"Atheist claims assault was 'hate crime'"

[Eaquae Legit]

Should an assault on an atheist activist be prosecuted as a religious hate crime? After being attacked at Ryerson university last Tuesday, Justin Trottier thinks so.

"They should be prosecuted the same as if a member of a religious minority had been targeted," said the 24-year-old U of T graduate of the two young men he said attacked him. "I just want consistency."

Trottier, a leader of the Freethought Association of Canada and an outspoken atheist, said he was assaulted on Tuesday night as he and a colleague, Peter Aruja, were hanging posters advertising a lecture by Victor Stenger, author of God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Two men approached them and asked for a poster. Trottier said that he and his friend gave them one and continued walking. He alleges that the man who took the poster mumbled under his breath and threw the poster to the ground, at which Trottier yelled back, "You could have recycled that."

Twenty minutes later, the two men approached Trottier in the tunnels underneath the university. He recalled the men being out of breath, as if they had been running. Trottier claims the two men initiated a fight.

"The first individual smacked me in the face twice and said 'watch your smart mouth.' I said, 'Don't touch me,' at which point he head-butted me hard in the face.

remainder of article

I've heard a number of atheists here and elsewhere claiming that their atheism isn't a religious position. My main question is directed at those particular atheists, but everyone is welcome to reply. Do you agree that being assaulted because of your atheism can be called a hate crime under the "religious" definition?

"Hate crime" is a pretty specific legal definition, and in this particular case, I'm hesitant to extend it to Mr Trottier. The link between the subject of the posters and the assault is tenuous. My reading of the event is more along the lines that if you yell at people on the street at night, they might get ticked, and it's good to have some kung fu in your back pocket. It's just one of those things, and it doesn't need to have religion involved at all. The assailant telling him to "watch his smart mouth" seems to support that.

But then, I wasn't there. And if Mr Trottier can prove they roughed him up specifically because of his atheism, then I think it could be called a hate crime. I tend to think of atheism as a religious position like any other, and therefore that it should be protected like any other. I'm an ambiguous fan of "hate crime" laws at best, but I'm more interested in the classification of this specific case, not whether the laws are good or not.

[eriador]

I'd say so. Clearly religion was a factor in it, given that he threw down the poster and such, and that should make it a hate crime. I find it offensive that anybody would think that being discriminated against for atheism wouldn't be a hate crime. Saying that it was Trottier's fault is blaming the victim. Maybe religion wasn't the only motivation, but it was a motivation, so it qualifies.

[Eaquae Legit]

It's not clear at all to me. Campus (and downtown in general) is plastered with posters of all shapes and sizes. I get handed crap all the time, and the only reason I don't chuck it on the ground is because I don't like littering. Doesn't mean I hate anyone or anything, except the jerks who murder whole forests to make my campus look ugly.

If I honestly thought that his atheism was the main motivating factor in this incident, I'd have no problem calling a hate crime based on religion, just like Christians, Jews, and anyone else.

However, I am FAR from convinced about this, since yelling at strangers at night on an empty downtown street is just... dumb. Especially disgruntled-type strangers. Who could be drunk, high, or both. Trottier might not have meant to pick a fight, but there's a very large number of unsavoury people out there who take that sort of thing as an invitation. By his own account, they said nothing at all about religion or atheism, just about his "smart mouth" - that is, him yelling at them earlier.

The editorial in the same paper raises mixed feelings in me. I agree with it at times, and at others I don't.

I agree with:

The two men believed in God, and he did not; this, for Trottier, makes his alleged assailant's head-butt to the bridge of the nose more than the fruit of too much bravado, too late at night. For Trottier, this fact elevates the mundane to the status of hate crime.

But is what happened to Trottier really on par with the desecration of Jewish cemeteries with spray-painted swastikas, or with burning a mosque? Local police are so far treating the incident as a plain old assault. On this count, The Varsity is inclined to agree.

Too much bravado late at night.

Trottier's cry of hate crime disguises what was most likely someone's predictable response to a few too-clever remarks, and The Varsity (a haven for smartasses) certainly feels for Trottier's hurt pride. But we'll give him a word or two of advice: if you're going to crack wise to just anybody on the street in the dead of night, start working on your left hook, and leave the Charter defense to the real victims.

More problematic:

Unfortunately, Trottier is using his media savvy to weave a suspicious tale. As a "secular advocate" seeking the same protection and rights accorded to religious beliefs, he very much wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

To be a victim in the media is a desirable prize. But in order to really be a martyr, Justin, you have to have a religion first. In our interview with him, he did call the principles of atheism "beliefs." But that either means the "justified true belief" of knowledge, or it means religious faith, and only one of those is protected under the laws against hate crime.

Trottier is personally known to the staff at The Varsity. They may have known him as one of those atheists who staunchly deny that their beliefs are "religious." If he IS, then he's definitely trying to have his cake (this is not my religion!) and eat it too (but this was a religious hate crime!). This is not, however, specified.

Where I disagree with them is "But in order to really be a martyr, Justin, you have to have a religion first." I am of the belief that atheism definitely falls into the definition of religion. So it's entirely possible that an atheist can be a martyr.

I just don't think that Trottier is one.

[Guest]

Not to pee on anybody's parade, but the very idea that there can be a distinction drawn between a "hate" crime and any other type of crime is a joke.

Crime (when it relates to private citizens' interaction, as is the case here), is the concept of infringing upon another individual's rights. (Of course, it's still a crime if you, say, don't pay your taxes, but that's between you and the government.) Why are we, as societies, trying to make those who commit crimes because of ignorant bias seem worse than people who commit those very same crimes for any other reason? BECAUSE SOCIETIES WANT TO ENFORCE LAWS ON WHAT PEOPLE THINK. That's what it comes down to. Me personally, I don't care if you tried to beat me up because you hate my religion/creed/ethnicity or if you tried it because you were abused as a child, you still infringed upon my rights not to be assaulted and you should receive the same punishment for that crime as anyone else. Why do we think we can attatch extra punishments because of the motivations of the criminals? Do rapists get different punishments if they have different motivations? Only if they rape a minority they don't like, in our society.

The very idea that crimes against a particular minority or group should get more severe punishment is absolute, unmitigated BULLSHIT. Are those victims more important, more meaningful, more victimized than people who suffer the same crime? Does a white rape victim not get the same justice as a black rape victim whose attacker was a racist?

To try and steer back to the topic, Mr. Trottier has the same right to justice as any other citizen who gets assaulted in the street for no good reason - and no, his actions do not constitute, in any way, a 'good reason.' Those who might say that his attack is not a "religious hate crime" are only right because the very idea of a religious hate crime is ludicrous. I would say that "hate" plays a pretty big role in a very large portion of crimes committed in the world - why are we trying to differentiate between 'hate' against an entire group versus 'hate' against an individual? In this respect, Mr. Trottier has a good point - if some jackass attacked a Jew putting up fliers for a Temple-related activity, or a Muslim for putting up fliers for a new Mosque, or a lesbian handing out pamphlets for an LBGT group, everyone would be in a frenzy about their civil rights being violated. Aren't Mr. Trottier's civil rights just as important, and the motivations for the attack against him just as moot in the end? In the end, the abstraction of 'hate crimes' is nothing but a tool; leverage for special interests groups; either Mr. Trottier's sad story will wake people up to how ridiculous the concept is, or athiests will get the same kind of 'hate crime' protection - which is like curing a burn by adding more flame.

[hive_king]

I must disagree with you, anthony, there are compelling reasons to differentiate crimes commited out of a personal dislike from ones done out of a hatred of one's race or religion. If I personally hate a person, the worst I can do is kill that one person (which of itself is amazingly unlikely in our culture). If I hate a race or religion, beating someone up can lead to firebombing black churches, it can lead to killing people indiscrimately for their colors or beliefs. It can lead to pogroms and even genocide. Think of all the great atrocities of the last century: Rwanda, Russia, Armenia, Sudan, Darfur, the Holocaust. Think of the stains on the fabric of America: slavery, segregation, the Trail of Tears, stories of homosexuals being killed and tortured. These are all examples of what supremacist hate can lead to. These, all much worse than anything a single person ever did out of personal spite, are examples to be avoided at any reasonable cost. Anything we can do within reason that will make sure that we don’t end up with more of these cases is an understandable measure.

Also, these laws are not enforcing what they think, as much as them acting on those thoughts. Saying that the government is trying to enforce laws on what people think is alarmist and silly. The government has no way to know what thoughts are going through your head. The government is not reading through people’s diaries and punishing them like in 1984. No one is trying to control thoughts, just what people think. Are anti-theft laws trying to control what people think because they are meant to discourage us from stealing things? Someone can hate black people and think horrible things about them, they’re just not allowed to burn their churches down.

Back to the subject at hand, I think that while Atheism is not a religion, it is a religious stance. It is where you stand in relation to religions. Does that make any sense?

[Sparrowhawk]

If I hate a race or religion, beating someone up can lead to firebombing black churches, it can lead to killing people indiscrimately for their colors or beliefs.

Uh.. Just so we're clear, firebombing and indiscriminate killing are still wrong and illegal here, and perpetrators most likely get the death sentence. I'm not sure what else you want to do to them. We have to have a special "term" to "define" that kind of killing as opposed to any other kind of murder? The effects of the crime and the result for the criminal is the same regardless of the motivations of the guilty party.

You go on to claim that:

It can lead to pogroms and even genocide.

Um, how? I'm pretty sure murdering just one person is enough for our laws, let alone trying to orchestrate genocide in a racially diverse, multicultural democracy ala America. You claim that not having hate crimes somehow can lead to mass racial tension and genocide, yet offer not a shred of evidence. You bring up tragedies from the past as if because human beings once believed slavery and the like to be moral institutions that those morals have any bearing now.

{Your litany of examples} are all examples of what supremacist hate can lead to. These, all much worse than anything a single person ever did out of personal spite, are examples to be avoided at any reasonable cost. Anything we can do within reason that will make sure that we don’t end up with more of these cases is an understandable measure.

And... somehow, having 'hate crimes' legislation keeps us from enacting slavery? Keeps us from death-marching Native Americans? Keeps us from pograms and genocide? Hardly. You're in a dream world.

Also, these laws are not enforcing what they think, as much as them acting on those thoughts.

So, acting on a racist thought of murder is somehow worse than, say, acting on a jealous thought of murder? Wait, so the victim in the first instance has more importance because they were killed for a worse reason? What the f***? Hate crimes inherently create first and second class victims, and by extension, first and second class citizens.

Someone can hate black people and think horrible things about them, they’re just not allowed to burn their churches down.

Um. Yeah. That's the point. Those actions are illegal, anti-society and criminal, for which the guilty party will probably get a very harsh sentence from any judge worth his salt. I'm not clear on why you think this means we have to have hate crimes laws.

[hive_king]

What I'm saying is that its a slippery slope, and that minor crimes commited out of hate can lead to major crimes out of hate, sort of a broken window theory on hate crimes. Discouraging the smaller ones (like beating someone up) will keep the major ones from happening. I probably said it a bit too verbosely for you.

[Sparrowhawk]

Wait wait wait, let me get this straight - you go from explicitly making a slippery slope argument to insulting my comprehension? Lolz. You're a funny little guy sometimes.

[Sparrowhawk]

Discouraging the smaller ones (like beating someone up) will keep the major ones from happening.

P.S., first of all, we already have laws that say things like assault and murder are illegal - hence, already discouraged. Second, those laws DON'T keep people from committing more serious crimes. Obviously less people are inclined to murder someone because it's illegal, but how does stating that murder-by-reason-of-racism is somehow "worse" keep it from happening? Here's a hint: it doesn't.

[hive_king]

I've got nothing.

[jotabe]

It could be considered that a crime is worse for being commited against a black person, for example, if you (the govt) are conscious that your country as a whole suffers the illness of racism.

For example, take Afghanistan. Imagine that from one day to the other, they actually manage to wipe the warlords, and get a state running. Still, the discrimination against women is deeply rooted in people's minds. So, you could attempt to push a legislation that would make into a serious crime even a simple insult directed against women, to make people start respecting them.

Don't get me wrong. I am just saying that it kind of makes sense that people would think this work. I don't say i think this would work. Actually, US is a pretty good example of how "positive discrimination" laws don't really work.

[Rei]

I tend to see a hate-crime as two crimes in one. The first is the act, be it mugging, murder, robbery, etc. That, as you say, is equal to all other such crimes and we have laws in place to discourage those. The second is the mentality behind the crime, which, in the case of hate-crimes, involves dehumanising an entire people group, not just an individual or all people other than yourself. If you generally hate all people and injure them accordingly, you are very unlikely to cause or contribute to a mass-hatred of all people other than the person doing the hating. That would not get anywhere and would never last. If you hate one group of people and focus on injuring them accordingly, you are more likely to get people on board with you. Afterall, it's easier to hate Them, because everyone knows that We are better and they're just a bunch of worthless s*****. That is why there is a slippery slope and that is why hate-crimes deserve a greater punishment than the crime alone. There are two crimes happening: the action and the desire to injure not one person but an entire people-group.

[jotabe]

The problem is that deals with the freedom of thought. People is supposed to be free to think anything, no matter how stupid or criminal what they think is.

[hive_king]

First of all, rei said what i was trying to say but a lot better.

Second, it is not the thought that is being punished, its the acting on the thought. Those are two different things.

[jotabe]

Yes, but still, you have to punish the action no matter what.
How is different that a man beats a woman because he thinks she is inferior than because he tried to knock her out to steal her purse? Both involve a thinking, and then acting on that thought.
How can we judge on intentions, after all?
Justice is a very difficult thing, already... it should focus on facts, not on intentions.

[Rei]

There is a difference between freedom of thought and freedom of intent. We're allowed to think whatever we'd like. If I so chose, I could think that all women are worthless whores and should be traded as child-bearing, cooking and cleaning slaves. While I'm pretty sure I'd be making myself unpopular, it is not a crime to think that (at least, not that I'm aware of). What would be a crime would be to act on this for those reasons. In fact, even planning to do so and carrying the intent to actually carry it out is probably punishable in some degree. So we're allowed to think what we will, but we can't intend to do whatever we will.

[jotabe]

You have a point there. After all, a crime receive a heavier punishment if it is proven to have been committed with "premeditation", what is a situation somewhat analogous.

[Eaquae Legit]

Not only that, but any given crime carries a range of possible sentences. Things like victim impact are always taken into account. I don't see why the particularlevel of malice behind the crime can't be. As I understand it, a crime prosecuted as a "hate crime" doesn't get tried any differently from the same crime minus the hate, but the intent gets taken into accoutn during sentencing.