Is The CBC Dividing Us?
There are a lot of things we've come to expect from our state-run media corporation—like bullshit served with bullshit on top of bullshit with a creamy layer of bullshit served with an extra side of bullshit—but we seldom ever expect our state-run media to maliciously divide us along racial lines. So why is the taxpayer funded CBC doing exactly that?
We've seen the racial divisions being stoked in the United States by Black Lives Matter and CNN, so it's somewhat alarming to see our publicly funded broadcaster stoke racial divisions in Canada with our tax dollars. If you've been paying attention to the CBC, you've noticed a distinct racial narrative unfolding. Ever since the acquittal of Gerald Stanley in the shooting of Colten Boushie, the CBC has been working overtime to drive a wedge between whites and First Nations.
Case in point:
Those two tweets (linking to news stories by the CBC) are just an example of how the CBC seems to be trying to stoke racial tensions on both sides. Dalhousie's racial hiring practices aren't new and anti-white hiring is quite common in Canada—and it's not usually covered by the CBC. In almost every CBC news story that has covered the Gerald Stanley trial, virtually no mention has been made about the actual details regarding what happened on Stanley's farm on the night Boushie was shot. According to the CBC, Colten Boushie was randomly shot in the back of the head, for no reason, by a white farmer. Did you get that, citizen? He was shot for no reason, by a white farmer.
Since the CBC has failed miserably at delivering both sides of the story, let me summarize what the defence's testimony was.
One night, Colten Boushie and a few friends decided to trespass on a farmer's property and steal some of his things. Scared for his family and his own safety, Gerald Stanley grabbed a gun to scare the trespassers. Uncertain of what would happen and being scared for his safety, Gerald Stanley wasn't thinking straight. At some point, in the heat of the moment and during an altercation, his gun went off and killed Colten Boushie—who was breaking the law by trespassing and attempting to steal Stanley's things.
That's a piece of testimony that conveniently fails to appear in most of the CBC's coverage of the Gerald Stanley trial.
You can say what you will and assume—like the CBC does—that the jury made their decision based solely along racial lines. To believe what the CBC is trying to imply, you would have to believe that the all-white jury disregarded certain pieces of evidence just because they knew Colten Boushie was native. If you believe that, you might as well stop reading this now, because I won't be able to convince you.
To believe that 12 jurors, a majority of whom were women, would disregard and reject evidence based solely on race is beyond unreasonable. To assume that adding indigenous people to the jury would somehow fix the verdict is even more unreasonable, not to mention racist. By assuming all of these things, you have to assume that all humans—including yourself—make most decisions based on race and ethnicity. Furthermore, to assume anything means to defy the entire purpose and process of Canada's justice system. Canada's justice system wasn't designed around assumptions, it was designed around facts and reasonable doubt.
No jury in Canada can convict a person without the absence of reasonable doubt. In the case of Gerald Stanley, the jury had a reason to doubt that Colten Boushie was murdered in cold blood.
It's also important to consider the Crown prosecutor's decision to pursue the charge of second-degree murder, rather than manslaughter. Had Stanley been charged with manslaughter, he might have been found guilty. Which ever way you choose to look at it, the jury found it unreasonable to put Gerald Stanley in prison for murder. Whether you believe they found it unreasonable because Colten Boushie was native, or whether they thought Stanley didn't intend to kill Boushie, is up to you.
As for stoking racial divisions on the other side, the CBC conveniently timed a story about Dalhousie university seeking “racially visible and indigenous” employees to coincide with the fallout from the Stanley verdict. It's rare for the CBC to cover a story about overt reverse racism in the first place, so seeing the story about Dalhousie appear on their Twitter feed just hours after the Stanley verdict raises some questions.
What raises even more questions about the Dalhousie story is that the CBC was the first Canadian news network to cover it, followed within days by the Toronto Star and Canadian Press.
If trying to write the script for Canada's very own Trayvon Martin controversy wasn't bad enough, your tax-funded CBC is trying to make you resent your indigenous neighbours. Of course, Dalhousie is responsible for its own hiring policies, but the CBC chose to broadcast that policy at a time when we were trying to digest the Gerald Stanley verdict. Meanwhile, a majority of Canada's news organizations decided to let the Dalhousie story go, with the exception of the Toronto Star and Canadian Press—who both seemed to piggyback on the original CBC story days later. Also, it's not like anti-white hiring policies in Canada are uncommon or have ever been worthy of news stories in the past. So why now?
In case you're curious, this is what the CBC reported:
Dalhousie University is restricting its search for a new senior position to racially visible and Indigenous candidates in an effort to make the institution more diverse.
In an email to the university community, provost and vice-president academic Carolyn Watters wrote that "community consultation is essential to the success of the search" for a new vice-provost student affairs.
"In keeping with the principles of our employment equity policy, and with an aim to increase the representation of under-represented groups at Dalhousie, this search for a new vice-provost student affairs will be restricted to racially visible persons and Aboriginal peoples at this time," she wrote.
Jasmine Walsh, assistant vice-president for human resources, said while Dalhousie has done a good job of hiring diverse faculty, it has a way to go when it comes to management positions.
An important note from the image caption in that story is that the email was sent in January—one month before the CBC decided to report on it.
We can debate whether any of this is intentional, but we can all agree that it makes for bad optics on the CBC's part. It could have been some idiot who thought the wake of the Stanley verdict was the perfect time to publish a story about anti-white hiring policies for link clicks, or it could have been more nefarious. Either way, it was stupid.
We can agree that what the CBC is doing isn't helping the so-called racial tensions that are bubbling up in Canada. Leaving out one side of the Boushie story and publishing irrelevant and old news about race-based hiring in Canada is hardly helpful. Doing both at the same time wreaks of ill intent.
Galvanizing racists on both sides is exactly what the CBC is doing, whether it wants to or not. Reporting the news used to be about reporting facts—which used to involve exploring both sides of every story. In the Gerald Stanley case, the CBC has consciously failed to report the defendant's side of the story in a majority of its coverage, while pumping out an endless stream of sympathetic stories about Colten Boushie and how his family has been victimized by a racist and corrupt justice system.
Everything the CBC has been doing seems to be in lockstep with Justin Trudeau's Liberal government. I'll let you decide whether or not that's a coincidence, but if you think it's appropriate for a prime minister to interfere with Canada's justice system, you're totally wrong. It wasn't right when Barack Obama commented on the Trayvon Martin case, it wasn't right when Donald Trump threw his two cents into the Katie Steinle case and it isn't right for Trudeau to promise reforms and side with the critics who are calling Stanley's acquittal a failure of justice.
His acquittal was anything but a failure. Our justice system did exactly what it was designed to do. To say that indigenous jurors and white jurors would—or should—base their verdict on a defendant's race is a total slap in the face to all of us.