Who is to blame for the hijab hate crime hoax in Canada?

Monday I wrote about a hoax hate crime in Canada which involved an 11-year-old girl who told adults that a man with scissors had tried to cut her hijab as she walked to school. The school district arranged a press conference featuring the girl, her younger brother, and her mother. During the press conference, police said they were investigating the incident as a hate crime. Within hours, the story became international news and everyone from the Mayor of Toronto to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weighed in to condemn the attack and express support for the girl. ButMonday police announced the alleged attack never happened. It became clear that the girl had admitted to authorities the whole story was a hoax.

Since Monday there has been a new round of follow-up stories in Canada about the hate hoax. The girls family has offered an apology, claiming they simply believed the girls account was true. Their public statement reads in part:

When our young daughter told the school that she was attacked by a stranger, the school reacted with compassion and support as did the police.

When we arrived at the school on Friday, we were informed what happened and assumed it to be true, just like everyone else. We only went public because we were horrified that there was such a perpetrator who may try to harm someone else.

HuffPost Canada wrote a piece headlined The Girl Who Lied About Hijab Attack Deserves An Apology. Thats taking it a bit too far in my opinion but I do think that there are adults who are ultimately more to blame. Bottom line: An 11-year-old cant arrange a press conference at her own school. That happened because adults, including those working in the media, wanted to spread this story far and wide. The HuffPost story actually gets to the core of the problem[emphasis added]:

When did we assign this level of attention to a childs stories? When race and religion are involved, we seem to lose all perspective. Because the story appeared to be one where hatred was a motivating factor, where a child was attacked for wearing a religious head covering, we felt a kind of national outrage. Did the child know that she was hitting Canadas sensitive button? We dont know.

An editorial in the Calgary Sun reaches a similar conclusion [emphasis added]:

Canadians should show compassion and forgiveness toward this child and her parents.This child was victimized by authority figures around her, who assumed the wors[t] and who couldnt wait to turn her into a poster child for their own agendas.

What were those agendas? CTV News offers some blunt speculation:

Psychologist Dr. Oren Amitay was among those questioning the Toronto District School Board for giving the media access to the girl.

Ive been involved in a number of issues where the school board, acting with the best of intentions but being driven by political correctness and virtue-signalling, has made some wrong calls, he told CTV News Channel on Monday.

Amitay suggests the story may have been pushed forward by an overeager school official who wanted to do the progressive thing, but didnt take the time to properly vet the girls account.

This was definitely the wrong call, he said. And whoever allowed it to go forward should be held accountable in some capacity.

For the record, the same CTV story includes this denial of responsibility:

The Toronto District School Board says it did not organize a formal press conference for the girl.

Our motivation for commenting on the issue at the time was out of compassion, care, concern and support, the TDSB said in a statement on Monday. The school board said it was doing the same as many elected leaders at all levels via interviews and on social media.

I honestly am not sure what that means. The press conference took place at the school with the participation of school officials. If they didnt call it, who did? Are they claiming the family called it? Was the school obligated to agree to that? I dont think so. There were many moments along the way where an adult could have and should have said Maybe we should let the police handle this first. That didnt happen because an anti-Muslim hate crime targeting a child makes a great story for progressives looking to demonstrate their moral outrage.

Read the rest here:

Who is to blame for the hijab hate crime hoax in Canada?

Related Post

February 22, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."