When is Assault not Assault

Racism is alive and well in Canada.

It shames me to have to say this, but what else can I conclude based on an incident reported in Thunder Bay, Ont., this week.

If you haven’t heard, a seven-year-old boy was growing his hair long to participate in traditional First Nations dancing. His mother says those at the boy’s school knew about his dream to dance and the reason why he was growing his hair.

What happened then sickens me. A teacher’s aide took it upon herself to sit the boy down and chop off 10 centimetres of his hair, then force him to stand in front of a mirror saying ‘look at you now.’

The Crown says there are no grounds for charges. No grounds for charges? Give me a break! What about assault to begin with?

The Criminal Code of Canada states:

“265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

So, an adult forces a seven-year-old boy to sit on a stool and takes a pair of scissors to him. That should qualify as “without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person.” I think it’s safe to say that a young boy growing his hair with the dream of taking part in traditional First Nations dancing did not consent to having a teacher’s aide at school chop it off.

However, to clarify, the Code also states:
Consent
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Remember when you were seven years old in school? The adults in the classroom, whether teachers or teachers’ aides, were the authority figures. You were taught to listen and obey. You feared what would happen if you didn’t obey This teacher’s aide exercised her authority. So there could be no consent on the part of the seven-year-old boy.

What about her use of scissors? Are you allowed to carry scissors aboard a plane these days? Try it on your next flight and find out what happens. Of course you can’t. They are considered a potential weapon. So how about:

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

You are seven years old. An adult authority figures makes you sit on stool and attacks you with scissors. As far as I’m concerned, this person used the scissors as a weapon. Physical harm? Maybe not. Emotional and psychological harm? You better believe it. This boy’s dreams and pride in his native culture have been seriously damaged by a racist act.

Oh, you want to argue it wasn’t racism? What do you suppose would be the chances of the teacher’s aide committing the same act if the boy was blue-eyed, fair-haired and the son of local country club members? I doubt it would have happened. But what if it did? I suggest if it did, there would be no question as to whether this would be considered assault. The Crown prosecutors would be all over it.

So, what about potential hate crime charges, then?

Criminal Code of Canada: Hate Provisions - Summary

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

OK, then. This aide has communicated either her dislike of First Nations people, or a total lack of cultural awareness. She’s done so in a public place, a school. In doing so, she’s demonstrated contempt against an identifiable group in a way that could incite further hatred from the student’s classmates. She as done so in a way that is likely, and rightly, going to outrage First Nations people in the area. I’m not suggesting it could lead to a breach of the peace, but the possibility exists when a people’s rights and beliefs are trampled.

Furthermore, the Code states:

Additional Hate Provisions

The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment (section 718.2(a)(i)).

This aide’s assault on the boy could easily be interpreted as being motivated by bias or prejudice. So she should be charged and faced a more severe punishment.

But the Crown in Thunder Day advised police, according to a police spokesman, that “there were no grounds for criminal charges, and it wasn’t in the public interest.”

I am disgusted by this entire incident. This is not a proud moment for Canada or Canadians. It’s bad enough that a teacher’s aide would even think this was acceptable. The lack of outrage over the act is even more deplorable.

If this person were charged and found guilty, I have a suggestion for punishment. Do not jail the aide. Instead, under court order, have her head shaved bald. Then have her attend some form of cultural sensitivity training. I would suggest she have to live on a reserve for a month. Some may say that wouldn’t be safe for her. I would like to think a progressive reserve leadership would take her under their wing and educate her on the traditions and culture of First Nations people.

Maybe, just maybe, this sentence would serve to open the aide’s eyes to the reality of life as seen through the eyes of a visible minority that has suffered greatly at the hands of people who held beliefs similar to her own.

At the very least, it would show such hateful actions against children will not be tolerated in Canada.