The controversial act of carding

By: Tashy Davidson

On Nov. 17, the Hamilton Police Board held a public meeting where delegations from various activism groups gave presentations on their concerns about Hamilton’s carding policies.

Carding is the practice of gathering information such as name and address from the public and using this information as it becomes relevant to police investigations. Carding interactions vary across jurisdictions, and have come under particular scrutiny in Toronto. Organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have condemned the practice for its ties to discrimination, specifically the systematic targeting of individuals based on stereotypes of race, colour or ethnicity referred to as racial profiling.

“[The draft policy] appears to rely more heavily on giving permission to police officers to card individuals, rather than articulating clearly the rights an individual has in their interaction with the police,” said Marlene Dei-Amoah of the City of Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism at the Board’s public meeting last Thursday.

Hamilton’s carding history is controversial. New provincial legislation, called the Police Service Act came into force in March 2016, which requires municipalities to revise their policy on carding by Jan. 1, 2017 and sets out guidelines for when it is justifiable for police to collect identifying information.

However, even where the stop is justified, police are required to inform citizens that they have the right to walk away, to know the reason for the stop, and to file a complaint.

According to Yasir Naqvi, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the new law will ensure that the collection of identifying information is not discriminatory, because it prohibits “arbitrary” and “random” collection.

Critics, including Maria Antelo of the Community Coalition Against Racism, question the potential consequences of the law.

“The regulations... are an improvement over the status quo, which allows police officers to go on fishing expeditions among racialized and indigenous peoples who happen to be on the street,” Antelo said. “[Carding] should be abolished, not regulated.”

The draft mandates procedural guidelines and requires that officers who collect identifying information be trained appropriately. Officers must give a receipt to individuals who allow their information to be recorded.

But the guidelines also provide access to information collected unjustifiably before or after Jan. 1, and to information stored in the database for more than five years, will be limited to the chief of police.

This is of particular concern to Antelo, who argues that allowing the indefinite storage of identifying information, whether or not collected fairly, is a breach of civil rights.

Dei-Amoah told the board that ambiguities and inconsistencies in the draft make its anti-discrimination regulations ineffective and have the potential to further marginalize racialized members of the community. She asked the board to flesh out all obscure regulations, including the method of officer training, the content of the receipt given to individuals who consent to the collection of information, and the measures that will be taken to deal with transgressions.

“[The draft policy is] a clear representation of systemic structural racism and we are vehemently opposed to its implementation without evidence that the board has taken seriously, and considered critically, the above noted recommendations,” Dei-Amoah concluded.

Dei-Amoah wants the board to rewrite the policy, “incorporating the feedback that you’ve heard today, working alongside and not on behalf of the racialized community to address the highlighted concerns and unintended impacts.”

The board’s final decision will be made at its next meeting in December, and its policy implemented by Jan 1, 2017.