[BeaverFever]

Andy and Brenda, you guys keep missing missing the point:

It's not automatically a hate crime if the victim happens to be of a particular race or gender or whatever. Its only a hate crime if the person was deliberately targeted because of that.

And if a black guy attacks either one of you just because you're white, that would be a hate crime too.

Get it?

[Brenda]

Wow, who pissed in your cereal?

[GreenTiger]

I'm of the opinion that any brutal attack on an innocent person is a hate crime.

[EyeBrock]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I'm of the opinion that any brutal attack on an innocent person is a hate crime.

Me too but there are various levels of assault and the aggravating factors around each level.

It's a complicated subject and there is a myriad of case-law from the provinces and the SCC that deal with this. Case-law from the UK and US has been used on many judgements, that includes common-law decisions that go back to Magna Carta, Roman and Norman jusriprudence (loose use of the term!) and other decisions around the English speaking legal world ( Aus, NZ, Eire, South Africa etc).

[andyt]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I'm of the opinion that any brutal attack on an innocent person is a hate crime.

This is my point as well. Case law be dammed. Case law can be an ass as well. It's case law that's saying that one guy beating on another guy isn't all that serious. If the victim had been another straight guy, this would have been dealt with as straight assault, not aggravated assault, since the perp only hit him once. The punishment should be based on the amount of damage the perp does, not whatever words he utters, or whether he's got swastika tattoos or whatever.

Beaver Fever - ever heard about a non-white getting convicted of a hate crime for beating on a white?

This guy got what's rated as 17 months (including time served) in prison for hitting somebody once, breaking their jaw and giving them a concussion. A woman in Vanderhoof got 2 years less a day of house arrest for stabbing her lover to death. The law, or the people who administer it, is an ass.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And if a black guy attacks either one of you just because you're white, that would be a hate crime too.

Kindly cite just one case in Canada or the USA where a black has been convicted of a hate crime against a white person? I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

[2Cdo]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And if a black guy attacks either one of you just because you're white, that would be a hate crime too.

Kindly cite just one case in Canada or the USA where a black has been convicted of a hate crime against a white person? I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

I would really like to see some examples as well, but we won't because I am pretty sure there has never been a "person of colour" charged with a hate crime for beating a white person.

Assault is assault. One crime with a fair leeway of sentencing options. There is no need for crimes based on someones thoughts.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And if a black guy attacks either one of you just because you're white, that would be a hate crime too.

Kindly cite just one case in Canada or the USA where a black has been convicted of a hate crime against a white person? I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

Well since only white men can be racist, by definition, only white men are capable of hate crimes.

[BeaverFever]

Wrong, guys.

Below are the 2008 Hate Crime statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

$1:

Racial bias

Of the 4,934 victims of these racial bias crimes:

72.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
16.8 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.
3.4 percent were targeted because of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
1.3 percent were victims because of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
5.6 percent were victims because of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).

Religious bias

Of the 1,732 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

66.1 percent were targeted because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
5.1 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
3.6 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
12.8 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
4.0 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

Sexual-orientation bias

Offenders targeted 1,706 victims due to a sexual-orientation bias, and of these:

57.5 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
27.3 percent were victims because of an anti-homosexual bias.
11.6 percent were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.
2.0 percent were victims because of an anti-heterosexual bias.
1.6 percent were victims because of an anti-bisexual bias.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html


The numbers are relatively small, because of:
-demographic differences (i.e. being a minority necessarily means there are fewer of you doing anything)
-structural differences (in any society, persecution is most often done by members of the larger or more powerful group against members of the smaller or least powerful groups).

What you guys are saying is basically if I go burn a cross on some Black person's lawn I should be charged and sentenced just the same as if I had burned some scrap wood on my white neighbour's lawn? Or if I spray paint swatistkas and "Go home Jews" all over a synagogue, I should be charged and sentanced just the same as if I spray painted "BeaverFever 4ever" on the side of a school? Come on. There's a difference and you know it.

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

What you guys are saying is basically if I go burn a cross on some Black person's lawn I should be charged and sentenced just the same as if I had burned some scrap wood on my white neighbour's lawn? Or if I spray paint swatistkas and "Go home Jews" all over a synagogue, I should be charged and sentanced just the same as if I spray painted "BeaverFever 4ever" on the side of a school? Come on. There's a difference and you know it.

I don't actually care if non-whites are prosecuted for hate crimes against whites, because I don't believe in the hate crime designation. Assault is assault. But, those stats not withstanding, I can't recall ever hearing of a non-white being prosecuted for a hate crime around here. I don't think those FBI stats reflect actual court outcomes, but just them labeling crimes as such - I could be wrong of course.

If you paint "die motherfucker" on my house, that's a threat equal to burning a cross on some black guy's lawn. But since we're both (presumably) straight white guys, your act would not be classed as a hate crime. I think it's just as serious, and should receive equal punishment to the cross burning. I think the law should look at the actual injury caused by an action, rather than trying to read the mind of the perp to determine his motivation.

[BeaverFever]

If I paint "die motherfucker" on a gay person's house, it's not necessarily a hate crime either. "Die Faggot" probably would, but as has been said repeatedly, the fact that one is gay does not automatically make any crime against them a hate crime. Only if it is accepted that the victim's 'gayness' was the reason for the attack.

You don't have to read the mind of somebody who burns a cross on your lawn. Most hate crimes, I would think are pretty obvious.

Now you said that we should look at the actual injury caused by an action. What if by burning a cross and hanging nooses in their trees the day before an election, Black people were afraid to go out and vote? Or were afraid to live in your neighbourhood? Is that not greater damage than simple mischief and vandalism? That's how they used to do it Down South.

To Repeat: A Hate crime is not just some crime where the perp and victim are from different groups. A hate crime is where the perp deliberately and intentionally attacks an entire group by randomly targeting one of their members.

People DO deliberately attack and intimitate entire groups, and that affects the way society functions and the way these groups relate to eachother and to the state in a different way than simple crime does. So why shouldn't the law reflect the reality?

[BeaverFever]

Also, if you're interested in the UCR's Hate Crime criteria, they are here, complete with examples of what is and what is not a hate crime:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime.pdf

[westmanguy]

I don't think you guys get this.

I'm gay and I support hate crime legislation. When somebody is targetted and harmed because of a specific identifiable characteristic trait that is a hate crime.

If somebody sucker punches me because of the fact I'm gay, their punishment should hold more weight then if they had punched me for say i.e. I had slept with their spouse (just an example).

Same if someone targets someone because they're black, or they're a woman, etc. etc. etc.

I would afford that same legislation to men, white people, Christians, and straight people if it could be demonstrated that they were targetted because of any of those traits.

[Brenda]

$1:

If somebody sucker punches me because of the fact I'm gay, their punishment should hold more weight then if they had punched me for say i.e. I had slept with their spouse (just an example).

Well, if you had slept with their spouse, it would be a hate crime, because she would kick your balls because you are gay...