The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled earlier this month that two lawyers and a law student had been victims of racial profiling at the Peel Law Association, a voluntary professional association that maintains a lawyers' library and lounge facility at the A. Grenville and William Davis Courthouse in Ontario, Canada.
The incident took place in 2008 when a librarian asked for identification from lawyers Brian Noble and Selwyn Pieters, together with Paul Waldron, a law student employed by Mr. Pieters. The three men (shown above; image source here) were seated in the lounge, which apparently is reserved for lawyers and law students -- not clients, support staff or other members of the public. The librarian claimed that she asked for identification to determine whether the three men were paralegals (and thus not permitted in the lounge). The complainants alleged racial profiling, claiming that the librarian did not believe "that three Black men might be lawyers rather than paralegals." By way of background, Mr. Pieters is a well-known Canadian barrister and solicitor who has won several high-profile civil rights cases. He also has been critical of alleged racial profiling by the Canadian Border Service Agency (see here). The three men were at the courthouse that day to argue a case involving racial profiling.
The HRTO adjudicator ruled that the complainants suffered "injury to their feelings, dignity and self-respect" and awarded them $2,000 each in damages:
I find that race and colour were a factor in the personal respondent’s decision to stop and question the applicants and Mr. Waldron, and as such, it was an act of discrimination. I find the personal respondent’s account of what took place during her interactions with the applicants not to be credible and I do not accept that the non-discriminatory reasons she gives account for why she chose to ask the applicants for their identification when she did. The inference I draw is that the applicants’ race and colour was a factor which led to the personal respondent’s decision to question them and affected the manner in which she questioned and interacted with them. I do not find that any other action of the respondents, including the personal respondent’s decision to accompany one of the applicants to retrieve a business card and the decision by the respondents to post additional signage regarding access to the lounge and library, violated the Code.
The full decision is here. Canadian press coverage is here, here and here.
The adjudicator describes the event as "clearly an emotional and dramatic incident and one that quickly escalated into confrontation." From reading the decision, it seems to me that professionalism was lacking on both sides (although that doesn't make the librarian right).
Addendum dated December 15, 2010:
A colleague asked me what I meant when I wrote "professionalism was lacking on both sides." Was I critical of the lawyers' vocalizing opposition to what they believed to be racial profiling? Here are further thoughts.
If I had been one of the lawyers who was questioned, (I hope) I would have spoken out about what I thought was happening, too. Vocalizing was completely and totally appropriate.
What seemed lacking in professionalism, by the librarian at least, comes from Mr. Pieters' testimony that the librarian "without identifying herself, spoke first to him, demanding to know who he was and why he was in the lounge...." She should have stated who she was and why she was asking for ID (and, needless to say, she should have requested ID from anyone whom she did not personally know to be an attorney, if that was the library policy).
In terms of Mr. Pieters' behavior, the librarian testified:
Mr. Pieters was getting upset, Mr Waldron and Mr Noble were getting louder, and all three were speaking to her. She described the scene as becoming chaotic, that Mr. Pieters stood up and told the other two not to engage with the personal respondent. She testified that Mr. Pieters reached into his pocket to get his wallet and to show her his identification, and that when the personal respondent leaned forward to read the identification in order to determine with whom she was dealing, that he told her not to touch the wallet. The personal respondent testified that Mr. Pieters became louder and repeatedly stated to the others not to engage.
If there was chaos, shouting and people talking over each other, that to me seems unprofessional behavior by anyone who was doing so -- whether they be lawyers, librarians, law students, court personnel.
Protesting racial profiling is professional. Vocalizing one's opposition to racial profiling is professional. On a human level, can I understand the desire to yell? Yes. But in a lawyers' lounge, yelling -- by anyone -- is not professional, in my own judgment.
As I think more and more about this incident, the more I see gender stereotyping (on both sides), too. Women in authority being characterized as rude or aggressive. Black professional men being othered -- and black professional men with locks not fitting white mainstream stereotypes about "lawyers." Black men standing up for themselves, speaking out against an accusation by a white woman. This encounter took place in the deep historical context of racism, race relations and racialism in the Americas.
Comments