Two friends of mine, along with many other bloggers, have written about a horrendous incident that took place recently in Toronto. Jane Currie and Anji Dimitriou, a couple, were attacked and beaten. Their assailant, Mark Scott, spewed homophobic filth at them, spat in the face of one of them, and punched them, while the couple's child watched, screaming.
Onlookers intervened, pushing the assailant away and calling the police. The man was charged with assault, but not with a hate crime. From what I understand of Canadian law, this was obviously a hate crime and the charges should reflect that.
My problem is I don't think there should be a type of crime called a hate crime.
(I understand that bigotry is considered an aggravating factor, reflected in sentencing; the words "type of crime" may not be legally correct. Nevertheless, I hope you'll understand my meaning.)
Of course I think this kind of violence is horrible. Every normal person does. In addition, I've been a victim of violent crime, so I know something about how Ms. Currie and Ms. Dimitriou will suffer, how traumatized they will be. And although I'm not a parent, I can imagine with horror the extra layers of suffering they will endure because their child was forced to witness this attack. The child of the assailant, who was also present, is also a victim. I also have no doubt that there was a special horror for the two women and their child because of what their assailant yelled.
And, for the sake of clarity, I repeat: according to Canadian law, this was a hate crime, and the charges should reflect that.
My problem with designating an attack as a hate crime is it's a form of thought control. No one should be punished for thoughts, no matter how repulsive those thoughts are, no matter how wrong. It's Mark Scott's right to think anything he wants. It's not his right to harass anyone, or hit anyone, but there are already laws against that.
* * * *
To some extent, most violent crime could be said to be motivated by hate, at least in part. Men's hatred of women is the bottom line of so much rape and other violence against women. But rape itself is not considered a hate crime, unless it's paired with some specific reference to the victim's background.
If a man attacks me and never says a word, or if a man attacks me while screaming I am a dirty bitch Jew, I've been attacked, either way. I'm not convinced the crime is actually worse because of the words that flew out of his mouth in his twisted rage.
This is related to my basic disagreement with some of the definitions of human-rights violations recognized by Canadian law. Speaking or writing hateful things about people because of their background, orientation, religion, and such, is morally wrong, but I don't think it should be legally wrong.
I don't think there's a human right not to be hated.
I understand that the path to genocide, in many instances, has been paved with inflammatory words, both written and spoken. But I don't think the way to combat dangerous words is to outlaw them. That only serves to drive the words underground, and may well strengthen the bonds of hatred with the perception of a shared persecution.
I'd rather those dangerous thoughts be exposed to the light of day, where they can be countered with truth. And if nothing else, I'd rather we know the hatred is out there than imagine we live in a world of peaceful tolerance, while hatred seethes below the surface.
I also disagree with hate-crimes laws because I feel they bestow special status on some crime victims by punishing their assailants more harshly. Wingnuts often claim to oppose equal rights laws because they supposedly confer people with special protection. (That's not true, of course; they oppose equal rights because they are bigots.) But equal rights are equal rights. Equal must be equal. Not "some are more equal than others".
When I was trained as a volunteer phone counselor at a rape-crisis centre, the instructor was determined to show us how a rape in which race or ethnicity was a factor was worse than a rape in which it wasn't. I just couldn't see it. I still can't.
33 comments:
This is a very tough issue for me, but I tend to agree with your underlying principle that punishing people for their thoughts is somehow a violation of free expression principles. On the other hand, I do think the injury is different for the victim when the crime involves expression of hate for the person's gender, race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. If someone breaks into my house and steals my goods, I would feel violated and angry and frightened, but if they left a note that said, "Leave town now, Jews," the violation would feel all that much more frightening and personal. After Obama's election, someone torched a black church in the city near where we live. The fact that this was seen as racially motivated made the members of that church much more frightened and hurt than if it had just been a random case of arson. So isn't the crime in fact worse, both from the victims' perspectives and from society's? Shouldn't the penalty reflect that greater harm?
Like I said, this is a tough one for me because I am a strong believer in free expression rights, and if someone simply expressed their bigotry without also committing a personal or property crime, I would defend their right to say the hateful thing. Yet somehow once they cross the line from pure speech to criminal conduct, it feels like they should lose some of that free expression protection.
You make some good points (especially with the example of rape), and I will have to ponder this some more. I agree with most of it. But I do still support hate crimes legislation. I remember first learning about this as a child, when my Mother said she thought that freedom of speech should not include hatred. I've always agreed with that.
When swastikas are spray painted on gravestones of Jews, or on Muslim mosques, that is completely different from graffiti tagging or vandalizing someone's car with spray paint. While I agree with the idea of getting things out into the open instead of forcing them underground and pretending their is harmony and tolerance, I also think it's better for people to know that certain ideas are not ok to publicize, and that they can be prosecuted for doing so. I like the idea that racists in Canada know that they have to watch what they say, that they are under pressure for their views, that their views are not simply another opinion. I am appalled that there are KKK and neo-nazis in Toronto. I am comforted that they know the public is keeping an eye out and ready to blow the whistle on them.
And racism is handed down. Children are not born with hatred; they learn it.
So I find it hugely important that children can be shown that discrimination is against the law.
Thanks, Amy and Kim.
I should add that, like Amy, I do see this as a difficult issue with a lot of ambiguities, although I've sorted out where I come down on it.
I remember first learning about this as a child, when my Mother said she thought that freedom of speech should not include hatred. I've always agreed with that.
But unfortunately, making it illegal to voice hatred won't make hatred go away.
I think many people think it will - perhaps not consciously, but there's an implicit hope.
I am appalled that there are KKK and neo-nazis in Toronto. I am comforted that they know the public is keeping an eye out and ready to blow the whistle on them.
Naturally, I'm appalled by it, too. But I think the public pressure would be there with or without these laws. Their views are not socially acceptable. The laws reflect those values and mores.
And racism is handed down. Children are not born with hatred; they learn it.
That is absolutely true. But you can't legislate what children are taught at home.
I fear many Canadians are living in a little dream world of tolerance, while bigots teach their children, "Make sure you never say this at school, because they'll arrest you for it, because the liberal Jews control the world..." (A cartoon, but close enough.)
You make good points L-Girl, but I have to disagree. While I abhor any type of violence when it is directed to someone on such a personal and hate-filled level it rises above to signify something more.
People who specifically reach into someone and pull out a part of them (be it race, religion, gender, sexual orientation) is doing it methodically and purposely in order to inflict pain on a more intimate level and dehumanize them, making that person "less" then whatever the dominant culture is at that time. We have seen what happens when people start doing this. Lawns get torched with crosses, people are hanged, laws are passed to restrict certain groups rights and in the extreme populations are exterminated. It's more then just a physical attack, or a verbal insult it becomes an intimate and personal emotional rape of a person psyche.
Hate Crimes legislation is in effect activist legislation because it singles out these crimes and states that it is wrong to single out a portion of a human being for more hurt and pain then would normally happen, so in a way it's trying to teach society that this is wrong and that we are all equal. When we eventually get to that place where people are no longer singled out for their "differences" and are just victimized (I hate to say that) that's when hate crimes will no longer be needed and I will be happy to repeal them; but as long as we have incidents like Oshawa, or Matthew Shepherd, or the other countless unreported crimes that happen we can't ignore the validity of hate crimes legislation.
I would add one more thought, Canada has a hate speech law that restricts people from fostering hate and violence...something much more European in thinking then American. I'm reminded again and again that free speech in Canada s much different than free speech in the states, I struggle with this as I grew up "American" but I've come to respect it...what do you think of that?
I agree that thought, pure thought, should not be part of the law; if someone wants to hate someone, no matter how immoral or reprehensible their thoughts may be, they have a right to them. However, once someone's hate crosses the line from solely in the head to an action that affects the world at large, that action should be punished.
This, I think we can all agree on. Of course, that's not really the question; the question on the table is: "Should punishment be more severe for a given crime depending on what motivated it?"
I would say yes. That's the very reason why we have punishments for different degrees of murder; someone who commits a murder with forethought and specific intent to kill is punished far more severely than someone who kills someone accidentally. This is as it should be. So, my thought is, just as the motive behind murder is taken into account when prosecuting the crime, so too should the motivation behind a violent attack be taken into account.
Granted, this is a complex issue. I'm not saying this would be easy to do but, I think, the basic principle of the idea is sound. The "hate crime" legislation may not be perfect but at least Canada is attempting to make a step in the right direction regarding this issue.
People who specifically reach into someone and pull out a part of them (be it race, religion, gender, sexual orientation) is doing it methodically and purposely in order to inflict pain on a more intimate level and dehumanize them
That's what rape is - all rapes, all sexual asasult - each and every time.
But supposedly rape is not a hate crime unless it is accompanied by words that specifically mention the victim's race, ethnic background, orientation, etc.
So I feel that hate crime laws are both inappropriate, for punishing thought and expression, and poorly thought out, for assuming that only some crimes are motivated by hatred, when in fact, most, if not all, violence can be traced back to hate in some form.
Nick and John, thanks for your thoughts. I've certainly heard and thought many times about all the arguments you raise.
agree that thought, pure thought, should not be part of the law; if someone wants to hate someone, no matter how immoral or reprehensible their thoughts may be, they have a right to them. However, once someone's hate crosses the line from solely in the head to an action that affects the world at large, that action should be punished.
This, I think we can all agree on.
If you're considering expression an action, then no, I don't agree. I don't think speech, either written or verbal, should be considered "a line crossed" into action.
I wonder if it might be legally necessary to make our Charter equality rights legally enforceable? I don't actually have the legal knowledge to figure this out, but it sort of vaguely reminds me of something I translated once, where the original text said essentially "This is bad," and then they had to edit it to say "And it's REALLY bad if it violates [insert Charter wording here]" just to make sure it covered and encompassed all the relevant Charter rights.
I wonder if it might be legally necessary to make our Charter equality rights legally enforceable?
What would this mean?
I'm not sure, I'm very close to out of my depth with this theory. But I have seen they tend to reprise or refer to Charter provisions in other related legislation, so based on this I'm assuming that they have to do this. Maybe the Charter can't just sit there being the Charter, they have to put things in other laws that deal with the same subject matter that sort of reiterate Charter provisions or provide a specific way of enforcing them?
Great post, Laura.
I personally think that the leaders of the Religious Right would love to see hate crimes legislation pass.
They fantasize about pastors being dragged to prison for preaching against homosexuality even though the provision specifically had a free speech clause. But of course, to them everything is on the "slippery slope" so it didn't matter that the bill had a free speech clause.
With Obama in the White House, the bill will surely surface again, and it will unite the Religious Right. This is not to say you pick causes based on how your opponents behave, but you have to pick your battles. For the arguments you have stated, hate crimes legislation is so unnecessary.
Thanks, David. Your comment is confusing to me, and may be to other readers, as well. I was referring to an incident in Canada, where we do have hate-crime statutes.
What's the story in the US? Is there specific legislation you're talking about?
Oh, there was one that passed the House, but not the Senate.
Right now, at the federal level, only race, color, religion, and national origin apply, not sexual orientation. The supporters of the bill looked to enhance it, but it failed under Bush's veto threat.
Of course people like James Dobson when bonkers about pastors being prosecuted and sent to prison for preaching from the pulpit against homosexuality.
It had a specific free speech clause, but Dobson never acknowledged it.
Right now, at the federal level, only race, color, religion, and national origin apply, not sexual orientation. The supporters of the bill looked to enhance it, but it failed under Bush's veto threat.
Oh yes, I do know about that. Of course if there *is* hate crime legislation, it most certainly has to include sexual orientation. That is obvious to any sane person.
But I don't like these laws at all, in any form.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.
Perhaps different language is needed. Giving the category a name like "hate" gives obvious rise to arguments like yours, which says this is persecution of thoughts. The assault is covered under violent crime statutes, the hate part deals with the thoughts behind it. It's not an unreasonable argument.
Maybe calling this type of crime a "crime perpetrated due to a victim's characteristics given by random chance of birth" would change the connotation. A ridiculous title for sure - but no more ridiculous than committing a crime because of melanin content or how many x chromosomes a person has or whom a person finds attractive.
As far as laws against hatred, they are just a way for society to communicate that this type of targeting is not tolerated. We can't outlaw hatred, but if we don't convey that it is unacceptable, it will become more prevalent.
Have no doubt that a voice on this issue will be heard. I'd rather that the voice is a societal one saying that we will accept this, no more.
I agree with you. For the sake of consistency, it should include sexual orientation or scrap the whole thing.
Had a conversation about this with a friend. He presented the usual argument of the fallacy of including sexual orientation because it is a "choice" while race and gender aren't.
Umm.. Isn't religion a choice? People may be born into religious families, but they always convert and choose a different religion.
Told him I would eagerly await an invitation to his sexual orientation conversion ceremony :).
He presented the usual argument of the fallacy of including sexual orientation because it is a "choice" while race and gender aren't.
Umm.. Isn't religion a choice? People may be born into religious families, but they always convert and choose a different religion.
Told him I would eagerly await an invitation to his sexual orientation conversion ceremony :).
David, what an excellent answer!!
I always say, a, it's not a choice (obviously) and b, what if it were? Why should someone be discriminated against or subjected to any mistreatment over a choice they've made that hurts no one?
The "it's a choice" argument is a fallacy in more ways than one.
Triple, thanks for your thoughts. Well stated.
I second L-girl's perspective that sexual orientation is not a "choice." I don't know about you, but I didn't just wake up one morning and say to myself, "Hm. I think I'll be attracted to women," nor could I decide tomorrow that I'm attracted to men. What turns me on is what turns me on. I don't choose my reaction; it just happens. I strongly suspect that that's the way it is for everyone.
John, thanks for the credit, but I'm sure that's not up for debate here. I doubt any wmtc reader thinks sexual orientation is a choice.
L-girl, I guarantee you have readers that believe it's a choice; it's inevitable.
In any case, I just had to say something because the idea that sexual orientation is a choice is, IMHO, one of the most ridiculous concepts in Human history.
L-girl, I guarantee you have readers that believe it's a choice; it's inevitable.
Well, there's no way to prove it one way or another, but wmtc readers tend to be smart, well informed, progressive and living in the 21st Century. So I'd say chances are slim.
I personally don't like to belabour the point of whether or not sexual orientation is a choice, because hatred and discrimination are wrong, regardless.
Maybe your regular readers are "smart, well informed, progressive and living in the 21st Century," but don't forget the trolls. You and I both know trolls; they're not particularly smart, well informed or progressive, and they frequently refuse to live in the 21st Century...
More's the pity... :/
Unlike you, John, I don't give a shit about trolls. There's no point in trying to educate them.
If your comments are addressed to trolls, I'd suggest you post them elsewhere. Thanks.
Oh, they're not. I'm simply pointing out that you never really know who is reading your blog.
For example, when I installed the tracking code on my blog, I was surprised by several things. One, I had a lot more readers than I originally thought. Two, certain searches were causing regular hits on my page that I wouldn't have anticipated (one of my most popular pages, for example, is an old page where I did a quiz I got on Facebook, and people tend to land there by searching "Facebook quiz").
You probably have dozens, perhaps hundreds for a blog as popular as yours, "one time" readers. They probably run the gamut from the most finely educated to the High School dropout with a whole plethora of attitudes.
If StatCounter taught me anything, it taught me that you never know what kind of people Google will deposit at your virtual door.
I have used Statcounter for years.
Enough, please.
l-girl wrote:
"I understand that the path to genocide, in many instances, has been paved with inflammatory words, both written and spoken."
If intent is irrelevant, then so is the entire concept of genocide.
"My problem with designating an attack as a hate crime is it's a form of thought control."
Exactly. And that's what we need: thought control. The justice system, having turned a blind eye lo these many decades to crimes perpetrated against specific populations, must now stand up and say no more.
No more.
"If intent is irrelevant, then so is the entire concept of genocide."
That's a strange leap of logic.
"Exactly. And that's what we need: thought control. The justice system, having turned a blind eye lo these many decades to crimes perpetrated against specific populations, must now stand up and say no more."
But you can't achieve thought control. You can only achieve, at best, control of expression of that thought.
The crimes are illegal and should be. The hate doesn't go away.
Sorry for the delay.
Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
Intent (what was in the mind of the perpetrator of the acts) defines the crime of genocide. If intent is irrelevant, then genocide is a meaningless concept.
"But you can't achieve thought control. You can only achieve, at best, control of expression of that thought."
You seem to be saying that governmental policy has and should have no effect on public opinion, and I have to disagree most strenuously. When yahoos who would come from Surrey to Davie Street for the express purpose of bashing gay people ...
"When I was trained as a volunteer phone counselor at a rape-crisis centre, the instructor was determined to show us how a rape in which race or ethnicity was a factor was worse than a rape in which it wasn't. I just couldn't see it. I still can't."
Perhaps the instructor was trying to get across how racial/ethnic women are socially constructed as more "rapable" than white women in white supremacist societies like ours (I'm in Canada). Racism influences the choice of victim, if/how complaints are investigated by the police and conviction rates in the justice system.
If intent is irrelevant, then genocide is a meaningless concept.
Thanks for explaining. I never said intent was irrelevant. I said I don't think any verbal or written expression should be illegal.
You seem to be saying that governmental policy has and should have no effect on public opinion
No, I'm not saying that. I said I don't think making the expression of hate illegal makes hate go away.
When yahoos who would come from Surrey to Davie Street for the express purpose of bashing gay people ...
Not sure where the ... is going here.
If it's physical bashing, it's already illegal, and should be. If it's verbal taunting or stalking, it's harassment (other laws may apply as well).
Perhaps the instructor was trying to get across how racial/ethnic women are socially constructed as more "rapable" than white women in white supremacist societies like ours (I'm in Canada).
Oh my, she was most certainly not trying to convey that, certainly not in a room of rape survivors, many of whom are white, like me.
I don't know if by "white supremacist" you mean "white majority", but most rapes occur within the survivor's own community, with assailant and survivor from the same background.
Racism influences the choice of victim
There's no evidence of this. In a society with a white majority, most rape victims are white. Rape happens across all ethnic and racial lines.
if/how complaints are investigated by the police and conviction rates in the justice system.
This is largely incorrect. I'm not saying it never happens, but this kind of bias is no longer routine the way it once was.
There are many factors about the victim and assailant, and details of the crime that influence how an assault is handled - poverty, drug use, "good" victim vs sex worker, victim & assailant having had consensual sex before, etc. - but race on its own isn't a big determinant anymore.
The instructor was saying exactly what I said she was saying. It was a very long time ago, but nothing I've learned since has run counter to my feelings then.
Racism influences the choice of victim
There's no evidence of this. In a society with a white majority, most rape victims are white. Rape happens across all ethnic and racial lines.
Just to clarify, most rapists are white too.
In the majority of sexual assaults, the perpetrator and the victim know each other and are from the same community.
Post a Comment