Richmond Youth’s "Hate Crime" Hoax Shows That Two Standards Exist: A Hard One For Mainstream Canadians And A Soft One For Visible Minorities

June 8, 2005: Richmond Youth's “Hate Crime” Hoax Shows That Two Standards Exist: A Hard One For Mainstream Canadians And A Soft One For Visible Minorities


Controversy over a Greater Vancouver alleged “hate crime”, which has turned out to be a hoax, continues to swirl across Canada. A 17-year-old Sikh male from Richmond, B.C. has admitted that he lied about being assaulted. He had alleged that five white males had attacked him, pulled his turban off and cut his hair.

Immigration Watch Canada makes two points about this incident:

(1) Why are authorities applying a soft standard to a 17 year-old, visible minority “hate crime” perpetrator when a very severe standard would have been applied to mainstream Canadian perpetrators?

(2) Is this yet another example of a double standard set by Canada's politically-correct media, police and elected officials?

In first reacting to the aleged incident, the media, police and elected officials all used the politically-correct hyperbole that the term “hate crime” seems to evoke. All characterized the incident as venomous and all used the alleged hair-cutting to magnify the supposed seriousness of the crime. A Sikh professor stated that “Cutting the hair would be equivalent to chopping off a body part.” Another Sikh described the hair cutting as “heinous” and “not human”. Not to be outdone, a white RCMP corporal called the 'attack' “absolutely disgusting” and commented: “It's one thing to assault and rob someone, but this takes things to a whole other level”. (See The Vancouver Sun, June 1 for details)

(None acknowledged that in everyday life, many Sikh males regularly cut their own hair and do not wear turbans.)

In the week before the 17 year-old's fictitious story was exposed as a hoax, it is likely that his story spawned a real racial incident in the neighbouring suburb of Delta. A group of Indo-Canadian youths carrying metal pipes confronted a group of white youths. One of the white youths was struck with a pipe. In retaliation, another of the white males pursued the Indo-Canadians in a car and struck several who are now in hospital. (See The Province , Sunday, June 5 for details)

If there is a cause-effect relationship between the lie told by the 17 year old Sikh and this fight, then there are two real “hate crimes” to be investigated: (1) the 17 year-old's original lie and (2) the response it caused in Delta. And the real crimes might very well be termed “inciting racial hostility”.

All fair-minded people are interested in some equality when the law pursues people. If the fictional white offenders were to be pursued with the politically-correct venom announced by many media, police and elected officials, shouldn't there be equal pursuit of the 17 year-old offender?

Prominent Sikhs think the youth has to be punished. They have said that the youth and his family should compensate the RCMP for the resources wasted on this hoax. In contrast, a number of the media, police, and elected officials, anxious to restore their tattered credibility after being fooled by the youth's story, are excusing the 17 year-old's action by saying he must be “troubled”. His actions, they say, are the result of conflict between Sikh traditions and local Canadian practices. Mainstream Canadians, they say, must now show compassion. Canadians, they say, have to concentrate now on explaining why he made up the story.

The politically-correct won't like the answer. The truth is that he made up the story because the politically-correct have implied for a long time that most immigrant problems are actually the fault of Canada's host population. Like the politically-correct, the youth learned that he too can blame the conflict he faced on racism in the host population and get away with it. And this is exactly what has happened.

Most people don't like to admit that they have helped create the problem they are investigating. But in this situation, it might help enormously if the politically-correct among the media, police and elected officials recognized that they have blamed many immigrant problems (lack of recognition of foreign credentials, underemployment, unemployment, crime, rejections for refugee status, etc.) on prejudices, failures, etc. of the host population. In doing so, they have helped prepare the ground for the youth's “hate crime”.

Most people can see that this issue is an immigration issue. The politically-correct tell mainstream Canadians that the cultural conflict that the 17 year-old or any recent immigrant faces is a serious issue and has to be dealt with immediately by mainstream Canadians.

In contrast, they say that any cultural, economic or environmental complaint by the host population about the effect of current immigration policies on them has no legitimacy and should not be given the time of day. Some of these people even seem to suggest that the host population should indulge in self-loathing for merely being in Canada.

With noteable exceptions, the politically-correct, particularly in the Canadian media, have helped to create the two-standard attitude. Many Canadian reporters have to admit that they deal with the immigration issue timidly. In addition, many reporters have to admit that rather than inform themselves about the issue, they resort to the usual slogans manufactured for them by Canada's immigration industry and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Finally, many Canadian reporters have to admit that, rather than think, they scurry away and hide from legitimate objections to Canada's immigration policies.

This message has been clearly communicated to the host population and to new immigrants. It is obvious that the 17 year-old absorbed this lesson well. It is also obvious that he used it cleverly, not innocently as the politically correct are now implying.

Finally, the incident also makes it obvious that the behavioural standards created by the politically-correct in the media, police and elected officials are poor standards. In fact, the incident shows that the standards these people use could never be good because their standards do not have integrity.

Although some of the politically-correct (for egocentric, economic or other reasons) will continue to betray their own citizens and their own environment, others could learn to practice some basic integrity. If most Canadians— including members of the media, elected officials and others— did this, the 17 year-old's action might not have occurred and current muddled immigration policies could be set straight.

But as long as two legal/other standards exist, one for the host culture and one for new arrivals, this issue will continue to fester.