Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘hate crimes’

The number of hate crimes reported to police increased by 42% between 2008 and 2009:

While hate crimes remain primarily motivated by race (and black Canadians remain the most-targeted by hate crime), the data also showed the number of reported hate crimes perpetrated against Arabs and West Asians doubled (to 75 from 37). There was also a 71 per cent increase in hate crimes committed against Jewish people.

Statistics Canada analyst Mia Dauvergne says two factors might have influenced the result: While there may have been a real increase in hate crimes, it is also possible that more crimes are being reported as police forces across Canada set up special hate-crimes units.

Regular readers of mine know of my general discomfort with hate crime legislation. We also know that these are the kind of statistics that, on their own, don’t mean very much; how a crime is reported is less about what happened and more about the circumstances involved.

But if this trend continues, it’s very disturbing. Especially when it leads to fostering of secondary hate, such as resentment between minority communities who are vying for the dubious label of “most victimized”.

Warning to those of you who like a few glasses of wine with your meal: Apparently, virulent antisemitic ranting is now a side-effect of alcohol consumption.

First, Mel Gibson. Now John Galliano:

The French fashion house Christian Dior said Tuesday that it had started procedures to dismiss its chief designer, John Galliano, following accusations that Mr. Galliano made anti-Semitic outbursts at a Paris bar.

[ . . . ]

The video, posted on the Web site of the British tabloid The Sun, appears to show Mr. Galliano taunting other patrons at the bar, La Perle, declaring in a slurred voice that “I love Hitler” and that “people like you would be dead,” and “your mothers, your forefathers” would all be “gassed.” It was unclear when the video was recorded.

Of course, the notion that these outbursts were caused by drunkedness is laughable. Being drunk makes you lose your filters; it doesn’t turn you into a racist.

I’m uncomfortable with hate speech laws in general, and even though Galliano was clearly off his rocker on the offensive scale, the criminal charges against him make me squirm. But Dior firing him seems like an eminently sensible decision from a business standpoint, especially with spokesperson and Oscar-winner Natalie Portman speaking out against him. And such opinions are sadly all-too-common in France, which does has these laws on the books for a reason. I highly doubt that “I was drunk” will hold up as an excuse in court.

Then again, maybe he should speak to Mel Gibson’s lawyer for some coaching.

(HT: Marco).

Just in time for Passover:

A homemade bomb exploded in front of a Jewish community centre last night, causing a scare but no injuries or damages.

The bomb went off in front of the door of the Ben Weider Community Centre on Westbury Ave. about 11 p.m., blackening the pavement outside without touching the building. A number of employees were inside at the time of the explosion, Montreal police Constable Marie-Claude Berard said.

The incident was caught on surveillance camera. Investigators are looking over the tapes and interviewing witnesses in hopes of obtaining a description of the suspect, Berard said.

For the moment, no notes or threats have been reported to lead police to label this a hate crime, though investigators are considering all possibilities, Berard said.

Thank G-d nobody was hurt. And I hope they catch the bastards and throw them in jail. But really, what else could it be but a hate crime?

This was not okay. And neither is this:

Students and staff at one of Montreal’s largest Muslim schools expressed shock today after windows in their building were smashed and the school bus was vandalized overnight.

“Parents are very angry and teachers are afraid,” said Principal Sawaf Layla, at École Les jeunes Musulmans canadiens where shards of glass lay in the school’s entrance.

Rocks and bricks crashed through about 15 windows at the school sometime between 9 p.m. Monday night and 5 a.m. Tuesday, police said.

Nobody knows what motivated this attack; unlike the UTT attack there was no note or message left, so it theoretically could have just been a random act of vandalism. But if it turns out this was a hate crime, then whoever was responsible should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law.

Muslim schools, Jewish schools, Christian schools, public schools, it doesn’t matter. All should have one thing in common. No matter your sick, twisted beef with the world, whatever your prejudices or hangups or politics or racist views. No matter what, one message needs to be made perfectly clear:

Kids. Are. Off. Limits.

Period.

London’s mayor will face a disciplinary hearing for his comments comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard:

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone could be banned from office for up to five years for likening an Evening Standard reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard if he is found guilty by an independent panel.

Livingstone will have to attend a disciplinary hearing, which will decide whether he is guilty of failing to treat others with respect, or bringing his office into disrepute.

The decision to refer the dispute for adjudication was announced by local government watchdog the Standards Board for England, which said yesterday that it had “concluded that the issue should now be considered at a hearing held by the independent Adjudication Panel for England”.

The panel, whose members are appointed by the lord chancellor Lord Falconer, has the power to ban people from office and to instruct those brought before it to make an apology. A public hearing is expected to take place this December, during which Livingstone has the right to bring in his own legal team.

(Via Lynn).

Update: I should probably mention that I’m generally uncomfortable with hate speech laws even where there is clear evidence of real antisemitism (see my postings on David Ahenakew, for example), and that arguably Livingstone’s comments were just idiotic, not necessarily evidence of the kind of virulent antisemitism that someone like Ahenakew displays. Furthermore, I don’t really agree with the idea of forcibly removing someone from office for making hateful comments. Theoretically, if someone holds and spews such views openly, and the people vote for him anyway, then those people are getting exactly the leadership that they deserve. Such is democracy.

Anyway, I’m fairly sure that all the panel will do is possibly censure him or force an apology. But I’m concerned of what message about freedom of speech it will send if they impose harsher penalties – and about what message about antisemitism it will send if they find him not guilty.

It’s not entirely a lose-lose situation, though; the panel is evidence that the British government is taking antisemitism seriously, and holding elected officials to a higher standard. And, in the publicity this is sure to generate, at least more people will see Ken Livingstone’s true colours. Maybe it will affect their behaviour next time they go to the polls, and they’ll kick him out on his arse and vote in someone more worthy.

I almost missed this in all the other news, but convicted hate criminal David Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada membership yesterday.

Good. It’s about time.

(Via Damian Penny).

Native leader and antisemite extraordinaire David Ahenakew’s hate trial is underway.

I’ve always been torn on the issue of hate speech legislation. Restricting freedom of speech can have potentially dangerous consequences for a free society, and it’s not something to take lightly. After all, restricting free speech means that someone has the power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t. This opens the door for things like this, when those in power can muzzle their political opponents by attacking different opinions as “hate speech”. Deny a freedom to your enemies, and you open the door for your enemies denying that same freedom to you if the tables should turn.

And one could argue – convincingly – that people like Ahenakew should be encouraged to say what they really think, so at least we know what they really think and can judge them on that basis. And if political ostracism for hate speech isn’t disincentive enough for someone to shoot off their mouth in public, then it’s doubtful hate legislation will be either.

On the other hand, wilfully and publicly promoting hatred against a group of people, when left unchecked, can allow the hatred to grow and spread like a cancer. It’s like advertising; repeat something often enough and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

There are no easy answers here. However, the Ahenakew trial is just barely underway and it’s already leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

First of all, there’s the ridiculous defence argument that Ahenakew said what he did because he was on medication:

“He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn’t have said these things if he was feeling well,” [Defence lawyer Doug] Christie said.

“His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.

“I think in those circumstances it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t measuring his words the way he would normally do.”

Basically the lawyers are arguing a technicality: hatred is okay, but expressing it isn’t. That’s the way the law is written after all. This isn’t Orwell’s 1984 and we’re not about to start prosecuting thoughtcrime. So this defence argument of utter nonsense actually might work here.

This raises the question of what happens if Ahenakew is acquitted. Some people will use that mere fact as vindication for their hateful and antisemitic views. Ahenakew would become an underground hero of the antisemitic fringe. In many ways, an acquittal could have worse consequences for Canadian society than a lack of trial in the first place.

Then there’s the issue of the media coverage of Ahenakew’s trial actually becoming an additional vehicle for Ahenakew’s vile views to be spread. Every time a clip of Ahenakew’s despicable statements about Jews is shown on the news, millions of Canadians are hearing it. One hopes that most people react to what they hear with distaste, but some people may be reacting by agreeing. After all, it’s this exposure of such views that hate speech legislation was designed to prevent.

Now that Ahenakew is on trial, only a conviction would send a message to Canadians that promotion of such hatred is unacceptable. Only a conviction will deter further spreading of the cancer of hatred. Which is why I’m hoping for this outcome. It’s kind of like the war in Iraq; agree or disagree with it at first, now that the US is there, they have to finish the job.

But there are a lot of tricky questions here, and I don’t think the sour taste is going away anytime soon.

The case of the fireboming of the UTT library last April moved a step closer to resolution today, as the chief suspect in the case accepted a guilty plea to arson in exchange for the conspiracy charge being dropped:

Mr. Elmerhebi kept his head bowed slightly and his eyes on the floor as the plea was entered.

Evidence read in court said his arrest in May was prompted by police wiretaps and surveillance.

He was tracked by police after tanks of kerosene found at the United Talmud Torahs school were traced back to a Canadian Tire store where the manager confirmed that Mr. Elmerhebi was an employee.

Store surveillance cameras and receipts confirmed him as the buyer of the tanks. Receipts were also found in his home when it was searched by police.

Sounds like a lot of evidence to me. Elmerhebi probably took the best deal he could in light of the probable guilty verdict.

Elmerhebi’s mother has been charged as being an accessory, and has a court date still to come.

The school’s reaction was fairly pragmatic:

School principal Sydney Benudiz was satisfied with the plea.

“Something wrong was done to our school and we hoped that justice would be served and it seems that it’s going to be served,” he said outside court. “We just want our lives back.”

This is pretty much how the system is supposed to work. People commit a crime, they get caught, they get arrested, they get punished. The article didn’t mention anything about sentencing but those details will likely follow.

However, I still think this should have been charged as a hate crime. I know this is a contentious issue especially among people who don’t believe in hate crime legislation. But motive is something we should take into account when determining a punishment to fit a crime. We already do, when we consider that a calculated crime for profit, for example, is worse than a non-premeditated crime of passion. A crime motivated by hate or racism is more serious than one with most other motives, because of its potential to set off hatred among others in the community, and because of the offender’s higher likelihood of reoffending. I think that in clear-cut cases of crime motivated by hatred, sentencing should be more severe.

A punishment that would truly fit the crime would be to compel Elmerhebi to contribute towards paying the millions of dollars that the Jewish community is now forced to spend on security guards for schools and campuses.

The suspects in the UTT firebombing last Passover will not be charged with a hate crime:

Both Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and B’nai Brith Canada say they will not press for hate crime charges to be added to the counts of arson and conspiracy against two young men in connection with the firebombing of the St. Laurent United Talmud Torahs library in April.

Both organizations agree that the hate provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada do not appear to apply in this case. They do, however, expect that if there is a conviction, hate motivation will result in a stiffer sentence, as the law provides.

“It’s ironic because this was a deeply hateful act targeting a Jewish school, but we are stuck with a Criminal Code that has less than perfect wording,” said David Birnbaum, executive director of CJC, Quebec region.

I’m no lawyer, but to me this seems ridiculous. What point is there in having hate crime legislation if it can’t be used in an obvious case like this one?

A new report on hate crime in Canada suggests that a full one-quarter of all reported incidents between 2001-2002 were targeted against Jews:

One quarter of the 928 hate crimes reported by police between 2001 and 2002 were anti-Semitic in nature, said the survey of hate crimes.

It’s the first time that police have provided the data to Statistics Canada, the agency said.

Muslims were the victims of 11 per cent of hate crimes. While religion accounted for 48 per cent of incidents, it ranked second behind race and ethnicity as the primary motivator of these crimes.

I’m always a little skeptical of these studies, because the only crime data they have available is the data that gets reported. It is possible that, because of the strong position of the Jewish community in Canadian society and the existing infrastructure to combat hate crimes, that more people will report antisemitic incidents than other kinds.

But even despite that, the news is disturbing. Canada is considered one of the “safe havens” for Jewish people in the diaspora. And while the incidents are few, they’re not as few or as far between as they used to be… or as they should be. Over two hundred reported incidents – 41% involving violence – is not exactly comforting news. Even a little hate is too much.