Gabriel Sohier-Chaput received an exemplary sentence of 15 months of imprisonment. But what happens when the sentences imposed on convicted hate mongers fail to take into account the seriousness of the offenses committed? Can we say that the system has done enough to protect society, to punish and rehabilitate offenders, and to deter others from committing similar crimes?
If a hate crime is not recognized as a hate crime, if the prosecution does not apply the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code to the charges, if the sentence does not sufficiently recognize the underlying hatred and does not protect the victims, and if, as the case of neo-Nazi Gabriel Sohier-Chaput demonstrated, one or the other of these elements is missing, then we can say that no.
The Sohier-Chaput affair should serve as an example of how the system works. Law enforcement officials determined that the actions were motivated by both hatred and a desire to radicalize others. Sohier-Chaput was charged and convicted of willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group under the Criminal Code. The case unfortunately took a worrying turn following a joint sentencing recommendation of only three months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation — a recommendation that Judge Manlio Del Negro overruled during a audience. “With all due respect, the sentence you propose trivializes the crime,” he said.
We are happy to see that Sohier-Chaput will suffer the consequences of his actions with an exemplary sentence of 15 months, that the Quebec media covered the trial, and above all, that Quebecers have rejected this hateful ideology. However, the suggestion of an initial sentence of three months proposed by the Crown is worrying and could have been seen as a trivialization of the offense.
It might be tempting to blame this on lawyers. A harsher sentence could indeed have been imposed to take into account the damage caused by Sohier-Chaput’s dehumanization of the Jewish community. However, prosecuting hate crimes is difficult. Tackling filthy ideologies requires specialized training and expertise.
Prosecutors must consult experts, analyze the legal codex and present compelling arguments, all while juggling an enormous number of cases. It is unrealistic to expect prosecutors to master the vocabulary, codes, and behaviors underlying hate crimes in all their complexity.
This is why it would be appropriate to appoint prosecutors specially trained to handle cases of hate incidents and crimes who would, thanks to their training, have in-depth knowledge of the laws relating to hatred and propaganda, to define hatred and its manifestations, and to understand the extent to which these crimes devastate communities. In particular, anti-Semitism, due to its unique complexities, requires an in-depth understanding that can be acquired through proper training.
These dedicated, specially trained prosecutors could confidently lay appropriate charges and recommend sentences with effective conditions to prevent further offenses and rehabilitate offenders.
As a community that experiences the highest number of religiously motivated hate incidents, Jews know firsthand that combatting anti-Semitism requires an understanding of all its nuances. However, if those responsible for delivering justice are unaware of the tools available to them, errors or questionable choices like in this case will persist.
Quebec is a free society supported by a strong judicial system. Appropriate criminal charges are being brought against people like Sohier-Chaput who threaten our social cohesion. With specialized training, prosecutors and others in the justice system can, to the fullest extent of the law, hold accountable those who seek to tear our society apart, and ensure that the values we hold dear are protected.