'SNITCHING' VERSUS TELLING THE TRUTH

For several years we've been trying to counter the brazen drug
dealing, gangs and prostitution in our community. We were excited
with the announcement of "Operation Clean Sweep" and pleased with the
results to this point.

We wanted to show our support and try to help police identify
troublemakers. So we developed a checklist of information to collect
on obvious drug, prostitution or gang houses. We collect identifying
characteristics of drug sellers, and cars or cabs which frequent the
premises. We record traffic patterns, trying to identify the busiest
times, which door or window is used, any obvious signals or lookouts.

Recently, this checklist was distributed to all the households in our
community.

We're not looking to cause trouble, we're simply reporting the
trouble caused by others. We're too busy to be busybodies. We're not
poking our nose in someone's private business. We're focused on
getting police attention to public troublemakers.

But, as is commonly the case, critics sometimes miss the point. One
woman wrote to express her concerns.

The critic was disturbed by the "American-style, war on crime
approach that deals with the problem by locking up large numbers of
young people and members of visible minorities."

It made me wonder if the desperation to be un-"American" is at the
root of our lax and conflicted justice system.

"The call for residents to report on people and houses in their
neighbourhood seems like an irresponsible fishing expedition on the
part of the police ... Focusing on race, colour and suspected
prostitution is the worst kind of profiling."

Her accusation is irresponsible and inaccurate. Any profiling done by
Clean Sweep and our handouts is based on criminal behaviour, not ethnicity.

But since we're on the topic of racial profiling, let's be honest
about the hypocrisy of those who complain most about it. They're
often the ones who most utilize racial profiling to appeal for funds
for segregated social programming to a troubled ethnic demographic.
How is that not profiling?

It's at this point that the critique went totally off the rails. The
writer took issue with the fact that we were encouraging people to
inform on the criminal element.

"'Snitching' brings out the worst in people as we all know from our
childhood. An extreme case is the example of Nazi Germany."

What?!

Now we're seeing parallels to Nazis in the West End? Gimme a break!

It's like some folks have no better way to exercise their brain than
play a game of "Spot the Nazi."

So who's the "Nazi" in this case? The cops to whom we report the
dealers and gangsters? Not! The people who do the snitching? Not!

I'm sick of people demeaning the significance and horror of the
Holocaust by paralleling it to situations where it doesn't even remotely apply.

In this case, perhaps "Where is Waldo" is more appropriate than "Spot
the Nazi."

I understand that part of her concern was with "snitching" or
"ratting someone out."

She tried to make the point that people tattling on each other
destroys trust in a community.

Trust is broken by betraying a confidence or taking advantage of
others. On the other hand, trust is built by knowledge that people
will look out for each others' safety.

It's a sick neighbourhood where people don't report things which
regularly jeopardize kids and adults.

Let's say that woman had a daughter who ran away from home, was
"adopted" by some dealer and became addicted to his drugs. Next he
encouraged her to sell her body to sustain her habit.

If I'm aware of what is happening in that house, would she still be
so opposed to me "snitching?" Would she really prefer that I just
drop off some brochures on employment training or recreational sports?

Let's say that woman had a son who started hanging around with a gang
and selling drugs out of a house in our neighbourhood. Dealers die
all the time in the battle over drug or gang turf. Let's say I did
the neighbourly thing, collected information and passed it on to
cops. Would she condemn my "snitching" or thank me for caring for her
kid? Is her son safer in jail or in the gang house?

If I knew someone was abusing her child, would she want me to take
time to befriend the abuser and educate them regarding alternatives
to abusing her child? Or should I start with "snitching" on what's happening?

Make no mistake, while these aren't her kids, they're somebody's
kids. And no loving parent would pick negligence and secrecy over
care and intervention.

Some community people read her comments and responded, "I don't think
that woman has ever been a victim of crime." Another commented, "Her
use of the term 'snitching' trivializes our concern."

Yet another said, "It's like the kid who's getting bullied, being
scolded for tattling."

It's like the old preacher said, "Woe to those who say, 'Peace,
peace' where there is no peace."

Don't call it "snitching" - just call it telling the truth.

If you love your community, just tell the truth about what's going
on. We can't leave it all up to cops. Sometimes our part is sharing
accurate information about troublemakers before their damage goes too far.

In the end, I'd be a lot tougher on this lady. But I know she lives
here and she does care about this community. I think she's just
confusing "snitching" with telling the truth.

Her final comment was a statement and a question. "Let's not lose
hope in Spence. It's a multicultural, creative and hardworking
community. Is there any place you would rather live?"

Finally, we agree! There's no place I'd rather live. That's exactly
why I'll do all I can to protect all my neighbours.