Our next speaker is Mrs. Venues Mama Venues is the principal of Liberty Lodge Chambers.
She's also the managing director of the Centre for Justice and a good friend of mine.
She's going to speak on whether colour-blind legislation does in fact lead to racial justice.
Good evening. The emphasis of my talk tonight is going to be social justice rather than the law.
Having just said that, I would like to begin with the Bermuda Constitution as a starting point.
The Bermuda Constitution emulates the principles espoused by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights,
namely that human rights are inalienable regardless of race, creed or religion.
When it comes to examining the effect or impact laws as they relate to racial justice and equality,
it is important to remember the aims and objectives of the Universal Declaration and the European Convention.
Both instruments followed the Second World War.
So the main concern at that time was political and civil rights, meaning the protection of fundamental rights of the individual from the state.
Equality before the law was and is deemed to be the backbone of a free and democratic society.
Those ideals were and are good.
But when it comes to racial justice and equality, any legislation that emulates principles of equality before the law presumes a level playing field.
The abolition of slavery in 1954 and racial desegregation in 1968 did not create a clean slate.
The emphasis being equality, we have achieved that in law, as you have heard this evening, well, except for what Walton had to say.
But we have perpetuated inequities in society. The difference between equality and equity can easily be shown in our criminal justice system.
On the face. Our laws are fair and impartial and their appearance, their colour-blind.
But in effect, sometimes they are not. One such example is the stop and search powers under section three one five f of the Criminal Code Act.
The police have the power to stop and search people and vehicles under various pieces of legislation,
so long as there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are carrying, for example, stolen goods, drugs or weapons.
We take no issue with those provisions under Section three one five F, as amended in 2010.
If an inspector above reasonably suspects that serious violence may take place
in any locality or that dangerous weapons may be carried out in any locality,
he may give authorisation that police officers may stop and search any personal vehicle.
The police officer is not required even subjectively to reasonably suspect that the person or vehicle he
is going to stop and search is about to engage in an act of violence or is carrying a dangerous weapon.
The constitutionality of this provision aside, this legislation has had a disparate impact on the black community.
According to statistics released by the Bermuda Police Service,
stops and searches jumped from three thousand seven hundred twenty in 2009 to nine thousand
four hundred nineteen in 2010 and to seventeen thousand four hundred twenty nine in 2011.
Based on the data released by the Bermuda police, over 90 percent of those stopped and searched were black.
What these statistics did not reveal was the impact and perhaps unintended consequences
of section three one five f on the black community as a result of those powers.
The Magistrates Court were flooded with young black males who had been stopped and searched only three one five f,
ostensibly because that locality had been authorised for such searches in order to prevent violence or seise weapons.
But they weren't in court for that. What we were told by the defence bar was that these young men were being prosecuted
for offences other than what Section three one five F was intended to be used for.
And of course, this meant a criminal record. And, of course, the infamous stop list.
So statistically,
the Bermuda police were unable to show a correlation between three one five F stops and searches and seizure of weapons and arrests of violent crimes.
We have more clear statistics in the United States.
In a 2002 national survey on stops and searches broken down by ref by race and ethnicity, that is why black and Hispanics,
the data collected showed that equal number of and I repeat, equal number of whites, blacks and Hispanics were stopped by the police.
Of those stopped, less than four percent who were searched were white,
whereas over 10 and 11 percent of the blacks and Hispanics were actually searched.
Criminal evidence found on those searched was completely in reverse.
Of those search, less than forty four percent of the blacks were in possession of something illegal.
Whereas over 12 percent of the Hispanics and over 14 percent of the whites were in possession of something illegal.
We have interesting statistics from the UK as well.
But before I turn to those statistics, I should pause to mention the case that Chan referred to in his opening.
That case involves section six 6E of the UK Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994,
which is identical to our Section three one five F, and that case went all the way to the two.
The Supreme Court Lady Hale, whom we all know and respect as very liberal, had this to say.
There are great benefits to the public in such a power. It is the randomness and therefore the unpredictability of the search,
which has a deterrent effect and also increases the chance that weapons will be detected.
The purpose of this is to reduce the risk of serious violence where knives and other offensive weapons are used,
especially that associated with gangs and large crowds.
It must be borne in mind that many of these gangs are largely composed of young black people from black and minority ethnic groups.
While there is a concern that these groups should be disproportionately targeted,
it is members of these groups that will benefit the most from the reduction in violence,
serious injury and death that may result from the use of such powers.
Put bluntly, it is mostly young black lives that will be saved if there's less gang violence in London, in London and some other cities.
It is important to bear in mind, as Lady Hale edges to do that.
Statistics show that her observations do not accord with reality.
In July 2013, I'm sorry, in July 2013, the UK secretary of state for the Home Department, Theresa May,
announced that of the more than one million stops and searches performed on the basis of reasonable suspicion,
on average only nine percent resulted in an arrest.
The UK Metropolitan Police said in 2014 that it was able to increase its search to arrest ratio to one in five at the same time.
It has discreet, I'm sorry, decrease the number of random stops that it carries without reasonable cause.
In other words, the rate of legitimate arrests have increased where the police have done their job and
first assess whether there exists reasonable grounds to stop a person before doing so,
rather than relying on his race. Statistics tell us part of the story, but not all of it.
The social narrative reveals the other part of the story.
I used to think that with a combination of statistics and data and anecdotal evidence, we would be able to advance racial justice.
Sadly, my experience with section three one five f over the last few years has proved me wrong, partially wrong.
Clearly, statistics are important, but they're not enough.
So long as we don't address some basic core beliefs that we have as a society, we do have a long road ahead of us.
I'd like to pause here for a minute so I can provide some context to what I've just said.
Section three one five f stop and search powers was the very first issue that Centre for Justice decided to address.
At our very first board of directors meeting, I mentioned that a young black male had come to see me a few months earlier.
He had been stopped nine times over a 13 month period. This young man had a bachelor's degree and a full time job.
Nothing about this young man. How he dressed, how he looked, how he spoke, projected an image of gang type behaviour.
Yet he had been stopped nine times.
What I learnt from my talks and speeches and private conversations about Section three one five powers was that when it came to police powers,
the reaction to it was mixed. Blacks and whites in roughly equal numbers were divided on whether the police should have the power
to do what they needed to do to stop violence versus the supremacy of our constitutional rights.
But when it came to the story of the young black man who had been stopped nine times,
the reaction of blacks and whites were completely racially divided.
The blacks understood immediately that this young male fit a certain profile by virtue of his race.
His character was never questioned by them. The Whites, on the other hand, wanted to know more.
How did he look when he was stopped? Where was he? What was he doing?
Who was he with?
One sympathetic listener sighed that it was unfortunate that he hadn't attended someone like Harvard because his story would then be more impactful.
Another, perhaps less sympathetic listener observed that whilst this man's experience was unfortunate,
he must have been in the system, otherwise he wouldn't have been stopped so many times.
In Bermuda, police don't kill, fortunately, but when it comes to stop and search, the narrative is very similar of,
if not identical to, that in the United States, and it now looks like in the UK as well.
When it comes to an encounter with a police meaning police brutality or killing or abuse of power,
young black males do not have the benefits of societies. Don't we expect them to be perfect victims?
Otherwise, they cannot be victims of police brutality and killing.
And in the case of Bermuda, racial profiling when it comes to stop and search, Lady Hale's observations may resonate with a segment of society.
But all they do is reinforce assumptions that formed the mindset that continues to divide the community.
So statistics and anecdotal evidence aside, it is time that we address this mindset if we're serious about addressing racial equality.