Hate crimes and incidents in Canada: Facts trends and information for frontline police officers

What is a hate crime?

Hate crime is a broad legal term that encompasses a diversity of motives, perpetrators, victims, behaviours and harms.

The Hate Crimes Task Force defines a hate crime as a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated in whole or in part by bias, prejudice or 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 on any similar factor. This definition has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and adopted by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey.

Hate crimes affect not only individual victims, but also the larger community. Hate crimes also have consequences that reach far beyond a specific incident and are particularly concerning because they:

• can have uniquely violent and assaultive characteristics
• cause trauma to victims, family, and friends
• can cause fear of being targeted for future crimes
• can escalate and prompt retaliation
• can foster community unrest
• threaten national values of tolerance and inclusion

It is important to note that while hate can be a motivator in these types of offences, it is often not the sole motivating factor. Research demonstrates that hate crimes are often motivated by multiple factors, including ignorance, fear, anger and social/political grievances (Janhevich, 2001; Tétrault, 2019; Thompson, Ismail and Couto, 2020), which can pose legal challenges for determining and demonstrating hateful motivation. In other words, in order to be convicted of a hate crime, it must first be proven in court that the offence was motivated fully or in part by hate.

Additional resource

Informational video series:

• Explaining Hate-Motivated Crime video series – Toronto Police Service

What is a hate incident?

Hate incidents involve the same characteristics as hate crimes but do not meet the legal threshold to be classified as criminal offences under Canada’s Criminal Code. In other words, hate incidents are non-criminal actions actions against a person or property that is 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 gender identity or expression or on any other similar factor. Examples of hate incidents include:

• sharing discriminatory material in person or posting it on the internet
• intimidating a person on social media because of their religion
• using racist slurs or epithets
• insulting someone based on their national or ethnic origin
• making offensive jokes about a person’s skin color or sexual orientation

Although hate incidents may not result in the laying of criminal charges, it is important that responding officers take these incidents seriously, and consider the impacts and harms caused to individuals and their communities. This includes the potential to generate fear in affected communities.

Providing a timely, compassionate and victim-centric response helps to mitigate the impacts of hate, reassure victims and their broader communities, and initiate the healing process.

Overview of applicable sections and general statutory aggravating factors

Hate crimes are criminal incidents that are found to have been motivated wholly or in part by hatred toward an individual or identifiable group. According to subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code, identifiable groups are defined by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. It is important to recognize that hate crimes and incidents may also be motivated wholly or in part by hatred toward an intersection of more than one of these identities.

There are several hate crime provisions within the Criminal Code:

• Advocating genocide (subsection 318(1))
• Public incitement of hatred (subsection 319(1)); wherein a subject wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group.
• Wilful promotion of hatred (subsection 319(2)); anyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. The statement can be spoken, written or recorded and can include gestures, signs, photographs and drawings.
• Wilful promotion of antisemitism (subsection 319 (2.1))
• Conversion therapy offences (sections 320.101-104; subsection 273.3(1)); any form of treatment which attempts to actively change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
• Mischief to religious property, educational institutions, etc. (subsection 430 (4.1)); for example, vandalizing a place of worship like a church, synagogue, a temple, gurdwara or mosque. Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code allows for increased penalties when an offender is sentenced for any criminal offence when there is evidence that the offence was motivated solely or in part by hate. Simply put: any criminal act has the potential to be a hate/bias crime if the hate motivation can be proven.
• Relevant Criminal Code sections for each of these offences, along with general statutory aggravating factors, are reproduced below.

Attorney General (AG) Consent

There are procedural gateways to hate crime prosecution; under section 318(3) and 319(6) of the Criminal Code, consent of the provincial Attorney General must be obtained when pursuing charges for: Wilful promotion of hatred and Wilful promotion of antisemitism.

Laws pertaining to hate crime

Hate crime is rising in Canada

As illustrated in Chart 1 below, between 2009 and 2024, levels of police-reported hate crime in Canada experienced some minor year to year fluctuation, followed by consistent and, at times, sharp year over year increases.

The first pronounced spike in hate crimes began in 2016 and coincided with the rise of populist politics and inflammatory rhetoric directed toward immigrant, racialized, and religious minority groups. Following slight declines between 2017 and 2018, hate crime rates have generally increased year over year. The number of police-reported hate crime nearly doubled between 2020-2024.

Do levels of hate crime vary over time and space?

Yes. Although overall levels of police-reported hate crime have increased in Canada in recent years, there are distinct variations over time and at the provincial and territorial levels. As seen in Chart 2, these variations can be observed in the number of police-reported hate crimes in each province/territory between 2017 to 2024.

Though there is year-to-year fluctuation in the number of police-reported hate crimes across each of the provinces and territories, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories have generally experienced the least number of hate crimes between 2017 and 2024, while British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec experienced comparatively higher numbers.

Where do hate crimes most commonly occur?

In Canada, between 2011 and 2020:

• 33% of police-reported violent hate crimes were committed in a park or field
• 2% of police-reported violent hate crimes were committed at a residence
• 18% of police-reported violent hate crimes were committed at a commercial business

In Canada, between 2011 and 2020:

• 30% of police-reported non-violent hate crimes were committed in an open area
• 24% of police-reported non-violent hate crimes were committed at a residence
• 14% of police-reported non-violent hate crimes were committed at an educational institution
• 13% of police-reported non-violent hate crimes were committed at a commercial business

Online hate crimes and incidents are also increasing. For example, the number of police-reported hate crimes that were classified as cyberhate more than doubled between 2018 and 2022 (from 92 in 2018 to 219 in 2022). As with any hate crime it is important to recognize that these figures underestimate the true number of cyberhate events, as most hate crimes go unreported.

The nature of hate crime victimization

In 2024, according to Statistics Canada:

• 55% of all hate crimes were non-violent.
  • Mischief was the most frequent type of non-violent hate crime reported to police, representing 39% (1,889)
• 45% of all hate crimes were violent.
  • Common assault (Assault, level 1) was the most frequent type of violent hate crime reported to police, representing 15% (741)

As seen in Chart 4 below, while the number of violent and non-violent hate crimes generally increased between 2015 and 2024 (with some minor year-to-year fluctuation), non-violent hate crimes were statistically more prevalent.

Additional resource

For an infographic on police-reported hate crime in Canada in 2021, please see:

• Infographic on police-reported hate crime in Canada in 2024 (Statistics Canada)

Number of hate crimes per identifiable group targeted

Between 2020 and 2024, in those occurrences reported to police, the following identifiable groups were targeted:

• race/ethnicity (9,941)
• religion (4,871)
• sexual orientation (2,752)
• sex/gender (467)
• other motivations (797)^*

^* This category includes mental or physical disability, language, immigrants/newcomers to Canada, age and other factors – for example, occupation or political beliefs.

The following sections disaggregate hate crime motivation types to highlight trends over time and segments of the population that are disproportionately targeted.

Other considerations of particular relevance to police

• Hate crimes are 54% more likely than other crimes to involve co-offending. Moreover, where hate crimes involve more than one accused, serious injury of the victim is 26% more likely to occur (Wang and Moreau, 2022). For more information on group offending, including hate crimes perpetrated by members of organized hate groups, see Hate groups in Canada.
• According to Statistics Canada (2023):
  • Of the 2,872 people accused of at least one hate crime between 2012 and 2018, half (49%) had previously been accused in at least one police-reported incident (not necessarily a hate crime) in the three years preceding their first hate crime charge. More specifically, 32% were accused in one prior incident, 40% were accused in 2 to 5 prior incidents, and 28% were accused in 6+ prior incidents. Among all prior incidents, just over a quarter (28%) involved violence.
  • Over half (54%) of the 2,872 people accused of a hate crime between 2012 and 2018 came into contact with police again (not necessarily hate-related) within 3 years of their initial hate crime charge. Of these, 27% were accused in one subsequent incident, 40% were accused in two to five subsequent incidents, and 33% were accused in six or more subsequent incidents. Among all subsequent incidents, 30% involved violence.
  • Between 2018 and 2021, just over one in five (22%) of police-reported hate crimes resulted in charges laid; the vast majority of hate crimes over this period (69%) were not cleared because an accused person had not been identified. The remaining 9% were cleared in another way, such as by issuing a warning, caution, referral to a community program, or by the victim requesting that no further action be taken against the accused person. It is important to note that violent hate crimes (38%) were more likely to result in the laying or recommendation of charges than non-violent hate crimes (9%).

What is a hate group?

The Anti-Defamation League refers to the term as an organization or group of individuals whose goals and activities attack or vilify an entire group of people on the basis of colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. The presence of racist or otherwise prejudiced members within a larger organization or group does not qualify it as a hate group; in order to be classified as such, the organization or group itself must be characterized by and promote a hate-based orientation or purpose. Further, the organization or group need not engage in criminal conduct to be labeled a hate group; as discussed below, some hate groups discourage the use of violence to advance their goals and beliefs (Southern Law Poverty Group, 2025).

What is hate speech?

There is currently no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law; the concept remains the subject of debate among scholars and practitioners.

To provide a unified framework to address the problem of hate speech on a global scale, the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as:

Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, gender or other identity factor.

Though not a legal definition, the UN’s conceptualization of hate speech includes three core elements:

1. Hate speech can be conveyed through any form of expression, including images, cartoons, memes, objects, gestures and symbols and it can be disseminated offline or online
2. Hate speech is “discriminatory” (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group
3. Hate speech calls out real or perceived “identity factors” of an individual or a group, including: religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender, but also characteristics such as language, economic or social origin, disability, health status, or sexual orientation, among others

Examples of hate speech

It is important to note that hate speech can only be directed at individuals or groups of individuals, not against religions, ideas, philosophies, political parties, or states/nations and their associated offices, symbols or public officials.

The B.C.’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner’s website provides a few examples of what hate speech typically includes:

• describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
• suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
• denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
• labeling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children
• blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
• calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction

Freedom of expression and existing limitations

“This is a free country, I can say whatever I want.” To some extent – that’s true. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereafter “the Charter”) outlines the civil and human rights that Canadian citizens, permanent residents and newcomers to Canada are guaranteed.

One of those rights is freedom of speech, which is laid out in paragraph 2(b) of the Charter and enshrines the fundamental freedom of “thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”

What this means is that those who wish to peacefully protest or convey a point of view have the right to do so, even if their viewpoints are considered offensive by others. However, these freedoms are not absolute; section 1 of the Charter states: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” In other words, there are limits to the kinds of offensive things that people can legally say.

In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld restrictions on forms of expression deemed contrary to the spirit of the Charter. More specifically, an expression (which can be verbal or written) that incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to to contravene the Criminal Code and may therefore lead to the laying of criminal charges.

Why some victims choose not to report

There are several contributing factors involved in an individual’s decision not to report. A report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights outlines these factors (which are not limited to):

• confusion/lack of knowledge about what is a hate crime/incident
• not knowing where or how to report it to police
• fear of escalation and/or retaliation
• embarrassment, humiliation or shame about being victimized
• previous negative experience with police, a lack of trust in police and/or skepticism about the police willingness or capacity to investigate these crimes
• normalization of hate victimization; research shows that members of marginalized groups often think that ‘everyday’ verbal abuse, online harassment, and other forms of targeted hostility are not serious enough to be reported to the police. Some even worry that they are wasting police time and resources or think that they have to deal with these issues by themselves
• for members of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, fear of repercussions from ‘being outed’
• fear of jeopardizing immigration status
• a belief that the accused would not be convicted or adequately punished
• dealing with the hate crime/incident in another way
• concerns about not being taken seriously or not being believed
• cultural and language barriers

To further complicate matters, police officers’ varying levels of expertise in identifying crimes motivated by hate means that sometimes when victims do report such crimes to the police, they are not recognized or treated as such.

Why is it important that hate crimes and incidents be reported?

It is important that hate crimes and incidents be reported to and documented by the police for a number of reasons, including:

• unreported hate crimes and incidents cannot be investigated or (in the case of hate crimes) prosecuted, which means that accused persons are not held accountable and may be emboldened to re-offend
• victims who do not report hate crimes and incidents are generally not able to access the rights and resources entrenched in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
• hate crimes and incidents that are not reported are not officially counted, which obscures the true extent of the problem and the urgent need for action
• to ensure that operations are calibrated to the scope of the issue. Currently in Canada (as in other nations), hate crime units tend to be under-resourced, in part because reporting rates are generally low. This undermines police services’ capacity to respond effectively to hate crimes and incidents, support victims, offer reassurance to affected communities, and deploy proactive prevention-/intervention-based programs and initiatives.

How can police services work to increase hate crime detection and reporting?

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2021) and Thompson, Ismail and Couto (2020) highlight that there have been increased efforts in recent years on the part of police services across Canada to facilitate the identification and reporting of hate motivated crimes and incidents, including:

• building institutional capacity: As of January 2019, 14 of the 20 largest municipal police services in Canada had dedicated hate crime officers and/or hate crime units
• demonstrating that police will respond swiftly and compassionately to all reported hate crimes and incidents
• maximizing cultural awareness to better communicate and work with individuals from diverse ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds
• increasing use of police training on hate crime and the importance of a victim-centred and trauma-informed police response; robust training can help officers to recognize and respond to hate crimes and incidents effectively. It is, however, important to note that many Canadian police services (particularly smaller services with fewer resources) have not yet developed, nor do they offer such training to their membership.
• developing innovative methods to encourage the reporting of hate, including a variety of community engagement, partnership and education initiatives, along with protocols that quell fears and reassure victimized communities in the wake of hate crimes and incidents
• working to counter discriminatory perceptions and practices in policing to improve relationships and trust with diverse communities and increase perceived police legitimacy
• publicly condemning hate crimes and incidents and articulating support for and solidarity with victims and their broader communities
• making data on hate crimes and incidents publicly available (publicly available data and reports signal that police acknowledge victims of hate crime and are committed to increasing transparency and raising awareness about the problem of hate, which can help increase public trust and improve reporting rates)
• engaging and supporting communities most vulnerable to hate crime victimization
• offering a variety of reporting approaches, including third-party and anonymous reporting options

Underreporting of hate crimes and incidents is a common occurrence across the country. Individuals may not want to report a hate crime or incident to police for a variety of reasons, including fear of retaliation, being desensitized to victimization or a mistrust of police. Continuing to engage in community outreach and education about hate crimes, the benefits of reporting, and the potential for early intervention is required to develop a fulsome understanding of the communities’ challenges in this space.

It is important to note that changes in reporting practices and the provision of additional support to victimized individuals and their communities can have effects on hate crime statistics. That is, higher rates of police-reported hate crime in certain jurisdictions may, in part, reflect differences or changes in the recognition, reporting and investigation of these incidents by police and community members. At the same time, increases in hate crimes and incidents may also reflect actual increases in the crimes and incidents themselves.

Background

Research shows that the impacts of hate crime can be profound, lasting, and more severe than for other victimization types. They also extend beyond those directly victimized, like a ripple effect, to affect members of the targeted group more generally (Pickles, 2020; Schweppe and Perry, 2021). Recognizing the impact of hate crimes therefore provides a basis for the respectful and sensitive treatment of victims, their families and communities, and can help first responders and victim services agencies better understand and meet their often complex needs. For more information on victim needs and services, please see Hate Crime Victim Support: A Critical Aspect of the Police Response and Types of Support Victims Need and Want.

Figure 1 illustrates how hate crimes and incidents serve as ‘message crimes’ intended to intimidate and control, and the waves of harm that move beyond the victim(s) to also affect their friends and family members, communities (local, national, international and/or online) and, eventually, society (Iganski, 2001; Schweppe and Perry, 2021).

Figure 1: Waves of harm generated by hate crimes

The impacts of hate crimes and incidents

The impacts stemming from hate crime victimization are broad and can be influenced by a number of factors, including (but not limited to) previous victimization experience, the nature and characteristics of the hate crime or incident, the severity of the crime and injury, race/ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, previous experiences with discrimination, and the availability of social support circles (friends, family, faith-based leaders, and others). The often intersectional nature of an individual’s identify can also serve to compound and intensify the harm experienced. It is therefore critical that police and partner agencies apply an intersectional lens when responding to hate crimes and incidents to ensure that the multiple biases that motivated the crime or incident are recognized (for example, hatred of race/ethnicity and gender identity) and the nuances of harm that stem from them are recognized and attended to (International Association of Chiefs of Police Response to Victims of Crime, 2018; Organization for Security Co-operation in Europe, 2020).

Given the broad and diffuse nature of hate crime victimization, it is helpful to organize the impacts of hate according to whether an individual is directly or indirectly affected.

Direct impacts are experienced by the initial victim(s) of a hate crime or incident and can involve a variety of physical, psychological, emotional, financial, and social harms that can change over both the short and longer term. Indirect impacts, on the other hand, are ‘second-hand’ or ‘proxy’ harms experienced by individuals not directly affected by the hate crime or incident, including family, friends, witnesses, and community members.

Research shows that indirect impacts are often like direct impacts; simply knowing someone who has been victimized is often sufficient to cause these effects (Pickles, 2020).

Direct and indirect impacts of hate crime victimization may include:

• physical injury
• emotional and psychological distress
• trauma
• anger
• depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation
• long-term health effects including heart, liver, autoimmune, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• an extreme sense of isolation
• reduced sense of safety and security
• increased sense of vulnerability and fear of repeat victimization
• shame and humiliation
• being more security conscious and avoidant, which often involves the use of coping responses to avoid repeat victimization such as moving away, changing routines, avoiding people, places and situations perceived to be potentially dangerous, concealing aspects of their social identity (for example, by not holding hands with their same-sex partner in public, not wearing religious or cultural clothing or symbols)
• problems at school or work
• relationship problems with family and friends
• feelings of rejection and social exclusion that can trigger emotional and psychological pain and distress
• substance abuse and self-harm behaviours
• financial harms that stem from their victimization experience in terms of lost wages (due to injury and/or participating in the criminal justice process) and/or loss of/damage to property

It is important to recognize that first responders may also experience indirect impacts that stem from exposure to victims of hate. Vicarious trauma, sometimes also called “the cost of caring”, “compassion fatigue” and “secondary traumatic stress”, refers to the emotional, and psychological impacts experienced by those working in helping professions – such as police, other first responders and frontline social service practitioners – due to their exposure to victims of trauma and violence (Greinacher et al, 2019; International Association of Chiefs of Police, Enhancing Law Enforcement Response to Victims Strategy, 2018).

In addition to direct and indirect harms suffered by victims, their friends, families, and broader communities and responding frontline professionals, hate crimes and incidents also lead to broader societal impacts and harms. For example, if hate crimes are left unaddressed or are inappropriately/unprofessionally responded to, victims and their broader communities may lose trust in the criminal justice system and process. Hate crimes and incidents can also adversely affect the healthy and positive coexistence between different segments of a community. This can reduce levels of social cohesion and increase the likelihood of retaliation and civil unrest – all of which undermine human rights, the principles of equality and, by extension, important aspects of our democratic process (Müller and Schwarz, 2021; RAN Health, 2023).

Background

Hate crime victims often experience more severe impacts than do victims of equivalent offences not motivated by hate. Community members who share the identity characteristics that made the victim(s) a target of hate are also negatively impacted by hate crime, as are those who witness the crime/incident (Mellgren, Andersson and Ivert, 2017).

Responding officers are often the first representatives of the criminal justice system that victims of crime encounter. As such, they have an important opportunity to secure the scene, stabilize the victim(s), and provide important information, assistance and access to supportive services that can help initiate the recovery process in the immediate aftermath of a crime.

Understanding the post-victimization impacts that hate crimes and incidents can have for victims, their families, and their broader communities is critical to the provision of informed, sensitive, and respectful service delivery, and can assist responding officers to identify and help begin to address victim needs.

This fact sheet provides a glossary of terms related to victimization, along with concepts and approaches to enhance the police response to victims of hate crimes and incidents and provides hyperlinks to additional information for those who wish to learn more.

Glossary of terms

Introduction

Victim support is an essential and often overlooked component of a comprehensive police response to hate crimes and incidents.

Traditionally, the criminal justice system has focused on identifying, apprehending, prosecuting and holding offenders accountable for their behaviour; the needs of victims are often unmet. The failure to understand victim needs and provide timely access to appropriate and adequate care can exacerbate the harm experienced. By contrast, the provision of meaningful assistance and support can have a profound impact on the recovery process, empower victims, increase trust and confidence in police, and facilitate cooperation with police and the criminal justice system to hold perpetrators accountable. So, too, does the provision of respectful and dignified treatment of victims, which should be the cornerstone of the police response.

Responding officers should adopt a victim-centred approach that focuses on ensuring the rights, safety, well-being and expressed needs and choices of victims when responding to hate crimes and incidents. Responding officers should also recognize that victims’ needs are diverse, complex and may change over time – which necessitates a continuum of care over the short– and longer-term involving a range of partner agencies with expertise, resources and services that many police services cannot provide on their own.

Seven critical needs of victims and recommendations for responding officers

Both the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights published reports highlighting the critical needs for victims of crime (IACP 2018; ODHIR, 2020). Crime victims require a continuum of support and services to heal. Working to meet the seven critical needs of victims outlined below can provide a foundation for victim-centered, trauma-informed practices. While victim needs vary, these seven categories highlight areas of focus for police, who play a principal role in ensuring victims’ needs are understood and addressed with compassion and respect for their dignity.

Types of victim services

According to Justice Canada, victims require a range of support types, including:

For more information

• The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime released a study entitled: Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crimes in Canada (2024) highlighting structural gaps in the resources and knowledge available to support victims of hate crimes

What is cyberhate?

The term cyberhate refers to hate speech that occurs online and involves the use of electronic communications technologies including the internet (websites, social networking sites, user-generated content, dating sites, blogs, online games, instant messages and email) as well as other computer– and cell phone-generated technologies (such as text messages). Cyberhate occurs when people are targeted by online hate speech on the basis of their actual or perceived colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

This fact sheet uses the term “cyberhate” to refer to online hate speech, though the terms are often used interchangeably.

What is hate speech?

The concept of hate speech refers to any kind of communication that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or group based on their identity characteristics. Hate speech can be communicated verbally or in writing, or via the use of images, cartoons, memes, objects, gestures and symbols – and it can take place both on and offline(United Nations, Understanding Hate Speech, 2023).

Examples of cyberhate

It is important to note that hate speech can only be directed at individuals or groups of individuals, but not against a religion, ideas, philosophies, political parties, or states/nations and their associated offices, symbols and public officials.

Cyberhate comes in many forms and can be rooted in racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia and white supremacy, either alone or in combination.

The British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner provides a few examples of what hate speech typically includes:

• describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
• suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy Western civilization
• denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
• labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children
• blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
• calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction

Cyberhate and the Criminal Code

Hate Speech/cyberhate is addressed by the Criminal Code of Canada in the following ways:

• Advocating genocide – subsection 318
• Public incitement of hatred – subsection 319(1)
• Wilful promotion of hatred – subsection 319(2)
• Wilful promotion of antisemitism – subsection 319(2.1)

Hate speech is also prohibited by provincial/territorial human rights codes (often through the prohibition of “discriminatory speech”); individual complainants are required to file complaints with the human rights tribunal in their home province/territory.

Cyberhate: trends over time

The overall number of police-reported hate crimes that were also classified as cyberhate more than doubled between 2018 and 2022, from 92 reported incidents in 2018 to 219 incidents in 2022 (Wang and Moreau, 2022). As with hate crime more generally, it is important to recognize that these figures underestimate the true amount of cyberhate, because most incidents are never reported. Further, some Canadian police services were unable to provide data on cyberhate between 2016 and 2020, which exacerbates the undercount issue.

Between 2018 and 2022, a significant majority of police-reported cyberhate crimes (82%) were violent (18% were non-violent). Harassing and threatening behaviours (such as uttering threats, criminal harassment and indecent or harassing communications against members of an identifiable group) accounted for the vast majority (97%) of these violent incidents. Among non-violent cyberhate crimes, public incitement of hatred (encouraging and/or mobilizing a group of people in an online forum to commit violence) accounted for just over half (52%) of incidents.

Cyberhate victimization

According to Wang and Moreau (2022), the groups most likely to be targeted online mirror those targeted in person; a disproportionate amount of online hate is directed toward members of the following communities:

• Muslim (16% of reported victims between 2016 and 2020)
• Black (15% of reported victims between 2016 and 2020)
• Jewish (13% of reported victims between 2016 and 2020)
• 2SLGBTQIA+ (13% of reported victims between 2016 and 2020)
• Young people: cyberhate victimization is particularly high among adolescents and young adults in their early 20s, due in large part to the amount of time they are engaged in online school, work and leisure activities (gaming, chat rooms, etc.) (Vogels, Gelles-Watnick and Massarat, 2022).

Between 2018 and 2022, men and boys (53%) were more likely than girls and women (47%) to be the victims of police-reported cyberhate. The notable exception to this trend was among young women aged 12-24, particularly if they were racialized, from a religious minority group and/or from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. More specifically, the largest proportion of police-reported cyberhate victims over this period were girls aged 12 to 17 (representing 23% of victims) and young women aged 25 to 34 (who accounted for the next highest proportion – 18% - of police reported cyberhate victims). Young women aged 18-24 were also at the greatest risk of experiencing the most severe forms of cyberhate, particularly serious types of harassment and sexualized abuse (Canadian Women’s Foundation, 2023).

After 2020, there were also significant increases in hate crime victimization – both on and offline – against the Asian population, due to narratives that hold them responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions. For example, police-reported hate crimes targeting Asian communities doubled twice between 2019 and 2021, and the Chinese Canadian National Council reported more than 900 incidents in 2021, a 47% increase over the previous year (Balintec, 2022).

In 2020, the Canadian Human Rights Commission published a compelling article entitled: Anti-Asian racism: A troubling trend, documenting the the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the Asian community.

Relying on official data on police-reported cyberhate victimization can be problematic because most cyberhate is not brought to the attention of the police and is therefore not counted in official statistics. Findings from research that uses other means of documenting cyberhate victimization can therefore be helpful for filling in the gap between reported and unreported cyberhate.

Recent Canadian research suggests that the gap is significant. For example:

• A study conducted by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Leadership Lab in 2023 asked 2,000 Canadians (aged 16+) questions about their personal experiences with cyberhate. Forty per cent of survey respondents reported being exposed to cyberhate on a monthly or weekly basis, an additional 5% reported daily exposure, and 8% of people surveyed said they were targets of online hate that caused them to fear for their safety (Andrey, 2023).
• A national survey of online hate speech as reported by women and gender-diverse people aged 16-30 found that 44% of respondents reported having been personally targeted by hate speech online. The groups most likely to be targeted online were people with a disability, who are 70% more likely to experience online hate, Indigenous people (59%), 2SLGBTQIA+ (also 59%) and Black people (53%) (Canadian Women’s Foundation, 2023).

Cyberhate: considerations for police

• The impacts of cyberhate – as with hate crime more generally – are felt by individual victims and their broader communities (for more information, please see The impacts of hate on victims, communities and society), but also by society more generally. Understanding the broad impacts of hate can assist police and partner victim services agencies to meet their diverse and often complex needs.
• Cyberhate can be a form of online communication initiated by organized hate/extremist groups for the purpose of recruiting sympathizers, and for communicating, mobilizing and coordinating collective action (for example, by encouraging rejection, hatred and violence against certain individuals and groups). It is, however, important to recognize that individual offenders who are not affiliated with organized hate groups appear to be most likely to perpetrate cyberhate (Thorsten and Festl, 2017). For more information, please see Hate groups in Canada.
• Cyberhate often increases, sometimes dramatically, in the wake of offline ‘trigger’ events of local, national and/ or global significance – such as protests and riots, in addition to high-profile violent crimes, terrorist attacks (and anniversaries of such attacks), and court cases (Williams and Burnap, 2016). In this way, cyberhate is said to reflect a desire for retribution against innocent members of the larger group thought to be responsible for, or associated with, the trigger event (King and Sutton, 2023). It appears that the period of acutely elevated risk for cyberhate perpetration in the wake of a trigger event is 24 to 48 hours, meaning that there is a “sharp and measurable rise” in cyberhate crimes and incidents 24 to 48 hours after the trigger event takes place (48 to 72 hours is the period of acutely elevated risk for spikes in offline hate crime following a trigger event) (Sadique, Tangen and Perowne, 2018).

Responding to cyberhate

Hate crimes perpetrated over the internet present particular challenges for police. Williams et. Al (2020) highlighted some challenges, these include:

• the volume of online communications
• the lack of capacity to monitor and respond to cyberhate (in terms of resources, technology skills barriers, etc.)
• the inter-jurisdictional nature of cyberspace, which can create criminal jurisdictional issues and complicate efforts to identify victims and perpetrators
• the ease, speed and anonymity by which content can be disseminated

These and other challenges have meant that the current official responses to cyberhate are generally reactive in nature and rely on users reporting offensive and hateful content to media platforms and/or the police service of jurisdiction for review and possible remedy (removing the offensive content, laying of criminal charges).

Police officers receiving reports of cyberhate should recognize the applicability of existing Criminal Code sections to hate-motivated criminal acts perpetrated over the internet.

Background information

The concept of violent extremism refers to the beliefs and actions of people who support or use violence to achieve extreme ideological, religious or political goals (Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, 2018). In other words, violent extremism is a broad and inclusive term that describes a spectrum of ideologies and belief systems; extremist violence is not specific to a particular group, background, religion or culture. Indeed, research consistently demonstrates that those who perpetrate such violence come from diverse socioeconomic, religious and racial/ethnic backgrounds (Horgan, 2008).

The Canadian government and security agencies have adopted a typology, or classification system derived from definitions of violent extremism in the Canadian Criminal Code (section 83.01) and the CSIS Act (section 2c) that includes three primary categories of violent extremism: ideologically motivated, politically motivated and religiously motivated. It is important to note that these are not mutually exclusive categories given that extremist ideologies and belief systems often stem from and are tailored to personal grievances held by a given individual. The 2024 CSIS Public Report outlined the following definitions:

Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism (IMVE)

Driven by a combination of ideas and grievances, rather than a singular belief system, and includes gender-driven (including Incel and anti-2SLGBTQIA+ violence), xenophobic (including anti-immigrant, racist and ethno-nationalist violence), anti-authority (including anti-government violence, violence against law enforcement and anarchist violence), and other grievance-driven violence (including violence committed by individuals with no association to an organized group or external organization).

Politically Motivated Violent Extremism (PMVE)

Encourages the use of violence to establish new political systems or instill new structures or norms within existing systems.

Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism (RMVE)

Encourages the use of violence as part of a spiritual confliction, or struggle, against a system perceived to be immoral.

What does the current extremist threat landscape look like in Canada?

In her research, Dr. Sara Thompson from the Toronto Metropolitan University, found that violent extremism in Canada is more common than is generally perceived; research shows that Canada faced more than 1,846 incidents of this violence between 1960 and 2015, both at home and abroad. The predominant organizations and ideologies that have shaped extremist violence in Canada have shifted over time and across regions. In the 1960s and early 1970s, there were surges in extremist activity in British Columbia and Quebec, committed by religiously and politically motivated Canadian extremist groups such as, the Sons of Freedom in British Columbia, and the Front de Liberation de Quebec (FLQ) in Quebec. This was followed by a decline in incidents associated with these groups by the mid-1970s.

In the 1980s, there were upticks in incidents associated with various factions of international extremism (namely the Earth Liberation Front and unidentified ‘ecoterrorists’) that used Canada as a base for addressing foreign grievances. There were additional increases in the 2000s related to threats and incidents associated with environmental extremism that targeted the oil and gas industry – mostly in central and Western Canada.

Since the early 2000s, the security landscape in Canada shifted (and became more complex) with the growth of terrorist/extremist activity tied to transnational groups like Al-Qaida, al Shabaab and Daesh. This period also evidenced increases in forms of ideologically motivated extremist activity – a category that spans racially-motivated and white supremacist extremism, anti-government, anti-law enforcement and anarchist violence, violent misogyny and anti-2SLGBTQIA+ extremism. Ideologically motivated extremism is diverse in its manifestations, and in recent years appears to be fueled by a mix of views - referred to as composite violent extremism, salad bar extremism or mixed, unstable or unclear (MUU) extremism - rather than a coherent ideology and remains among the more complex and salient threats to national security in Canada today. The COVID-19 pandemic, along with increasingly incendiary populist political rhetoric fueled by mis- and dis-information has intensified hateful and extremist ideology and exacerbated related violence here in Canada, as in other nations.

Ongoing national security threats in Canada also involve extremist travellers – colloquially known as ‘foreign fighters’ – who left Canada to take up arms in conflict zones overseas; some have survived and returned home, often with young families in tow. The assessment of risk for this population is incredibly challenging – but critical in light of the finite resources available to manage them. Concerns over foreign adversaries also loom large, as does the threat of mass casualty violence perpetrated by lone offenders or groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances.

More than ever before, the threat landscape in Canada is heterogeneous and complex, consisting variously of established and organized groups, cells, so-called lone wolves, and disorganized, loosely affiliated entities espousing a spectrum of belief systems that are disseminated and bolstered in face-to-face and online relationships and contexts (Thompson, 2023).

Is there a relationship between hate crime and violent extremism?

There can be, but often is not. Research demonstrates that hate crime and violent extremism share some important similarities, and should therefore be viewed as “close cousins” (Mills, Freilich and Chermark, 2015). This is because in each case, the target of the offence is selected because of his or her group identity, not because of his or her individual behaviour, and because hate crime and violent extremism are specifically intended to generate fear among a greater number of people than those directly affected.

There can be a temporal relationship (an ordering of events across time) between hate and extremist violence – that is, one can trigger the other. More specifically, some research has demonstrated that violent extremism can sometimes serve as a precursor to hate crime, while other research has found the reverse – that is, hate crime can sometimes serve as a precursor to extremist violence.

Research has found that some hate crimes are perpetrated in response to acts of extremist violence, serving as a form of vicarious retribution against innocent members of the group thought to be responsible for the extremist act. Marked increases in hate crime victimization targeting Muslim people in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks exemplify this relationship (Mills, Freilich and Chermak, 2015). The risk of vicarious hate crime victimization increases – often significantly – within the first four weeks of an extremist attack, though the first week generally appears to be the period of acutely elevated risk for hate crime victimization.

It also appears that hate crime can serve as an indicator of future extremist violence. While evidence of this issue is limited, some recent research suggests that expressions of hatred (manifested as hate crimes and incidents) may be indicative of an escalation from low-level and/or non-criminal incidents to more violent (and therefore criminal) forms of violent extremism. This escalation is premised on, and tied to, the concept of radicalization to violence – a process through which an individual or group comes to believe that violence is a legitimate and even preferred means through which to advance a particular belief system or ideological cause. For example, research shows that Incels (involuntary celibates) engage in cyberhate (aka ‘shitposting’ misogynistic and white supremacist hate speech in digital forums), but as their views become more extreme, so too can their actions, as a number of high-profile mass casualty attacks in Canada and the United States well demonstrate (Hoffman, Ware and Shapiro, 2020).

Findings from research on the relationship that sometimes exists between hate crime and extremist violence has obvious implications for police services, who can provide important reassurance, prevention and community support roles in the wake of such incidents.

Background

Recent and significant spikes in hate crimes and incidents have prompted police services across Canada to identify hate crime prevention and control as operational priorities. While reactive, enforcement-based approaches represent an important means of holding accused persons accountable and providing access to justice and support for victims seeking redress, a comprehensive police response to hate crime also involves an emphasis on prevention.

Proactively working to prevent hate crimes can help to stem the tide of hate crimes and incidents and the immense harm they cause to victims, their broader communities, and society more generally. An emphasis on hate crime prevention alongside a strong, supportive and immediate reactive response also sends the message that the police service of jurisdiction is committed to devising, developing and implementing robust and multi-faceted strategies for addressing hate.

In addition to preventing, reducing and responding to hate crimes and incidents, the benefits of a dual enforcement/prevention focus may also include increased feelings of safety and security in affected communities, along with higher levels of satisfaction with, and confidence in, the police service of jurisdiction. Research demonstrates that such benefits are also generally associated with increases in perceived police legitimacy, which itself enhances the likelihood that community members will report hate crime victimization and offending to police and otherwise cooperate with the criminal justice process (Bradford, Jackson and Stanko, 2009; Lee et al.,2019).

This short research summary provides an overview of key terms and activities associated with hate crime prevention work, along with specific and evidence-based recommendations that frontline officers can apply to enhance the quality of their interactions with civilians, thereby helping to bolster community relationships and trust.

Key terminology

Community-oriented policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the use of partnerships and collaborative problem-solving techniques to proactively address community safety issues. According to Dario and Crichlow (2022), community-oriented policing involves three main components:

1. Active police-community partnerships to identify local problems
2. Adapting organizational management, structure and information systems to better support the community
3. Working proactively and collaboratively to address local problems

The concept of police legitimacy refers to the belief that the police are the appropriate authority to maintain social order, manage conflicts, and solve problems in the community. According to Jackson et al (2012), police legitimacy is often measured in terms of:

• the public’s trust and confidence in police
• a willingness to defer to the law and police authority
• the belief that police actions are justified and appropriate to the circumstances

Perceptions of police legitimacy are important because they shape the extent to which an individual adheres to the law and is willing to assist police when necessary to help combat crime in the community, regardless of whether the outcome was favourable to their case (Tyler, 2011).

An emphasis on procedural justice policing is an important means of improving relations with the community and increasing levels of perceived police legitimacy (Tyler and Fagan, 2008). Research shows that when people perceive their interaction with officers to be procedurally just – that is, they feel that they have been treated with dignity and respect – they are significantly more likely to view the police as legitimate and, by extension, they are more likely to obey the law and cooperate with police to help address crime-related issues in the community. Specific information on how to ensure procedurally just interactions with civilians is provided below.

Hate crime prevention work: what does it involve and why is it important?

Most hate crime prevention work is premised on a community policing framework, which itself involves deep and sustained community engagement to accomplish the following goals:

• To build relationships and enhance trust between police and the communities they serve, with a particular emphasis on communities most vulnerable to hate crime victimization
• To promote community knowledge and preparedness pertaining to hate crime
• To increase victim and community reporting
• To deter potential offenders
• To improve the overall police response to hate crime

More specifically, the tie that binds these activities is a focus on preventing hate crimes and incidents from occurring or reoccurring by:

• building relationships to develop a structure and network that can be drawn on when tensions arise, an investigation occurs, or a critical incident takes place. Research shows that cultivating stronger police-community relationships can:
  • increase the likelihood that victims will report hate crimes and incidents to police, and that perpetrators are subsequently identified and held accountable
  • foster greater community willingness to cooperate with police, most notably in terms of sharing information on the identity of perpetrator(s) and/or proactively notifying police about individuals of concern in the community. As such, the cultivation of relationships and trust that will facilitate reporting is crucial to preventing hate crimes and incidents from occurring or reoccurring in the community.
• working proactively with community members and groups to:
  • promote community awareness about hate crime by creating public awareness campaigns that educate community members on the distinction between hate crimes and incidents, legal protections against hate crime, along with available forms of assistance and action
  • enhance general preparedness for preventing victimization or re-victimization by conducting safety audits and enhancing security arrangements for people and property at particular risk of being victimized by hate
• deterring potential offenders:
  • the implementation of robust and comprehensive approaches to policing hate crime may also have essential deterrent effects insofar as such approaches publicly denounce hate crimes and incidents and communicate to potential offenders that any such occurrences will be rigorously investigated

Procedural justice policing: a template for bolstering police-community relationships and trust

While enforcement and prevention activities are important components of a fulsome police response to hate crimes and incidents, their mere presence are not enough, on their own, to improve relationships and build trust. Research suggests that the quality of the interaction between police officers and community members plays a critically important role; positive interactions with the public and fair decision making can improve public perceptions of the police, help to reverse trust deficits, and enhance police legitimacy (Tyler, Goff, and MacCoun, 2015).

The concept of procedural justice (or procedural fairness) is further explained on the His Majesty’s (HM) Inspectorate of Probation’s website, in the UK, where a useful framework is presented to help officers achieve positive police-civilian interactions, including some of the documented benefits. Procedural Justice Policing involves applying the four principles of procedural justice into all routine contacts with the public. These are:

1. Voice

People need to have the chance to tell their side of the story and to feel that authority figures will listen and sincerely consider this before making a decision.

2. Neutrality

People need to see authority figures as neutral and principled decision-makers, who apply rules consistently, transparently and do not base their decisions on personal opinion or bias.

3. Respect

People need to feel respected and treated courteously by authority figures, believe their rights are considered equal to those of others and that their issues will be taken seriously.

4. Trustworthy motives

People need to see authority figures as people with trustworthy motives, who are sincere and authentic, who listen and care and who try to do what is right for everyone involved.

Reassurance policing

A second mechanism that research suggests can increase the satisfaction of victims who encounter the police is a ‘call-back’ policy (that is, “reassurance policing”), which involves proactively engaging with victims after their initial contact – by telephone or in-person visit (the latter is generally reserved for victims of serious violent crime) – regardless of their case status (Fielding and Innes, 2006). The core purpose of the call-back is to check in with victims and offer access to a host of resources and support to facilitate the healing process; doing so demonstrates to victims that the police of jurisdiction are committed to providing solidarity and support that extends beyond the initial report. Research suggests that call-backs do indeed offer reassurance and can lead to improved levels of victim satisfaction with police, an important antecedent to increased levels of perceived police legitimacy. Some research also suggests that these effects may be especially pronounced for victims from racialized and religious minority groups (Mckee, Ariel and Harinam, 2023).

The notion of reassurance policing has been expanded in the context of hate crime to include the provision of security and support for affected communities in the wake of hate crimes perpetrated locally, elsewhere in Canada, or in other nations. For example, a 2017 attack by a white supremacist during evening prayers at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City resulted in the murder of six congregants and the critical wounding of five others. The attack set off an enormous amount of fear in Muslim communities that the incident might inspire copy-cat violence at mosques in other places. In response, police services of jurisdiction within and outside of Canada deployed variations of reassurance policing – most often involving a large, visible police presence at and patrols near local mosques. This response was intended to acknowledge the seriousness of what happened at the Islamic Cultural Centre, to recognize the broader potential risk posed to Islamic spaces and events, to stand in solidarity with Muslim communities, and to quell high levels of fear in the community. Such highly visible forms of police reassurance are also intended to deter potential offenders from perpetrating hate crimes and incidents, by increasing the perceived risk of detection and arrest.

Building capacity for hate crime prevention requires organizational adaptations and strategies that support the systematic use of community engagement, partnerships and proactive approaches to identify and address community safety issues. While many police services have community policing and engagement strategies built into their broader operational plans, international research shows that the level of organizational commitment to this work is uneven; some services engage in deep and sustained community policing and engagement alongside enforcement-based activities, while others evidence less commitment to proactive engagement and relationship-building in the community (Kappeler, Gaines and Schaefer, 2020).

Either way, individual officers can contribute to broader prevention and engagement efforts by applying the principles of procedural justice to all citizen interactions and providing post-incident reassurance to victims of hate and their broader communities. Research shows that consistent adherence to the principles of procedural justice and reassurance policing can play a key role in fostering enhanced levels of perceived police legitimacy and, by extension, citizen cooperation – which itself can help prevent, reduce and/or respond to a host of community safety issues, including (but not limited to) hate crimes and incidents (Pryce and Whitaker, 2023).