News   Jan 12, 2026
 124     1 
News   Jan 09, 2026
 473     0 
News   Jan 09, 2026
 2K     1 

Boxing Day Shooting

You guys can be as PC as you want.
But "having a hard time finding a job", "discrimination", and "marginalization" is no excuse for murder.

We gotta cut all this nice talk here, and get to the bottom of the problem.

Countless other nationalities and groups of people in this city had trouble when they first immigrated to Canada. And yet they did not murder.
We have to just admit there is a problem, and its not having a hard time finding a job.
Its more to do with a culture that promotes that its cool to be a gangster, etc.


Mike, no offense, but I have to say Im thrilled you didn't win the election a few years ago.

Re-read what EnviroTO is saying...it isn't about nationality.

And North American culture in general promotes violence, etc. as cool...this isn't just a "black" problem.
 
And North American culture in general promotes violence, etc. as cool...this isn't just a "black" problem.

Exactly. You have westerns which promoted tons of excessive violence and slaughtering of Native Americans. You have action movies with people such as Arnold Schwarzeneger(sp?) and Jean Claude VanDamme (sp?) engaging in plenty of shoot em up action. You have martial arts films from Asia and stars such as Jackie Chan. You have The Sopranos, The Godfather, Scarface, and other crime family fare. You have violence in cartoons, music videos, and descriptions of violence in movies. Violence is everywhere, created by everyone. Modern day "gang culture" associated with inner city youths and hip hop is just another iteration in the ever evolving selling of violence.

And even to focus on the fact that it is gun violence may be somewhat short sighted. Could it just be that we see gun crime because people have such easy access to them? If you compare the recent uprising in the suburbs of Paris to what is happening in North America. Both events may very well stem from the same cause, high unemployment, marginalization by the rest of society, segregation, failure of the government to properly integrate recent immigrants into society, failing family structures, or others. But because in Toronto it may well be easier to access handguns than in Paris then end result in Toronto, or any other North American city ends up being violence and aggression through guns, as opposed to violence and aggression through revolting in the streets of Paris and other French towns and destroying cars and other types of property. If you were to take all the guns off of the streets of Toronto, would you actually be solving any problems at all? Or would the end result resemble Paris as opposed to resembling New York or Los Angeles?

This is why most everyone on the forum can read through Enviro's posts and understand that looking at the problem through a very superficial point of view (its a black problem, its a gun problem) will do nothing to solve the problem. Its not being PC, its not excuses or just talk. Its actually intelligently, and rationally, examining what the deep root of these problems are by examining a large number of societal factors through a thoughtful, non biased process to try and determine why we are seeing gun violence in our city and what we can do to solve it.
 
I'm glad you brought up the Paris riots, Antiloop, because it's another example where ethnicity is a factor. The rioters were mostly Arab and North African who lived under squalid conditions in poor, high-crime neighbourhoods on the outskirts of Paris. Mainstream French society never accepted them as being "French" and they were marginalised and given few opportunities.
 
And I remember that many people, not just on the forum, but in the media as well were asking whether such an event could happen in Canada that was taking place in France. Of course most people said no and gave ourselves self congratulatory pats on the back for being so tolerant and accepting and warding off such troubles. Even I said that such an event was not very likely to take place.

I think what was missed in all that is that while the end result may not look the same (riots at Jane and Finch still dont seem likely in our society), the problems might be much closer than we think. Put guns in the hand of many of the arab youths in Paris and would the outcome in France closer resemble what we see here, rather than the more European mob mentality of taking to the streets in mindless destruction. Maybe not. And I am not familiar with the exact segment of society in Toronto that seems to be suffering the most from gun violence, if it is in fact determined that many are recent immigrants then maybe there are more similairities between Toronto and Paris, than say Toronto and New York (or any other American city where it is less a problem with immigration and in many cases historical and continual segregation of certain segments of society).

But this is exactly why the debate can simply slide into a narrow minded issue of race. As soon as you view the issue with a narrow mind you miss many, many other factors which may prove to be far more important than the superficial ones the media likes to spew out.
 
I'm glad you brought up the Paris riots, Antiloop, because it's another example where ethnicity is a factor. The rioters were mostly Arab and North African who lived under squalid conditions in poor, high-crime neighbourhoods on the outskirts of Paris. Mainstream French society never accepted them as being "French" and they were marginalised and given few opportunities.

That would indicate a problem with society as a whole...not with Arabs or North Africans in particular.
 
Mainstream French society never accepted them as being "French" and they were marginalised and given few opportunities.

True. We must make sure we aren't doing that here in Canada and if we categorize criminals who cause problems "Black" in the media rather than "misguided youth" we are going down the same path. The French probably wouldn't consider themselves racist either, but creating neighbourhoods of immigrants and blaming the whole community for the problems of a few within that community increases the marginalization of those people more and more. If we constantly hear Black guys in baggy pants and basketball jerseys commit crimes over and over again it builds and reinforces a stereotype in our mind. These stereotypes can come into our mind such that when we see someone fitting a stereotype, even when we conciously push it aside because we know it is illogical, the fact it passes through our minds shows that some damage has been done. Not everyone will rationalize their fears and push them aside and see the truth... phobias can control some people irrationally... so building a stereotype is very dangerous in that it prevents Black people from having an equal opportunity. It's not about political correctness... it is about ensuring equal opportunity and controlling irrational stereotypes and in some cases public fear.
 
From The Star

What Philadelphia can teach us

Philly's urban streets are becoming less mean, thanks to a group of men who mentor at-risk black youths. `Let us use our arms to embrace each other, not erase each other!' the Men United preach. Philadelphia is listening — and there's a lesson for Toronto, too.
Jan. 8, 2006. 05:48 AM
CATHERINE PORTER
STAFF REPORTER


PHILADELPHIA - It's just 540 kilometres south, but the view from the killing grounds at Dover St. and Cecil B. Moore Ave. in Philadelphia's forlorn and gritty north district is a world away from any one of the scenes where people died by the gun in Toronto last year.

The brownstone buildings that once housed the city's genteel families have long been abandoned; they stand barricaded with clapboards. Crumpled-up chip bags and bottles litter the sidewalks. Fenced-in lots sit empty, the odd "No Loitering" signs emphasizing the barren atmosphere.

It's 7 in the evening and already the street is all but abandoned. Two uniformed police officers huddle by a force cruiser. Down by the corner, there's a cluster of young boys hanging out. Everyone else stays inside — and for good reason. Suddenly, the foreboding silence is shattered. Men United roar up in a caravan of vans and jeeps, a rap song blasting from loudspeakers. Like a group of gang enforcers, nine men in baseball caps and bomber jackets emerge and quickly spread to the various corners — approaching the boys, disappearing down dark streets.

They are likely the only ones on the streets without guns. They pack pamphlets instead.

"How you all doing?" says Ray Jones, a sprightly leader of the group, approaching the cluster of boys who peer at him coldly. "We're with Men United for a Better Philadelphia, a non-violence group. We're here because we're concerned about the homicide rate in the city ...."

If you were expecting a drive-by, this is a love-by — and it's one of Philadelphia's homegrown solutions to its bubbling problem of gun violence.

While Toronto grapples with its rising homicide rate and the mounting number of black men killed by gunfire each year, we could well turn to Philadelphia for a few lessons.

It is far more experienced when it comes to gun play. With 1 million fewer people than metropolitan Toronto's 2.5 million population, Philadelphia witnessed almost five times our homicide rate last year — the vast majority by handgun.

Three days into 2006, its body count already reached seven — five on one day.

Ask its top cop, police commissioner Sylvester Johnson, who is killing whom and he'll tell you that more than 85 per cent of both the killers and their victims are young black men, despite the fact that African-Americans make up only 43 per cent of the city's 1.5 million people.

Most hail from the poorest neighbourhoods in town, where fathers are more rare than health insurance. And most shoot each other over seemingly petty arguments.

"You might bump into a person or look at somebody's girlfriend wrong or have a dispute with your neighbour," Johnson says. "Before, it would have been a fight. Now, it's a shooting."

Sound familiar? Two weeks after 15-year-old Jane Creba was killed by a bullet while Boxing Day shopping on Yonge St., the City of Brotherly Love seems to offer a vision of Toronto's future, if the situation goes unchecked.

A similar shooting four years ago galvanized a group of men here. A young black reverend had been killed in the crossfire between two drug gangs outside a church in south Philadelphia.

Gathering one Saturday morning after his funeral, the men decided that enough was enough. They knew what the problem was and they wanted to become part of a solution.

Their idea was simple: Go to the neighbourhoods where homicides were exploding and talk to the young men. Become the father figures and role models they lacked.

"A nature program showed young bull elephants that were off the chain. They couldn't be controlled. They found out there were no older males around. And once they introduced some old bulls into the herd, it levelled out the testosterone," says Jones, the slim, wily former press secretary for the mayor who helped found the group.

"It's off-balanced. Young men who have no direction, who are angry and misguided and are out on the street corner with no one who can teach them how to be men. All the false bravado, all the reaching for guns — it's all symptomatic of not having a father, not having direction, looking for belonging and a sense of identity in themselves."

Men United started heading out to the city's hotspots — identified for them by police — armed with pamphlets and idealism — hoping to change the course of many lives.

Realizing they needed to provide concrete alternatives, they hired an employment counsellor to hook men up with legitimate jobs. They began to visit penitentiaries to talk to soon-to-be-released convicts. They hired youth outreach workers to venture into schools. And some of their members developed an official mentorship program called "Rites of Passage," in which young men could learn everything from their cultural history to money management.

Since then, their ranks have grown past 400, and chapters have sprung up across the Delaware River to New Jersey and Pennsylvania. They include city administrators like Jones, advertising executives, police officers, counsellors, unemployed men and ex-cons, like Malik Aziz, who can recount firsthand that prison life is not all it's cracked up to be.

"What we do is invaluable," says Aziz, another of the group's co-founders.

"We have helped thousands of people. Just the interactions we do every day, giving people help, advice. We'll take an hour off to talk somebody out of popping somebody. That's crime prevention. You can't measure that stuff."

Says Mark Harrell, the group's barrel-chested director: "That's why it works. We've got guys who can tell these young cats on the street: `You don't want to do this and I can tell you why.'"

According to police, the approach has worked.

In every neighbourhood Men United have blitzed, returning one night a week for two months, the violence has dropped dramatically. By the time they leave, women are out on their porches sweeping and sending their children to the corner store — something they wouldn't have dared do before.

And although the city's homicide rate continues to rise every year — jumping from 330 in 2004 to 380 in 2005 — police commissioner Johnson says it would be even higher without the group's efforts.

Then, there's the psychological impact the group has had on neighbourhoods. It's not without careful thought that they hit the streets blaring their theme song "Stop the Violence" and wearing baggy jackets and sweatpants emblazoned with their motto: "Let us use our arms to embrace each other, not erase each other!"

If Jones arrived in his day-job suit and cufflinks, he likely wouldn't reach people the same way. But, these men are also trying to remould the image of a black gangster into one of a caring activist.

"We're presenting them with a concept of black men they have never even fathomed in these neighbourhoods," says Jones. "It's a subliminal message. It's beyond the T-shirts and the hats and the `Hey brother, you can turn your life around.' It's black men taking control of their neighbourhood and their destiny."

Amazingly, Men United haven't faced any personal danger in the four years they've been patrolling the city's most dangerous neighbourhoods. The worst they have endured is hollered curses and cascading diapers from balconies. There hasn't been one shooting. That, they say, is because the gangsters know they aren't vigilantes. And most of them come from these neighbourhoods.

"These guys are our sons, our nephews, our cousins, our little brothers, our dads, our uncles. These are real people and we're not afraid of them because we know they come from us. They live in our homes, they eat our food, we bathe them and clothe them," says Harrell. "We are not going to a foreign land."

Their headquarters is on the edge of north Philadelphia — a five-minute drive from Cecil B. Moore Ave.

After 30 minutes of cruising the streets there on Wednesday night, they climb back into their vans and roar off to another shady neighbourhood five minutes away. It's a public housing project called Blumberg. Three apartment buildings rise up around a central circle, surrounded by small row houses.

The women who staff the security booths here have called Men United for help. Drug dealers patrol the area, selling crack and "wet" — marijuana laced with PCP, a hallucinogen similar to LSD. The result has been a number of shootings.

"We need help," says Linda Bryant, the middle-aged security guard.

As group members take to the streets around the apartment buildings, they are greeted by a chorus of single mothers, each stepping out of he home to talk about problems with their sons.

"I'm so happy you are here," says Debbie Smith, emerging from her cousin's home. There's a bullet hole in the door, a memento left by a group of young men seeking retaliation against her cousin's 16-year-old son over a fight, she says.

"What kind of older male influence does he have?" asks Harrell, the stocky director who looks like he could fill in for a linebacker with the Philadelphia Eagles.

"That's it. None," she responds. "They're all gone," echoes her cousin Attiyah Ross.

Next door, Dawn Dickerson steps out to see what the chatter is all about. Her 22-year-old son was shot in the leg one night two months ago while returning from the corner store. There was no reason for it, she says. It just comes with the territory.

"Hopefully, with some more men in this area, it can change," says Harrell, who leaves her a pamphlet.

"I'll say a prayer for you guys," says Smith. "You all be safe out here," echoes Dickerson.

The underlying sources of Philadelphia's gun violence are even more complex than Toronto's. They go back as far as slavery. Add to that poverty, lack of education, family breakdown and the limitless supply of guns.

Pennsylvania has some of the most lax gun regulations in the United States. There are 31,000 gun owners with permits to carry their weapons on the streets of Philadelphia. There are many more who carry them illegally. During a one-week gun buy-back campaign they hosted last year, Men United collected 1,000 firearms.

A "hot" revolver will go for as little as $25 (U.S.) on a street corner, Harrell says.

Men United's success has the city's top cop sounding more like a social activist than a hardened police officer.

"Police are never going to arrest their way out of the problem we're having," Johnson says. "There has to be a holistic-type approach."

It may seem incredible that something so simple as men talking to one another could solve such a complicated problem. But sometimes it's the simple things that make all the difference.

"A lot of people think these neighbourhoods can't change. Men United show you can," says Jones. "We're building a movement."

For Toronto to address its growing gun problem, it will take more than gang courts and beefed-up police forces, the Philly men say. What's needed is for Toronto men to step up.

"Men have to be part of whatever's going to change in these communities," says Harrell. "Women have long been part of the anti-violence movement. Men have to get out of their football chairs and come onto the streets and assist those women."

Each night, after their patrol for peace is finished, the group gathers in a circle for a final prayer. Then, members pile back into their cars and whiz off to their own homes and children.

When the caravan roars past a single man standing on a street corner, he stands up straight, to attention, salutes the crew with two fingers, split into a V. It's an unfamiliar sight around these parts: a peace sign.
 
By failing to admit and acknowlegde where the problem lies and where the problem exists, you will fail to provide the resources in the right areas and ultimately solve the problem.

Unfortunately, focusing the resources on "poor people" who wear 'baggy pants' will not solve the problem. Focusing the resources on the young Jamaican community may.
 
I snapped two photos of yesterday's youth anti-violence march outside the Eaton Centre. I applaud the efforts of the marchers, but it had last-minute organization, and I was somewhat surprised at the low turnout... only a hundred people or so.

P1020750.jpg


P1020751.jpg
 
There needs to be a general strategy to address these crimes like at the justice system level that is culturally blind, but this does not change the fact that there needs to be an additional targeted campaign as well that addresses the demographic reality of who is overwhelmingly commiting the crimes. Culture matters. We need to tackle poverty and predjudice, but if it was just about poverty and predjudice then why do the majority of ethnic minorities who come or came to this city climb there way out of poverty within one generation, and participate in criminal activity at rates lower than the old anglo-majority?

What I am suggesting is that there are numerous fronts to tackle this issue, but pursuing one avenue does not mean to the exculsion of another. Tackling poverty, poor living conditions, justice reform, policing, they all matter, but while some can afford to be blind to demographics, others can not nor should they be. If you are more comfortable with one or the other then focus your own attention on it.
 
That would indicate a problem with society as a whole...not with Arabs or North Africans in particular.

Did anyone say otherwise?

If we chose to be politically correct about the French riots and ignored the fact that the rioters were of a particular ethnicity, then we would never discover why they happened. Same thing applies in Toronto.

We have to get past this fear of talking about race and ethnicity because it hurts all of us in the long run.
 
We have to get past this fear of talking about race and ethnicity because it hurts all of us in the long run.

I dont think there is a fear of talking about race, but I do think that when race is used its often done so in a very inappropriate way. When you pick up a newspaper or read an online headline that says something such as 'White girl killed in Aruba' or 'Black man suspected of killing two people on a bus', this does absolutely nothing to address any deeper problems that may have caused the murder in the first place. It would be no different if the headlines read 'Rich girl killed in Aruba' or 'Poor male kills people on public bus'. All such headlines, and the subsequent stories that follow do, is label people and place them into a small group which society as a whole can marginalize and help create a cult of fear around.

When someone is examining murder statistics for the year and wants to explore whether there is a pattern to whom or where the killings are taking place, then I dont see any problem with including race as one of many factors to explore. What neighborhood are the people from? Are the recent immigrants? How much money do they make? Are they from single parent or multi parent homes? How well do they do at school? Are they employed? What is there ethnicity? Where the crimes premeditated or random? What connection if any do these people have to gangs? You could make a long comprehesive list of variables that may play a part in determining which, if any, segments of society may have a greater tendency to fall into crime and gang activity, and then from there, why. And it isnt to say that race or ethnicity should not be examined, but to trumpet it as anything close to a major factor or one that deserves presedence over all others is really short sighted and will do nothing to actually solve the problem.

Another case where race or ethnicity could be explored in a context that would actually produce a better understanding without labelling certain groups is when you want to explore what societies role is in marginilizing certain groups. How has society treated Arabs living in America since Sept 11? Why are black men and women exploited my commercial media and interests more than any other ethnic group? Why do people view poor people as little more than lazy layabouts who just need to work harder to solve their problems? I would argue that these are examples where discussing a specific race, ethnicity, or socio-economic group is in fact relevant, but is also being discussed in a way that is not treating them or casting them in a negative light, but is a relevant factor in trying to determine why certain problems exist among certain groups.

The problem isnt with talking about race or ethnicity, its that more often than not, its done in a negative way. Its the difference between a constructive discussion of social problems done by say CBC when they discuss why such a high number of First Nations people have addictions to crystal meth, or an article in Le Devoir which talks the recent rise in Arab gangs and what is causing the problem, versus The Toronto Sun or Global News who throw around race as if it some cases it is the ultimate cause of crime and although not directly, in many cases help to fuel negative stereotypes and racism towards certain groups.
 
"There needs to be a general strategy to address these crimes like at the justice system level that is culturally blind, but this does not change the fact that there needs to be an additional targeted campaign as well that addresses the demographic reality of who is overwhelmingly commiting the crimes."

I agree. General anti-crime measures should be demographically blind because root causes like poverty can affect everyone equally, but targeted campaigns are definitely warranted against specific gangs - seems that except for random shootings, gangs are never culturally blind, either in their membership, their associates, or their victims.
 
Did anyone say otherwise?

If we chose to be politically correct about the French riots and ignored the fact that the rioters were of a particular ethnicity, then we would never discover why they happened. Same thing applies in Toronto.

We have to get past this fear of talking about race and ethnicity because it hurts all of us in the long run.

Actually, yes...in the context of local gun violence, a lot of people are saying otherwise; that being Black and/or Jamaican is one of the reasons they're so involved in this type of crime.

I have no problem discussing race and ethnicity, but assuming they are involved in these crimes because of their race and ethnicity makes no sense.
 
wyliepoon, there's some very negative racial subliminal messages in those photos. they are almost walmart-esque.
 

Back
Top