systems.

THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.