Category: Hate Crime

The introduction of the internet brought about a new revolution of connectivity and communication, but along with accessibility of communication arose the simplicity to discriminate against individuals and large groups of people with the touch of a finger. Derogatory and inflammatory speech in the United States has technically been around since the country’s founding, but it was not classified as a hate crime until the expansion of the Hate Crime Laws in 2009. Though there has been debate over its potential conflict with the First Amendment, the line of criminality at which hate speech lies is where it begins to infringe on the rights of others. Policies have been put in place in the hopes of reducing the occurrence of this in the real world, but it is unclear on the correct manner with which to police online instances. Legislative actions that ban or criminalize online hate speech might be somewhat useful; however, filtering by the community and policies placed by networking sites would prove to be a more reliable source for stopping discrimination done through the internet. Policing this to a complete and just extent would either be an overstep of power or just not possible. Some suggest that the United States federal government has no business interfering with the internet realm since it is accessed internationally. This, of course, would make it more of an international issue rather than a national issue. Others would argue that it is no one’s business at all. These people believe that such interference would be an abuse of government power. In both cases, there is a fear that government intervention would give the United States too much power.

The first step in pushing back on bigots would be to ‘arm the public’ with the availability to identify and report hate speech. In Source A, Scott Rubin, an executive from Google and YouTube, states, “…we count on our community…to flag videos.” Mr. Rubin is referring to the authority they have given to their platform users to decide what they find offensive. Mr. Rubin and other Google executives understand the importance of making certain that both their subscribers and casual users feel safe in that community. YouTube and several other online media companies are combating hate speech by instilling discriminatory discretion with the public in the form of standardized guidelines. They advise these users to keep their content from being too controversial or indecent while at the same time suggesting that users report such content so that it can no longer persist in offending or oppressing other users. The mechanism of allowing all users to flag illicit content does not fully prevent the problem, but it is good at hiding inappropriate posts from viewing. In internet spaces where there is no option either to flag or to hide posts, some organizations and advocacy groups have taken the matter into their own hands by commenting directly on the original post to defend others (Source A). They make it their social responsibility to sift through thousands of comments and posts to isolate hate speech criminals even further. These examples illustrate that allowing other users to flag posts that they are offended by is more useful for getting the site to take it down. Since the United States is all about giving power to the people, this philosophy should not be a problem. As Source G points out, “…we should look for creating empathy.” A site that allows all to share their feelings in a justified manner ensures that everyone is heard clearly. Although when some speak their minds it may be offensive, the hurt can be combated with the same basic principle. Implementing ways for the community to fight back peacefully is key in taking down hate speech.

A more legalistic approach proves to be troubling in more specific cases. Germany’s new Network Enforcement Act, meant to protect internet users solely against hate speech, is starting to take down expressions of opinions, and “…the law is achieving the opposite of what it intended” (Source B). The Network Enforcement Act was put in place to protect those with a pure voice and punish those with a nefarious voice, but it seems as if the line between them is often blurred by the artificial intelligence filter. On top of this, law enforcement could potentially view any deleted posts as destruction of evidence, putting the social media companies at risk of running afoul of the law. It’s the very definition of a Catch-22: the media company might just be trying to keep other people from being hurt by the post, but the German government needs the post to prove guilt. Other parts of this act give over too much control to the private business owners instead of the people. To restate a previous claim, the social media companies must assist in allowing the public to decide what is and what is not hate speech. The problem with this act in particular does not bode well for any similar legal plans to be made in the United States in the future, especially with our generally more conservative populace. Source C outlines an instance in which bans and suspensions from a network site improved the community and lessened hate speech. This solution might open up new job positions and improve the site’s well being. However, those in charge of the post-flagging and time-outs work for the company and can place an account on ban for any reason they please, even if it is just an expressed opinion that the individual happens to agree with. This does not seem completely fair to all of the users since their security can be upheld or denied by bias. While there can be some result in restrictive policies, the overall outcome does not guarantee freedom of opinion. The acts of the legislature in Germany and the Reddit bans demonstrate why this legalistic approach is not just unhelpful but infringing.

In order to fully police online hate speech at a court level, strict policies and laws would have to be put in place that would diminish the freedom that is the internet, and that’s only in the United States. According to Source F, “some 11,500 sites [are] devoted to discriminating against groups of people.” Any United States law put into place would not be capable of fully criminalizing domains that permit or encourage hate speech. At best they, could only stop viewers from seeing the content. Most other countries would have to follow suit to make any kind of drastic difference. But if these privately owned sites can not be criminalized, and they will not be affected by the other solutions previously mentioned, then what can be done? Well, maybe nothing. There are two major areas where hate speech occurs: social media and private blogging sites. Social media could be looked at as unavoidable since platforms like Facebook and Instagram are so widespread, but private blogs that are meant to discriminate do not even have to be clicked on. The only thing that could be done without restricting their freedoms would be to have search engine sites tack on a disclaimer to the URL or link that clarifies the intention of the blog. “The way to combat hate speech…is…to contest it” (Source D). Another solution would be to create uplifting sites of the opposite matter to overshadow the hate sites. This wouldn’t necessarily punish the other site owners, but it would outshine the hate. Every citizen deserves their freedom, on- or offline, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. As we have seen in Germany, laws might only worsen the problem.

Hate speech is a widespread issue with no firm, end-all solution to the problem. Source E demonstrates that 55 percent of adults who have experienced harassment that includes severe behaviors think the government needs to do more about it. Of those surveyed that have had no previous experience with harassment, 33 percent also believed that it was not taken seriously enough. Though we have seen that it would not be possible to enforce, these responses still demonstrate the extent of the issue. This goes to show how upsetting it is that people are being attacked with no real justification.

The only viable solution immediately available to society is for each citizen, every time he or she interacts on the internet, to keep an eye out for any particularly alarming posts or comments and flag or report them. In some cases, if especially severe or persistent, citizens should report the user of origin to further prevent any more one-sided discrimination. Also, being kind to others, especially on the internet, and never partaking in any kind of hate activity will begin to have a positive cumulative effect. The only way to fight hate is with kindness. Internet users who don’t find themselves in those types of situations often can still help put an end to this issue by continuing to spread awareness.

How extensively does hate speech actually hurt the population? As shown in Source F, there are thousands of sites dedicated to discriminating and targeting others. For perspective, there are 4.5 billion unique internet users as of 2019. This just shows how many people could be potentially affected by these sites. This source does not even mention the amount of hate posts or comments made on other social media sites which may affect even more individuals. Targeted groups and individuals are massively affected by this type of speech, but there is not much that can be done effectively through the force of law.

Four Jewish teens were attacked and robbed by a group of teens On November 11, 2018, while walking near Fairholme Avenue and Bathurst Street in Toronto. Sunday when they passed another group of teens, the boys were subject to offensive remarks about their religion, and they were made fun of based on what they were wearing. According to the police spokesperson Katrina Arrogante the boys were wearing their makes on their heads. The police spokesperson reported she was not sure what their basic outfit was, but that the comment that was being made to them and that the assault occurred. The boys were punched and kicked at least once and a pair of sunglasses was stolen from one of the victims. Minor injuries were sustained; some injury to the face and some bruising to the lower body and they were treated on scene. One of the boys said, “ as a Jew and as a religious Jew, as an observant Jew in Canada, which officially accepts all religions, all races, everybody, to be attacked physically just because I’m a minority as a thing that should have been of history, it happened once, it shouldn’t happen again”.

This is significant because it shows us that even though we claim that everyone is free to practice their religious belief without being discriminated against, some group is still attacked for their religions and also this case also help us do more about hate crime because not just the event for the past, but it still happening in the present time. By using this case study, will try to show harmless people can be assaulted because of their religion’s practices and traditions. I will also try to show that victims are not only people that get the effect of the hate crime committed against them, but the whole community gets the effect.

Definition of the problem

Hate crimes include incidents in which the perpetrator aims at a certain victim because the victim belongs to a particular group. Mostly, hate crime victims are members of minority racial groups, or religions, or have a different sexual orientation (Miller, Alexandra J, 2001). There is no fixed definition of what creates a hate crime. Rather, each organization and government agency uses a different basis when defining an incident as a hate crime. For example, there is no specific definition of hate crime in Canadian law. In fact, any crime can be qualified as a hate crime if the prosecutors can convince beyond reasonable doubt that hatred was an aggravating factor that propel crime, this only comes to play at sentencing, but Canada’s criminal code does have legislation against hate propaganda in section 318,319. Which prohibits the willful promotion of hatred towards an “identifiable group” which is outstanding by color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Anti-Defamation (1997) suggested that hate crime victims are people who have a crime committed against them because of their “race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender. Police-report hate crimes (2017) refer to criminal incidents that at the time of investigation, police found that the crime has been motivated by hatred toward an identifiable group. An incident may be against a person or property and may aim at race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, language, sex, race, age, or mental or physical disability, among other factors.

Hence, the real crime committed is not what decides whether the incident is classified as a hate crime. Rather, the victim’s inclusion in a particularly protected group is the key to whether the incident becomes categorized as a hate crime and if hatred was an aggravating factor that motivated the crime. Hate crimes are not recent incidents. The Roman persecution of the Christian and German Nazi’s “final solution” for the Jewish people is a form of hate crime (Petrosino,1999). Jews were the most likely religious member to be the target of hate crimes.

Literature Review

It is important to know that hate crime does not only have an impact on the victim but has an impact on the whole community to which the victim belongs. The injury and the message extend to the community the victim belongs. For example, the attack on Jewish teens was meant to send the message to all Jewish people that they are welcome in the community. A crime motivated by faith also includes more attacks against one person’s system of beliefs. In other words, a religious hate crime perpetrator does not just attack a person- he or she attacks a religion, a way of life, and even a whole community. The pain spawned by hate crimes extends beyond the individual to the primary victim’s group or community in the Winder neighborhood community who knows the victim or hears of his or her experience (Mohamad Al-Hakim and Susan Dimock, 2012). In addition, a religious hate crime may well cause repetitive acts of violence among groups/ or individuals with various beliefs (Mokhtar B Barka, 2006).

According to the survey conducted by Dr. Perry and Dr. Alvi when they ask the participant how they think hate and bias incidents alter the target community most of them said that they felt fear; makes them hard to trust the other groups; makes them feel unsafe (Perry and Alvi, 2011). Hate crime has a huge social impact on the target community. hate crime makes the group to which the victim belongs feel equally vulnerable to victimization and fearful. In this situation, the members of vulnerable communities can read the intended message. With no doubt, this makes them doubtful about their place in the community and does leave them feeling less worthy than the probable offender (Perry and Alvi, 2011). Hate crime is an act of violence and coercion directed towards the unified winder community whom the victim is perceived to represent. As such hate crimes represent the natural relationship of dominance and deficiency within the bounds of structural norms and are intended to send a message to the victim’s community that they are different and they don’t belong in that community (Chakraborti and Garland, 2012).

The extremist literature accuses Jews of economic suffering, socialism, unfaithfulness to America, and encouraging other minorities to mix marriage and other anticipated in the abduction of white power. At times, the literature even accuses Jews of being the spawn of Satan. It claimed that a Jewish scheme runs the country’s and the world’s media, banks, businesses, and governments (Phyllis B Gerstenfeld, 2011, P.179). Because of the things extremists accused Jew people of now, most people see the Jew people as enemies and this leaves them vulnerable to attack and being victims of hate crimes.

Phyllis B Gerstenfeld (2011) suggested that many people hated Jews for so long due to what has been shown on the Aryan Nations Web site (www.aryan-nations.org), for example, the website has displayed an animation listing many historical examples of Jews having been “ banned, deported, executed, expelled, persecuted, and slaughtered”, with suggestions that these practices must be used against the Jews worldwide in the 21st century. Some people and groups are still following that suggestion today and that’s why Jewish people are still attacked in today’s world (P 181).

Since corresponding data become accessible in 2009, the number of police-report hate crimes has ranged from a low of 1,167 incidents in 2013 to a high of 2,073 in 2017. Regardless of the large increase, hate crime in 2017 depicted a small portion of overall crime at 0.1% of more than 1.9 million non-traffic crimes reported by police services that year. Police data on hate-motivated crimes contain only those incidents that come to the attention of police services and rely upon the police services’ level of skills in analyzing crimes motivated by hate. As a result, an increase in the number may be connected to more reporting by the public or after an intense sensitivity high profile events / or a result of a real increase in the extent of hate crimes being committed. As with other crimes, self-reported data provides another way to observe hate-motivated crime (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018). According to the 2014 General Social Survey on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization), Canadians self-reported being victims of over 330,000 criminal incidents they recognized as being motivated by hate 5% of total self-reported incidents, and two-thirds of these incidents were not reported to the police.

Among the province, the extreme increase in the long-term number of police-reported hate crimes was noticed in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, where incidents increase from 612 in 2016 to 1, 023 in 2017(+ 67%). This increase was mostly tied to more hate crimes aimed at the Muslim 207%, Black 84%, and Jewish 41% populations (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018).

Hate crimes against religion accounted for 41% of all hate crimes in Canada in 2017 and the number of such hate crimes was up significantly from 2016. There were 842 hate crimes targeting religious groups in 2017, up 83% from the previous year. Hate crimes against the Jewish population increased for the second consecutive year, rising from 221 in 2016 to 360 in 2017. Hate crimes targeting the Jewish population accounted for 18% of all hate crimes in Canada. Ontario reported 61 more incidents, while British Columbia reported an increase of 54 in 2016 (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018).

Hate crime statutes with provisions for penalty improvement execute by most states and with many covering religion, sexual orientation, and gender. No one charged with a hate crime but hate crime can be added at sentencing as aggravating factors under the criminal code of Canada section 718.2 (a) (i) if the prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national, or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any similar factor. a. A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offense or the offender, and limiting the generality of the foregoing (Mohamad Al-Hakim and Susan Dimock, 2012).

Theoretical Framework

“Until we are able, as culture, to celebrate difference rather than denigrate it, until we dismantle those boundaries, we will continue to force people into rigid categories of male/ female, straight/ gay, white/not white, normal/ deviant often through violence. We must begin to think of and enact difference differently” (B Perry 2001, p 226).

We need to come up with an approach that would help people think about differences differently such as public accountability, education, and building partnerships with communities. Most of the time why people have a bias against differences because they do not have knowledge or the little knowledge they have are from misinformation.

Public accountability: we must implement legislation that, in fact, adds to discriminatory violence, wreck legislation intended to challenge hate crime; and exclusive legislation that differently protects communities (B Perry, 2016). Put stress on the role the state hyperbole and policy play in increasing negative images and perceptions of minority groups. For example, President Trump said he would a build wall on the border of Mexico and the U.S to stop them from coming into the country that sends a message that Mexicans are not welcome in America and that would leave them more vulnerable to hate crimes or violence and extremes group would take that as permission for them to mistreat Mexicans are in America already. Holding authorities accountable for preventing and countering hate by investing for all stakeholders. Investing in police training on how to recognize hate crimes and how to report them since they are first responded it’s important that they know how to recognize hate, and they also need to train on diversity, equality, and inclusion (B Perry, 2016). Most of the hate crime incidents are not reported because the victim was from a minority group. More educated officers should be hired and once get hired they need to be immersed in the values that mitigate against apathy or outright hostility toward difference.

Education: To extend individual knowledge and skills, it’s important to look at programs and practices that are focusing on specific individuals and groups who are at risk, providing skills and knowledge that would help protect them from harm. The key area is to emphasize empowering and strengthening individual capacities to make sense of and confront hostility directed their way. Hate is so commonplace and bland that it is almost impossible for those outside the vulnerable communities to fully acknowledge its weight or to recognize it as a terror in our society as a whole. When the public lack cultural awareness and understanding of difference, this contribute to exclusion, victimization, fear, and tolerance of hate crime (B Perry 2016). So, it’s important to educate people in the community such as teachers, social workers, and criminal justice personnel about the weight and recognize the terror of hate crime in our society. Things like social media initiatives should rise alongside more traditional public awareness campaigns directed towards downsizing bias and related acts of harassment and violence, also create campaigns that primarily target the youth audience to oppose hate crime and prejudice among youth.

Police partnership with communities: building partnerships with minority groups and their community would help them feel welcome and included. For example, the liaison case study that was conducted in Ottawa by the police in challenging the boundaries of the citizenship administration to better make room for the interests of the LGBT individual turn out to be successful, as a result of the partnership with LGBT individual and their community organization has been working together to the definition of crime and safety that correlate to the LGBT communities definition of violence or hate crime (Ann-Marie Field, 2007). The key was the challenge of the citizenship barrier and minimum level of safety to allow LGBT people to enjoy the benefits of citizenship and contribute to the political community. The engagement of the police was a strong way of police being responsible for the community. The partnership made it easier for the community and the police to discuss issues that affect the community, share information about hate crimes, and discuss improving the safety of the community. This approach can be used with any group or community and I wish every city in Canada would follow this approach. I believe that if the police have a good relationship with minority communities many hate crimes would be reported and some of the groups would be less vulnerable to hate crimes.

Analysis of the Case Study

These case studies make clear that the victim had not committed a crime or hurt anyone, and yet they were attacked because of their religious beliefs. The Jewish teens were chosen at the prudence of their attackers who happened to condemn or not understand their specific faith beliefs. Cultural stereotypes and bias help extremist groups whose members are to be saved. This path to the social and political world results in a hostile and highly fateful discourse. Studying this case closely one can see how any believer, regardless of his or her doctrine, can be a victim of a religious hate crime. Putting it another way there is no one safe or hate crime free religion.

Mostly driven by the prejudices and biases of hate crime perpetrators, falling victim to religious hate crime is therefore religiously non-discriminatory. These cases also show that attitude played a major role in deciding on the victims. The Jewish teens were attacked because they were seen to be different in some culturally obvious way. The offenders of violence do not care who their victim really is, nor do they train to prey on individuals or groups of individuals. One of the main issues is the lack of specialization among haters is the identity of victims: if they can’t find someone Black to attack, they will go after someone gay. If they can not find someone gay, they will go for someone who is Jewish, Muslim, or disabled.

The above mention example shows that a crime motivated by faith also involves more attacks against one-person system beliefs. In other words, a religious hate crime offender doesn’t just attack a person, but he or she attacks a religion, a way of life, and even a whole community. In this respect it may be said that hate crimes work like terrorism; although there may be only one victim, hate crime target and threaten an entire community. for example, if a Jewish person is attacked because he or she is a Jew, a threatening message is sent to the entire community; it is like saying if we find a Jew, we will attack them.

Furthermore, a religious hate crime may well cause dangerous seasonal acts of violence among groups and individuals with different beliefs. Unlike disability hate crimes which are single-bias incidents, offenses based on bias against religion are in most cases more than one bias crimes, given that religion and ethnicity, which may include both race and nationality turn to overlay. Making a distinction between religious hate crimes and ethnically motivated incidents it is particularly difficult.

Current Responses

The case received a few responses from different sources. Police respond to the case and they said the incident would be investigated as a hate crime. Police didn’t give enough information on the case but maybe because the party involved were teens and maybe the police didn’t want to against the youth justice system. The police also reported that one of the suspects who attacked the Jewish boy was arrested and charged with assault and robbery. since then I have never seen or heard anything about this case not sure if the police still investigating it or if they have stopped.

The major of Toronto John Tory also responded to this case saying, “No one should ever be attacked for their religion.” Toronto major Tory also tweeted about the incident and called on the public to help the police to solve this hate crime/robbery investigation.

Federal Conservative and Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer tweeted: “Troubling to hear of the attack on Jewish teens in Toronto. Anti-Semitism will never be tolerated, and I hope the culprits of this hate crime will be swiftly brought to justice.” Premier Doug Ford added: “There is no place in Ontario for anti-Semitism and our government will not tolerate hatred of any kind.”

Toronto Sun reported that “The right to remain silent was likely never intended to apply to the prime minister after an alleged anti-Semitic hate attack in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood in Toronto”. Some are articulate and worried about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lack of disapproval, or even comment, on the frightening alleged hate attack on four Hasidic teenage boys who were hit with fists, boots, and racial smear, which included being told: “Hitler is coming back.”

Jewish Defence League Canadian Chapter National Director Meir Weinstein said it “sends” a terrible message. “I am very disappointed that the PM has remained silent regarding the recent violent, anti-Semitic attack against Jewish teens in Toronto,” said Weinstein. “The lack of response seems to be a double standard. I remember the reaction of the PM regarding the young Islamic girl who falsely claimed that her Hijab was cut in a racist attack.” This makes Jewish people feel like they are not welcome when the people in power do not respond to the incident the same way, they respond to another incident.

In my opinion, everyone was on board in condemning this kind of act and violent and making clear that it is not tolerated in Toronto but the luck of a response sent from the Prime Mister send a very bad message, and since his been commending to other incidents that related to hate crime or off that nature. But overall, I believe the incident received an appropriate response.

Future Implications

As the police- report hate crime data show that the number of hate crimes has risen in the past years. Their number doesn’t seem to be decreasing because Canada has racial, ethnic, and religious. Canada’s population has become more distinct as the portion of Canada of Canadians who report being foreign-born, non-Christian, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or in a same-sex relationship continues to grow. For example, one-fifth of Canada’s population was foreign- born in 2016 and by 2036, this could range from 24.5% to 30%. With this increase in diversity, we should start educating people about diversity and how to accept differences.

Still, the fight against hate crimes is required and demands the attention of every citizen. For the program and service, it means finding a way to implement a program that would fight against hate and provide services to victims of hate crimes. For legislation, it means improving laws to address the serious terror of hate crime and also passing legislation that would allow the offender of hate to be charged with hate and not just consider hate crimes as aggravating factors at sentencing. For educators, it means finding a way to open channels of cultural understanding among children. In other words, teaching children about diversity and inclusion. For police, it means increasing attention to acts of hate and violence. For neighborhoods, it means reinforcing the bonds of community to embrace diversity and reject acts of discrimination.

Future researchers should be more research on religious hate crimes. There has been more research done on sexual orientation, identity, and expression, but there are a few types of research on religion, and future researchers should also focus on the impact of hate crime on the community to which the victim belongs.

Reference

1. Al-Hakim, M. & Dimock, S. (2012). Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing. New Criminal Law Review, 15(4): 572-611.
2. Anti-Defamation league. (1997). Hate crime laws. New York: Anti-Defamation League.
3. Barka, M. (2006). Religion, Religious Fanaticism and Hate Crimes in the United States. Revue Française D’études Américaines, (110), 107-121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/stable/20875714
4. Chakraborti, N. & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘difference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499-514.
5. Department of Justice. (2016, August 5). A Review of the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing in Sections 718-718.21 of the Criminal Code. Retrieved from https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rppss-eodpa/index.html
6. Field, A. (2007). Counter-hegemonic citizenship: LGBT communities and the politics of hate crimes in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 11(3): 247-262.
7. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2011). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
8. Miller A.J. Am J Crim Just (2001) 25: 293. https://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1007/BF02886852
9. Police- reported hate crime 2017. (2018, November 29). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181129/dq181129a-eng.pdf
10. Perry, B. & Alvi, S. (2011). ‘We are all vulnerable.’: The terrorism effects of hate crime. International Review of Victimology, 18(1): 57-71.
11. Perry, B. (2016). Intervening globally: Confronting hate across the world. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6): 590-609.
12. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. London, England: Routledge.
13. PETROSINO, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986299015001003

Gender plays in multiculturalism as part of the questions discussed in the class. Sexual discrimination is a serious problem that exists in American society. I interviewed my roommate Samantha (she wanted to remain anonymous so I will use an alias) to discuss this topic, and she is half-Hispanic and half-Native American. Samantha’s parents are both from Mexico, and they moved to the States and became citizens before Samantha was born. First of all, she talks about what certain conditions have to be met for her parents to agree with her marriage and what restrictions she has to follow to agree with them. Secondly, she explains why her mother was opposed to what she wanted to do and when she decided to be majoring in Engineering. Thirdly, Samantha describes how religion affects her life and plays unequally when she talks about gender. Lastly, she describes women’s hate crimes in Mexico and how that affects multiculturalism. Based on the research and the interview that I conducted, the question “multiculturalism is bad for women?” is still an ongoing dilemma in our society today.

One of the examples that shows the inequality of gender that Samantha has been through is marriage. Her mother always forced her to get married to a White man who had blue color eyes, whereas her brother could go on a date with or marry someone he loved. Her race is Hispanic, but her appearance is different from the Hispanic people that we typically think of. She has blue eyes, a lighter skin color than White people, light brown hair color, and Native American bone structure. Her mother said that she could only marry a white man with blue eyes so that she could pass their genes to her children. Samantha says it is up to her to decide whom she wants to get married, and regardless of eye color, she wants to find someone with whom she can truly love and share her life. Nevertheless, her mother thinks that it is important and an acceptable reason why Samantha should listen to her. She says her younger sister is dating someone who is Mexican, but it is okay to do so, and her mother also agrees to do so since he looks White and has a blue-greenish eye color.

Samantha is a transfer student at UCSD and majoring in an engineering major. At first, her mother wanted Samantha to be a lawyer which was her dream job, but she could not do so because of her father’s opposition. Before she transferred to UCSD, she asked Samantha to do a part-time job in a lawyer’s office during summer vacation and found out that she never wanted to become a lawyer, and this was not meant for her. In her community college, she fell in love with physics and decided to be an engineer as many of her uncles are. When Samantha told this to her parents, they were against her decision because there are few female students in engineering majors, and it is demanding work for women when getting a job. Regardless of her ability and decision, they did not want her to become an engineer just because she was a woman. Her brother, on the other hand, encouraged him to become an engineer in the future and be proud of him that he will. Another story that Samantha shares is the sport. She used to play soccer when she was young, and she enjoyed playing it. As soon as her younger brother was born, her parents stopped her playing soccer and let him continue to play. They told her it was an expensive sport and they could not afford both of them to play, so she had to quit. After that, one of her aunts wanted her to participate in a cheerleading team at her school but she refused it. Until now her aunt is displeased with the fact that she is not one of the cheerleaders, in the past, she thought Samantha was a cheerleader and when she found out that she was not, she never treated Samantha the same way as she would be if she was a cheerleader.

This goes for her younger sister also. Her major is psychology and wants to become a police officer or an agent for the FBI. Their parents are worried that she has to get involved with the military. Women soldiers are seriously exposed to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military which is one of the most serious cases of violence involved in women’s life. Sexual harassment and sexual assault of American women in the workplace are very common. According to a 2018 report released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agencies received 7,609 sexual harassment charges. Given that many victims are unable to file complaints for various reasons, it is estimated that there will be more cases of women being sexually harassed and sexually assaulted.

One of the rules that she has to follow is religion. Her family is Catholic, and she always has been told to marry someone who is also Catholic and have a wedding ceremony at a specific church that she goes to. Her mother would not accept to have a marriage if he did not practice Catholic, but Samantha thinks that the way her mother wants is different from hers. She says as long as he can understand and feel comfortable with her religion even though he is not Catholic, she can still have a relationship and religion is not very important to consider when it comes to a marriage. It is one of the problems in our society that women are facing today. Women are not free to live their lives and one of the factors that determine our own decisions. Religion is one of the factors that oppressed women for a long time, where women are told to keep their virginity until they get married, women should be dressed in formal attire, and follow the patriarchal tradition. In the article “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” by Susan Moller Okin, she says “—common in much of Latin America, rural South East Asia and parts of West Africa—of encouraging or even requiring a rape victim to marry the rapist. … rapists are legally exonerated if they marry or (in some cases) even offer to marry their victims”. Most men think that when women lost their virginity, they are used items, and sinful, and by marrying rapist, women can at least have their husbands with this law.

On average, 10 women are killed every day in Mexico which makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the world. There are many reasons for this hate crime, but first of all, it is mainly due to poor punishment. The prosecution makes an unfair conclusion from the stage of investigation for such reasons as corruption and lack of investigative manpower. Therefore, they are often not even prosecuted. This applies equally to hate crimes as well as the rest of the crimes in Mexico. With no fair punishment, criminals tend to ignore the law, resulting in a further increase in the crime rate. Hate crimes are not solved by the efforts of either gender alone or are improved when all members are united.

The recent hate crime towards women happened in Mexico is about a Mexican woman who claimed her husband tried to kill her and was killed by him shortly about 3 weeks after the court released her husband, which sparked a frenzy in Mexico. According to the media, a 49-year-old woman named Abril Perez was shot dead by a gunman in a car in Mexico City on the 25th. The suspect, presumed to be a hitman, has yet to be caught. The bereaved family and acquaintances claim Perez’s husband may be behind it. Her husband, Garcia, was booked in January after hitting her with a baseball bat while her wife was asleep. Perez insisted he was attempted murder, and Garcia was arrested. Earlier this month, however, Garcia’s bail was allowed after the court lowered the charges of domestic violence. The judge judged that Garcia had no intention of killing his wife, saying he would have killed his sleeping wife sufficiently if he had tried to kill her. Violence against women is a problem that exists widely at all levels in the U.S. and Mexico also, and women’s life safety, health, and human rights dignity are seriously threatened. First, women are the main victims of domestic violence. Second, there are frequent cases of ‘minority’ women who are foreign immigrants or immigrants being sexually harassed and raped. Third, the problem of women in prison becoming victims of violence is serious. Gender equality is an important content of social equality and one of the key issues in realizing social processes. As women in America are not properly guaranteed rights in terms of economic sector, personal safety, and health, complaints about their social status inequality and social injustice are mounting. The serious gender discrimination situation in the U.S. has inherently aggravated a very serious inequity situation in American society, and further divided American society.

In the article, Feminicide in Mexico: An Approach through Academic, activist and Artistic Work by Martha Patricia Castañeda Salgado, the author says, “The prevailing definition of femicide is the violent murder of a woman by the very fact that she is a woman (Russell and Radford, 1992)”. It is a woman’s history of violence and the recognition of women as human rights subjects. The worst types of criminals that women could suffer are sexual harassment and rape. The impact of that social, political, and legal movement was a greater understanding of violence, but it was also an explosion of expression. Two important questions are still unanswerable, what are the causes and the motivation of feminicide? Domínguez and Ravelo (2003) pointed out several factors that might impacted it, “struggles inside organized crime, gory pornography, snuff films, satanic rituals, classist abuse based on the devaluation of women’s bodies, … women’s sacrifices to satisfy a misogynist hatred, … violence itself …”. It describes there is no one certain reason to define this phenomenon, however there is a connection between the factors that pressure and oppress women. Regardless of age, ethnicity, area, race, or economic status, all women can be victims of femicide. According to Cámara de Diputados in 2005, Nayarit was considered a dangerous place to live for women compared to Ciudad Juárez. In 2014, Estado de México was recognized as the most unsafe place as it had the highest level of women deaths. It is not happening in one specific place but hate crimes have been spread from one city to another, in Mexico country as time goes by.

The problem of gender discrimination in the U.S. is serious and multifaceted. The U.S., which claims to be a guardian of human rights, has yet to approve the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, a key human rights pact, and the issue of gender discrimination in the U.S. has been worsening day by day, seriously hindering the realization of women’s rights. The deep gender discrimination tradition in the United States and the abolition of the system, especially the social system, result in fundamental obstacles that the problem of gender discrimination cannot be solved efficiently. Sexual discrimination in the United States has a deep social and historical cause. The ‘people’ referred to in the ‘Independence Declaration,’ a political syllabus of the founding U.S., do not include women and blacks. American women’s rights have gone through many rough twists and turns. Women’s rights are an integral part of universal human rights. Women’s rights and reality are important symbols of a country’s human rights situation.

In conclusion, gender and multiculturalism are some of the most important issues that are happening not only in the States but everywhere where women are present. One of the examples that I conducted from my interviewee is Mexico, where a lot of gender hate crimes are rising frequently. President Donald Trump continues to build a wall to separate and prevent any illegal immigrants coming from Mexico. There are still barriers and unfairness that women are facing today in the U.S., however, more and more women from Mexico desire to immigrate while risking their lives to have a better life. It is very difficult for the U.S. government to take active steps to solve the real-life problem of gender discrimination. While women in America have made progress on the path to equal rights in each field, many existing gender discrimination issues in the United States have severely hampered the realization and development of women’s rights. As the world’s largest economy, and a country with important status in the current global structure and global governance system, the U.S. should show a responsible attitude in terms of eliminating gender discrimination and ensuring women’s rights and play an active and constructive role.

Works Cited

1. “Abril Pérez Sagaón: Shooting Sparks Feminist Outcry in Mexico.” BBC News, BBC, 29 Nov. 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50601975.
2. EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2018 Enforcement and Litigation Data, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-10-19.cfm.
3. Martha Patricia Castañeda Salgado. “Feminicide in Mexico: An approach through academic, activist and artistic work”. https://femicideincanada.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/femicicide.pdf
4. Susan Moller Okin. “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”. https://canvas.ucsd.edu/courses/7852/files/170768?module_item_id=83491