 |
|||
Rochelle Wilner |
Frank Dimant |
Prof. Stephen Scheinberg |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Rochelle Wilner |
Frank Dimant |
Prof. Stephen Scheinberg |
Ruth Klein |
In total, 584 incidents were reported to B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights in 2003, which represents an overall increase of 27.2% over the previous year (see Figures 1, 2 and 4). This figure is all the more startling when it is recalled that the 459 reported incidents in 2002 represented a 60% increase over the previous year (2001). The total number of incidents per year has been steadily increasing over the last decade. From 2001 to 2003, the number of reported incidents has doubled (see Figure 3).
Given that only an estimated 10% of hate-motivated incidents are ever reported v, whether to human rights groups such as the League for Human Rights, to law enforcement bodies or to other agencies, this year’s findings are, once again, disturbing. As has been noted, “…of all forms of criminality, hate crimes are likely to be among the most unreported of offences.” vi Where no recourse can be expected in cases of hate-motivated activity that does not meet the legal criteria for a criminal offense, it is even more unlikely that victims will report their experiences. League research indicates that, while there is particular reluctance on the part of members of the Orthodox Jewish community to report incidents, it is these individuals who are often the most victimized because of the visibility of their religious attire.
Almost 33% of the cases included in the 2003 Audit were reported to police for criminal investigation, as well as to the League. Seven resulted in charges, with one leading to a prison sentence, while several cases are still ongoing before the courts. Discussion of the protections that are available through law enforcement agencies, human rights commissions and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) will follow in Section VI. As well, recommendations for enhancing these protections will be made.
In 2003, 389 (66.6% or 2/3) of the 584 incidents were classified as harassment, 180 (30.8%) fell into the category of vandalism and 15 (2.6%) were classed as violence (see Figure 4). This compares to 282 cases of harassment (61.4%), 148 cases of vandalism (32.2%) and 29 cases of violence (6.3%) in 2002. vii
Incidents of assault continue to be significant, involving serious physical violence against individuals, although the total number of cases involving violence is down from 2002. For example, a visible Jew, leaving a Toronto synagogue alone late at night, was beaten with a hammer by an unknown assailant and suffered serious head injuries. The circumstances of this assault, including the absence of any robbery attempt, leads to the assumption this was a hate crime. Yet, in the absence of the arrest and interrogation of any suspect, this incident has not been classified as a hate crime by the police. This underscores the necessity for an independent agency such as the League to ensure that such attacks are recorded and classified for their antisemitic content. In other examples, bullying at a Toronto area public school led to physical assault, while in Montreal, an elderly Jewish woman was beaten up in a park by two female teenagers of apparent Arab origin.
Threats of physical violence in the harassment category, as opposed to generalized hate propaganda, have increased steeply, even though the number of instances of outright violence has decreased. In 2003, two-thirds (66.6% or 389 of the 584 incidents reported to the League) were in the category of harassment. Of these, 35.4% (111) involved threatening comments or messages. (See Figure 1).
In general, cases of harassment rarely result in any criminal investigation, either because no perpetrator can be identified or because the incidents fall outside the restrictive definition of a hate crime under the Criminal Code. As previously noted, these cases are the least likely to be reported, partly because no remedy is expected. Yet, this is the category that has increased the most over previous years. With the ever-increasing use of computer technology, which provides an all too available cover for the perpetrator, the number of unsolved hate-motivated harassment cases is likely to grow.
There were 23 incidents targeting synagogues in addition to 22 other incidents involving Jewish communal buildings, 46 against Jewish students on campus, 23 in the workplace, 32 relating to Internet sites, 33 involving hate by e-mail, 111 included threats, and 34 were specifically directed against children (22 of which involved school facilities).
Out of the 2003 total of 584 incidents, 84 or 14.4% occurred in January, and 87 or 14.9% in March, representing the peak in monthly incidents for the year. The total of 226 incidents (38.7%) in the first three months of 2003 account for more than four times the number of incidents in the same months of 2002. Almost half (49.5%) of the incidents for 2003 took place in the first four months. Furthermore, vandalism in March alone accounted for 17.8% of the total incidents in this category for the year (32 cases out of the total of 180 for the year).
In order to pinpoint the causes for this cluster, a review was undertaken of domestic and international developments around that time. The most obvious answer can be found in the lead-up to the Iraq War, which prompted a wide range of groups to take to the streets in strident protest. This four-month period covers not only the build-up in the atmosphere of dissent and confrontation, but also the outbreak of the war and its immediate aftermath. The League has noted in the past that tensions and upheavals in society, even if not linked in any rational way to the Jewish community or Israel, have frequently led to increased antisemitic activity.
Two instances of hate propaganda in Canada, which made headlines in December 2002, were also reflected in the surge in incidents in early 2003. The first case involved the hate-filled remarks of David Ahenakew, former chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) who told a Saskatoon Star Phoenix reporter that Adolf Hitler “fried six million Jews” to ensure they did not take over Europe. He went on to say: “That’s why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they’re doing. They’re killing people in Arab countries.” viii
Hate charges under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code were laid against Ahenakew with the consent of the Saskatchewan Attorney General. However, applications made to the Governor General to remove Ahenakew from the Order of Canada, have been ignored. The response to Ahenakew can more clearly be seen in the increase in antisemitic incidents that subsequently ensued.
The other domestic case, which reflected foreign influences, involved comments by Raymond Baaklini, the Lebanese Ambassador to Canada, who alleged Jewish control of the media. “The most stubborn party … is the Zionist party that exists in Canada,” he was quoted as saying. “As you know this party controls 90% of the Canadian media. It takes instructions and help from many Zionist organizations either in Canada or abroad. Therefore if we don’t say the Zionist movement had the number two role, it had the number one role and America comes second.”ix Asked what he meant by these remarks, the Ambassador told the National Post: “I wanted to say exactly that 90% of the mass media in Canada is controlled by Jews or Zionists, and those Jews and Zionists, they are also supported by other organizations in the States.” x Baaklini’s weak apology was accepted by the Federal Government and no further sanctions were imposed, in spite of calls for the Ambassador’s expulsion from the country. Baaklini has subsequently made similar slurs.
The collective impact of these two outbursts, combined with the media coverage they generated — even though it was generally condemnatory — appears to have led to an increase in the number of individuals who feel empowered to act out their antisemitic proclivities. There appears to be a causal relationship between coverage of “Jewish” issues in the mass media and the feeling that somehow “permission” has been given for open expression of antagonism towards Jews.
This has certainly been the case in the past. As noted in last year’s Audit, during key time frames, the cumulative effect of continuous coverage of violence in the Middle East, irrespective of whether it had an anti-Israel slant, can be said to have contributed to an increase in anti-Jewish activity.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions.” The APA cites racial hatred and resentment of ethnic minorities among the primary reasons people commit hate crimes. xi
Whatever their motivation, the havoc they can wreck is significant. Victims of hate crimes undergo higher levels of psychological distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anger, than victims of other crimes, according to Dr. Greg Herek, research psychologist at the University of California. According to his research, hate crime victims needed as much as five years to overcome the emotional distress of the incident compared with victims of non-bias crimes, who experienced a drop in crime-related psychological problems within two years of the crime. He also noted that hate crimes have an impact not only on the victim, but also on his or her community. xii
In fact, the lower level of hate crime reporting is due, in part, to victims’ fear of future contact with the perpetrators, according to Dr. Edward Dunbar, a clinical psychologist at the same university. xiii
This sampling of victim impact statements recorded in the League’s database illustrate these points.
“Why didn’t I report it? Well, it happens so often it doesn’t even faze me anymore. It is just part of life. However, I no longer wear my yarmulka when away from home.”
“I am shaken to the core to this day. I don’t know how I am ever going to trust others again.”
“What really scares me is that, unlike my parents and grandparents, I can no longer promise my children a better world than the one I had to face when growing up in Europe”.
“It’s affected the whole family. No one walks alone at night. If he walks home from synagogue, he puts on a street hat and has someone come with him.”
“I didn’t report it because I did not believe anyone would care. No-one would have done anything anyhow.”
“I never understood what was so bad, until it happened to me. Then I understood.”
“I feel like I have to hide now who I am. I look over my shoulder now when I go from class to class. I keep my mouth shut in class. I feel so apart and alone.”
“In France the government may have banned visible religious signs, but it’s not so different here. Jewish parents are telling their kids not to wear yarmulkas on the street, to tuck in their Star of David necklaces. What’s the difference?”
“It probably seems like such a small thing. The police told me nothing could be done, to forget it. ‘Move on’, they said — Two simple words but I cannot put it out of my mind.”
“Where does all the hate come from? A simple letter comes back covered in such hate. I don’t understand it.”
These individuals were able to comprehend and articulate their victimization, but such is not always the case. In fact, over the past few years, the bar has been raised on what victims themselves, as well as society in general, are prepared to tolerate in terms of antisemitic activity. A process of desensitization, both within and outside the Jewish community, has meant that what was once seen as offensive and unacceptable is now being viewed as less serious and even routine. Visibly orthodox Jews, in particular, view such harassment as inevitable.