HAT Forum Saturday Oct 3rd 2015 11:00 - 1:00 at 519 Church Street Rm 304 "Carding or Street Checks - A Humanist Perspective"

HAT Forum
Topic:  “Carding or Street Checks – A Humanist Perspective”
Location: The 519 Community Centre, 519 Church St. north of Wellesley, Rm 304 
Time: 11:00 to 13:00
Proposer: Richard Dowsett
Currently in Toronto, the practice of “Carding” a.k.a. Street Checks, has been suspended pending review of its detrimental effects on the community, possible racism or unconstitutionality and ineffectiveness as a policing tool.

Other jurisdictions (Peel Region, Hamilton) have refused to discontinue it against the advice of their civilian oversight boards, activists and experts (ombudsman, former Chiefs-of-Police and Attorney Generals).

Some facts as per research by The Globe:
  On average, in 2014 police forces had stopped 0.86 per cent of their jurisdiction's 2011 population.
  The majority of police forces that disclosed the length of time they keep records on community members who are stopped and questioned, reported keeping records indefinitely.
  All but two police forces interviewed have no formal procedure in place to guide interactions between officers and community members who are stopped and questioned.
 
Departing Ontario ombudsman André Marin’s reported that “the detrimental effects of street checks on individuals and the community are simply too great to justify this practice.”

Here is a very informative short video by The Star called “Known to Police” about how carding works:  http://bcove.me/xse3e3y8
Questions:
1.   1. What are the pros and cons of Carding as it has been recently employed in Toronto?
2.   2. What personal or close experience do the members have of carding, if any?
3.   3. According to Humanist principles, on what grounds could carding be criticized? On what grounds could it be upheld?
4.   4. Is there a way to change carding such that the criticisms are properly addressed?
5.   5. Is it reasonable in social questions such as this, to weigh utility versus harm and decide in favour of the weight of evidence or is any harm unacceptable?