Exactly. Regardless of *why* someone assaulted someone else, the facet of labeling an assault as "a hate crime" is ludicrous.
Hate Crime is synonymous with Thought Crime.
Good God, Texas Has Done It
- Thread starter Mutai Sho-Rin
- Start date
Exactly. Regardless of *why* someone assaulted someone else, the facet of labeling an assault as "a hate crime" is ludicrous.
Hate Crime is synonymous with Thought Crime.
Damn it, I thought you were going to say they legalized weed.
GAME ON!!!!
^ZING!
I didn't see anything on that website that looked all that bad. So they are gonna compare and contrast Lincoln and Davis? Fine by me, I grew up in the north and only ever got the northern side of the story.
And what's so bad about teaching about racism? It's a significant part of out history and an ongoing thing. It's not like they're gonna teach them how to tie someone up and drag them behind a car.
I didn't see anything on that website that looked all that bad. So they are gonna compare and contrast Lincoln and Davis? Fine by me, I grew up in the north and only ever got the northern side of the story.
And what's so bad about teaching about racism? It's a significant part of out history and an ongoing thing. It's not like they're gonna teach them how to tie someone up and drag them behind a car.
well, i dunno about Rek, but i said TITS cuz i thought the thread was going to get locked.
So the sentence should exist in a vacuum, when motive informs every other part of the legal process? Motive is part of the definition of the crime committed, and historically has informed sentencing since legal systems began. People have gotten off entirely on the "crime of passion" defense, for example.
For the record I've not made up my mind on the subject -- but I'm interested in how people would attack or defend it.
Methinks you thought wrong.
*waves to the original topic, off to the side*
All right, I think Canada's hate crime laws have been a bit overstated, here. I'm no legal expert, but so far as I'm aware, there are only two activities for which you can be legally charged with a hate crime.
From the Criminal Code of Canada
So, in short, hate speech can only be charged in very specific circumstances. It has to be public, must clearly and wilfully promote hatred, violence, or genocide, and must be targeted against an identifiable group of people. It is a bit of a thorny issue in Canada, as while I think most of us support the spirit of the laws, they do raise interesting questions regarding free speech, which is protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The other part of the criminal code worth noting is this:
The list also includes things like whether spousal or child abuse was involved in the crime, or whether the charge was terrorism related. So, there are no "hate crimes" per sec in Canadian law, but a judge, based on his own discretion and legal precedent, increase a sentence for violence targeted against a specific group.
There's more info, including the full text from the Criminal Code, at this CBC page.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat.
All right, I think Canada's hate crime laws have been a bit overstated, here. I'm no legal expert, but so far as I'm aware, there are only two activities for which you can be legally charged with a hate crime.
From the Criminal Code of Canada
So, in short, hate speech can only be charged in very specific circumstances. It has to be public, must clearly and wilfully promote hatred, violence, or genocide, and must be targeted against an identifiable group of people. It is a bit of a thorny issue in Canada, as while I think most of us support the spirit of the laws, they do raise interesting questions regarding free speech, which is protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The other part of the criminal code worth noting is this:
The list also includes things like whether spousal or child abuse was involved in the crime, or whether the charge was terrorism related. So, there are no "hate crimes" per sec in Canadian law, but a judge, based on his own discretion and legal precedent, increase a sentence for violence targeted against a specific group.
There's more info, including the full text from the Criminal Code, at this CBC page.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat.
Now that's a thoughtcrime.
The problem in Canada isn't the Criminal Code: as Canadave has rightly pointed out, the relevant sections of the Code are quite specific and limited, and prosecutions are quite rare.
In fact, I know of at least one case where a local crackpot ran for parliament and openly advocated genocide against homosexuals during his campaign. He was investigated, but not charged.
The big problems right now are the various federal and provincial Human Rights Commissions, which have strayed from their intended purpose and are increasingly turning into star chambers.
In his book Shakedown, scumbag conservative journalist Ezra Levant describes how he was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission after he printed the Danish Mohammed cartoons in his news magazine.
I am ordinarily the last person to feel the pain of scumbag conservatives--I cheered when Conrad Black went to prison. But what happened to Levant just wasn't right, and in his book he describes a number of other cases that make it clear that the HRCs have been abusing their powers.
In fact, I know of at least one case where a local crackpot ran for parliament and openly advocated genocide against homosexuals during his campaign. He was investigated, but not charged.
The big problems right now are the various federal and provincial Human Rights Commissions, which have strayed from their intended purpose and are increasingly turning into star chambers.
In his book Shakedown, scumbag conservative journalist Ezra Levant describes how he was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission after he printed the Danish Mohammed cartoons in his news magazine.
I am ordinarily the last person to feel the pain of scumbag conservatives--I cheered when Conrad Black went to prison. But what happened to Levant just wasn't right, and in his book he describes a number of other cases that make it clear that the HRCs have been abusing their powers.
Learning how to tie someone up and drag them behind the car will be homework for the parents to teach.
How? They explicitly say that one must "advocate or promote genocide." Advocating and promoting are actions, not thoughts.
I don't know, some of you might not know about the ass and tittys song. It was well known in my highschool and its well known on the internet. TITS reminded me of the song. Some of you might not catch the dry humor we had of it either - we all made fun of it we didn't take it seriously.
Noob or Newb? They have different connotations.
Last edited:
To echo tsq, how? This law specifically targets people who are publicly advocating genocide. I'm free to think to myself (or say to friends, family, etc) that I think that all people who have characteristic B should be killed, that's not a crime, just morally reprehensible. However, if I started widely publishing literature calling for others to take action against characteristic B-ers, or form an organized group\political party\whatever with the purposes of killing characteristic B-ers, then yes, that's a crime. And I agree with that; inciting violence against a minority (especially in as diverse a country as Canada) should not be tolerated. Period.
All that said, Camelopard has a good point about HRCs. They're a somewhat separate issue in my mind, but I do think they need to be more strongly legislated and have clearer goals and powers. I do agree with the spirit, but the execution has most definitely taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line.
I stated before I didn't do debates because I am simply too laid back to really care. Therefore what I stated about Canadian laws is what -I- knew about them - I didn't spend lots of time researching them. I thought it was clearly written on the chart, I guess not.
Also, before when I posted I had decided to back out of this part of the debate because I saw this debate going in a loop hole right after it started. People who support hate crimes(whatever the proper definition of it is and I'll point out someone had to research it to find out) will support it because they see that "one size of armor doesn't fit eveyone(one law wont work for the subgroups that are most likely targeted)" well the other side will repeat themselves over and over saying to simply giving everyone the same amount of protection no matter what and that hate crime laws somehow premotes other crimes.
-Brett-, no law works perfectly. Although, if someone has been working in the same place for years and done a great job, then his boss finds out hes gay and all of a sudden he's fired? Its going to be obvious. Workers Rights(which backs up the "you can't fire someone for being gay" rules here in Canada) will have to figure it out and take action about it. That person might not get his job back, but that work place will get in trouble, maybe fined, I don't know I didn't go through the process myself and every process executes differently.
Also, before when I posted I had decided to back out of this part of the debate because I saw this debate going in a loop hole right after it started. People who support hate crimes(whatever the proper definition of it is and I'll point out someone had to research it to find out) will support it because they see that "one size of armor doesn't fit eveyone(one law wont work for the subgroups that are most likely targeted)" well the other side will repeat themselves over and over saying to simply giving everyone the same amount of protection no matter what and that hate crime laws somehow premotes other crimes.
-Brett-, no law works perfectly. Although, if someone has been working in the same place for years and done a great job, then his boss finds out hes gay and all of a sudden he's fired? Its going to be obvious. Workers Rights(which backs up the "you can't fire someone for being gay" rules here in Canada) will have to figure it out and take action about it. That person might not get his job back, but that work place will get in trouble, maybe fined, I don't know I didn't go through the process myself and every process executes differently.
No, advocating and promoting are NOT actions. They are what's known as “speech.” People should be free to advocate whatever the hell they want to, be it racial segregation, theocracy, cannibalism, ethnic cleansing or colon cleansing. The very essence of free speech is the freedom to promote ideas, no matter how offensive or repugnant they may be to the vast majority.
Last edited:
