Quite a lot of fuss has been made over the past week regarding the question of racial profiling and the role it played in the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. President Obama now regrets weighing into the case with his remark the officers “acted stupidly”, and he has since back-peddled on that statement (though not apologized). While I don’t think Obama should have commented on the Gates case without knowing all the facts, I do appreciate that he is attempting to diffuse the racial tensions that have emerged.

Here in Ontario it seems, the same cannot be said. Here we have the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who have just ruled against a Toronto police officer for questioning and following a black mail carrier following a report of phone lines being cut in the area.

In spite of the fact there was no evidence to support the claim of racism, the Tribunal has found the officer guilty:

The two officers testified Mr. Phipps’ skin colour was not a factor in their actions and they did not discuss it.

“I accept their evidence that (Mr. Phipps’) skin colour was not discussed between them,” Ms Joachim said. She did find that on a “balance of probabilities” the fact that Mr. Phipps is black was a “factor, a significant factor, and probably the predominant factor, whether consciously or unconsciously” in Const. Shaw’s actions.

Source.

This is a disturbing ruling. It essentially states that if a case of racism is brought before the Tribunal involving a person of colour vs. a white person, the white person will be assumed guilty despite a lack of evidence. The white person must have been racially motivated “whether consciously or unconsciously”.

—-

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised this case has received remarkably little media attention, but I did find this column by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail.