[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

So you've got your knickers in a knot because two different editors used different headlines? That's what all your fussing is about. Or as you said, is that all you have to offer?

Yes andy, it's only ever happened once before. I've never noticed the double standard any other time besides the two articles I posted.



It's a common theme with the way reporting works here in Ontario. My mother was a secretary at a United Church for 15 years (Retired in 2011) and it was "vandalized" almost annually. Windows smashed out, break in's where bibles were ripped and thrown into the toilets and spray paint around the outside.

Not even a blip on the radar for the "hate crime" junkies...but do the same thing to a temple or a mosque and damn, suddenly it's newsworthy! That's Toronto for ya.

[CanadianJeff]

You will forgive me when I say that not all mosque damage and not all united church damage is or should automatically be considered a hate crime.

You may have noticed in the articles you posted the police had NOT declared the mosque attack a hate crime. The story was that one group was calling for such action while the church break in WAS considered a hate crime.

A total and complete opposite of what your trying to claim is the case.

The only double standard at work here has an amazingly simple explanation. When a majority is attacked it's expected and commonplace. There will always be hate from disadvantaged groups towards those they deem responsible for their situation. However an attack on minority groups in a violent manner is not common.

The point of the news is to report unexploited or otherwise uncommon events. Thus the better coverage of the mosque. Problem solved.

[OnTheIce]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

You may have noticed in the articles you posted the police had NOT declared the mosque attack a hate crime. The story was that one group was calling for such action while the church break in WAS considered a hate crime.

A total and complete opposite of what your trying to claim is the case.

Point being, despite the facts of the situation, the headlines speak volumes. The one that is considered a hate crime is headlined as vandalism and the other a hate crime.

[CanadianJeff]

Actually I see the words hate crime in neither headline and the word vandal or vandalized in both.

"Group calls for probe of Gatineau mosque attack" Subtitle "vandals strike for 3rd time in 4 months."

The other article:

"Suspect sought after west end church vandalized"

So I'm afraid the headlines themselves say nothing of any "hate crime".

[andyt]

I'm not in favor of hate crime legislation. It's too much like thought crime. We already have laws against vandalism, assault/murder and incitement to violence. We don't need more laws here, and then we get the spectacle of groups competing about who deserves the label, as we see with OTI here.

Back to your original argument, OTI, burning a poppy would never qualify as a hate crime, because it doesn't represent an identifiable group as defined by the legislation.

[Gunnair]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Actually I see the words hate crime in neither headline and the word vandal or vandalized in both.

"Group calls for probe of Gatineau mosque attack" Subtitle "vandals strike for 3rd time in 4 months."

The other article:

"Suspect sought after west end church vandalized"

So I'm afraid the headlines themselves say nothing of any "hate crime".

Oops.

Could also add the mosque had had successive attacks in a few months with no such mention for the church.

[Newfy]

In my opinion as much as I would love to string the little prick up by his balls, burning a poppy isn't in itself a crime. He has that right because of soldiers like us. What I think he should be done for is the words that he used along with the picture as it was a direct provocation of British Soldiers.

[andyt]

Newfy Newfy:

In my opinion as much as I would love to string the little prick up by his balls, burning a poppy isn't in itself a crime. He has that right because of soldiers like us. What I think he should be done for is the words that he used along with the picture as it was a direct provocation of British Soldiers.

You're not allowed to call British Soldiers xxxxx? The Brits call each other cute all the time, do you propose a special exemption for soldiers? Hell, the soldiers call each other cute all the time, I'm sure.

[Newfy]

andyt andyt:

Newfy Newfy:

In my opinion as much as I would love to string the little prick up by his balls, burning a poppy isn't in itself a crime. He has that right because of soldiers like us. What I think he should be done for is the words that he used along with the picture as it was a direct provocation of British Soldiers.

You're not allowed to call British Soldiers xxxxx? The Brits call each other cute all the time, do you propose a special exemption for soldiers? Hell, the soldiers call each other cute all the time, I'm sure.

Ya, you're right we do and many black people call each other the "N" word. If I use it it's offensive and racist. So why should someone using offensive language towards soldiers in a deliberately targeted way be any different. If it was just a one on one situation then he would probably just get a smack in the gob, but post it in the public domain for all to see and doesn't that become in-sighting violence. I'm all for freedom of speech, but when you post something just to provoke a group of people it's crossing the line.

[Jonny_C]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Expect a very sharp rebuke once he changes his manties.

Are we going to have to read this crap in every thread for a while?

Let it go.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Expect a very sharp rebuke once he changes his manties.

Are we going to have to read this crap in every thread for a while?

Let it go.

Nope. Just returning the drive by favour.

[EyeBrock]

I agree with Newfy.

This kid will get his lights punched out sooner or later.

I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back to a more common sense approach on 'hate crimes'. The problem is that a knee jerk reaction to the insanity of political correctness could jeopardise the real need to protect people from the tyranny of the majority.

This idiot needs to be sorted and I agree with charges being laid. I also think that the anti-soldier tirades at last years parades should have resulted in some hate crime related charges being laid.

Free speech has it’s limits and our courts should decide those limits. Unless the police lay charges the courts can’t comment.

The UK police have been very timid in the past dealing with blatantly offensive actions by certain groups.

A result of unequal application of the law brings about the cases such as the Rochdale sex abuse rings.

[ShepherdsDog]

How intolerant of you old boy

[EyeBrock]

I know, I'm a fucker.

[ShepherdsDog]

And you'll likely get tut tutted into a sarcophagus.