A four letter word with many faces
Can Bill C-229 be effective in combating the rising tide of hate in Canada?
On our drive from Toronto to San Francisco, where I would begin my first year of university, I went to Arches National Park in Utah. Standing in heat, looking at the red stone transformed through centuries of erosion into giant, perfect doorways, I was struck by the impermanence of what we were seeing. It may sound odd to be looking at a giant rock and thinking, “this won’t always be here”, but that sentiment is genuinely true in the case of the arches. They did not always exist, and one day, they will crumble. They have not been consistent over time - with every gust of wind, with every rainfall, they change—even just a little.
Words and symbols are like the arches. Their meanings and resonance are anything but constant and unmovable. They are dependent on context, and their meaning can be transformed, radically, through their usage. This shifting meaning is perhaps most easily seen through the lens of symbols of hatred. While I understand and respect the truth guiding the argument that swastikas pre-date the Nazi regime, and that in certain Indigenous and Indian cultures, they are symbols of peace, and therefore remain acceptable to display, it simply doesn’t hold up because symbols are not static. It is true that at one time, before 1933, the swastika may have had this other meaning, but its use by the National Socialists in Germany to promote hatred and commit atrocities changed the meaning of the symbol. Its use by the Nazi party was so ubiquitous that it can no longer be disassociated from the meaning that it took on in the 1930s-40s. Arguments around the noble history of the American South in support of the Confederate flag fall completely flat. The stars and bars, otherwise known as the bloody banner, was not created until the end of the Civil War and did not rise to popularity for some time after, meaning it has always been a symbol of the wrong side of history. The Confederate flag is a product of the evolution of symbols and their significance.
The shapeshifting nature of words and symbols - particularly those used to promote hatred, makes them increasingly difficult to address through the legal mechanisms at play. Enacted legislation and policies often fail to account for the mutating virus that is hatred and its markers, and for the circumstances that give rise to its continued propagation. This can be seen in Bill C-229, tabled by the NDP, which received its first reading on 3 February.
Bill C-229 presents a proposed amendment to section 319 of the Criminal Code, which contains hate speech provisions. The proposed amendments would essentially expand section 319 to include the Nazi swastika, Confederate flag, and Klu Klux Klan robes as illegal forms of promoting hate. The amendment provides an exemption for using these symbols in legitimate circumstances such as education and performance. Canada is not the first country to pass a law like this. Germany has criminalized the Nazi swastika and salute since the end of the Second World War. While there could potentially be some concerns about Bill C-229 being overbroad or debate as to whether these symbols are in and of themselves forms of hate speech, my real question around the proposed amendments is if they are actually effective.
We will never eradicate hate from the world. As much as we may hope to do so, there will always be people who seek to place the blame on others through dehumanizing and, at times, violent means. Criminalizing the use of these symbols won’t change this. How can it? First, the promotion of violence against an identifiable group of people, such as those belonging to a recognized minority, is already captured under the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions, which, in their current form, are difficult to enforce and are unlikely to be made more accessible through this amendment. Second, symbols change over time, and if these cannot be used, others will step up to take their place on the flags and bumpers stickers of those who seek to promote hatred towards others. If anything, criminalizing these symbols may increase their power - just as fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself, criminalizing these symbols may create a sense of awe around them.
While there could be some small satisfaction in seeing an individual charged for waving a Nazi flag at a protest, this solution feels merely cosmetic. Criminalization does not address the way that hate spreads. Without legislating programs that target the way these ideas are promoted and assist people who have become engulfed by them in relinquishing these dangerous notions, the problems we see today with the rise of hate will only continue. Criminal law is unlikely to be the appropriate tool to fulfil the more extensive set of actions required to effectively quell the rising tide of hatred. This area of law is too rigid in what it may address and how it may address it to deter people from joining hateful movements effectively.
The government should, by all means, pass Bill C-229. It is likely to be of comfort to many to know that these symbols are no longer “unfortunate”, but are, in fact, criminal when they appear on our city streets and in our classrooms. But it would be naive to think that this amendment will effectively address the promotion of hate.
Hatred is a virus. Today, it manifests itself in swastikas, confederate flags, and white pointed hoods. Tomorrow it will start to look different, and perhaps it would be worthwhile to focus our efforts on addressing this part of the phenomenon.