Definition of Hate Crime

The following definition of “hate crime”Footnote 1 will be used in this chapter:

… a criminal violation motivated by hate, based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.

Uniform Crime Reporting Survey manual (2022, 89)Footnote 2

Sometimes when people speak about hate crimes, they think of hate propaganda offences. These offences in the Criminal Code are found in sections 318 (advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group), subsection 319(1) (inciting hatred against an identifiable group in a public place that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace), subsection 319(2) (wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group), and subsection 319(2.1) (wilfully promoting antisemitism by denying, condoning, or downplaying the Holocaust).

Another kind of hate crime is regular crimes such as assault or mischief committed because of hatred of the victim’s perceived race, religion, etc. This kind of hate crime is dealt with in two ways. First, there is the sentencing provision found in subparagraph 718.2 (a)(i) of the Criminal Code that provides that a judge must consider at sentencing for any crime “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.” Second, there is a specific offence of hate-motivated mischief found in subsections 430 (4.1) and (4.101) of the Criminal Code with respect to mischief committed against certain kinds of property, such as property primarily used for religious worship or educational institutions primarily used by an identifiable group.

“Hate is based on perceptions of a stable, negative disposition of persons or groups. We hate persons and groups more because of who they are, than because of what they do. Hate has the goal to eliminate its target… Hate can be reassuring and self-protective, because its message is simple and helps confirming people’s belief in a just world.” (Fischer et al., 2018, p. 309)

As a clinician, however, my approach does not come from a legal or policy position; it comes from victims’ definition of the crime. If victims believe hate, bias or prejudice was part of the reason they were victimized, then I work with them using many of the principles and issues raised in this chapter; others’ judgements about the nature of the crime are irrelevant to providing compassionate support. For example, academics argue whether crimes perpetrated against women by men who hold misogynistic ideas might fit the definition of a hate crime (Mason-Bish & Duggan, 2020; McCarthy, 2017); my perspective is that victims decide how to perceive their victimization. One could contend that such validation may be part of them taking their power back, gaining agency as they make sense of what happened to them. Mason-Bish and Duggan (2020) argue that one benefit of defining such gender-based crimes as hate crimes is removing some of the victim blaming that can occur.

Part of developing one’s understanding involves looking at the range of criminal behaviour that might be seen as a hate crime. Several researchers have noted how hate crimes can range in severity from acting out/property destruction to an organized political statement or severe assault or death (Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Mason-Bish & Duggan, 2020). Much of the research and writing in this area discuss intimidation, harassment, vandalism (homes/business), vandalism of religious property, personal assaults (physical and sexual) and homicide (Barnes & Ephross, 1994; Cheng, 2004; Garnetts et al., 1990; Jacobs & Potter 1998; McPhail, 2002; Perry, 2008). Perry (2008; p. 110) also highlighted a point made by the American Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that hate crimes also have an increased risk of triggering further criminal activity as groups engage in retaliation. Support workers are reminded that all crimes involve illegal behaviour. In the case of hate crimes, however, the perpetrator’s motivation is because of bias and prejudice against what they perceive as the victims’ group, seeing that group as outsiders and worthy of attack.

Hate crimes send a message to society in general and the victim’s specific community, with the individual victim as the representative of a homogenous group (Fischer et al., 2018). Although the specific crime may target an individual, often the perpetrator’s goal is to send a message to the victim’s community that they do not belong. Hate crimes require no pre-existing relationship between the victim and perpetrator; people are victimized due to being perceived as part of a despised group (Fischer, et al., 2018). A central element of understanding hate crimes is what Berk, Boyd and Hamner (1992) refer to as the “but for” characteristic of hate crimes: “But for” the biased view of the perpetrator, the crime would not have occurred. The victim is targeted to bring about harm to the group they represent. This interchangeability of a victim as a representative of the larger group is another marker of a hate crime (Fischer et al., 2018; Jacobs & Potter 1998; McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia & Gu, 2001). Although the perpetrator often wants to “send a message” to the group, sometimes the crime can have a personal element. It is noteworthy that there is research that says that many victims who report hate crimes know their perpetrators, even if only casually (Mason, 2005). Thus, the nature of the crime may be an intermingling of personal animosity and perpetrator prejudice and discrimination, which may influence which individual representative is targeted. Thus, workers should be mindful when gathering information and not assume that the hate crime was a crime perpetrated by a stranger.