Hate words launch the sticks and stones Courtesy The Globe & Mail by Herbert Lefcourt Thursday, June 3, 2004 - The Globe & Mail, Page A21 Last month, author-lawyer Howard Rotberg was prevented from delivering a presentation of his new novel, The Second Catastrophe, at the Waterloo, Ont., branch of Chapters bookstores. Two men, who identified themselves as being of Middle Eastern background, interrupted his talk with rhetorical questions concerning terrorism in the Mideast. When asked to allow the author to continue his presentation, one shouted that Mr. Rotberg was a "f---ing Jew." Though the police were called, the two men were not charged, despite having disrupted a public event. If this were a singular event involving distraught or deviant persons, it would not be as disturbing as it was, given the host of like events that have been occurring across Canada. The Montreal arson that destroyed a Jewish school library, the vandalism in Toronto, the toppling of gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Waterloo all have occurred at a time when anti-Semitism has once again resurfaced, most pronouncedly in Europe and the Middle East. While it is gratifying that in Montreal and Toronto, suspects have been apprehended and charged, it is disturbing that the two men who interfered with the presentation at Chapters were not charged. It would seem that as long as the offence remains in the verbal, as opposed to the physical realm, legal redress is not sought. In Britain, a similar distinction between verbal and behavioural expressions of hatred had been drawn, such that fundamentalist Islamist clerics were allowed to deliver public speeches inciting hatred for democratic institutions, the United States and Israel. Had they not been found to also have been in the business of recruiting suicide bombers, they would probably have been left to continue their public vilifications of Western democratic and secular societies. This is a mistake often made by democratic societies, whose credos about protecting the freedom of speech lead them to dismiss the importance of verbal, as opposed to physical, abuse. This is unfortunate -- because verbal abuse often becomes the prelude to more aggressive forms of action. Philip Zimbardo, a prominent social psychologist whose research concerning sadism among jail guards has been used to interpret the U.S. prison scandal in Iraq, conducted other research, also with a dramatic flare, that pertains to the consequences of "getting away with malfeasance." Mr. Zimbardo placed a vehicle on the streets of Manhattan within view of a video camera that he installed in an apartment high above where the car was parked. The automobile was left with its hood open, as if it were disabled in some way, and Mr. Zimbardo recorded the behaviour of passersby who walked along the sidewalk where the car was parked. Initially, there were no untoward occurrences, though people did glance at the assumed disabled vehicle. The action began when one person, glancing around to see if anyone was observing, furtively approached the car and removed its battery. Following that action, others subsequently proceeded, with caution, to remove things from under the hood. When it seemed apparent from the evident damage that the car was "not being protected," vandalism progressed rapidly, the cabin of the car being jimmied open and its insides gutted. Finally, the car was subjected to wholesale wanton destruction by teenagers who broke its windows and smashed its lights, etc. All of this action was recorded on the hidden video camera in the window of Mr. Zimbardo's apartment. As he noted, the perpetrators varied in appearance, some looking respectable and middle-class, others seeming unkempt, suspicious and derelict. What they all had in common, however, was their assessment that they were not apt to be apprehended. The belief that no one was watching or taking care of this vehicle made it open season for vandals to do as they wished. It is research such as this that no doubt influenced New York's former mayor, Rudy Giuliani, to severely prohibit small infractions, believing that permissiveness for small infractions by vandals and predators encourages more of the same -- and worse. Sensing that they could be caught, perpetrators were thought to become more chary about their actions, refraining from malfeasance that could result in arrest. The wild rampage of looting and theft in Iraq was no doubt due to the perceived absence of policing by the U.S. forces and, therefore, the low probability of being caught and punished. Canada is blessed in having strong commitments to democratic principles. People who bring their grievances here from other, less happy parts of the world must understand that interference with public proceedings will not be allowed; that their rights are the same as others, that they may write, hold public meetings and so on -- but they are not at liberty to physically or verbally abuse others who have assembled for their own purposes. When people are allowed to create public disturbances, interfering with others' right to free assembly and speech, they should be apprehended. Otherwise, like the car in Mr. Zimbardo's experiment, the nature of the offences can escalate to horrendous levels. Dr. Herbert Lefcourt is emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo.