
Rochelle Wilner President	Frank Dimant Chief Executive Officer	Prof. Stephen Scheinberg National Chair	Ruth Klein National Director of Advocacy

2002 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CLASSIFICATION OF INCIDENTS

While previous Audits have classified incidents into just two categories — Vandalism and Harassment — a third category, Violence, was added in the interim audit issued in July 2002 in order to accommodate the growing magnitude of the incidents recorded. This relatively new trend reflects the intensified application of violent motifs in the terminology and imagery used to discredit or to intimidate Jews. These three categories encompass the following types of incidents:

Harassment

Harassment refers to verbal or written actions that do not include the use of physical force against a person or property. It includes:

verbal slurs, statements of hate and bias, or harassment
stereotyping of Jews, such as the airing on radio talk shows of comments on “Jewish characteristics”
systemic discrimination in the workplace, schools or campuses
hate propaganda and hate mail via the internet, telephone, or printed material
verbal threats of violence, where application of force does not appear imminent, or no weapon or bomb is involved

Vandalism

Vandalism refers to physical damage to property. It includes:

posting of graffiti, swastikas and similar racist emblems and slogans, at times accompanied by other criminal acts including thefts and break-ins
damage to religious objects such as mezuzahs on the door posts of private homes and hospitals
desecration of cemeteries and synagogues
fire bombing, arson

Violence

Violence refers to physical use of force against a person or group of persons. It includes:

bodily assault
assault with a weapon or accompanied by threat of imminent use of weapon
threats of violence directed against a particular person or group where there is reasonable cause to believe that bodily harm is imminent.

Incidents that involve or reflect an increasing worldwide trend towards virulent anti-Zionist rhetoric are only included if there is an anti-Jewish component. This would necessitate the victim or victim group being targeted on an almost irrational basis simply, because of their Jewish name or appearance and perceived affiliation with, or support for, Israel.

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF HATE-MOTIVATED ACTIVITY

Hate-Motivated Activity refers to any action taken against a specific or targeted individual or community based on prejudice.
Hate Group refers to an organization advocating violence against or unreasonable hostility towards persons or groups identified by race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sexual orientation or disability, or disseminating historically inaccurate information regarding such persons or groups.
Hate Propaganda refers to ideologies or beliefs transmitted in written, verbal or electronic form to create or promote hateful, belligerent attitudes and actions against a specific group or groups of people.

These definitions are taken from the League’s Taking Action Against Hate Training Manual. In common usage, a hate crime is usually understood to mean an act committed to intimidate, harm and terrify the victim or the entire group of which the victim is a member, solely because of who they are. The Community Advisory Committee on Anti-Hate and Anti-Racism defines a hate crime as “a criminal offence committed against a person or property, that is motivated in any part by the suspect/offender’s hate/bias against a racial, religious, national, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender or disability group.” (Hate, Communities Can Respond: A Community Handbook, Toronto, 1996, page 10)

Not all incidents reported in the Audit are necessarily classifiable as criminal offences under federal legislation or covered under our human rights codes, but these provisions should offer a measure of protection to all minority groups.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, hate crimes involve one of two specific types of acts:

1) “Hate propaganda” (s. 318), i.e., advocating genocide — acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group (distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.)

2) “Public incitement of hatred” (s. 319) i.e., the wilful promotion of hatred — inciting hatred against any identifiable group that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

The Canadian Human Rights Act is also relevant, specifically Part I which deals with proscribed discriminatory practices. Under section 13(1) of the Act, it is a discriminatory practice (proscribed discrimination) “to communicate telephonically or by telecommunication undertaking any matter likely to expose a person(s) to hatred or contempt by reason of being identifiable on a prohibited ground of discrimination” (race, religion, origin etc.).

Section 1 of Ontario Human Rights Code provides for freedom from discrimination, that is, equal treatment without discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap, record of offences (in employment) and receipt of public assistance (in accommodation). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also provides for such rights.

Under the new Anti-Terrorism legislation, (formerly Bill C36) introduced by the federal government late last year, the Criminal Code was amended to provide for enhanced search and seizure provisions of materials relating to hate propaganda offences. A new offence under section 430 (4.1) was also added regarding mischief against places of religious worship or religious property motivated by “bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”

The Canadian Human Rights Act was also amended at that time to extend the prohibition against hate messages beyond telephone messages to include all telecommunications technologies.

If applied vigorously, these provisions should provide redress for a significant number of hate-related incidents, including those motivated by antisemitism.

APPENDIX C

DEFINITIONS USED BY POLICE FORCES

Toronto and York Region police services have established tracking mechanisms for hate crimes and outreach to community groups which provide a good model for other police services to follow. In fact, the Toronto Police Service prepares a highly detailed Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report though its Hate Crimes Unit, with considerable attention given to differentiating between victim groups.

The Calgary Police Service, through its Community and Youth Services Section, reports on Criminal Offences by type of Hate/Bias. It plans in the future to identify the motivation of offences as they relate to persons with disabilities, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual offences and age. However, the criteria are broad and the statistics provided do not specify details within the categories of ethnicity, nationality, race or religion.

In Montreal there is at present no official classification process for delineating hate crimes when reporting harassment, vandalism, assault or threats.

A British Columbia province wide Hate Crime Team is working to develop a standardized definition, integrated data base and common enforcement policies. Edmonton is reportedly engaged at present in trying to duplicate the Calgary model. Hamilton, Peel and Ottawa keep statistics, but do not publish them. Given the different criteria and reporting mechanisms used by various law enforcement agencies and community groups, and the comfort level of victims who may prefer to use one reporting agency over another, data collection is a complex process.

It has been noted that a central problem in the classification and recording of hate crimes is the issue of definition.^xxviii This finding was repeated in April 1997 at the National Planning Meeting on Hate Crime and Bias Activity in Ottawa. The development of a standard definition of hate was identified as a key part of a national anti-hate strategy. No one definition of hate crimes exist in Canada, although a number of major metropolitan forces have moved towards the setting up of hate crime units and the collection of hate crime statistics. A survey done in 1995 shows the following definitions in use by police forces in Canada:

Metropolitan Toronto Police Force

A hate crime is a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

Halifax Police Department

A hate crime is a criminal offence committed against a person or property, the motive for which is based in whole or in part upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

Edmonton Police Service

Bias crime: A criminal offence committed against a person or property, that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or sexual characteristic.

Ottawa Police Service

A criminal offence committed against a person or property which is motivated by the suspect/offender’s hate/bias against a racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or disability group.

Winnipeg Police Department

Hate crimes are traditional offenses motivated by an offender’s bias as a result of religion, race, nationality or sexual orientation. The Winnipeg police service now uses a “whole or in part” definition of hate crimes. As well, the Hate crime unit investigates incidents of hate crime based on actual or perceived group status.

Montreal Police Force

The Montreal police force uses the same definition that is used in Toronto.

Ministry of the Solicitor General / Correctional Service of Canada

Crime was motivated because of hate/bias toward the victim’s racial, religious, ethnic or sexual orientation.

Policing Standards Manual, Province of Ontario

A criminal offence committed against a person or property which is motivated by the suspect/offender’s hate/bias against a racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or disability group.

Ontario Provincial Police

A criminal act against a person(s) or property that is based solely, or in part, upon the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

The RCMP does not use the category “hate crime” as a set definition although the National Security Investigation Sections of the RCMP. Focus on criminal, political or religious extremism, comes close to such a category.

Assessing the scope of hate-motivated violence on a national basis remains difficult. Recommendations have been made in various fora for federal-wide hate crime statistics standards as a way to record data about the incidence of hate-motivated crime in Canada. See http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/hmv/hate_40.html. The collection of statistics would clearly require uniform definitions. The list above indicates different thresholds being used by the various forces, which will result in different numbers.

In its Policy Statement on Race Relations, adopted June 2002 by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its Annual Conference, the FCM stated:

Official hate crime statistics would not only help determine resource requirements, but would also help to understand which groups are being targeted most often and how best to deal with them in our communities. In addition, better information would help in evaluating the efficacy of both justice system and community-based responses. FCM is urging the federal government to consider the creation of a national hate crime data collection strategy, and joins federal, provincial and territorial governments, interest groups, academics and the police community in calling for a national effort.