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

Advocating Genocide

318(1)

Everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

318(2)

In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

1. killing members of the group; or
2. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Public Incitement of Hatred

319(1)

Everyone 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

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful Promotion of Hatred

319.2

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful Promotion of Antisemitism

319(2.1)

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

1. is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
2. is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Conversion Therapy Offences

320.102

Everyone who knowingly causes another person to undergo conversion therapy – including by providing conversion therapy to that other person is

1. guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
2. guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Promoting or advertising

320.103

Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises conversion therapy is

1. guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
2. guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Material benefit

320.104

Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is

1. guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
2. guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Removal of Child from Canada for Conversion Therapy

273.3(1)(c)

Removing from Canada a person who is ordinarily resident in Canada and who is under the age of 18 years, with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence.

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Mischief to Religious Property

430(4.1)

Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin:

1. is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
2. is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

General Statutory Aggravating Factors

718.2

1. a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
   1. 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.

Chart 1: Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2009 to 2022

Chart 2: Police-reported hate crime in Canada by province and territory, 2017 to 2020

Chart 3: Police-reported hate crime by offence type: 2022

Chart 4: Rates of police-reported violent and non-violent hate crime in Canada, 2015 to 2022

Hate crime targeting religion

As seen in Chart 5 below, overall levels of police-reported hate crime targeting religion have fluctuated between 2015 and 2022, with a general upward trend punctuated by pronounced spikes in 2017 and 2021, followed by a slight decline in 2022. ^{footnote 10}

Chart 6, below, presents data on hate crime victimization by religion type between 2015 and 2021. Over this period, Canada’s:

• Jewish population experienced the highest levels of police-reported hate crime victimization (1,856 incidents or 16% of all hate crimes reported to police between 2017 and 2021)
• Muslim population (925 incidents or 7.8% of all hate crimes reported to police between 2017 and 2021)
• Catholic population (332 incidents or 2.8% of all hate crimes reported to police between 2017 and 2021)
• population that specified “Other” religions (Sikh, Hindu, and Buddhist, representing 270 incidents or 2.3% of all hate crimes reported to police between 2017 and 2021)
• population that indicated “Religion Not Specified” (143 incidents or 1.2% of hate crimes reported to police between 2017 and 2021) ^{footnote 11}

Hate crime targeting race/ethnicity

Chart 7 presents data on police-reported hate crime motivated by a hatred of race/ethnicity between 2015 and 2022. Over this period, there was a staggering 194% increase, some of which is likely related to rising social polarization created by the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside the rise in populist politics, xenophobia, and racist rhetoric that portrays members of racialized and religious minority communities as threats to community safety and national security. ^{footnote 12} In 2020 alone, hate crime motivated by race/ethnicity accounted for 62% of all hate crimes reported to police in Canada. ^{footnote 13}

Between 2017 and 2021, Canada’s Black population experienced the highest levels of police-reported hate crime victimization (2,279 incidents representing 19% of all hate crimes reported to police), followed by Canada’s:

• East or Southeast Asian population (756 incidents representing 6.4% of all hate crimes reported to police)
• South Asian population (531 incidents representing 4.5% of all hate crimes reported to police)
• Arab or West Asian population (670 incidents representing 5.7% of all hate crimes reported to police)
• Indigenous peoples (254 incidents representing 2.1% of all hate crimes reported to police)
• White population (274 incidents representing 2.3% of all hate crimes reported to police)
• population from “Other” racial/ethnic backgrounds (Latin American, South American, and intersectional hate crimes that target more than one race or ethnic group; these accounted for 891 incidents representing 7.5% of all hate crimes reported to police) ^{footnote 13}

It is important to note that while overall levels of hate crime victimization based on hatred of race/ethnicity increased between 2017 and 2021, some racial/ethnic groups experienced particularly large increases in hate crime victimization between 2019 and the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020.

For example, East and Southeast Asian populations experienced a 293% year-over-year increase between 2019 and 2020. Other racial/ethnic groups also experienced significant increases over the same period, including Canada’s:

• Indigenous peoples: +169%;
• Black population: +96%; and
• South Asian population: +67%. ^{footnote 13 footnote 14}

Hate crime targeting sexual orientation

Between 2015 and 2021, police-reported hate crime motivated by hatred of sexual orientation increased by 150%. ^{footnote 15} In 2020 alone, hate crime targeting sexual orientation represented 10% of the total number of police-reported hate crimes in Canada (Statistics Canada); as presented in Chart 8 below, the number of such incidents has continued to increase since then. ^{footnote 16}

Data on police-reported hate crime motivated by hatred of sexual orientation shows that in 2021:

• 77% of police-reported hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation targeted lesbian and gay individuals
• 11% of police-reported hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation targeted non-heterosexuals – for example, pansexual and asexual individuals
• 2% of police-reported hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation targeted bisexual individuals ^{footnote 17}

Research also shows that victims of hate crime motivated by sexual orientation:

• tend to be young and male ^{footnote 17}
• are three times more likely than other victims of hate to be subject to serious violence
• generally experience greater physical injury (due to the more violent nature of their victimization experiences)

Hate crime targeting sex/gender

As demonstrated by Chart 9 below, hate crime targeting sex/gender increased steadily between 2015 and 2019, declined slightly in 2020, and then continued to increase – quite significantly – thereafter. ^{footnote 18}

It is critical to note that like hate crime targeting sexual orientation, hate crimes motivated by hatred of sex/gender tend to involve violence (66% of hate crimes motivated by hatred of sex/gender were violent). They also disproportionately target girls and women. ^{footnote 19} However, not all girls and women are equally at risk of hate crime victimization motivated by hatred of sex/ gender; racialized and religious minority girls and women – most notably those from Muslim and Indigenous communities – tend to experience the highest levels of this victimization. ^{footnote 19}

For more information, see Victims of Hate Crime Infographic Pamphlet.

Thrill-seeking

• Youth, often teenagers
• Motives include: thrill, excitement, bragging rights
• Commission of crime is often outside of the offender’s neighbourhood
• Victim is selected by being a part of a vulnerable population
• Approximately 60% of hate crime incidents ^{footnote 21}

Reactive

• Often have no criminal record
• Motives include: perceived threats to their way of life, privileges, rights, community, place of work
• Commission of the crime can occur in the offender’s neighbourhood
• Victim is selected by being perceived as a part of the above threats
• Approximately 25% of hate crime incidents ^{footnote 21}

Retaliatory

• Motives include: revenge against innocent members of the group perceived to be responsible for a previous hate crime or act of terrorism/violent extremism; victims are targeted solely because of their identity, and as a form of vicarious retribution.
• Can involve group-offending
• Can prompt stereotypes, stigma and high levels of fear in affected communities
• Approximately 10% of hate crime incidents ^{footnote 21}

Mission

• Offender has psychological issues
• Often holds a strong prejudice against a group and/or individual that is targeted and intends to use extreme violence to eliminate the perceived threat
• Motives include: a perceived higher order, desire for retaliation to restore injustice
• No distinguishable triggers
• The smallest number of hate crime incidents ^{footnote 21}

Sex

People accused of hate crimes in Canada are disproportionately male. ^{footnote 22} Between 2018 and 2021, 86% of hate crime suspects in Canada were male, while 14% of those accused of hate crime in Canada were female. ^{footnote 22}

Age

From 2018 to 2021, the median age of accused whose crime was motivated by hate was 33 years; 17% of accused persons were youth aged 12 to 17 years. ^{footnote 23} The median age of people accused of hate has, however, fluctuated in recent years, rising from 31 in 2016 to 32 in 2018 to 35 in 2020, then declining slightly to 33 in 2021. ^{footnote 23} It is important to note that differences also emerge in the median age of persons accused of hate crimes according to the group targeted. For example, as illustrated in Chart 10 below, in 2020:

• the median age of accused persons targeting a victim(s) on the basis of religion was 42 years
• the median age of accused persons targeting a victim(s) on the basis of race/ethnicity was 36 years
• the median age of accused persons targeting a victim(s) on the basis of sexual orientation was 23 years ^{footnote 23}

Data on the average age of accused persons whose crime was motivated by hate are not publicly available for hate crimes targeting race/ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation in 2021.

How many active hate groups are there in Canada?

Estimating the number of active hate groups is a difficult endeavour; due to the often-volatile nature of hate group leaders and membership, such groups “start up, fracture and fold all the time” as a consequence of internal conflict. ^{footnote 27} Further, some hate groups operate in the online space, others involve in-person interaction and still others are structured according to a hybrid online/offline approach. And finally, while some hate groups are highly and hierarchically organized, others are more loosely affiliated and splintered. Taken together, these factors make it difficult to track the number of hate groups currently active in Canada.

Some researchers have, however, tried to estimate the number of hate groups in Canada, though estimates vary. Some research has suggested that, by the mid-2010s, there were more than 100 active organized hate groups in Canada. ^{footnote 27 footnote 28} By 2021, estimates ranged from 70-100 to approximately 300 such groups, though discrepancies across these more recent estimates are likely and largely a function of differences in the way researchers count hate groups. ^{footnote 29} Notwithstanding these differences, there appears to be a general consensus that the number of hate groups in Canada has risen in recent years, likely as a consequence of:

• the rise of populist politics and the normalization of racist and incendiary political rhetoric that scapegoats racialized and religious minority groups for a host of community safety and national security issues. Many of the groups stereotyped by this rhetoric have experienced significant spikes in hate crime victimization. In other words, hate crime victimization against certain segments of the population has been shown to increase in the wake of incendiary rhetoric that portrays them as threats to community safety and national security. ^{footnote 30}
• frustration over the COVID-19 pandemic and related government policies; widespread attributions of blame involving people of Asian background prompted increased incidents of anti-Asian racism, discrimination and violence (for a broader discussion of the pandemic’s impact on hate crime, please see: https://capitalcurrent.ca/how-canadas-far-right-is-surging-amid-the-pandemic/)
• ISIS-inspired attacks in North America and Europe have inspired hate crimes against Muslims around the world. Hate crimes perpetrated in response to such attacks illustrate the relationship that sometimes exists between hate crime and violent extremism, wherein hate crimes are intended to serve as a form of vicarious retribution against innocent members of the broader Muslim community (For more information, please see Is There a Relationship Between Hate Crime and Violent Extremism).
• successive migrant/refugee crises that expose asylum seekers and migrants to various forms of violence and harassment stemming from problematic narratives asserting that certain migrant and refugee groups are ‘cheating the asylum system’, ‘draining the welfare system’, and/or ‘stealing Canadian jobs’ ^{footnote 31}

These and other events have served as a catalyst for people with particular worldviews to come together and mobilize against these and other perceived threats. The internet has facilitated such connections and provided a medium through which hate groups can instantly disseminate propaganda to a broad audience, recruit new members and organize protests and other group activities. ^{footnote 32} It is this connectivity that makes transnational communication between hate groups possible; research shows that hate groups in one nation can and do learn from and inspire those in other nations, which can complicate enforcement efforts on the part of police and partner agencies. ^{footnote 33}

In this broader context, hate groups in Canada appear to have grown in both size and number. Maintaining ‘traditional’ white culture and heritage is among the core goals of these groups, which are typically grounded in white supremacist ideology and espouse a host of beliefs including antisemitic and Islamophobic sentiment, though many groups also position themselves against immigrants, women, 2SLGBTQI+ individuals and other racialized and religious minority groups. ^{footnote 34}

Do all hate groups perpetrate hate-motivated crime and violence?

Though the vilification of groups of people on the basis of identity characteristics (such as gender, nationality, race/ethnicity or religion – or a combination of these characteristics) can inspire or be a precursor to violence, some hate groups do not endorse the use of violence, nor do they perpetrate violence in support of the organization or group’s broader goals. ^{footnote 35} Research suggests that this may, in part, be a deliberate recruitment tactic; some groups have been purposefully de-emphasizing the promotion of violence and hate because it is off-putting to many and therefore not an effective means of ‘growing the movement’. ^{footnote 35} Others, however, do privilege and approve of the use of violence. Such varied orientations toward the promotion of violence can make it difficult to assess and/or identify potential threats and work to reduce the risk of hate-inspired attacks (note that such attacks may involve a spectrum of victim types – from individuals or small group targets through to mass casualty events). Though some hate groups do indeed perpetrate hate crimes, research shows that most hate crimes are committed by individuals with no affiliation to an organized hate group. ^{footnote 36}

Why do people join hate groups?

Research suggests that people join hate groups for a host of reasons, including but not limited to holding hateful views about certain segments of the population. ^{footnote 37} More specifically, people join hate groups due to:

• feelings of alienation and powerlessness
• feelings of loneliness; a desire for friendship and a sense of belonging
• a search for meaning and identity
• fear of those that are different and/or fear that one’s social group is ‘under threat’ due to immigration and demographic change
• anger and frustration
• a need to reaffirm a sense of dominance and privilege
• a tendency toward rigid ‘black and white’ thinking (that is, lack of critical thinking capacity)
• traumatic childhood experiences (American research found that 45% of former hate group members reported being the victim of childhood physical abuse, while 20% reported being the victim of childhood sexual abuse)
• family disruption in childhood, including divorce, parental incarceration or substance abuse on the part of one or both parents

In short, hate groups are thought to offer members a sense of identity, meaning and personal significance based on their affiliation with the group. Research shows that hate groups remain “overwhelmingly white and male”; the number of female members is comparatively smaller, with women performing a variety of active roles, including recruitment, gathering intelligence, disseminating propaganda materials, and direct participation in perpetrating violence (albeit at lower levels than their male counterparts). ^{footnote 38} People who join hate groups come from all socioeconomic backgrounds, professions, and, perhaps surprisingly, they appear to be increasingly racially/ethnically diverse.

In recent years, some hate groups in the United States and Canada have actively recruited members from racialized groups in an attempt to soften their public image and bolster recruitment. ^{footnote 39} For a discussion of some of the reasons underpinning this apparent trend, see: https://www.voanews.com/a/why-some-nonwhite-americans-espouse-right-wing-extremism-/7101229.html

For more information on why people join hate groups and what ultimately prompts some to leave them, please see: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/why-they-join

Currently, information about Canadian hate groups is fragmented and incomplete, which complicates efforts to generate a more fulsome understanding of the threat environment. Until this information has been systematically collated, officers interested in gaining a better understanding of active hate groups in their area of jurisdiction should contact the area within their service that houses this information.

Additional resources

Canada Has a White Supremacist Problem:

• https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/canada-has-a-white-supremacist-problem-4757/

Canada’s Silent Pandemic: Far Right Hate Groups:

• https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2020/07/27/canadas-silent-pandemic-far-right-hate-groups/

Hate Groups Are Recruiting Video Gamers:

• https://www.npr.org/2018/11/05/660642531/right-wing-hate-groups-are-recruiting-video-gamers

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). ^{footnote 49} The often intersectional nature of an individual’s identify can also serve to compound and intensify the harm experiences. 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. For more information on the concept of intersectionality, please see Victimization, trauma and the importance of a victim-centred police response: fact sheet and glossary of terms.

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. ^{footnote 50}

Direct and indirect impacts of hate crime victimization may include:

• physical injury
• emotional and psychological distress
• trauma (for more information on trauma and related symptoms – including the vicarious trauma that many first responders experience by virtue of their exposure to hate crime victimization – see Victimization, Trauma, and the Importance of a Victim-Centered Police Response: Fact Sheet and Glossary of Terms)
• 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. ^{footnote 51}

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. ^{footnote 52}

Additional resources

For more information on the surge of anti-Asian hate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, see:

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2-years-into-the-pandemic-anti-asian-hate-is-still-on-the-rise-in-canada-report-shows-1.6404034

For more information on the impact of COVID-19 on visible minority groups’ experience with harassment based on race, ethnicity and skin colour and the impact on their perceptions of safety, see:

• https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2020045-eng.htm

Background

Hate crime victims often experience more severe impacts than do victims of equivalent offences not motivated by hate ^{footnote 53} (for more information, please see The impacts of hate on victims, communities and society). 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.

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 ^{footnote 65}

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

Victims require a range of support types, ^{footnote 66} including:

Additional resources

The Victim Services Directory created by the Policy Centre for Victim Issues of the Department of Justice Canada:

• https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/vsd-rsv/index.html

The Crime Victims Assistance Program created by the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime:

• https://crcvc.ca/how-we-help/

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. ^{footnote 67} 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.

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.

Here are a few examples of what hate speech typically includes: ^{footnote 68}

• 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

For an overview of findings from an in-depth analysis of almost 3,000 internet memes shared by over 100 Canadian social media accounts that demonstrate hate speech as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code, please see: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/rdq6owff/production/6b78f8630669069025ea145da2221ef2c1fac032.pdf

Cyberhate and the Criminal Code

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

• 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. For more information on this process, see the section entitled “Anti-Hate Provisions in Human Rights Legislation” at: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E#a4.

Cyberhate: trends over time

The proportion of police-reported hate crimes that were also classified as cyberhate has been steadily increasing in recent years, from 5.1% of reported hate crimes in 2018, to 6.9% in 2019 and 7.1% in 2020. ^{footnote 69} 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 2016 and 2020, the most common types of cyberhate crime reported to police were:

• uttering threats of harm or violence against members of an identifiable group was the most common type of reported cyberhate crime (39% of reported crimes)
• indecent or harassing communications intended to create a climate of fear (24%)
• public incitement of hatred (encouraging and/or mobilizing a group of people in an online forum to commit violence) (12%)
• criminal harassment (ongoing harassment over a period of time that is intended to create a climate of fear) (11%)

Cyberhate victimization

Between 2016 and 2020, the groups most likely to be targeted online mirror those targeted in person; ^{footnote 69} a disproportionate amount of online hate is directed toward members of the following communities:

• Muslim (16% of reported victims)
• Black (15% of reported victims)
• Jewish (13% of reported victims)
• 2SLGBTQI+ (13% of reported victims)
• 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.) ^{footnote 70}
• Girls and women are at the higher risk of cyberhate victimization, particularly if they are racialized, from a religious minority group and/or from the 2SLGBTQI+ community. Young women aged 18-24 are at the greatest risk of experiencing the most severe forms of cyberhate, particularly severe types of harassment and sexualized abuse ^{footnote 71}
• 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, there was a 301% increase in police-reported hate crime against the East and South-East Asian populations in the first year of the pandemic, ^{footnote 72} and a 73% increase in cyberhate involving Asian victims over the same period. ^{footnote 73}

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:

• Online hate speech increased by 600 percent between November 2015 and November 2016. ^{footnote 74} This unprecedented increase coincided with a rise in populist politics and incendiary political rhetoric that normalized online and other forms of hate speech by portraying racialized, immigrant and religious minority groups as threats to community safety and national security
• A study conducted by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Leadership Lab 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 ^{footnote 75}

Cyberhate: overview of select considerations of particular relevance to 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). ^{footnote 76} 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 (For more information, please see Hate Groups in Canada). ^{footnote 77}
• 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. ^{footnote 78} 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. ^{footnote 79} 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). ^{footnote 80}

Responding to cyberhate

Hate crimes perpetrated over the internet present particular challenges for police. These include: ^{footnote 81}

• 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 and follow the initial response recommendations documented in Hate Crimes and Incidents: A Frontline Officer’s Initial Response Guidebook (available by request: hcrepositorydepotdinformationsurlesch@rcmp-grc.gc.ca).

For more information, see Hatepedia Guide to Online Hate by the ADL.

Additional resources

“Online hate crimes are on the rise but a cybersecurity expert says they’re rarely reported”:

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/zoom-bombing-hate-crime-1.6285556

“Anti-2SLGBTQIA+ Hate in Canada Must End” (with a section on online hate):

• https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/anti-2slgbtqia-hate-in-canada-must-end/

“We Won’t Recover From the COVID-19 Pandemic Unless the Outbreak of Violent Online Hate is Stamped Out”:

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-wont-recover-from-the-covid-19-pandemic-unless-the-outbreak-of/

Online hate crimes via “zoom-bombing” in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• https://theconversation.com/zoom-bombings-disrupt-online-events-with-racist-and-misogynist-attacks-138389

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. ^{footnote 82} 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. ^{footnote 83}

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. ^{footnote 84} 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. Each category is discussed below.

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-2SLGBTQI+ 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?

Though politically and religiously motivated violent extremism constitute threats to Canada’s national security and the safety and security of Canadians more generally, IMVE appears to pose a particularly salient threat. A recent CSIS publication cited by the Government of Canada ^{footnote 85} reported that between 2014 and 2020:

Canadians motivated in whole or in part by their extremist ideological views have killed 21 people and wounded 40 others on Canadian soil – more than religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) or politically motivated violent extremism (PMVE). In early 2020, for example, a Canadian minor motivated by the involuntary celibate (Incel) ideology was charged under the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code. These individuals and cells often act without a clear affiliation to a specific organized group or external guidance but are nevertheless shaped by hateful voices and messages online that normalize and advocate violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated xenophobic and anti-authority narratives, many of which may directly or indirectly impact national security considerations. Violent extremists continue to exploit the pandemic by amplifying false information about government measures and the virus itself on the internet. Some violent extremists view COVID-19 as a real but welcome crisis that could hasten the collapse of Western society. Other violent extremist entities have adopted conspiracy theories about the pandemic in an attempt to rationalize and justify violence. These narratives have contributed to efforts to undermine trust in the integrity of government and confidence in scientific expertise. While aspects of conspiracy theory rhetoric are a legitimate exercise in free expression, online rhetoric that is increasingly violent and calls for the arrest and execution of specific individuals is of increasing concern.

In 2020, CSIS has assessed that threat narratives within the IMVE space have evolved with unprecedented multiplicity and fluidity. Broadly speaking, IMVE conspiracy theories are often influenced by decentralized online trends and communities of extremist influencers who interpret local, national and international events through a radical lens. These broader narratives are often individualized by extremists and are impacted by perceived concerns regarding economic well-being, safety and security, the COVID-19 pandemic or other special events.

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, ^{footnote 86} and should therefore be viewed as “close cousins”. 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 behavior, 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. ^{footnote 87} Marked increases in hate crime victimization targeting Muslim people in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks exemplify this relationship. 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. The evidence base on this issue is, as yet, limited, but 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. ^{footnote 88}

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 (for more information on reassurance, prevention and community support roles, please see Hate Crime Prevention: An Important Complement and Supplement to Reactive, Enforcement-based Approaches).

Additional resources

For a case study example that exemplifies the nexus that sometimes exists between hate crime and violent extremism, see:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCxwepW8k54

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. ^{footnote 89}

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. 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 ^{footnote 90}

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. Police legitimacy is often measured in terms of: ^{footnote 91}

• 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. ^{footnote 92}

An emphasis on procedural justice policing is an important means of improving relations with the community and increasing levels of perceived police legitimacy. ^{footnote 93} 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: ^{footnote 94}

• 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 accused persons 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-motivated 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; ^{footnote 95} 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.

The concept of procedural justice (or procedural fairness) provides a useful framework to help officers achieve positive police-civilian interactions and the documented benefits that can stem from them. Procedural justice policing involves applying the four principles of procedural justice into all routine contacts with the public. These are: ^{footnote 96}

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.

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.

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.

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. ^{footnote 97} The core purpose of the call-back is to check in with victims and offer access to a host of resources and supports 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. ^{footnote 98} Some research also suggests that these effects may be especially pronounced for victims from racialized and religious minority groups. ^{footnote 99}

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. ^{footnote 100}

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. ^{footnote 101}