Re: Re: Re: Re: Vancouver gang wars
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, sort of...Canada is hugely regional, right. So like, gangs that form on the west coast don't necessarily share the same history as those that formed in the prairies or in larger urban centers of southern Ontario or Quebec. Because of the geography, BC has always been a top producer of marijuana. For a long time, and still to some large degree, this trade was controlled by mom-and-pop operations and there was little to no gang involvement or violence. However, once this expanded and BC bud could be traded almost pound for pound for cocaine in Southern US states, the amount of money being made began to attract a more "criminal" type.
Interviews with growers and such are pretty much all the same on this point. As cocaine began to flow into the people in BC selling the pot, the violence picked up, because now they had access to huge sums of money and guns. This goes back waaaaaaay before 2009, but it would be the same dynamic at play. BC bud is essentially an internationally recognized "brand" of marijuana, so they are able to sell it either directly to Mexican cartels, or indirectly trade it for Mexican cocaine through middle-men.
Vancouver, being on the West coast, is also a port city that has frequent business in China and other Asian nations, making it a prime spot for human trafficking into Canada, and ecstasy smuggling out of Canada (Canada is a top world producer of ecstasy). This is generally controlled by East Asian organized crime, but it does present another form of financial incentive for gangs to go to war with eachother.
I'm highly skeptical of the wiki entries relating to this, as I've read a lot of government documents and police reports on Canadian gangs that paint a similar, though somewhat different picture of the gangs themselves [for instance, ignoring the punjabi roots of the UN simply because they allowed in other races, or the idea that the UN and IS were on friendly terms], however, it seems like the Red Scorpions and Hells Angels had the IS and UN come into their territory looking for that sweet, sweet coke money. I actually have a lot of trouble believing it was that simple, but sure.
Well I'm specifically talking about this part of the wiki. Yea I think thats what you were saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Vancouver_gang_war
The escalation of gang violence in Vancouver, beginning in January 2009, is alleged to have been caused by disruptions to the supply of illegal drugs resulting from the crackdown by the Mexican government against the drug cartels there, who supplied cocaine to British Columbia in return for marijuana. This reduced the profits of the Independent Soldiers (IS) and their sometime allies the United Nations gang. The IS are primarily an Indo-Canadian gang while the United Nations gang is made of a multitude of different ethnic groups. Although more recently, Chinese and Guatemalans and other various nationalities have been recruited
It does reference the Los Angeles Time and I don't know how accurate that source is.
I have to say I feel a little bad because it seems like I'm picking on America. I'm not an expert on Mexican history but from what I understand America has a lot of involvement in their history and is a major reason why the country is the way it is today. So you could certainly argue that the root of this problem lies with America and Canada's proximity to it.
Obvoulsy to argue that Canada is perfect would be absurd. Obvoulsy you would still have crime even if Canada wasn't next to America (or America didn't even exist) but it seems to me that you have alot less of this thing in Canada and thats basically because Canada is a fairer country to live in (ie poverty is a major cause of crime, people just focus on punishment and not enough on social issues). The world does seem to be becoming a more dangerous place and I do think there is a danger that America in some ways could be a problem for Canada
On a sidenote I think Canada is alot like England when it comes to gang crime. I breifly knew somebody in the 90s who used to live in a Canadian ghetto and from what I gathered when gangs had fights they would beat the shit out of each other and that used to be the same in England. Shooting were rare, you might get stabbed but you'd probably just get beaten up. Like Canada you now have increased gun crime but nowhere near as bad as America.
It's a shame.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Some. I know you can find chapters of Crips or Bloods in Toronto (maybe Vancouver, but I've not heard of it), even groups like MS 13 are known to "exist" there, but most of Canada isn't like Southern Ontario.West of Ontario, most street gangs, especially those with any power, are native groups. The primary gangs (Indian Posse, Redd Alert, Native Syndicate, Warriors) were started in Manitoba or Alberta prisons, and I've never seen anything that suggests natives have adopted the brands of black American street gangs (though, the attire and mannerisms are nearly identical, including the use of the term n*gger).
For sure, Hells Angels started in California and moved across the continent, and the Angels are one of the few organizations in Canada that has a truly national reach.
EDIT: if you are really into this stuff, the book McMafia by Misha Glenny is spectacular. Traces its way around the globe looking at the connections between various gangs in each region. I think at least a chapter is dedicated to the marijuana trade in BC.
I think thats a little worrying but not a big deal. I'll check that book out.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Thankfully, big time Canada is not big time USA. Y'all the real OGs. The tripple double, at that.
You should be proud you have less of that thing. At any rate a gun is a gun doesn't matter wether its in Canada or America it's no laughing matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vancouver gang wars
Originally posted by DeadlineYouTube video
At any rate a gun is a gun doesn't matter wether its in Canada or America it's no laughing matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vancouver gang wars
Originally posted by Deadline
Well I'm specifically talking about this part of the wiki. Yea I think thats what you were saying.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Vancouver_gang_war
The escalation of gang violence in Vancouver, beginning in January 2009, is alleged to have been caused by disruptions to the supply of illegal drugs resulting from the crackdown by the Mexican government against the drug cartels there, who supplied cocaine to British Columbia in return for marijuana. This reduced the profits of the Independent Soldiers (IS) and their sometime allies the United Nations gang. The IS are primarily an Indo-Canadian gang while the United Nations gang is made of a multitude of different ethnic groups. Although more recently, Chinese and Guatemalans and other various nationalities have been recruited
It does reference the Los Angeles Time and I don't know how accurate that source is.
I have to say I feel a little bad because it seems like I'm picking on America. I'm not an expert on Mexican history but from what I understand America has a lot of involvement in their history and is a major reason why the country is the way it is today. So you could certainly argue that the root of this problem lies with America and Canada's proximity to it.
it depends on how reductive you want to be with the situation. The cartels are a problem in Mexico because of the money they make, primarily off of the American drug market, and it is America's largely steadfast position in the war on drugs that enables this, as it presents such a lucrative black market.
However, were America not there, demand for cocaine would still exist in Canada. The cartels would still be providing it, as cocaine really is only grown in South America. They wouldn't be as powerful, as the demand in Canada is not close to that of America, but like, it would still be profitable enough that there would be a steady flow, controlled by the gangs. If America was there or not, this would still be a profitable criminal enterprise, and any disruption in the supply to Canada from Mexico, especially if it hurt one gang's supply more than others, is going to cause this kind of strife.
You can get even more reductive, and try to tie it to America's policy in the 60s-70s-80s of not only enforcing a zero tolerance drug policy, but of also exporting that war around the world in the form of international treaties and, in some cases, actual military support and hardware. America very aggressively ensured that all nations on the planet took a no-means-no stance on drugs (that really only the Central and South American nations are now challenging). Even then, substances like cocaine do not really enjoy prominent anti-prohibition support in Canada, and I think it is a really selective reading of history to suggest that the things which prompted prohibition in America wouldn't have done the same here. Canada has never really been pulled kicking and screaming into drug prohibition, at least at a political level.
Originally posted by Deadline
Obvoulsy to argue that Canada is perfect would be absurd. Obvoulsy you would still have crime even if Canada wasn't next to America (or America didn't even exist) but it seems to me that you have alot less of this thing in Canada and thats basically because Canada is a fairer country to live in (ie poverty is a major cause of crime, people just focus on punishment and not enough on social issues). The world does seem to be becoming a more dangerous place and I do think there is a danger that America in some ways could be a problem for Canada
A lot of it is poverty, yes, hence why the largest number of street level gangsters in Canada are from native populations. However, it is also just a fact of sheer demographics. Even our largest cities are small compared to American metropolitan areas, and in places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where "inner-city" poverty does start to become problematic, we do see gangs start to form. This doesn't necessarily explain why Winnipeg, a city of ~700 000 people has the highest per capita rate of gang members, but again, it is the native thing and poverty.
[ugh, not going to change it, but I was getting per capita and absolute mixed up there. Afro-Canadians make up the largest number of street level gangsters because the population of Southren Ontario, Quebec and BC are so high. Natives represent the largest number of gang members in places like Winnipeg, where there are more gang members per capita]
Our schools are also much better, our prisons focus more on rehabilitation and just in general our culture is more focused on diversity and inclusiveness, so it is easier for youth to feel like they have meaning as a member of Canadian society. Again, given how poor these services are on native reserves or how disproportionately represented natives are in our jails, this also explains why natives are so highly represented among gang members.
There is also the firearm thing, as well. But that explains more why there are less shootings, not why there are less gang members. In fact, if you look at per capita numbers, the worst province in Canada is Saskatchewan, with 1.34 members per 1000 people. In terms of American states, Illinois is the top with 8-11 per 1000, and less than half of American states have a comparable level to Saskatchewan.
Originally posted by Deadline
On a sidenote I think Canada is alot like England when it comes to gang crime. I breifly knew somebody in the 90s who used to live in a Canadian ghetto and from what I gathered when gangs had fights they would beat the shit out of each other and that used to be the same in England. Shooting were rare, you might get stabbed but you'd probably just get beaten up. Like Canada you now have increased gun crime but nowhere near as bad as America.It's a shame.
afaik we have considerably less gang crime than England
Originally posted by Deadline
I think thats a little worrying but not a big deal. I'll check that book out.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no big deal"...
Originally posted by Deadline
You should be proud you have less of that thing. At any rate a gun is a gun doesn't matter wether its in Canada or America it's no laughing matter.
I'm not sure if pride is the word, but yes, I'm very happy with any policies that our government maintains that reduces gang membership and crime.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vancouver gang wars
Originally posted by Oliver North
it depends on how reductive you want to be with the situation. The cartels are a problem in Mexico because of the money they make, primarily off of the American drug market, and it is America's largely steadfast position in the war on drugs that enables this, as it presents such a lucrative black market.However, were America not there, demand for cocaine would still exist in Canada. The cartels would still be providing it, as cocaine really is only grown in South America. They wouldn't be as powerful, as the demand in Canada is not close to that of America, but like, it would still be profitable enough that there would be a steady flow, controlled by the gangs. If America was there or not, this would still be a profitable criminal enterprise, and any disruption in the supply to Canada from Mexico, especially if it hurt one gang's supply more than others, is going to cause this kind of strife.
You can get even more reductive, and try to tie it to America's policy in the 60s-70s-80s of not only enforcing a zero tolerance drug policy, but of also exporting that war around the world in the form of international treaties and, in some cases, actual military support and hardware. America very aggressively ensured that all nations on the planet took a no-means-no stance on drugs (that really only the Central and South American nations are now challenging). Even then, substances like cocaine do not really enjoy prominent anti-prohibition support in Canada, and I think it is a really selective reading of history to suggest that the things which prompted prohibition in America wouldn't have done the same here. Canada has never really been pulled kicking and screaming into drug prohibition, at least at a political level.
I'm a little bit confused not sure if you're saying I have a point but it does seem to back up what I'm saying.
Obvoulsy I know there are problems with cartels in Mexico but I was more along the lines of comparing it to the relationship between England and Ireland. Ireland is not as prosperous as England and thats basically because the English have been ****ing the Irish over for centuries it had nothing to do with drugs. In the case of Mexico drugs is just another incentive to pick on people.
Originally posted by Oliver North
A lot of it is poverty, yes, hence why the largest number of street level gangsters in Canada are from native populations. However, it is also just a fact of sheer demographics. Even our largest cities are small compared to American metropolitan areas, and in places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where "inner-city" poverty does start to become problematic, we do see gangs start to form. This doesn't necessarily explain why Winnipeg, a city of ~700 000 people has the highest per capita rate of gang members, but again, it is the native thing and poverty.
You just explained it.
Originally posted by Oliver North
[ugh, not going to change it, but I was getting per capita and absolute mixed up there. Afro-Canadians make up the largest number of street level gangsters because the population of Southren Ontario, Quebec and BC are so high. Natives represent the largest number of gang members in places like Winnipeg, where there are more gang members per capita]Our schools are also much better, our prisons focus more on rehabilitation and just in general our culture is more focused on diversity and inclusiveness, so it is easier for youth to feel like they have meaning as a member of Canadian society. Again, given how poor these services are on native reserves or how disproportionately represented natives are in our jails, this also explains why natives are so highly represented among gang members.
I think with ethnic minorities there is a danger that they can get involved in gang violence and in Canada it does seem the case especially with native Canadians.
I think in some Western countries racial tolerance has improved alot but the problem is that in some cases you have children whose parents have lived in a time with more prejuidice and certain issues have not been fully addressed. What happens is they inherent a legacy of lack of opportunity and still have to deal with certain issues their parents did, but what happens is they're not getting picked on because of their race it's more to do with class. So you're still getting oppressed but for a slightly different reason.
I think this is especially the case with native Canadians. I suspect as a people they had to deal with horrendous oppression and eventhough moves have been made to give them more opportunity it is hard for them as a people to move on. I remember one poster stated that some races can be compared to abused children ie it's difficult for them to progress despite the help they get because it is very diffiuclt for them to move away from the past. This sometimes makes people want to give up on them and not fully comprehend the damage that has been done.
I think black people are becoming more comfortable as a people and feel more inclusive in Western society, It looks like native Canadians still have a serious problem.
I think there is a danger though just because Obama has been elected we can all get complacent, a lot has changed but there are still serious problems. If you look at how women are treated in Western society as well I think people have become too complacent. People often make the mistake that just because there has been improvement problems do not exist. I think in the case of women prejuidice is more deep seated and insidious and I think people think that there really aren't any issues anymore. Yea this is a bit of a tangent.
Originally posted by Oliver North
There is also the firearm thing, as well. But that explains more why there are less shootings, not why there are less gang members. In fact, if you look at per capita numbers, the worst province in Canada is Saskatchewan, with 1.34 members per 1000 people. In terms of American states, Illinois is the top with 8-11 per 1000, and less than half of American states have a comparable level to Saskatchewan.
Um ok.
Originally posted by Oliver Northafaik we have considerably less gang crime than England
I'm going to assume that Canada has a bigger population than England. Do you have any proof? If thats true that is VERY impressive.
Originally posted by Oliver NorthI'm not sure what you mean by "no big deal"...
ie It should be of some concern but shouldn't give you sleepless nights.
Originally posted by Oliver NorthI'm not sure if pride is the word, but yes, I'm very happy with any policies that our government maintains that reduces gang membership and crime.
I think people sometimes take the piss out of Canada. Sometimes in England people say that Canadians and Canada is boring. This is probably because there doesn't seem to be that much drama in Canada eg crime, terrorism and there doesn't seem to be alot of superstars or world famous bands that come from Canada. Not sure about bands but I can think of several Canadians that have made it in Hollywood it's just that because they sound exactly like Americans you can't tell the difference. Some of these actors are iconic in my opinion.
Also was watching some Canadian hip hop videos it is quite sad that some of the black people living in ghettos were probably trying to prove to Americans that their ghettos were just as messed up as American ones. Not something to be proud of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vancouver gang wars
Originally posted by Deadline
I'm a little bit confused not sure if you're saying I have a point but it does seem to back up what I'm saying.
My point is that Canadian gangs, and the trade in cocaine by domestic gangs who were formed in Canada, are a Canadian problem. They don't stem from the United States. Nor do Mexican drug cartels. You would be better blaming the Mexican cartels on failed policies of enforcement in Columbia or Peru than on American 'interference".
Originally posted by Deadline
Obvoulsy I know there are problems with cartels in Mexico but I was more along the lines of comparing it to the relationship between England and Ireland. Ireland is not as prosperous as England and thats basically because the English have been ****ing the Irish over for centuries it had nothing to do with drugs. In the case of Mexico drugs is just another incentive to pick on people.
The issue isn't nearly that cut and dry however. Not least of which is the fact that America has never tried to occupy or control the Mexican government. American meddling in Mexico is largely through corporate and economic interests. In fact, the Mexican government refuses to allow American drug enforcement officials the freedom they want to enforce drug policy there.
Originally posted by Deadline
You just explained it.
not really. This doesn't explain what I was demonstrating before with the per capita gang membership.
The poverty of native reservations, and the poverty faced by natives within city centers, is at least equal to, if not in some cases considerably worse than, the poverty faced by young black men in Chicago, yet, gang membership is 8-9 times less in Saskatchewan than it is in Illinois.
Simply saying, "oh, its poverty" is not the answer.
Originally posted by Deadline
I think with ethnic minorities there is a danger that they can get involved in gang violence and in Canada it does seem the case especially with native Canadians.I think in some Western countries racial tolerance has improved alot but the problem is that in some cases you have children whose parents have lived in a time with more prejuidice and certain issues have not been fully addressed. What happens is they inherent a legacy of lack of opportunity and still have to deal with certain issues their parents did, but what happens is they're not getting picked on because of their race it's more to do with class. So you're still getting oppressed but for a slightly different reason.
I think this is especially the case with native Canadians. I suspect as a people they had to deal with horrendous oppression and eventhough moves have been made to give them more opportunity it is hard for them as a people to move on. I remember one poster stated that some races can be compared to abused children ie it's difficult for them to progress despite the help they get because it is very diffiuclt for them to move away from the past. This sometimes makes people want to give up on them and not fully comprehend the damage that has been done.
I think black people are becoming more comfortable as a people and feel more inclusive in Western society, It looks like native Canadians still have a serious problem.
I think there is a danger though just because Obama has been elected we can all get complacent, a lot has changed but there are still serious problems. If you look at how women are treated in Western society as well I think people have become too complacent. People often make the mistake that just because there has been improvement problems do not exist. I think in the case of women prejuidice is more deep seated and insidious and I think people think that there really aren't any issues anymore. Yea this is a bit of a tangent.
yes, natives are generally a persecuted minority in Canada, but again, I think these are really simple answers to incredibly complex questions. there are numerous places in the world and throughout history where repressed minorities didn't turn to gang violence.
A large question that I feel is missed here is the cycle that the culture of poverty itself creates, outside of any ethnic considerations, but again, there have to be other factors.
Originally posted by Deadline
I'm going to assume that Canada has a bigger population than England. Do you have any proof? If thats true that is VERY impressive.
The United Kingdom has about twice the population of Canada.
In fact, the UK is plagued by almost no records kept on gang crime or membership. Extrapolating from that article's claim of 3500 gang members in Glasgow, one of the worst areas in the UK, and comparing it to the roughly 300 in Regina (pdf), we see that one of the most gang ridden locales in the UK has almost 4x the number of gang members as does Regina. Winnipeg, Canada's per capita gang capital, has about 3000 gang members, giving it 4.521 members per 1000, less than Glasgow's 5.845 per 1000.
Because the UK doesn't keep better stats, it is impossible to give a better estimate, other than to say there appears to be many more members in the UK (again, given the conditions on the reserves, appealing to only poverty and discrimination does not explain this).
Originally posted by Deadline
Also was watching some Canadian hip hop videos it is quite sad that some of the black people living in ghettos were probably trying to prove to Americans that their ghettos were just as messed up as American ones. Not something to be proud of.
you are watching the wrong Canadian hip-hop /shrug