Good God, Texas Has Done It

[Rek]

I heard(from rumors) that the USA allows states/schools/jobs/etc to be bigots, racists and sexists and its perfectly legel, is it really true?

I'm not familiar with Canada's laws very much -- they actually have laws telling you what you can & cannot be/do?

We have laws that tell you that you can't drink or drive and you can't hit women. SORRY! I couldn't help myself.

Yes, if you beat up someone for being gay, being black etc its called a hate crime here and you can't do that. I mean, you CAN but you'll be sued and can get thrown in jail if its proven in the courts first, of course. You can't fire someone because their gay/a women/etc.

Like I said, we have laws against discrimination. You can be a bigot, hater etc and go around saying you hate "homos" but lif it hurts someone(like making them jobless, homeless, beating them up, kicking them out of school etc) then its not allowed.

 

[gturner]

^ But it's okay if you move south and take the jobs of American hockey players. Funny that.

 

[Rek]

^ But it's okay if you move south and take the jobs of American hockey players. Funny that.

Canadians own hockey.

GOOOOO CANUCKS

YYYEAAAAHHHH

 

[gturner]

^ You're only better at hockey because of natural selection. The slow Candians were eaten by poley bears.

 

[Rek]

^ You're only better at hockey because of natural selection. The slow Candians were eaten by poley bears.

Indeed.

Did you know that our lakes are made of maple syrup and the only way we can cross them is with our swimming moose? Dressed as mounties, of course, incase of a freak blizzard.

 

[scotpens]

Textbooks in Texas will now feature bigotry, extreme nationalsim and bad religion over science. It is a sad day for America.

Textbooks in Texas will now teach bigotry? How so? Any specific examples?

. . . if you beat up someone for being gay, being black etc its called a hate crime here and you can't do that.

If you beat up someone, it's called assault and battery and it's a crime. If the reason you beat up someone has to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, then it gets labeled a “hate crime” and is subject to harsher penalties, e.g. a longer jail term. That's WRONG. Punishment for crime should be proportional to the degree of harm caused. The motive should be irrelevant. “Hate crime” is thoughtcrime.

Did you know that our lakes are made of maple syrup and the only way we can cross them is with our swimming moose? Dressed as mounties, of course, incase of a freak blizzard.

And taking an occasional break to play hockey on the frozen maple syrup, of course.

 

[thestrangequark]

If you beat up someone, it's called assault and battery and it's a crime. If the reason you beat up someone has to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, then it gets labeled a “hate crime” and is subject to harsher penalties, e.g. a longer jail term. That's WRONG. Punishment for crime should be proportional to the degree of harm caused. The motive should be irrelevant. “Hate crime” is thoughtcrime.

The motive should be irrelevant? That would do away with pretty much our entire legal system.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Did you know that our lakes are made of maple syrup and the only way we can cross them is with our swimming moose? Dressed as mounties, of course, incase of a freak blizzard.

I think I'm going to like you.

And taking an occasional break to play hockey on the frozen maple syrup, of course.

CAR!!!

 

[Rek]

. That's WRONG. Punishment for crime should be proportional to the degree of harm caused. The motive should be irrelevant. “Hate crime” is thoughtcrime.

Maybe you're right.,

However, would that also apply to something like a group of guys got together and went out to beat up "gays" on the street? Of course, we don't want groups of kids going out to beat up people, regaurdless of whos their target. But by ignoring the fact they got together and set out solely to "beat up some gays" and just telling them their bad boys and throwing them in jail you ignore a potential way of prehaps further(ontop of it not being legel to beat up people) preventing this type of crime from happening again. By making people aware not only is beating up people wrong but creating hate groups to beat up "gays" as victums is going to get you extra time. A big reason why we have GBLT rights here is because they can be BIG targets because of SOME religious nuts who see it as wrong. Yes, its wrong to beat up old people but I don't see a local, well known religious group who would create these kind of hate groups for old people.

 

[scotpens]

The motive should be irrelevant? That would do away with pretty much our entire legal system.

Motive and intent are two completely different things.

 

[thestrangequark]

The motive should be irrelevant? That would do away with pretty much our entire legal system.

Motive and intent are two completely different things.

And that is completely irrelevant to my point.

Our legal system, from investigation, to prosecution, to punishment, relies a great deal on determining and understanding motive.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Of course, we don't want groups of kids going out to beat up people, regaurdless of whos their target. But by ignoring the fact they got together and set out solely to "beat up some gays" and just telling them their bad boys and throwing them in jail you ignore a potential way of prehaps further(ontop of it not being legel to beat up people) preventing this type of crime from happening again. By making people aware not only is beating up people wrong but creating hate groups to beat up "gays" as victums is going to get you extra time. A big reason why we have GBLT rights here is because they can be BIG targets because of SOME religious nuts who see it as wrong. Yes, its wrong to beat up old people but I don't see a local, well known religious group who would create these kind of hate groups for old people.

Then why not simply have the penalty for beating anyone up, regardless of subgroup, be equally harsh? That's the way to prevent beatings from happening again. Make the penalty for beating up ANYONE be so strict as to prevent it.

Punishing crimes against one group more than others creates the impression that it's MORE okay to beat up some groups. To use your example: If crimes against gays are prosecuted more harshly than crimes against old people, then by definition it implies that it's not as bad to beat up old people as it is gays (the opposite of "worse" is "better"). How is that anything but tragic?

 

[Rek]

Sorry I edited my post due to repeating myself. I'm not big on debating, never did it much. I'm more easy-going then that but I thought I'd give it a shot in question form.

I think I'm going to like you.

 

[scotpens]

Our legal system, from investigation, to prosecution, to punishment, relies a great deal on determining and understanding motive.

I'm not denying that determining and establishing motive is a big part of the investigative process and the trial process. I said motive should not be a factor in determining the SENTENCE. Once a person has been found guilty of a crime, THAT's when the motive should become irrelevant.

Let's take the assault-and-battery example. If somebody beats me up because he hates Jews, why is that a worse crime than someone beating me up because he wants to rob me, or because he just likes beating people up? I've been done the same harm regardless; therefore the punishment should be the same regardless.

So-called “hate crime” laws just seem to be an idealistic attempt to legislate bigotry and prejudice out of existence. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Rek]

Of course, we don't want groups of kids going out to beat up people, regaurdless of whos their target. But by ignoring the fact they got together and set out solely to "beat up some gays" and just telling them their bad boys and throwing them in jail you ignore a potential way of prehaps further(ontop of it not being legel to beat up people) preventing this type of crime from happening again. By making people aware not only is beating up people wrong but creating hate groups to beat up "gays" as victums is going to get you extra time. A big reason why we have GBLT rights here is because they can be BIG targets because of SOME religious nuts who see it as wrong. Yes, its wrong to beat up old people but I don't see a local, well known religious group who would create these kind of hate groups for old people.

Then why not simply have the penalty for beating anyone up, regardless of subgroup, be equally harsh? That's the way to prevent beatings from happening again. Make the penalty for beating up ANYONE be so strict as to prevent it.

Punishing crimes against one group more than others creates the impression that it's MORE okay to beat up some groups. To use your example: If crimes against gays are prosecuted more harshly than crimes against old people, then by definition it implies that it's not as bad to beat up old people as it is gays (the opposite of "worse" is "better"). How is that anything but tragic?

Yup, you could be onto something and perhaps your way is better. I don't know how to prove nor presude you into my way of thinking but I still agree with hate crime charges being more effective.

 

[gturner]

The other problem with hate crime legislation is that it depends on being able to divine the motive of someone who won't blabber about their inner child. However, this does imply that if they keep things to themselves then they probably didn't recruit a group of followers whose hatred they stoked - and at least one of whom would rat them out or brag about the motivations. It might not stop Hitler, but it would keep him from organizing the Nazi party quite so openly.

On the other hand, nothing in Canadian law keeps people from killing things not out of hate, but because the target is cute and tasty. like the baby seals that Canadians eat every Christmas. Nor does it keep Canadians from killing things out of greed and lust for market share. For example, Canada has no surviving penguins because they killed them, canned them, and sold them down in the states in cute little penguin shaped tins. Once the Canadian penguins were extinct other companies like Armor filled the pear shaped tins with ham and other meats. Now the only remnant of the once lucrative Canadian penguin trade is the Pittsburg Penguins, ironically a hockey team that employs Canadians.

 

[Rek]

lol

I'm sure Canada is not the only place whos done bad things to the environment.

 

[gturner]

Oh, try to shift the blame to the US for eating all the Canadian penguins. Look, to us it was just a canned meat, no different from corned beef or tuna. We assumed in good faith that Canadian meat packers wouldn't hunt the Northern Penguin to extinction. We were wrong.

Now they're doing the same thing to their pine forests to supply us with softwood lumber.

 

[captcalhoun]

TITS!

 

[Rek]

Ass, ass and tittys.

Asss, ass and tittys!