Is pulling on a womans Hijab a hate crime?

[olpfan1]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/03/09/ottawa-hijab-pull-kingston.html

I can't believe we are having this discussion but I guess it's an issue. It was an assault. No more and no less.

First here is the definition of a hate crime in Canada

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property

I still can't see how "pulling" can be designated a hate crime. Does that mean if I pulled on someones Catholic necklace that I am going to be charged with a hate crime? Probably not right?

This country has gone politically insane

Kingston, Ont., police are asking for the public's help after a woman allegedly pulled on another woman's hijab, which police are calling a hate crime assault.

Police said a woman was finishing her grocery shopping at a store around 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 28 when another customer came from behind her and pulled on her hijab.

They said the suspect yanked the head covering so hard it forced the victim to bend backward. The suspect then let go and left the store without saying a word.

The female suspect is described as Caucasian, slim, about 40 to 45 years old, with long black hair and was with a male companion.

Surveillance images of the suspect an associate and the victim can be viewed on the Kingston police website.

Anyone with information should contact Kingston police Const. Sean Leblanc at 613-549-4660, ext. 6250 or call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8744.

Edited March 9, 2012 by olpfan1

[olpfan1]

Isn't that how women fight anyway? By grabbing the hair/head area? Just because a woman is wearing a Hijab doesn't make her immune from getting her hair/head pulled. Yes that is borderline assault but that is how women assault other women in the west.

Edited March 9, 2012 by olpfan1

[Moonlight Graham]

How can you call it a hate crime if you don't know the intent/motive? For now it's a women yanking on another person's clothing. It doesn't look good, it probably was a kind of religious/ethnic attack, but there is no proof yet.

[Guest American Woman]

To call this a hate crime with absolutely nothing to base it on is ridiculous. It's pure conjecture.

[Shakeyhands]

what if I whacked someones kippa off their head, or pulled a Catholic Priests collar off, or a Nuns habit down?

[Shady]

what if I whacked someones kippa off their head, or pulled a Catholic Priests collar off, or a Nuns habit down?

So?

[DogOnPorch]

what if I whacked someones kippa off their head, or pulled a Catholic Priests collar off, or a Nuns habit down?

Well, you saw what they did to a Pole with a stapler.

[Jack Weber]

what if I whacked someones kippa off their head, or pulled a Catholic Priests collar off, or a Nuns habit down?

Well,I think it's safe to say you'd look like an A-Hole...

But I don't think it would be seen as a "hate crime"...

[cybercoma]

Was the woman targeted for assault because she was wearing a hijab?

[Shakeyhands]

chances are.... why else would it happen? Another lovely person deciding that they don't like the hijab.

[Guest American Woman]

chances are.... why else would it happen? Another lovely person deciding that they don't like the hijab.

Why do you say "chances are?" The woman who pulled on it didn't even say anything. Why else would it happen? What if it was a "road rage" mindset - the Muslim woman had done something to irritate the other woman and the other woman pulled on her hijab because of it. One could substitute "hijab" for "hat" or "hood" or whatever - and I'm guessing things like that have happened without any publicity at all. People do stupid things that they shouldn't do - and the "road rage" mentality seems to be more prevalent these days.

I'm curious, though - if someone had pulled on a nun's veil in such a manner, with no other information, would it be making the headlines as a "hate crime?"

Perhaps it was a "hate crime," but I have to wonder at the mindset that concluded that it was - without any evidence whatsoever - and that would be the police, apparently. This could have been 'personal,' nothing to do with hatred towards Islam, but apparently any time a Muslim is involved, "hate" is automatically assumed?

[GostHacked]

What a waste of police resources.

[Shakeyhands]

Why do you say "chances are?" The woman who pulled on it didn't even say anything. Why else would it happen? What if it was a "road rage" mindset - the Muslim woman had done something to irritate the other woman and the other woman pulled on her hijab because of it. One could substitute "hijab" for "hat" or "hood" or whatever - and I'm guessing things like that have happened without any publicity at all. People do stupid things that they shouldn't do - and the "road rage" mentality seems to be more prevalent these days.

I'm curious, though - if someone had pulled on a nun's veil in such a manner, with no other information, would it be making the headlines as a "hate crime?"

Perhaps it was a "hate crime," but I have to wonder at the mindset that concluded that it was - without any evidence whatsoever - and that would be the police, apparently. This could have been 'personal,' nothing to do with hatred towards Islam, but apparently any time a Muslim is involved, "hate" is automatically assumed?

Fair enough, I don't disagree. We certainly don't have all the details at this point. Lets look at what we do know, and what the police know. A woman walked up to another, and apparently unprovoked, yanked an article of clothing that has obvious significance to people of a particular faith/culture. The assumption can be made, and it's not a far stretch these days, that the sole reason this woman did this to the Muslim woman is because she has a problem with that religion/cultural norm.

[olpfan1]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. We certainly don't have all the details at this point. Lets look at what we do know, and what the police know. A woman walked up to another, and apparently unprovoked, yanked an article of clothing that has obvious significance to people of a particular faith/culture. The assumption can be made, and it's not a far stretch these days, that the sole reason this woman did this to the Muslim woman is because she has a problem with that religion/cultural norm.

she should remember shes not in an islamic country, I had to sit behind a guy with a turban before at a movie theatre

I had to keep looking around him and that was a pain in my neck

I wanted to yank it off too

[cybercoma]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. We certainly don't have all the details at this point. Lets look at what we do know, and what the police know. A woman walked up to another, and apparently unprovoked, yanked an article of clothing that has obvious significance to people of a particular faith/culture. The assumption can be made, and it's not a far stretch these days, that the sole reason this woman did this to the Muslim woman is because she has a problem with that religion/cultural norm.

To add, yes it would be a hate crime if someone assaulted a nun for no other reason than her being a nun. In the same way it would be a hate crime to target a Jew's payot or a Sikh's turban and assault them completely unprovoked. We can make up all kinds of fantasy provocations in the world.. If it turns out in this case, however, that it was unprovoked, then it is more likely than not that it's a hate crime.

[Guest American Woman]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. We certainly don't have all the details at this point. Lets look at what we do know, and what the police know. A woman walked up to another, and apparently unprovoked, yanked an article of clothing that has obvious significance to people of a particular faith/culture. The assumption can be made, and it's not a far stretch these days, that the sole reason this woman did this to the Muslim woman is because she has a problem with that religion/cultural norm.

We really don't have any details at this point - we only know that a woman in a super market pulled on another woman's jihab. It could, as you said, be a "hate crime," but I just don't understand presenting it as such when there is absolutely nothing known regarding the reason for it. Seems to me it just adds fuel to the fire to jump to such conclusions - I think it makes the problem perhaps appear greater than it is as it could also add to Muslims' feelings that 'they hate us;' it could make them think that when it's not even the case - making them have more ill feelings towards non-Muslims.

[cybercoma]

I just don't understand presenting it as [a hate crime] when there is absolutely nothing known regarding the reason for it.

You know it's the police that have classified it as a hate crime, right? Obviously they know more than you, me, and the journalist that wrote the article. From their investigation they're classifying it as a hate crime because it fits the criteria.

[Guest American Woman]

You know it's the police that have classified it as a hate crime, right?

Apparently I do:

Perhaps it was a "hate crime," but I have to wonder at the mindset that concluded that it was - without any evidence whatsoever - and that would be the police, apparently.

Obviously they know more than you, me, and the journalist that wrote the article. From their investigation they're classifying it as a hate crime because it fits the criteria.

How do you know that they know more than you or I do? You're drawing a conclusion without anything concrete to base it on. From what we know, the woman left the store without saying anything, so how would the police know why she did what she did? They can't get inside of her head. The police don't know who did it. They don't know why she did it. They are speculating.

[Shakeyhands]

she should remember shes not in an islamic country,

What the H-E_Double Hockey Sticks does this have to do with anything???

I had to sit behind a guy with a turban before at a movie theatre

I had to keep looking around him and that was a pain in my neck

I wanted to yank it off too

I'm glad that you made it through what was obviously was a very traumatic experience for you, and that you were able to contain yourself. Point of order though, you most likely could have moved, even if you were behind a Sikh, a tall person or a woman with a bouffant!!!

[olpfan1]

I'm glad that you made it through what was obviously was a very traumatic experience for you, and that you were able to contain yourself. Point of order though, you most likely could have moved, even if you were behind a Sikh, a tall person or a woman with a bouffant!!!

Actually it was sold out so no I couldn't just move, why people have to be assholes I don't know... but I would never wear something on my head if I were in a position to obstruct the view of another person ..and please don't tell me about religious freedom! I should have the freedom myself to not put up with the worlds religions and customs

The very thought of religion repulses every part of me

Edited March 11, 2012 by olpfan1

[msj]

I don't think it would ultimately stand up to section 319 criteria:

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

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(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

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

I think the law has been interpreted to go beyond the literal sense of "communicating statements:"

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

communicate statements,

in a public place,

incite hatred against an identifiable group,

in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Link

The problem for a conviction will come down to motive/intent as already stated.

------------------------------

This is not to say that I don't understand where the police are coming from.

From the story indicated and the pictures it certainly appears worthy of the "hate crime" label.

If/when this lady is caught charges would be made based on the evidence at that time and this is all based on the opinions of police, prosecutors, etc that think they can prove intent or not.

--------------------------------

I'm more curious as to what would be one's reaction if you heard about this story and knew the perpetrator?

Would you turn your friend in?

Would you have a good laugh over it?

Would you.... ?

[Shady]

chances are.... why else would it happen?

Leave us alone Mr. Thought Police.

[Guest Peeves]

To call this a hate crime with absolutely nothing to base it on is ridiculous. It's pure conjecture.

'zactly. That's why the term 'hate crime' is redundant. We have crimes covered in our legal system.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

what if I whacked someones kippa off their head, or pulled a Catholic Priests collar off, or a Nuns habit down?

Well dang it, make up yer mind.

[Shakeyhands]

Leave us alone Mr. Thought Police.

If you only knew what I was thinking right now.