The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, December 10, 2006
You cannot maintain equal rights for all while granting special rights to some
To do or act otherwise, i.e.- to grant rights to residents of one or more provinces and not to all (see CWB discussion on SDA), to make special provisions in the law for assaults on gays by straights but not for assaults on straights by gays, or to make legal findings in divorce or separation cases based solely on gender and not the law, breaks one of the most basic tenets of democracy. To speak or write otherwise is to indulge in falsehoods. I for one am not completely satisfied with the semantics used to justify the recognition of a “Nation” within Canada as opposed to the “Nation” of Canada. It teeters perilously close to breaking the dictum of my title.
Do not allow the gLibs or No Democracy Party, while using "Special Rights" ploys, to get away with claiming they uphold the most basic democratic principle of equal rights for all.
Posted by Bob Wood on December 10, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You cannot maintain equal rights for all while granting special rights to some:
I agree that that "nation" business was silly, at best, and destructive, at worst. I also agree that divorce law must be neutral with regard to gender. But hate crimes are arguably different.
The law takes into account intent in many ways already. If I kill someone, it can be murder if I intended to do so, manslaughter if I did not intend it but it resulted anyway, and it can be non criminal if I believed that my life was in danger. What I was thinking matters in deciding if a crime was committed and, if so, how bad a crime it was.
Hate crime legislation attempts to include one such consideration. If a white person kills someone who happens to be black it is different from a white person killing a black person *because* the person is black. Just as in the previous paragraph the examples show that not all killings are equal, we might reasonably think that when bigotry is the motive, it makes a difference in the seriousness of the crime. The relevant question, then, is not were the killer and the killed of different races or genders or religions or sexual orientations. The relevant question is whether, when there are such differences between the killer and the killed, it was the *reason* for the killing. If so, then we can call it a hate crime and treat it differently because it *is* different.
This means that straights can kill gays and sometimes it is a hate crime, sometimes not. It also means that gays can kill straights and sometimes it is a hate crime, sometimes not. Same goes with men killing women, women killing men, blacks killing whites, whites killing blacks, etc. So we can allow for some crimes to be considered hate crimes and thus more serious *without* giving *anyone* "special" rights. We all have a particular race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. All of us. If anyone kills us *because* of any of those characteristics, then it can be treated as a hate crime. That means we all are equally protected and equally considered.
If the law were allowing some murders of gays by straights to be called hate crimes but never allowed the possibility that a murder of a straight by a gay could also be a hate crime, then that would be a problem. But I don't think the law does that. There are, at least, no cases I know of where a gay person murdered a straight person because of the latter's sexual orientation, so perhaps it has just never come up as an issue.
But supporting treating hate crimes more seriously than non-hate crimes does not mean having to believe that anyone has "special" rights. We all are (or should be) equally protected against hate crimes.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-12-10 5:09:37 PM
Animal Farm Politics: A Fairy Tale
By Stephen Gray
There was much commotion on the Political Animal Farm. The present leader of the animal farm government; Top Dog had proposed a motion about re-visiting same-sex marriages and it was to be voted on by all the animals. Same-sex marriages amongst the animals had been “legal” for some time now, after a “right” was invented under the Barnyard Charter. Now, the animals were all set to vote on the motion.
"That this Barnyard call on the animal government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage on the farm without affecting animal civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages in the animal Barnyard"
First up to speak was: The Jackass whose supporters were a minority on the Political Animal Farm. He had all his animal supporters whipped into line and they all brayed, barked, bellowed, shrieked and hissed their support for animal same-sex marriages. “This was all about equality brayed, The Jackass and tolerance of our way of life on this animal farm. Equality should never have to be voted on. This is a Barnyard Charter right.”
Next up was: Dodo Bird, the new leader of a bunch of rats, reptiles, pigs and snakes and other animals who had once ruled the political animal farm. He was also a supporter of the Barnyard Charter and he said: “Dis Barnyard Charter is sacred to all de animals and no way should it be undermined by voting against dis “right” of de animals on de same sex marriage on de animal farm.” On hearing this his animal supporters burst into farmyard applause with much fluttering of wings, barks of delight from the dogs, grunts from the pigs and shrill noises of joy from his female animal contingent.
Then it was: Gilly the Foxy hound’s turn. He was the leader of another group of animals on the farm. He got up on his hind legs and stated his thoughts on this important farm matter. “We, as animals in this Block of animals that wish to separate from this political animal farm, wholeheartedly agree that animal same-sex marriages are a “right” under the Barnyard Charter,” he stated importantly. “Furthermore,” he barked in doggy language. “I am pleased to know that our Block votes on this matter will stand after we have separated from the Political Animal Farm. As you know this matter would never have passed the first time, if it had not been for the Block animals votes. Therefore, I hope all you animals will all say to us: “Merci Beaucoup for a job well done on this Political Animal Farm, which we will be leaving soon after the next referendum, for a farm of our own.”
Finally; Top Dog, the leader of the Political Animal Farm, got up to speak and said: “Thanks must go, to all you animals of all political views and all shapes and sizes, the dogs, the cats, the snakes ,the pigs and all the other animals who participated in animal democracy today. As you all know, I promised to bring this matter up to appease some of my supporters who I depend on for votes, to keep me as leader of the Political Animal Farm. Now I can say, promise made promise kept, now we can move on, I’ve done my best. This motion was written to satisfy all the animals on the Political Animal Farm. There was something for everybody in it. Democracy has been done in here today. Nothing has changed as regards animal same-sex marriages, so we can all relax in the Barnyard, knowing we have done our duty to the Political Animal Farm and that this matter has now been put behind us. Did I make a pun, surely not?”( Much noisy applause was heard from the assembled animals.)
Then some of the animals got up on their hind legs, the birds fluttered their wings, the asses stomped approval, the pigs grunted, the cocks crowed, the jackasses brayed and the dogs barked, then they all got together and sang the Animal Farm National Anthem. Which was only two lines, sung over and over again. “Manure is perfume on the political Animal Farm. The Barnyard Charter makes things happen.”
Meanwhile, the owners of the Political Animal Farm hearing all the noise and the stench of manure emanating from their property started wondering if the time had come to shut the place down. The animals were out of control and pollution was rampant in the foul smelling barnyard. But, these animals were a protected species and therefore they would continue to pollute and foul the land until the owners rebelled and said: “Enough of this political animal farm B.S.”
Note: Any political resemblance to any farm animals alive or dead is only a coincidence. This is only a fairy tale.
December 7, 2006.
[email protected] website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-12-10 5:09:51 PM
"All men are pigs."
by SOW (every other press release)
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-10 5:12:01 PM
Your homework assignment tonight is to find cases where blacks were found guilty of "hate crimes" against whites, gays were found guilty of "hate crimes" against straights, and women were found guilty of "hate crimes" against men.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-10 5:17:10 PM
WaterFreezingPointDog wrote: "Your homework assignment tonight is...."
No, YOUR homework assignment is to find any cases where (a) a black killed a white *because* the person was white OR a gay killed a straight *because* the person was straight OR a woman killed a man *because* he is a man; (b) where the aforementioned crime happened in since hate crime legislation was passed; and (c) the crime was not treated as a hate crime.
If you can do that, I will post a reply saying that I agree that justice was not served in that case and that there is a problem with how hate crime legislation is being implemented. But even if you can find a case that meets the criteria listed - or even if you find a hundred that do - it won't change my view that hate crime legislation *ought* to cut both ways, and thus hate crime laws can (and should) be the law of the land.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-12-10 5:24:58 PM
I totally disagree with M.L. As he stated we already had laws which dealt with the difference between murder and man slaughter. The only reason for 'hate laws' is to accord special status to a particular group. I oppose such special status for any and every group, which is why I also am strongly against affirmative action/employment equity/diversity (all the same with only a name change). The same goes for school quotas. The job or school needs to go to the best qualified person, regardless of sex, colour or creed.
Yes, I disagree also with the notion of 'nation' for Québec, but we cannot solely put the blame on the PM. Beginning in the 60's every government, federal and Québec, has proceeded to grant Québec special status in one shape or another. I have always disagreed with this, and of course we reap the results today - the on-going threat of separation. This is why I favoured the Reform Party policy.
Perhaps it is time to grant the other provinces, which want it, the same rights that have been granted to Québec in order to end this special status. If Québec wishes to separate (evidence indicates otherwise), then so be it. It would be better for all parties in the end instead of the present situation of on-going blackmail from one province.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-12-10 5:26:58 PM
You are a great big wind bag.
You completely don't understand What Bob Wood is trying to state.
The Left never stops saying "equality" "inclusion" and all that crap. Yet they love the special status shit that's going around more and more. That is not equality it's pandering.
I don't want to be equal to most other Canadians or many immigrants not to mention the anal sex gang with their special place in our great Nation of Nations. I want to be and do better than that. I don't need tribunals or governments or twits like Mark Logan telling me the hows and whys of how I am or am not treated and what my rights should be.
I would much prefer an open market on how each is treated. That would force many individuals to behave better and work to earn the respect, admiration or fondness of others.
You cannot legislate decency, morality or behavior. But you can set the conditions for it to make it's own adjustments by popular demand.
We seem to now rely on a big bag of so-called rights. I am always skeptical of anyone saying "we have a right to whatever" Where are all these rights coming from and who is guaranteeing them? I can tell you. Most of those petty right are not written anywhere and the more they say those words the less important they are.
Wronged by our rights
Theodore Dalrymple says that so-called human rights drive out kindness, decency, tolerance and all sense of mutual obligation People who stand on their rights are seldom much concerned with the rights of others. There is no logical reason why this should be so, but it is a fact of human psychology. ‘It’s my right!’ is a call not of freedom, but of egotism.
Read the rest of this brief piece here
Posted by: Duke | 2006-12-10 5:35:16 PM
"No, YOUR homework assignment is to find any cases where (a) a black killed a white *because* the person was white OR a gay killed a straight *because* the person was straight OR a woman killed a man *because* he is a man; (b) where the aforementioned crime happened in since hate crime legislation was passed; and (c) the crime was not treated as a hate crime."
I can't. I concede that there are no cases.
I concede that only whites kills blacks because they are black. Only straights kill gays because they are gay. Only men kill women because they are women.
It must be true. I can't find evidence of the reverse and you don't seem to be willing to look, either.
Hate crime legislation must be working as desired.
Of course, I haven't figured out how we could all be so equal except for this statistic. Must be clerical error.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-10 5:51:04 PM
I suggest the whole system of rights was put together in order to let rules and formulas decide in any case. Just like a game.
But humans have an intelligence and should use it. Now the judges play a game instead of using their intelligence.
Students play a game. They learn very fast how to circumvent the rules. For example, some thugs tore away the crest on my car. When I asked the police, the policeman said there would be no investigation.
I asked the policeman if he knew youngsters who had car crests on their coats. He said yes. I asked him did you talk to them? He said yes. I asked why don't you do anything? I can't!
So yuoung thugs learned the lesson. It's OK because police doesn't care.
It cost me $200. but who cares? Next time what will they steal?
I consider that my breathing is not a right but a privilege that God gives me.
The whole business of rights is a scam intended to transform and destroy our society.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-10 6:48:03 PM
Gee, and here I thought all these years that ALL murders/assaults/rapes/robberies were "hate" crimes. Must of missed something along the way. But hey, liberal semantics can do that to you sometimes.
Perhaps Logan et al could point a crime that didn't involve "hate"? DUH
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-10 8:43:15 PM
"Christopher Yates (White) a computer data inputter from Barking, East London, who was murdered in November by a gang of three Asian Muslims.Despite the fact that credible witnesses testified to the fact that these men had boasted that, “We have killed the White man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business”, the murder, for which a conviction was secured, was deemed not to have been racist."
Posted by: DJ | 2006-12-10 9:14:16 PM
Gee, Harry, maybe you (and Bob and Duke and all the other know-nothings who've posted on this topic) would like to trot off to the criminal code and actually read, s718.2(a)(i), the section in question. I know that might actually require reading and thinking and so on, which I understand is a real pain when you've got the certainty of the rock-ribbed conservative, but should you choose to extend yourself in this way, you'll notice that the section in question instructs judges, in passing sentence, to take into consideration
"(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."
Now, if you care to think about how this might apply (I know it's heavy lifting, thinking and all, but try to keep up) you'd see that this will generally come into play when sentencing people for crimes that are, but for fact that the victim possessed certain characteristics, essentially random. Now, maybe you think that random attacks should be treated just the same as beefs that arise between people who know and don't like one another, but I would suggest that most reasonable people, including most conservatives with brains, think those who randomly attack strangers simply because they don't like the group they belong to pose a much greater threat to the social order , seeing as they strike fear into the targetted group (which is, of course, the purpose of such attacks) and more severely undermine the rule of law than your garden variety dust-up.
You might also note that "sexual orientation" is a term of a general nature, such that the section would apply to gangs of homosexual men who cruise the streets looking to straight couples to beat up -- "breeder bashing" if you will -- in the event that should that actually happen. (h20 is apparently digging up evidence as we speak.) You might also note that the section creates no special rights or stand-alone crimes, but merely provides guidance to judges as to what evidence they should consider when passing sentence, along with factors such as whether this crime involves a spouse, or abuse of a position of trust, or an minor victim or terrorism.
All that, of course, would require a little more effort than simply typing "DUH". But then, if "DUH" is such an essential part of your rhetorical repertoire (perhaps because you use it so often in real life) then I guess I can see why you might prefer that approach. After all, there's a certain grandeur to ignorance when you put real effort into it, as you gentlemen have done.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-10 9:17:17 PM
Minor insults aside (sorry, don’t play that game) you would have to agree that the criminal code (DUH) has re-defined “hate” to political lingo? Thought so.
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."
So now we have a “tiered” justice system that panders to certain identifiable groups? So all those (if there are any) that don’t fall into that group are the victims of a lesser crime? I see you adhere to the term “equal justice for all”.
One last point. Your feeble exercise at insults say more about you that they do your intended target.
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-10 9:36:50 PM
Harry: 'Perhaps Logan et al could point a crime that didn't involve "hate"? DUH'
Most robberies do not involve hate. The robber wants money or something else of value. The motive is not hatred of the victim, but greed plus indifference to the victim's well-being. As far as murders go, the Leopold and Loeb case is a famous example of people who murdered without hating their victim. They merely were sociopaths who wanted to prove how clever they were by being able to kill and get away with it.
But further, there is a difference between killing because you hate the particular person you kill and killing when you know nothing about the victim except that he or she belongs to some group you hate. Just as some murders are acts of terrorism, and thus worse acts than murders that are not acts of terrorism, some murders are hate crimes in that they target people for their race, sex, religion, etc. Crimes of terror should be treated as more serious than crimes not of terror. Similarly, hate crimes should be treated as more serious than non-hate crimes.
Excellent find! (see, WaterFreezingPointDog, you could have found cases if you really tried!) But you did not quote the most relevant line. It reads: "Home office data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 24 out of 58 racist murder victims have been White." So it seems almost half of race-based hate crime victims in the UK are white. That UK justice does not recognize this fact in how these cases are tried and punished is both disappointing and wrong.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-12-10 9:50:27 PM
I hear what you are saying but it simply applies to the altered definition of the word.
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy
Now one would need a sense of at least ONE of these emotions to commit a crime, correct? So HOW could anyone commit a crime against another without displaying one of these emotions? Antipathy being the operative word for you analogy of Leopold and Loeb. Hate is not simply a word to describe a dislike, it has other meanings.
I spent 30 years applying the sections of the criminal code and have never seen a crime that didn’t involve hate in one way or another.
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-10 10:03:05 PM
Gee, Harry, how about I tell you what part of your post I agree with? Since I agree with none of it.
Having read the section, you show no evidence of having made any effort to understand it. Because it you did make the effort, you wouldn't say something as inane as this:
So now we have a “tiered” justice system that panders to certain identifiable groups? So all those (if there are any) that don’t fall into that group are the victims of a lesser crime?
No, we punish people more severely when there's evidence -- and you best believe there has to be evidence -- that their attack targetted a member of a group simply because that person was a member of a group. It doesn't you get punished more if you beat up a gay person or a black person or an Indian person. It says if you went out looking for a person from a group -- and by the terms of the section, the group could be white people or black people or straight people or Catholics or handicapped people -- to commit a crime against, you'll be punished more severely than if you just got into a beef with some other asshole (even one from one of those groups) who looked at you the wrong way, cussed out your mama or did something else that has led people to commit crimes from time immemorial.
If you had actually read the section, you would understand is simply a factor to consider in passing sentenced. This doesn't change the nature of the crime or make those who get beat up for other reasons victims of a "lesser crime". It takes into account the motive of the crime, which is an entirely relevant matter for a judge to consider, along with all the other aggravating and mitigating factors set out in s.718, in setting an appropriate sentence.
There are, of course, certain groups who do get special protection: spouses and minors. How come I don't hear you hollering how unjust it is that men who beat up their girlfriends get off easier than those who do the same thing to their spouse or kid?
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-10 10:04:46 PM
Harry: 'So now we have a “tiered” justice system that panders to certain identifiable groups? So all those (if there are any) that don’t fall into that group are the victims of a lesser crime?'
The parenthetical is the important phrase. There is no one who fails to fall into these categories. The legislation says that if racial prejudice was a motive, it's a hate crime. So anyone with a race could be such a victim. That's all of us. The legislation says that if prejudice based on ethnic or national origin was a motive, it's a hate crime. So anyone with an ethnicity or a national origin could be such a victim. That's all of us. The legislation says that if prejudice based on sexual orientation was a motive, it's a hate crime. So anyone with a sexual orientation could be such a victim. That's all of us. The legislation says that if prejudice based on age was a motive, it's a hate crime. So anyone with an age could be such a victim. That's all of us.
Now do you understand?
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-12-10 10:04:51 PM
Please read this again and see if you can spot the salient point.
"Your homework assignment tonight is to find cases where blacks were found guilty of "hate crimes" against whites, ..."
I have no idea what you are talking about. What evidence am I researching? [Please note the courteous request for clarification.]
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-10 10:11:15 PM
“Now do you understand?”
No need to pander. I have intimate knowledge of how the “hate crime” section of the code is applied and need not be lectured by those that “think” they know the legislation. One thing you people have in common is the idea that you have some sort of infinite wisdom of how things work.
I have processed hundreds of occurrences over the years of “hate crimes” involving black and Asian gangs that beset upon white males and females. Each and every occurrence was declined as a “hate crime” and “re-branded” an assault or robbery. This piece of legislation was meant to do nothing but curry votes from those groups that feed on being oppressed.
I find it very amusing that you sit and preach about what the legislation is “meant” to do rather than what it actually does do. Like the song says, “walk a mile in my shoes.” Once you’ve accomplished that, we can have a reasonable discussion.
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-10 10:25:40 PM
"I find it very amusing that you sit and preach about what the legislation is “meant” to do rather than what it actually does do. "
I was wondering if anyone else saw that. Well said.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-10 10:29:27 PM
Thanks H2, always enjoy your posts. It is a chore bringing the light to those in darkness.
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-10 10:56:29 PM
Harry: 3; Truewest: 0.
By the way, folks, don't forget that Sir Winston said: "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-12-10 11:34:50 PM
I'm curious how you " processed" hundreds of occurrences over the years ? s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Code is not laid as a charge. It is a section that the prosecution can raise at sentencing if it feels it can prove the crime was " motivated" by hate. It is "meant" to deter hate crimes not to deter hateful people from committing crime ( that's already covered elsewhere in the code ).
A - If you beat the crap outta someone for parking in "your spot" you might get 30 days
B- If you beat the crap outta someone for parking in " your spot " and he's gay and you yell a bunch of slurs at him you might get 45 days - not because of 718.2 but because the assault was worse - fists as well as words were used to injure.
C -If you beat the crap outta someone just because he's gay ( perhaps to deter gay people from parking in your parking lot ) then 718.2 comes in to play and you might get 90 days.
I see files all the time where the police have recommended that "B" type crimes be prosecuted with s 718.2 in mind. They are declined by the prosecution because they are not what the section envisions. Parliament has taken a highly unique and rare course by making the prosecution prove the actual motive for the crime. That establishes a very high threshold that separates hate crimes ( C) from regular crime hatefully done (B).
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-12-10 11:51:31 PM
LOL…. No, it’s not a charge but it’s a “label” that must be branded on every occurrence where the investigating officer BELIEVES that a “hate crime” has been perpetrated.
Once that occurrence has been taken to the OIC (Officer in Charge) to be signed off, it is sent to headquarters to be processed. The designation of that “occurrence” is defined by the powers that be it’s sent for processing and then off to the planning department.. Answer your question? Or were you looking for something a little more incriminating? All this info is available to you local department folks!
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-11 12:09:02 AM
And might I add.... How do you seperate hate crimes from regular crimes? Climb inside my mind Clyne?
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-11 12:21:10 AM
"Home office data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 24 out of 58 racist murder victims have been White." So it seems almost half of race-based hate crime victims in the UK are white. That UK justice does not recognize this fact in how these cases are tried and punished is both disappointing and wrong."
From the BBC:
"The most recent analysis shows that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities (BME) said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. In the same period, 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim.
Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims. Among whites, the number was 77,000.
Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME. Among the white population it was 20,000."
What these figures show is that the 10% of the population that is non-white commits over 50% of all race crime, over 60% of violent race crime and over 80% of race crime involving wounding.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-12-11 12:56:07 AM
Uhhhhh, Bob? That is one of the worse segues I've ever seen. You complain about the nation resolution and then conclude that we shouldn't let the gLibs or NDP get away with "special rights ploys."
Did you forget that it wasn't the gLibs or the No Democratic Party that pushed forward the "nation" resolution? It was Harper. It was Harper who proposed it without even discussing it with his own Inter-Govermental Affairs Minister, who subsequently resigned. It was Harper who proposed it without asking for any input from voters. It was Harper who has still never defined what he means by "nation". Anyone else see Lawrence Cannon's confused answer? It doesn't include everyone in the Province, but it doesn't exclude anyone in the Province. Uh, okay.
Why does he get a free pass on this disastrous policy?
Why is he getting a free pass on spending 85 million taxpayer dollars (and counting -- they refuse to release the full cost) to rescue folks in Lebannon, despite the fact that the government's own policy states that they are to charge the folks being rescued and not taxpayers?
Why is he getting a free pass on a 300 million dollar (har har) environmental toxins programme that, apparently, marks the end of the Tory committment to tax-based incentives and voluntary regulations?
The guy is a gLiberal in sheep's clothing. The sooner we stop giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, the sooner he will stop pandering to gLiberal voters.
Posted by: terrybrad | 2006-12-11 1:38:40 AM
Everyone on this post seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and gay sex. Is it just me, or is Stephane Dion looking more and more like the next Prime Minister of Canada?
He is talking about equality rights under the Charter, and we're back in the dark ages, bickering amongst ourselves about how much jail time we'd serve for beating up a gay man.
Let's all be big boys and girls, admit that we lost, and move on.
Posted by: Steve | 2006-12-11 1:54:45 AM
Yeas. We lost. So it's a game, right?
Justice is not a game. We have to rewind until we get before Trudeau. Then do things the right way.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-11 6:56:36 AM
Now we have "words that injure”. Does it get any crazier? Just another way of suppressing freedom of expression. Does anyone else realize what this crazy political experiment has done to our freedoms?
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-11 8:03:55 AM
The poor hate the rich and always have, yet they line up week after week buying lottery tickets with a fervent desire to join them. Explain that please?
Slicing and dicing the law as it is applied to the great mosaic is a waste of time. Trying to out-smart and out-research one another is about ego and little else. Our society had it's cherry popped by Trudeau and bleeding has not yet stopped.
It is a typical leftist trait to bring so much sophistry to any debate that point gets lost and the process becomes the goal.
Servant: "Sir Duke ... the peasants are revolting!
Sir Duke: "They certainly are my good man"
Posted by: Duke | 2006-12-11 8:53:52 AM
I'm guessing from your posts that you're a cop. And while I don't doubt that you've ticked the "hate crime" box while filling out reports of crimes in which you "believe" there was a racial motive, that is hardly the end of the story. The key word in the section is "evidence" and, as you note, it is often difficult to gather evidence of hate in most crimes. (Although if you're caught spraying-painting "Death to the Jews" across the window of a store owned someone Jewish, chances are the judge is going to get a primer on 718.2)
In Vancouver, a man named Aaron Webster was beaten to death by a gang of assailants at a gay cruising area in Stanley Park. In the view of most people -- and certainly, in the view of the gay community -- this was a clear cut and obvious hate crime, but the lack of any evidence to support that belief prevented the Crown from raising the issue on sentencing. Of course, the perpetrators still went to jail.
Incidentally, according to Toronto police statistics from 2002, religious groups are victims as often as racial groups, with Jews leading the way in the former category and among groups generally. Among racial groups, blacks are the most frequently targetted, although whites come second.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-11 9:21:57 AM
Well I'm going to stick my 2c in here. First let me say that I completely disagree with Mark Logan. I don't see a moral difference between someone who kills me because I'm gay and someone who kills me because he wants my watch. The intent and action are the same in either case. And the law should treat them the same.
The difference between murder and manslaughter on the other hand is one of intent and that is why they are treated differently. So Mark's comparison isn't really valid.
That being said, hate crime laws didn’t just appear out of a vacuum and the assertion that they are an attempt to create a special status is also incorrect. I think they are more appropriately viewed as a (flawed) attempt to correct an existing problem with how our current laws are enforced.
I refer you all to this interesting article on the "Gay Panic Defense":
"the gay panic defense is not usually successful in winning an outright acquittal, but it often leads to convictions on lesser charges, according to information presented at the symposium."
So in my ideal world we wouldn't have hate crime laws (or even hate speech laws). But at the same time when four young men get out their golf clubs and baseball bats and hunt down some fag in Vancouver and beat him to death they get charged and convicted of murder rather than just manslaughter. But then I don't live in an ideal world. And neither do all of you.
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-11 10:10:25 AM
Is anyone else here troubled by the intense hypocrisy of this debate?Hate based on race,religion and sex-orientation,yadda,yadda,yadda.
Nobody seems willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
I find the political blpgosphere to be a particularly deep cauldron of hatred and incitement to hate others based on their political affiliation....at least the intensity of that hate seems 'equal' between the right and the left.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-12-11 12:00:25 PM
I usually don’t respond the individuals that resort to insults rather than reasonable debate but I’ll make an exception in your case.
The case that you make of the gay man being murdered was a terrible cowardly act. But more terrible and cowardly had they picked out a victim randomly? I would suggest the later is more indicative of a true hateful individual as there is no motive whatsoever.
You make the mistake of thinking that when an officer investigates a “hate” crime, he simply checks a box on the report and nothing could be further from the truth. Take a look at the procedures in Toronto and there are numerous steps that must be taken that differ from a normal investigation including a team of detectives assigned immediately to the case. These resources aren’t available for all those poor victims that don’t fall into one of those “groups”.
This piece of legislation does nothing more than pander to those that feed off the “victim industry”. White males fall victim to serious violent crime at a rate that far exceeds any of these groups so you would have to explain why there is no legislation giving them “special status”.
In any event, I’m done with this thread so feel free to wonder off and insult others that don’t share your perfect ideology.
Posted by: Harry | 2006-12-11 1:06:44 PM
Travis: "I don't see a moral difference between someone who kills me because I'm gay and someone who kills me because he wants my watch. The intent and action are the same in either case. And the law should treat them the same. The difference between murder and manslaughter on the other hand is one of intent and that is why they are treated differently. So Mark's comparison isn't really valid."
Your position is certainly a legitimate one, but I still disagree. While you are right that murder and manslaughter are differentiated by intent (and, in fairness to you, that was my example), but not all murders are treated the same. Quoting from a government website ( http://canada-justice.ca/en/ps/voc/guide/sec_m.html ): "In Canada, murder is either first or second degree. Persons convicted of either one must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Generally, persons convicted of first-degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served at least 25 years of their sentence. Persons convicted of second degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served between 10 and 25 years, as determined by the courts."
So when one premeditates a murder it is treated differently from when the murder is more spur of the moment. In both cases there is the same intent and the same action, but in one the decision to murder was further in time from the act than the other. Hate crime laws also make a distinction in severity of the offence, even though the action and intent is the same, but this is nothing new.
As I said before, terrorist crimes are also ones that can be the same in action and intent as non terrorist crimes, and it seems reasonable to think that when terror is the motive that it is a worse crime. But I understand why others might disagree. I agree with you anyway about hate speach. But that's because I'm a "sticks and stones..."kinda guy :)
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-12-11 1:47:43 PM
During the last round of riots in LA, (after the Rodney King incident), I watched a news clip of some very gleeful young black men hit a white truck driver in the head with a big chunk of brick. If I remember correctly they were charged and convicted of common assault, not hate crimes.
That man survived by nothing less than a miracle, but a few others didn't. Maybe it isn't a hate crime if you can somehow prove that your hatred is deserved.
Posted by: dan | 2006-12-11 3:06:17 PM
My whole point in this post was to root out those who really do not believe in democracy but prefer a political system that can be tilted in a direction that favours themselves. There seems to be a colossal arrogance in this country among those on the left in that they consider themselves an elite and the only ones capable of governing. As members of that self chosen elite they deem themselves entitled to rights and priveleges that should not be made available to those who have disqualified themselves by embracing beliefs that they do not share. As pointed out early in the comment string that sounds exactly like George Orwell's (himself an ardent socialist) "Animal Farm". It was a warning to other socialists of his time that such an outcome was highly likely. Only vigilance by we much reviled conservatives and Conservatives will forestall this happening.
Posted by: BobWood | 2006-12-11 3:11:04 PM
You mean to say those on the left are not more equal than others?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-11 3:40:48 PM
It's been a few years since I read Animal Farm but I was of the opinion that G.O. used the pigs to represent liberals who become conservative when they reach a higher social standing.
Posted by: dan | 2006-12-11 3:48:58 PM
As soon as I wrote that I realized that I had substituted liberal for socialist, and conservative for capitalist. Was that a Freudian slip, or are the two really interchangable?
Posted by: dan | 2006-12-11 3:54:49 PM
What is wrong in having a gvt that "favor yourself"...your familly, your citizens, your preocupations ?
Don't you wish for a gvt that reprensent the people ?
Posted by: Marc | 2006-12-11 3:58:31 PM
Set You Free,
In my view, it appears that Mr Wood says that leftists are pigs. Well, they certainly have made certain that their own have been feedin in the tough, more so than anyone else. And when it came to those who lead our nation to freedom, those liebrals ensured that the money that was intended to be for our nations's unity was squandered on adscam, with hundreds of millions gone without an ounce of accountability!
If Mr Wood did say that Liebrals are more equal that all other Canadians, and that that is how Liebrals actually do practice what they preach, then I have to agree with Bob.
Especially since Liebrals have used the Jewish vote, and volunteers, and then tossed the Jewish issue down the verbatumn toilet!
And if the NDPers think they are out of this, well, they are doubly shamed, with taliban jack never once making a strong statement in support of the Jewish people, who have been brutally attacked, by these criminals called the terrorists. I know of two specific NDPers who were asked to make a positive stand against the terror being perpetrated against the Jewish people, and they DID NOTHING!
Then, they came out with this stuff about Israel's nuclear program. You know, there has been tens of thousands of examples of this terror against the Jewish people, and not one bit of evidence that their are nuclear weapons in Israel, and yet that IS what the NDP harp about!
So, Liebrals and NDPers, well, they are ALL the same to me. A bunch of no good loser terrorist supporting scum.
Perhaps now, Mr rae will wake up and realize what sort of losers he has been hanging out with. And, hopefully he will do so soon, while the memory of the insult they so hurled at him and his wife, about her Jewishness, is still in recent memory!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-11 6:05:08 PM
And further to that, folks who look at actions, as though the action is all that is necessary to view, without the intent, is silly. The UN itself recognizes that the state is the only authority that has the right to do violence within its borders. If therefore, doing the work of the state, and in respect to the human rights, someone is killed, then the intent matters. If a policeman kills a person in the line of duty, while defending themself, then although the act was one which resulted in the death of another, it is not murder.
If the weapon went off as an accidental discharge, without any provokation, then one could maybe come up with a manslaughter charge, if it could be proven that the weapon went off as a result of something the officer did not do to maintain the weapon.
But if the weapon went off on an accidental discharge, and had been well maintained, and someone was killed in the process and there was no intent, then it is an accident. We do not charge every single person who kills someone with their car, with murder, when in fact a death may have resulted from contact with the car. What is the difference between the car hitting someone. The wheel and the foot peddle is not any different from the trigger and the bullet if in fact someone dies. The difference though is in the intent. If someone is driving down the road, and someone jumps in front of the car, and they are killed, and there is no way that it coud have ben stopped, then it is an accident, and not murder, and not manslaughter.
The same if the weapon goes off!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-11 6:12:07 PM
They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. And there's no excusing the ignorance of the law demonstrated by the posters here. The "hate crime" provision of our criminal code merely states that evidence of hatred or bias on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, is to be considered as an aggravating factor.
It doesn't create a new crime. It doesn't give "special status" to any groups. It doesn't make crimes involving traditional animosity between individuals somehow lesser offences, not does it convert manslaughter to murder. It merely recognizes that those criminals who attack people on the basis of their membership in a group cause more damage to the social fabric and do more harm that those who commit crimes against particular individuals and therefore should be punished more harshly.
For those who figure this is some radical concept or that it panders to minority groups, let me ask you this: if someone writes "Jewish Scum Go Back To Hell" across the wall of a synagogue, should they be punished the same for the crime of mischief as someone who writes "Kilroy was Here" across the wall of a business? And if so, why?
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-11 7:48:06 PM
You raise some interesting points.
"It merely recognizes that those criminals who attack people on the basis of their membership in a group cause more damage to the social fabric and do more harm that those who commit crimes against particular individuals and therefore should be punished more harshly."
And what happens when special interest groups and histrionic media attack people by pressuring authorities to attach hate crimes factors on the basis of their memebership in a group and downplay the involvement of members of other groups in possible hate crimes against the first group thereby doing more damage to the social fabric by creating at least the appearance of a double standard if not in fact?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-11 8:17:00 PM
Punctuation is a wonderful thing. You should try it some time.
Not that it would help. Your point, I think, is that groups that are targeted as groups - via gay-bashings, swastikas on synagogues, lynchings - \shouldn't ask the state to protect them against such attacks because that would make them a special interest group. And because if they do, then some knucklehead who figures that gangs of negroes roam the streets hunting white folk might scream "double=standard". After all, where the were the cops, where was the "hate crimes" law, when that guy he called "faggot" kicked his ass?
That sort of what you were getting at?
Guess, I'm not going to get an answer to the question, Is a person who spray-paints "Death to the Jews" on the wall of a synagogue worthy of the same punishment as someone who spray-paints his name on a fence. Or lets make is easier, someone who spray-paints his name on the wall of a synagogue?
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-11 8:45:15 PM
Not even close.
I am asking you to acknowledge that while hate crime laws exists based on intent of the perpetrator (ie. mind reading more or less) and not cold hard physical evidence, then there exists the possibility of power-political interference by various special interest groups.
Hence, the charge of double standard can be at least perceived by the community if not existing in fact. Is this not damaging to social cohesion?
And to answer your question, spray painting on someelse's property is the crime. The message is irrelevant. It should only be relevant as motive if a further criminal act followed...not to increase the penalty for the crime if convicted.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-11 8:52:38 PM
If there are people so dim that they can't tell the difference between spray-painting swastikas on synagogues and ordinary graffiti (both of which constitute, at least technically, mischief) and understand why one should receive a stiffer sentence than the other, then I hope they are not so plentiful as to cause a threat to the civil order when they start grumbling about "double standards". If they are that plentiful, well, we're probably doomed in any case.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-12-11 9:53:12 PM
Mr. Wood said:
"My whole point in this post was to root out those who really do not believe in democracy but prefer a political system that can be tilted in a direction that favours themselves . . ."
Why be so ridiculously partisan. A very quick look through the forums here reveal numerous conservatives "who really do not believe in democracy but prefer a political system that can be tilted in a direction that favours themselves."
As only one of many examples, here is a quote from "bcf":
"I believe democracy has been an interesting experiment, but I suspect that it has just about run its course. Democracy as we know it is on the retreat, and good bloody riddance. And we have the gall to tell the Chinese they need to be more like us? Yeah, like "Taliban" Jack, and Hedy Fry? Any political system in which Jack Layton has an equal voice to everyone else is one I am just not interested in playing along with."
From this thread:http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/12/why_harper_is_h.html#comments
Posted by: bob | 2006-12-12 3:44:11 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.