 |
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
In 2006, 332 incidents out of the 935 incidents (35.5%) were reported to police by the victims themselves. This is a similar percentage to the data recorded in 2005, but a decrease from the 45% of such incidents recorded in 2004.
Police officials and sociologists estimate that, in general, only 10% of hate crimes are ever reported at all, whether to police or to human rights agencies such as the League. The fact that the vast majority of hate crimes go unreported means that the numbers in studies such as the Audit give, at best, only a partial glimpse of a far larger problem.
Reticence in coming forward and alerting law enforcement about hate-motivated activity reflects, at least in part, the discomfort victims feel in contacting the authorities. With regard to the initial act of reporting, many victims voice their preference for using what they perceive as a mediating and culturally-sensitive conduit to interact with law enforcement authorities. Particularly disconcerting is that an increase in cases over the years has resulted in a desensitization. This has led to victims, police and society itself dismissing many serious incidents that once would have been deemed unacceptable and thus meriting a concerted police follow-up.
In one particularly egregious incident, a victim informed the League that when he approached the police with evidence of the graphically violent threats he had been receiving, he was advised to store a copy of the letters in his own personal files as 'insurance' in case something were actually to happen to him. The perception that little can or will be done when victims receive hate messaging via the Internet, find antisemitic graffiti on their property or get threatening phone calls at home or work compels many to simply remain silent.
Another reason for limited activity on some files could be resource limitations in various police jurisdictions. In order for appropriate resources to be allocated, it is, of course, necessary to have accurate data on which to base a realistic needs assessment. One positive step that might assist in this area is a new federal anti-racism strategy that makes police collection of statistics on hate-motivated activity mandatory. This is an approach that the League has consistently recommended as a measure to complement community-based reporting mechanisms. It will support Statistics Canada¹s Uniform Crime Reporting Survey and provide much-needed information on racism in Canada. Standard definitions will be a useful tool when attempting to compile findings and compare them from one area to another. Only London and Ottawa police have participated to date but other police forces are expected to come forward. While clearly a positive move, this will be a challenging project given resource limitations in many jurisdictions.
There was a significant drop in the number of charges laid by police in 2006, down to 15 compared to a total of 37 in 2005. The limited number of charges from year to year is partly due to the fact that hate-related incidents often do not meet the more restrictive definitions of hate crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada. Of course the anonymous nature of most hate-related incidents and the various methods available to conceal one¹s identity on the Internet or telephone, for example, are also important factors. Despite the reduced number of charges, the legal system in 2006 was still significant in the battle against hate.
Several hate crime proceedings under the Criminal Code took place during 2006. In September, Reinhard Gustav Mueller was sentenced by an Edmonton court to 16 months following his December 2005 conviction for postings on the Federation of Free Planets website. This site denied the Holocaust, and accused the Jews of creating diseases such as AIDS and the Ebola virus. Glenn Bahr, an alleged white supremacist, was committed to stand trial on hate crime charges relating to Internet activities late in 2006. In November, Jean Sébastien Pressault, a resident of Quebec, pled guilty to the willful promotion of hatred. His Internet postings targeted Blacks and Jews and included the novel that inspired the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as well as a racist video game.
While the 2005 hate crime conviction of Aboriginal leader, David Ahenakew, regarding statements he made to a reporter about Jews was set aside in 2006, an appeal by the Crown will likely be heard in June 2007.
It should also be noted that the infamous Roma case of R. v. Krystopher Krymowski et al, in which the League intervened, was brought to a conclusion in 2006. The charges arose out of an incident in 1997 when white supremacists demonstrated in front of a motel housing Roma refugee claimants, brandishing signs with racist statements such as 'Gypsies out' and 'Honk if you hate Gypsies'. The accused were acquitted at the initial trial in part because the judge refused to acknowledge that the derogatory word appearing on the signs, 'Gypsies', and the neutral word, 'Roma', as the indictment read, had a shared meaning. Appeals eventually brought the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada which set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial, finding in effect that hate should never be dismissed on the basis of a mere technicality. The accused later pled guilty to the hate crime charges.
Much of the battle against hate during 2006 however took place within the Canadian human rights system. At the League¹s 3rd International Symposium on Hate on the Internet held in 2006, Commissioner David Langtry reported that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had launched a strategy to facilitate the processing of complaints of discriminatory practices on the Internet under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This strategy included the establishment of a complaints team made up of officers with specialized expertise, the review of investigative procedures to ensure cases were dealt with expeditiously, and ongoing discussions with Internet service providers and community organizations to seek ways to combat hate.
The year saw human rights lawyer, Richard Warman, succeed in a series of complaints he filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning the spread of hate on the Internet. The complaints largely focused on alleged hate material against Jews and other groups posted by individuals and organizations espousing white supremacist ideology.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in the case of Warman v. Kulbashian and Richardson in March, 2006. The respondents were found to have been involved in the running and/or hosting of two websites targeting Jews and other ethnic groups, as well as immigrants. In a precedent-setting ruling, the Internet service provider was held responsible under section 13.3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the extent that the provider was aware of the hate-based content of the site. It also clearly established that the use of web pseudonyms provides no protection. Fines totaling $8,000 and a cease and desist order against further posting were issued by the Tribunal. An appeal of this decision is pending.
The Tribunal also rendered its decision in Warman v. Winnicki, finding that the respondent Tomasz Winnicki, had committed a discriminatory act contrary to section 13 of the Act through 'his vicious and dehumanizing web postings'. In July 2006, in light of his continued postings, the Federal Court of Canada found Winnicki in contempt of the Tribunal¹s decision and had him jailed. Winnicki was released in September pending an appeal which is expected to be heard in 2007. In November 2006, it was reported that Winnicki pled guilty to a weapons charge stemming from a 2004 Toronto rally in support of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
The latter part of the year saw three more decisions from the Tribunal. In August, the Tribunal reached a decision in Warman v. Harrison, holding the respondent responsible for hate-filled messages posted on the Internet. In November, the Tribunal issued its decision finding Peter Kouba liable for his Internet messages, which it described as 'an attack on the inherent self-worth and dignity of the members of the targeted group'. In December, the Tribunal also rendered its decision in Warman v. Bahr, ruling that Glenn Bahr the same individual now facing trial on criminal charges was responsible for web postings as founder and leader of the group, Western Canada For Us (WCFU). Finding that the website and forums he operated spread hatred against Jews and other groups, the Tribunal imposed $10,000 in fines as well as a cease and desist order. Bahr's claim that he was promoting free speech and reform of the immigration system was rejected.
A number of ongoing cases under the Canadian Human Rights Act will likely be decided in 2007. Currently in the hearing stages is the complaint against Marc Lemire, who is alleged to be responsible for the website freedomsite.com, a case in which the League intervened. A hearing into a complaint against another white supremacist site, BC White Pride, is proceeding, as is the case against Melissa Guille, allegedly at the forefront of a group called the Canadian Heritage Alliance. There are also a number of new complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under investigation that will merit attention in 2007.