The Prosecution of Hate Crimes in Quebec

Saturday, 5 August 2017

It appears to me self-evident that the federal and provincial governments of this country that never cease to celebrate Canada’s multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion are also duty- bound to protect it by fighting vigorously against those who attack the fabric of the multi-cultural society by committing hate crimes by enforcing vigorously the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning these crimes.

Yet, this is not the case. The Attorneys-General of this country rather sit on their hands than approve the prosecution of hate mongers unless in a particular case, the politics of the situation requires them to act to protect their own or their government’s hides, usually both.

For example, in Ontario, the government’s policy seems to be to protect its electoral hide by not pressing charges against a Muslim publication that spews hatred, but pressing one against someone who is alleged to have incited hatred on-line against Muslims. In the case of the Southwestern Ontario publication al-Saraha, the most the Premier was prepared to do was “not to mince words” by stating the usual claptrap:  “I want to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the statements… in the al-Saraha article…”

The situation for the Jewish community got so bad that not long ago, that B’nai-Brith, the leading major Canadian Jewish organisation, in pure exasperation, issued a statement titled “Canada Must Enforce Its Existing Hate Crime Laws”   and invited Canada to finally get serious about addressing anti-Semitism and hatred against the Jewish community.

The statement was triggered by two video footages showing an Imam named Syed-Al Ghitawi praying for the destruction of Jews (“Destroy the accursed Jews”) at the Al-Andalus Islamic Centre in Montreal. B’nai Brith swiftly filed a complaint that triggered an investigation by the city’s Police Service.

Not long after that, in December 2016 a Jordanian Imam Sheik Muhammad ibn Musa Al Nasr delivered a hateful anti-Semitic sermon at the Dar al-Arkam mosque in Montreal during which he called Jews “the worst of mankind” and expressed the hope that Muslims would slaughter them on Judgment Day”. Again the B’nai Brith swiftly filed a complaint. Upon completion of the investigation of the matter, the newly formed Hate Crimes Unit of the city’s Police Service Department charged the Imam.

The interesting facts about these cases as well as a third case concerning a rapper Jonathan Azaziah, an American citizen who promotes anti-Semitism and spends much of his time in Montreal raise some questions that I find disturbing.

The first is that all three cases were brought to light by B’nai Brith and investigations commenced after the organization filed complaints.

Considering the current patterns of praying for Jews to be cursed and preaching all sorts of hateful things against them, as documented in Toronto, it should come hardly as a surprise to the Montreal police that a parallel situation is almost certainly bound to exist in the mosques of the city, or at least some of them. Hence, why should these investigations is triggered only after B’nai Brith files a complaint? Why can’t the police department take it on its own to prevent the occurrence of these crimes keeping an eye on what is happening in the mosques and prayer centres?

Second, Imam Al Nasr is a Jordanian citizen. Given the high-probabilities, indeed, quasi-certainty that faced with a criminal investigation, he would flee the country, as in fact he did; why was he not arrested earlier to be released only on bail with the appropriate conditions? What is the point of laying a charge, if the accused is allowed to get away?

Third, the original Arabic version of the impugned sermon of Al Nasr remains posted to the mosque’s YouTube channel along with dozens of other sermons delivered by Al Nasr.  In the circumstances, why is the Police Service not charging the members of the Wakf (Trust) that manages the Dar al-Arkam mosque with the same offence as Al Nasr or with aiding and abetting the commission of the offence with which Al Nasr is charged?

Fourth, what is holding up the charges against Syed-Al Ghitawi?  

So, at the end of the day, we have four cases: one where the outstanding charge will never come to trial; one where even if the charge was laid, is most unlikely to go to trial and two where the suspects are within reach and if charges were laid, the cases will be able to go to trial.

The penultimate question: Why does B’nai Brith  express deep appreciation for the diligent work of the unit that laid the charge against Al Nasr? Is this not  their duty, what they are there for? Is this where the country has come to?

The ultimate question is why did the consular visa officer allowed Al Nasr allowed to enter the country, obviously without first  doing  due diligence by screening his background, local reputation in Jordan and his religious ideology?