Clinton Jaws - Evidence There Is No Systemic Racism In Policing

Episode Date: April 1, 2021

This is a clip from episode 53 (Civilian Review of Police Actions) https://youtu.be/FEwoNYxKc4E The CRCC investigates police complaints. When bad people (sometimes good) do not like the actions of the police/RCMP the CRCC investigates. Apparently there is systemic racism in the policing world but according to their stats, 17000 investigations only revealed 76 people complained they were treated wrongly because of the color of their skin. And we have a systemic issue in Policing? That is 0.44705882352 of people complaining about racism, bias or discrimination. In my opinion that is nil. Zero victims of police racism. The evidence is in and its a fact systemic racism does not exist in the policing world. #clintonjaws #policebreakdown https://www.clintonjaws.com/

It has been reported that there is an overrepresentation of police use of force incidents involving indigenous and racialized people. Give me an example. Can you? No, she can't. Anyway, she's saying that none of people are complaining about police. That's bottom line, okay? We do not get complaints of systemic racism as a rule. It is only when we take a step back and analyze our findings that the systemic nature of racism becomes apparent.

How so? How does it become apparent? Is she going to tell you? No, not really. And she just said, she just proved that there really isn't systemic racism because nobody's really complaining about it. Did you hear that? It's kind of a big deal, isn't it?

We do not get complaints of systemic racism as a rule, huh? What do you mean? You're telling me that people aren't complaining, all your complainants aren't, the bad guys aren't complaining about systemic racism? Now this committee watching that hearing this, they don't like that. They don't like hearing evidence. What? No.

You watch the reaction to what she's saying. She just admitted a point against systemic racism. Everybody listening doesn't like it. She doesn't even realize that she's done this. That she's sticking up for systemic racism not existing in policing. under the RCMP Act. The only way that the public complaint process works is if people trust the system. The only way the system works is if people trust it.

Her system. And I'm going to read something to you after this. That's going to just blow your mind. It blew my mind. You can't trust these guys. These guys are wing nuts. You guys are wing nuts. You're talking out of your ass.

You don't know what you're talking about. Of course you don't. You're not a cop. You're not supposed to know. You only know if you're a cop, if you went to use of force training. After I read to you what I found, you're not going to trust the system. The system is designed to fail because civilians, this lady is the one that is trying to control the system. This lady.

Oh, Laffey. This is just unbelievable. I find it unbelievable. So on average, we receive 3,000 to 3,500 complaints per year. And we tend to send about 2,800 of those complaints over to the RCMP. Over the course of the past five years, we've received 76 complaints that deal with bias, racism, or discrimination. Bias, racism, or discrimination? So, 76 cases of it.

We don't know how many cases of racism. She blumps it together with bias and discrimination and racism. 76 complaints. Let's just go ahead and say it's 76 complaints of racism, which it isn't. I reviewed all 2020 summaries from these guys, their reports, and I could only find one that somebody complained of racism, that they did this because of the color of my skin. And it was their outcome, their recommendation was not founded.

They didn't go along with it. Now think about that for a second. 3,500 cases a year. That's 17,000, it's around 17,000 complaints that they deal with that they have dealt with in the past five years. Out of all those cases, they got 76 cases of people complaining about racism. That's it. Now, you better believe the people listening to this, and you're going to hear it. They didn't like the sounds of that.

She just told you that nobody's complaining about systemic racism. kind of a big deal in it. The only people complain in it. Complain it is the government. Lucky. And these people, this parliamentary committee, I don't even know what they are, tell you the truth. Hey, I don't know.

They sit around and make important decisions, though. Listen to what this guy says. I can't figure this guy out if he's for the police or against the police. Don't see, I was just asked by one of the members to meet that last statistic. repeat that last stat. They're, okay, they're in shock that she just said that. Only 676 out of 17,000 or 37 million people have complained about racism by police. We received over the course of the last five years, we have received 76 complaints that deal with racism, discrimination, or bias.

Okay, thank you. Well, Gary don't like that, does he? So they were asked, okay, you got to repeat that. Okay, we can't even fathom that you just said that. That can't be. This is going against everything we've been saying. Okay, this guy. Pierre?

Thank you, John. So this ratio is minor if we look at the total number of complaints. So 76 out of 2,800. So it's good? No, no, no, no. No, no. 76 out of 17,000. Nobody even corrects them.

It's not what she just said. Anyways, listen, man. Now they start asking her, what do they do? I'll get back to other members of this committee freaking out about the 76 case thing that she just said. But I'm kind of all over the place. But now they're asking for her advice, her advice on what the police should correct.

You recently published a review of the service's use of force. How do you foresee improvements involving wellness calls and de-escalation? In terms of wellness calls and de-escalation, there's two things that really need to be looked at. The first thing that is critical is training. Police officers need to be better trained to be able to handle those particular situations. She's telling you that you need to be better trained to handle these situations. Who is she? The first thing that is critical is training.

Police officers need to be better trained to be able to handle those particular situations. How so? She doesn't know. Of course she doesn't. How does she know? Have you ever been on a ride-along, Laffey? Like, you don't know. What are you talking about?

And she does give you any examples, of course, right? That means no longer taking a command and control approach, as I indicated in my statement. and looking towards a greater de-escalation. So that is the most important thing. You will no longer take a command and control approach. Do you understand me? Do you understand me? You will focus more on more de-escalation.

Okay? You show up to a call. You don't take control of that call. No, no you don't. You let the bad guy take control. There's no more commanding. It's more de-escalation. More hands up.

More Johnny, are you going to be okay? More this shit. Because they have a problem with what I don't know. I really don't know. I don't even know what to say. It's such an idiotic statement made by a civilian. Of course. Of course civilians are going to say that.

They're not police officers. You will not. You go to a mental health call. Throw command and control out the window. You take a step back. you let the bad guy dictate what's going to happen. I don't know. I don't know. The second thing is that there needs to be greater efforts made on the part of provincial and territorial governments

to provide greater mental health and so that police forces can, when it's required, they can work with individuals so that de-escalation is made more possible for individuals that are in crisis. I don't even know what she's talking about. What the fuck? To provide greater mental health And so that police forces can All this bullshit They don't even give examples of what they're talking about

Give me a situation Give me an example They never do Tell me about systemic racism today They can't They can't More deescalation You need to respond to mental health cause better

And when you do don't take a command of control approach Isn't it funny how she criticizes the police? I believe that there would be value in having a member of the commission that is indigenous. We're called members, not commissioners, just to clarify. And I also believe that, yes, we would be strengthened by having indigenous investigators. But we do need to move forward with having a greater indigenous footprint here at the commission. What's that? They have no indignious investigators on her board?

What? She's criticizing the police. Not being diversified enough. Is that the word? But yet, she has no indignious investigators on her board. It's a little racist, isn't it? Maybe you should make your own bed before you try to make an RCMP bed. I don't know.

That sounded dumb, but you know my point. Clean your house before you try to clean other houses. Yeah, something like that. Fuck. Oh, my God. God, it's amazing. Isn't it amazing? What a wing nut.

These are the people making the decisions on how you're going to respond to calls, guys. And I would argue that we need a central agency in Ottawa that looks at Canadian policing, that looks at, again, as we've heard, oversight, run by civilians to shape policing so that it stays on track without spending a lot of money, or without making a lot of big changes,

but you need some civilian influence. And I think the problem is most of the influence the RCMP is internal, and it doesn't get any better as time goes on. Why do you need civilian influence? I'm just curious why. My wife's a nurse. Should there be civilian influence?

Well, they are civilians. But it's like me creating a board and saying, you nurses aren't doing your policies and procedures correctly. I don't know. I know fucking nothing about nursing. They know nothing about policing. Why would there be civilian insight into this shit? I can't tell my wife. I can't mention anything about proper policies and procedures on nursing. I can't. They can't either. You have to live it. Okay, here comes Madame Kara. She's not happy with this stat. She's not happy with this evidence of 76

Jesus. No, no, no, no, no. Madame Kara, three minutes, please. Thank you, Chair. I'll start off, but thanks again for everyone for being here again. I'll start off with Ms. Lahai. Ms. Lahai, can you please clarify for me again the number of complaints that you get and how many you get based on race and discrimination? Why? She's already said it twice.

Now she has to say it a third time. Why? Why does she? Why does this lady need to hear it again? she's not happy. So the number of complaints that we receive on a yearly basis is between 3,000 and 3,500. One of our allegation categories, the categories that we have of allegations do not include discrimination or racism. But I can tell you that over the course of the last five years, we've received 76 complaints that deal with racism, bias, or discrimination.

Those are fighting words. I'm telling you right now, those are fighting words. I mean, that number is quite low. I mean, that number is way too low. There's got to be a reason for it. We can't just leave it at that. Let's come up with a reason why it's low. Okay.

Well, I mean, if you compare that to the realities, especially the realities of the racialized communities and perhaps the testimonies that we've been hearing. What realities? What realities are those? Kiar? is that your name? Those numbers are low compared to the realities.

We don't know what she's talking about. Nobody tests her. The testimonies that we've been hearing, how are you tracking that they're based on racism or discrimination? We're tracking it because the individuals actually indicate that they believe that they've been discriminated against based upon race or culture or religion. They're tracking it naturally.

is how they're doing it. They're naturally tracking it. They're not pressing it. So the individuals actually come out and oftentimes it'll be complaints with respect to officer conduct, perhaps a negative attitude and the individuals will frame it by stating that they believe that they've been discriminated against based upon race. And I put my house on it that the people that say, I believe I've been discriminated against because,

of my race, that this committee, her committee, has not founded one allegation. I put my house on it. Why aren't they asking that question? They should be asking her, Laffey, can you tell me how many times your board agreed with the complainant, bad guy, saying this happened to them because of their race. Nobody asks her that question. Instead, their focus is, it's got to be wrong. 76, that's got to be wrong.

That's got to be incorrect. It goes against everything that we've been trying to do here. You're taking my power away, Laffey, by saying this. You're saying my work doesn't mean anything. I got to stick up for this somehow. Can you just clarify, you know? You need more clarification, right? Just clarify.

Okay, can you please clarify? Clarify, you know, given that there's a clear differential of results of racialized people. I hope you're not concluding that since there's a low number of complaints based on racism that there is little or no systemic racism within the RCMP. I hope you're not. I hope you're not concluding that because that would be very racist of you, you white, privileged lady. Are you racist?

I hope you're not saying that just because there's a low number that there's not systemic racism in policing. I hope you're not saying that. Are you saying that? Is that what you're saying? Huh? Oops. That's exactly what she's saying. But she won't stick up for herself.

Because that's not why she's there. She's there to say there is systemic racism in policing, even though she's given evidence against it. I wouldn't dare. Are you kidding me? I'm a white privileged lady. I wouldn't make that conclusion. No, no, no way.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Ms. Laet. For people who... want to? I don't know. This is the only one. This is the only person I like and I just thought I'd show her for a good reason, right? Oh my God. Okay, so Jack Harris here's this and he's got a question. He can't believe it's only 76 cases. How do we how do we twist this into what I want to hear?

Would happen if someone made a complaint of excessive use of force. There was an indigenous person but didn't mention or complain that it was because I was indigenous. Would that be treated as a racially based complaint or no? No, of course it wouldn't. Does this question even make any fucking sense? What would happen if an indigenous person complained about excessive use of force and said, didn't mention it was because of his race, would that be classified as a what? Why would it be classified as a racially basest complaint? What's he getting that? He's getting that some, right? He says this is a stupid question. See where he's getting at. Or racially based complaints that speak to the importance of cultural sensitivity.

I understand that. You count as 76. So if I made a complaint as an indigenous person, but I didn't say the use of force was because I was indigenous, then that's not considered one of your 76 complaints. No, it is not, but it doesn't mean that we wouldn't address that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's good. That's what I wanted to hear. okay, they're just not complaining about it. They don't make the decision. We make the decision as of the committee.

That's what he was getting at. And I don't even really fully understand it. I got to think about it for like three days. But he's saying, I think. Hey, you know what? They're just not telling you. But we know it was based on race. Police were rough with you.

He was based on race. That's why there's only 76. Really, there's thousands. Thousands upon thousands. He's trying to understand the stats, guys. What do you mean are you trying to understand it? There's 76. At a 17,000 or 76 out of 37 million.

No, no, no. I'm trying to understand the statistics. Can you tell me why you don't publish your reports and recommendations, except in the case of public interest, matters because you could easily allow the public to see what the recommendations were, what the facts were without disclosing privacy. Yes, you're correct. So the Privacy Act is the main reason why we do not do that.

But if you go to our website, you will notice that we have begun to publish summaries of the complaints that we have and we are going to continue doing that going. Oh, yes. Let's take a look at one of those summaries. Let's really dive into their mind for a second. I did. I find it shocking. It's shocking.

This is how these guys think. Hey, thanks for watching that clip, guys. If you want to watch the full episode, it's episode 53. It's called Civilian Review of Police Actions. I don't know. Terrible title. No wonder no one's really watched it. But yeah, subscribe to my channel.

And here's some bonus footage of me acting like an idiot. This lady is going to teach you out about de-esculation and respond in to mental health calls. Right, is that better? I need to speak to you today on the subject. Now you need to hold the microphone back from your... Okay. And Deb to don't avoid de min thanks a to what... I'm not getting translation.

Sorry. I'm not getting translation, chair. Oh, sorry. Translation. Because I'm not sure how to change to the French piece. So...