Here are three recent examples where fear of being labeled racist might have influenced the handling or reporting of crimes or corruption:
Rotherham Grooming Scandal (1997-2013) – In Rotherham, UK, there was significant delay and inaction by authorities in addressing the grooming and sexual exploitation of young girls, largely due to the perpetrators being of Pakistani descent. The Jay Report from 2014 highlighted that fear of appearing racist slowed down the response to these crimes, allowing them to continue for years with minimal intervention.
Telford Child Sexual Exploitation – Similar to Rotherham, the Telford case involved the sexual abuse of hundreds of children over several decades, with local authorities and police reportedly hesitant to act decisively due to fears of being accused of racism. The victims were primarily white girls, and the perpetrators were predominantly from the British Pakistani community. The council’s reluctance to enforce regulations on taxi drivers, some of whom were involved in the abuse, was noted as an example of this hesitancy.
Grooming Gangs in the UK – There have been multiple instances across the UK where grooming gangs operated with a significant delay in intervention by law enforcement or social services, reportedly due to concerns about racial sensitivity. These cases often involved British Pakistani men targeting vulnerable white girls, and the fear of backlash or being labeled racist has been suggested as a reason for the slow response. General posts on social media platforms like X have highlighted this issue, pointing out how political and law enforcement officials avoided confronting the issue to dodge accusations of racism.
These examples illustrate a pattern where cultural sensitivity and the fear of racial accusations have potentially influenced the speed and effectiveness of institutional responses to serious crimes.
Toward the end, the question was asked by Ramaswamy to his opponent – ‘The best way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
You can see all the identity politic tropes manifest themselves – ‘intersectionality’, oppression narratives, the willful dismissal of the evidence at hand (name a better country for the advancement of all people in the country).
I kind of need to know now, what the fuck is going on in Ontario with their interpretation of Human Rights and Discrimination. What I do know is that we do not solve present day discrimination by race, by MORE discrimination by race. This bizarre Kafkaesque excerpt from the C2C website.
On November 10, 2022 – lightning fast by HRTO standards – I heard from the Tribunal again. It was a brief but formal Decision that reasserted the SummerUp program’s legality and ended with an Order declaring, “The Application is dismissed.” In her decision, adjudicator Eva Nichols took issue, again, with the idea that I had a right to bring forward such a case when I had not “faced any form of discrimination on a protected ground” and because I had confirmed I was not bringing the application forward on behalf of another person, namely my son.
But it was the Decision’s Kafkaesque mental process that stood out. Nichols pointed out that “colour and race are among the protected grounds” under which discrimination is prohibited. But, she wrote, “They are not terms that are defined in the Code.”
“No fixed definition”: The HRTO now holds that race is a “social construct” that can be based on mutable characteristics from beliefs and manner of speech to clothing, diet and leisure preferences – things long considered stereotypes.
Instead, the OHRC “offers the following definitions in its Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination…The Commission has explained ‘race’ as socially constructed differences among people based on characteristics such as accent or manner of speech, name, clothing, diet, beliefs and practices, leisure preferences, places of origin and so forth…Recognizing that race is a social construct, the Commission describes people as ‘racialized person’ or ‘racialized group’ instead of the more outdated and inaccurate terms ‘racial minority,’ ‘visible minority,’ ‘person of colour’ or ‘non-White.’ There is no fixed definition of racial discrimination… [emphasis added].”
So race is a legal grounds on which discrimination is prohibited. But it has no definition – and in fact can be based on things like what we eat or what we do for fun. In other words, on racial stereotypes the use of which, in the not so distant past, would themselves have been considered outrageously racist. Nor is there a definition of racial discrimination per se. The Tribunal’s decision did, however, specify one thing racial discrimination can’t be: “[19] It is important to note in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that an allegation of racial discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of colour is not one that can be or has been successfully claimed by persons who are white and non-racialized [emphasis added].”
In other words, according to the Tribunal, white people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their whiteness. (It’s not true, however, that such a claim has never succeeded. A group of white employees in B.C. not only won their case against that province’s Human Rights Tribunal but also successfully defended their claim in court that they were unjustly fired due to their “wrong” race.)
The belief that white people cannot suffer discrimination because they are white is not only held by the HRTO, but is often expressed in the media and by activists. (Source of right photo: alecperkins, licensed under CC BY 2.0)
It’s difficult to grasp which of the two major elements of the HRTO’s decision is more troubling: that blatant acts of discrimination are excused, and in fact are not even considered worthy of consideration if the person discriminated against is white, or that the OHRC is redefining race and racism as based on “social constructs” – habits and practices, like clothing and leisure preferences, that long were considered stereotypes.
“The “serious issues related to governance” identified by Rodrigues arose as a result of the disconnect between the conclusions and directives of the PDSB review and the real-world situation in the schools. The senior administrative team at the time knew that racism in the schools was, at most, one part of the reason for lower achievement and higher discipline rates among black students. They knew that to address these issues would require a broad, community-based set of actions many of which would not be supported by the woke activists who blamed all the problems black students were experiencing entirely on “systemic racism”. The reluctance on the part of senior administration to blame the entire problem on racism and embrace Kendi-style “antiracism” as the antidote meant that they had to go. They were cut loose (with a reported severance package of half a million each for Director Peter Joshua and his Associate Director Mark Harmon).
“As supervisor, I have worked with board staff, the Board of Trustees, community members, students, and parents over the past 2 and ½ years to rebuild relationships and trust that had been eroded over a significant period of time. When I accepted the appointment, I assumed control over a board that lacked capacity to effectively govern in the interests of all students of the board. Administrative leadership and elected leadership lacked the capacity and, in some cases, – as noted in the Investigator’s Report – the willingness to provide the leadership required to ensure that the diversity of students and families in the PDSB was well served.”
The community activists have been well served, but no one else has. The supervisor was disconnected from any actual educational reality on the ground; he did not work out of the board offices but rather at Queen’s Park. He was an unknown ghostly presence in the board and most staff never met him or received any correspondence from him. His role appeared to be to ensure that the local activists, who were demanding the application of Critical Theory (wokeism) to board polices and procedures, were consulted by senior administration at every turn. Under Rodriguez, a major purge took place in which the majority of the senior administration, lifelong educators with a wealth of experience, were shown the door. Since these were firings without cause, this exercise not only degraded the administration, replacing these knowledgeable veterans with inexperienced, ideologically-driven neophytes, it was also very expensive. Millions were spent on severance pay and early retirement packages, which essentially amounted to paying an administrator his or her full salary while they sat at home until they reached that date at which they could retire with an unreduced pension. Of course, receiving these handouts was predicated on keeping their mouths shut about what was really going on at the board. The point is that the effect of Rodrigues’ supervision was the replacement of highly experienced, traditional liberal, and relatively apolitical administrators with inexperienced, identity-obsessed followers of Kendi-style Critical Theory. As you might expect, the resulting impacts on student learning environments and teacher morale have been devastating.
“I have also invested significant time and resources to build the capacity of the Board of Trustees (Board) to position them to govern the PDSB in a manner that is accountable, transparent, respectful, and responsive to the issues and concerns of the communities it serves….”
The only people Rodrigues was accountable to were the race-essentialist activists. He has done absolutely nothing to model respect or responsiveness to community concerns about the hostile and divided climate he has created in the schools and offices of the board, in which all white people (especially heterosexual males) are characterized as oppressors while black people and other “marginalized groups” are cast as victims.
“While the newly elected board has begun its term of office in a productive and positive way, it is appropriate for regular updates to be sent to the minister to confirm that relationships are professional, respectful, and collaborative among the trustees and between the Board and the senior leadership team. The minister would be advised to similarly request confirmation and evidence that the Board is responding to community concerns in a respectful, timely and meaningful manner”.
It is clear from this statement, that while the board may have been handed back control of its operations, Big Brother will be watching. That means that Critical Theory will continue to govern PDSB policy as long as it remains the mainstream thinking in academia generally. And that could be a very long time.”
Divide and conquer is the preferred method on display here. The former board was isolated and those that did not buy into the program were purged in the name of ideological purity.
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…