Anji Dimitriou and Jane Currie are a Canadian lesbian couple who were just going about their normal business. What kind of madness were they up to? Picking their kid up from school.
While waiting outside the Gordon B. Attersley public school in Oshawa, Ontario, the couple was brutally assaulted by the father of another student. The report from the Toronto Star has this to say:
"Which one of you two 'men' spoke to my kid? F------ dyke. Lesbians," he said, spitting in Dimitriou's face. As she wiped her face, eyes closed, he punched her on the cheek and wound up again, slamming her backward into her truck. As Currie ran toward him, she remembers him shouting, "F------ dyke bitches," and punched her on the cheekbone so hard the skin burst apart, blood splattering.
Apparently this guy had been yelling insults at them other times, but this is the first physical assault. And this guy sure sounds unstable.
But the sad part of this is that despite the obvious motivation behind the crime, the Crown has decided not to try and charge this guy with a hate crime. According to the Crown, the assault simply doesn't meet the narrow definition of what a hate crime is. The charge under the Criminal Code of Canada would be under s.318 or s.319.
Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Since, in their words, the man was not trying to incite others to hatred, and was not advocating genocide, he cannot be prosecuted under the current hate crimes laws. This is a travesty. In my opinion, the mere fact that he was uttering these epithets in a very public place should be sufficient to meet this criteria. Unfortunately, Canada's extremely narrow view of a hate crime does not allow for this interpretation just yet.
Canada desperately needs to update its hate crimes legislation and, to start, they could follow H.R. 1592, the US' Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. S.3 of that act reads as follows
Section 3 -
Defines "hate crime" as a violent act causing death or bodily injury because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability of the victim.
This is the way it should be. In Canada, a hate crime should not only exist when the aggressor is trying to incite others to attack and do harm. Instead, if they commit a violent act (like this assault) , and clearly indicate that their motivation is due to one of the prohibited grounds, they should be charged with a hate crime.
[Source: Toronto Star, Toronto Star again]
No comments:
Post a Comment