Hate. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines it as "intense dislike."
Some of us hate mango pudding, others hate bad drivers, still others hate certain ethnic groups, religions and gay people. Some people hate people who hate other people.
Hate can be very personal or very impersonal. But it's almost always a matter of interpretation coloured, or should I say tainted, by one's own experience.
Take, for example, the front-page story in our last paper. Gordon World, one of the Parents' Voice candidates, was the subject of an RCMP complaint claiming that World had violated the Criminal Code of Canada by inciting hatred against gay people.
World had been advocating against the school district's new gay positive policy.
I won't repeat the arguments surrounding that issue, but suffice it to say it pushes a lot of hot buttons.
World didn't suggest that gay people should be killed, run out of town, denied housing or harassed. He clearly doesn't agree with promoting or supporting the idea that being gay is something everyone should shoot for. But did he express hate? Our reporter listened to the recording from the meeting World spoke at and felt there was no incitement of hatred displayed. But someone at the meeting felt that World was speaking "hate" and went to a teacher, who lodged a complaint with the Burnaby RCMP.
Now, I understand how someone can be deeply offended by another human being's viewpoint that one's existence is either unnatural or unwanted. It hurts. And it can evoke feelings of fear and outrage. I can understand how someone might consider that such a viewpoint only comes from a deep-seated hatred of gay people. But prejudice in and of itself does not violate the Canadian Criminal Code - well, unless it's put into action, such as denying someone guaranteed civil rights.
The fact that prejudice is often - if not always - the foundation for hate crimes does not mean that those spouting prejudicial views are guilty of hate crimes.
In fact, to violate the Criminal Code, you have to pretty explicitly incite hatred and violence against an identifiable group. Being subtle just doesn't cut it.
If someone hears Gordon World's submission to the school district as permission to go after gay folks (or send death threats), it doesn't follow that World intended his speech to encourage such action. If the Criminal Code allowed us to make those kind of leaps, there would be a whole lot more hate crime charges.
Now, to be sure, if one listened to some people at the first anti-policy rally in Burnaby, there were, in my opinion, some state-ments that came very close to violating the Criminal Code. But did they step over the legal line? I suspect not.
Merely believing that being gay is unacceptable is still "allowed" when it falls short of violating the Human Rights Code and/ or the Criminal Code.
Religion, sadly, is still used as an excuse by some people to view other people as less human. Will that change in the future?
Perhaps. But for now it's within the realm of free speech, and the freedom to be intolerant goes with that right.
World was not pleased to be the subject of such a police complaint, and in fact he's promised to bring forward some sort of legal action. It's an understandable response.
But, sadly, it all smacks of retaliation. And it will do nothing to increase understanding no matter which side you stand on.
Pat Tracy is the editor of the Burnaby NOW and The Record.
