First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Yelling ‘I hate white people’ and punching one isn’t a hate crime, Canadian judge rules
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

Mishio1 wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/10/30/suspect-downtown-green-bay-shooting-incident-charged-hate-crime/813487001/

I know the USA and Canadian cases differ but this is an example of a drunk person being charged with a hate crime is it not?



The devil is probably in the details, which that article is sparse on. Like LakeJucas explained, it's largely dependent on whether the police find reason to believe the attacker intended to attack people out of prejudice regardless of their drunkenness or lack thereof. If they have reason to believe so, it will be considered a hate crime. If not, it's not.


Well I honestly tried my best to see if I could look up the court case or anything like that but I wasn't successful.

I did find this Facebook group dedicated to publishing criminal reports in the Greenbay area (Which honestly made me disgusted looking at the Facebook comments) but it linked back to the article that I cited.

https://www.facebook.com/GREENBAYCRIME/posts/1735135523458646
77433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 12/8/17
another critical factor for it to be hate speech is that there has to be a degree of incitement of others towards hate.

Keegstra using his positions as a teacher and a mayor to force students to learn anti-semtic 'Alternate' History was serious enough that he did time.

MacClean's, a national magasine, was coerced by the Human Rights Commision to stop printing a series of articles painting Islam as a clear and present threat.

a drunk person spouting off their own drunken opinion isn't inciting anyone. Unless of course she turned to the crowd and said 'let's kill them' or some such rot.
2278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:

Well I honestly tried my best to see if I could look up the court case or anything like that but I wasn't successful.

I did find this Facebook group dedicated to publishing criminal reports in the Greenbay area (Which honestly made me disgusted looking at the Facebook comments) but it linked back to the article that I cited.

https://www.facebook.com/GREENBAYCRIME/posts/1735135523458646


So you have no idea if what you cited is a viable counterexample or not. Okay.
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/8/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/10/30/suspect-downtown-green-bay-shooting-incident-charged-hate-crime/813487001/

I know the USA and Canadian cases differ but this is an example of a drunk person being charged with a hate crime is it not?



The devil is probably in the details, which that article is sparse on. Like LakeJucas explained, it's largely dependent on whether the police find reason to believe the attacker intended to attack people out of prejudice regardless of their drunkenness or lack thereof. If they have reason to believe so, it will be considered a hate crime. If not, it's not.


Well I honestly tried my best to see if I could look up the court case or anything like that but I wasn't successful.

I did find this Facebook group dedicated to publishing criminal reports in the Greenbay area (Which honestly made me disgusted looking at the Facebook comments) but it linked back to the article that I cited.

https://www.facebook.com/GREENBAYCRIME/posts/1735135523458646


Yeah, I'm kinda split on this one. On one hand, we're given almost no information on what actually went down in the court as Mishio said, but on the other hand it still seems as though Crowfield was let off too easy because the judge seemed to have decided that her actions were solely the result of being under the influence and not any prejudices which I find highly unlikely. On the other hand, some blame may lie at the feet of White's lawyers, since what little we are told about their arguments paint a pretty poor picture of how they handled the situation, like citing case law that did not apply very well to the situation. I wish I could know more about this.
Posted 12/8/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Yeah, I'm kinda split on this one. On one hand, we're given almost no information on what actually went down in the court as Mishio said, but on the other hand it still seems as though Crowfield was let off too easy because the judge seemed to have decided that her actions were solely the result of being under the influence and not any prejudices which I find highly unlikely. On the other hand, some blame may lie at the feet of White's lawyers, since what little we are told about their arguments paint a pretty poor picture of how they handled the situation, like citing case law that did not apply very well to the situation. I wish I could know more about this.


Are there any good sites where you can search a name of someone who is convicted and get the relevant court cases? I'm not familiar with any of the official sites used by the Canadian and USA governments.


Mishio1 wrote:

So you have no idea if what you cited is a viable counterexample or not. Okay.


I'm looking for any information I can get my hands onto. You're arguing that information was withheld. I feel like you would be a little obliged to provide me with the full court case. Also passive aggressiveness wont get us anywhere.
2278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:

I'm looking for any information I can get my hands onto. You're arguing that information was withheld. I feel like you would be a little obliged to provide me with the full court case. Also passive aggressiveness wont get us anywhere.


I'm arguing that your example doesn't serve your point, since the article you cited doesn't include information relevant to the argument (more specifically, the reasoning behind why it was considered a hate crime). There are fairly specific procedures to determine stuff like this, and sometimes similar events that can end up with wildly different results, legally speaking, depending on the precise circumstances. Because of that, I'm fairly comfortable in my assumption that there were good reasons why one assault was considered a hate crime and another wasn't, with or without evidence. And because of that, I fail to see why I should help you look for evidence to support your argument. It's also fairly obvious the OP was twisting the story in a trollish manner to begin with (as he usually does), so I'm not really inclined to spend a lot of effort arguing with someone who's buying into his intended implications.

I am sorry for my passive aggressiveness though.
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

Mishio1 wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

I'm looking for any information I can get my hands onto. You're arguing that information was withheld. I feel like you would be a little obliged to provide me with the full court case. Also passive aggressiveness wont get us anywhere.


I'm arguing that your example doesn't serve your point, since the article you cited doesn't include information relevant to the argument. There are fairly specific procedures to determine stuff like this, and sometimes similar events that can end up with wildly different results, legally speaking, depending on the precise circumstances. Because of that, I'm fairly comfortable in my assumption that there were good reasons why one assault was considered a hate crime and another wasn't, with or without evidence. Because of that, I fail to see why I should help you look for evidence to support your argument.

I am sorry for my passive aggressiveness though.


Someone claimed


These hate crime laws were never intended for momentary lapses of judgement caused by alcohol.


I then quoted an article that claimed a man was


drunk and belligerent


Who was charged with a hate crime, which wouldn't exactly contradict the original statement as he was talking about the original intentions of the law but I think it sets a precedent that isn't apparently in line with the original intentions of the law if true. I believe you're claiming that the person who wrote that article withheld information.

I guess my question is, what possible information could of been withheld that would of changed the fact that a drunk and belligerent man was convicted of a hate crime?
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

Mishio1 wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

I'm looking for any information I can get my hands onto. You're arguing that information was withheld. I feel like you would be a little obliged to provide me with the full court case. Also passive aggressiveness wont get us anywhere.


I'm arguing that your example doesn't serve your point, since the article you cited doesn't include information relevant to the argument. There are fairly specific procedures to determine stuff like this, and sometimes similar events that can end up with wildly different results, legally speaking, depending on the precise circumstances. Because of that, I'm fairly comfortable in my assumption that there were good reasons why one assault was considered a hate crime and another wasn't, with or without evidence. And because of that, I fail to see why I should help you look for evidence to support your argument.

I am sorry for my passive aggressiveness though.


Also worth noting that we are talking about a charge on one hand, a conviction on the other. It seems both individuals were charged for a hate offense, but we only have data pertaining to a conviction on one of them (the Canadian case). As such, it doesn't really make sense to compare the two under the implication that they differ in result, when for all we know, they don't.

By the way, here are the court records (most states have a justice portal. Just search the name):

EDIT: Fixed the link: https://tinyurl.com/y9p7akxx

Preliminary hearing is in four days.
2278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:


Someone claimed


These hate crime laws were never intended for momentary lapses of judgement caused by alcohol.


I then quoted an article that claimed a man was


drunk and belligerent


Which wouldn't exactly contradict the original statement as he was talking about the original intentions of the law but I think it sets a precedent that isn't apparently in line with the original intentions of the law if true. I believe you're claiming that the person who wrote that article withheld information.


I probably should have been quicker editing my previous post. By "relevant information" I'm pointing out that the article doesn't go into why it was considered a hate crime in the first place, when another was. Most likely because the writer didn't conceive of their article being cited in an argument like this. Now, whether "These hate crime laws were never intended for momentary lapses of judgement caused by alcohol" I can't really say for sure if that is the case or not. But I do know that when it comes to determining stuff like this, the laws gets complicated, fast. And what the law decides is a "hate crime" probably doesn't always line up with what you consider to be a hate crime, for reasons you may or may not care about. Like I said, the devil is in the details.

edit: Sundin explained it better then I did. Ignore me.
Posted 12/8/17

sundin13 wrote:

By the way, here are the court records (most states have a justice portal. Just search the name):

EDIT: Fixed the link: https://tinyurl.com/y9p7akxx

Preliminary hearing is in four days.


Hey Sundin, thanks a bunch but why do Americans use Caucasian as a classification for people of mostly Anglo/west European ancestry?
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17
Okay, so I did more digging. Here is the court's full statement from the Calgary case:



A. Was This a “Hate Motivated” Crime?

[9] The Crown referred to a number of cases in support of its position that this crime attracts the statutory aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(i): “evidence that the offence was motivated by hate based on race or colour.”
[10] In R. v. Ingram, (1977) 35 CCC (2d) 376, the Ontario Court of Appeal said:
It is a fundamental principle of our society that every member must respect the dignity, privacy and person of the other. Crimes of violence increase when respect for the rights of others decreases, and, in that manner, assaults such as occurred in this case attack the very fabric of our society. (para. 8)

[11] No one questions that finding. However, Ingram involved a prolonged verbal and then physical exchange between the offender and the victim on the Toronto transit system prior to an assault occurring in which the white offender continually commented on the victim’s skin colour and ethnicity. The Court disagreed with the trial judge’s finding that, based on the principle that all people are equally human, the racist commentary accompanying the assault was not an aggravating sentencing factor.
[12] Similar to Ingram, the other cases referred to by the Crown involve prolonged and specific racist commentary and targeting of victims. In R. v. Simms, 1990 ABCA 352 (CanLII), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 499 (Alta. C.A.), the accused acted on his neo-nazi philosophy and targeted his victim for the victim’s supposedly pro-Semitic views. The assault was preceded by threatening phone calls. The accused wore swastika patches during the assault. He yelled “Up with white power” while running from the scene.
[13] In R. v. Van-Brunt, 2003 BCPC 559 (CanLII), the armed accused targeted a black person unknown to them. Both before and during the assault, they used a number of racial slurs; there was little else said in the course of a one minute long assault with weapons.
[14] In R. v. Vrdoljak, 2002 CarswellOnt 1005, the accused and two others were verbally abusing an elderly woman on a Toronto transit bus. The victim, who was black, intervened on her behalf. The accused beat him. They were tattooed with neo-nazi symbols and carrying documents espousing that philosophy. The trial judge found that “it was painfully obvious that all three accused shared the same racist ideology, and that it led them to associate with each other and caused them to participate in conduct that any decent person would have regarded as cowardly and disgraceful.” The assault was accompanied by a racial slur and the accused chanted “White power” on leaving the scene.
[15] These examples are readily distinguishable from this case. The offender said “I hate white people” and threw a punch. Her counsel argued that the offender was complaining about her socio-economic situation. Crown counsel called that “mere speculation.’ I agree. But there is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether (as in the cited cases) she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. What is clear is that the offender was one of a group of three indigenous persons, one of whom was apparently engaged in a friendly conversation with the victim’s friend. This, again, is unlike the situations in the cases referred to by the Crown.
[16] I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.

B. Should the Offender Be Given Enhanced Pre-trial Custody Credit?

[17] There was considerable discussion about this issue at the sentencing hearing. The Crown urged that pre-trial custody (“PTC”) credit should be limited to a 1:1 ratio because of the offender’s significant criminal record and that she was on judicial interim release. The Defence submitted that enhanced credit of 1:1.5 is appropriate. Here, as the parties agreed, I may exercise my discretion and award the offender 1:1.5 credit for pre-trial custody which, as of today, is 284 days or about 9 and ½ months.
[18] The discussion centered on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 (CanLII), and R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14 (CanLII).
[19] In Summers, the Supreme Court was clear that granting PTC credit is and has always been a matter of judicial discretion. It reviewed the legislative provisions of s. 718(3.1) of the Criminal Code and determined that unless an offender had been detained under s. 515(9.1) [detained because of previous criminal convictions] or s. 524 [committing offences while on judicial interim release], that offender should typically be entitled to the maximum PTC credit of 1:1.5. That is so because offenders on remand are not eligible for remission and are doing jail time without the benefit of the living circumstances and rehabilitative programming normally found in correctional institutions. The Court, therefore, found no fault with the trial judge’s decision to award Summers PTC credit at the 1:1.5 ratio.
[20] Summers is not all that helpful here because Summers was initially charged with first degree murder and as might be expected, never applied for judicial interim release. When he eventually pled guilty to manslaughter, it was reasonable that he be awarded the maximum PTC credit available. The Supreme Court upheld this decision but conducted an analysis of the s. 718 legislation. In doing so, it separated the case before it from those involving s. 515(9.1) and s. 524 consideration.
[21] The Supreme Court dealt with s. 515(9.1) issue in Safarzedeh-Markhali, and held that section to be a violation of the s. 7 of the Charter in that it is overbroad in its attempt to limit the highest possible PTC credit for an offender detained in custody because of his or her criminal record. Again, that case is not helpful here because the offender was not detained pursuant to s. 515(9.1).
[22] I return, therefore, to the logic of Summers. It is this: the historic rationale for granting credit for PTC is that remand time is not subject to remission and remand conditions are harsher than actual prison time because of housing conditions and the lack of programming. It is “hard time.” In my view, therefore, if an offender does the hard time, that offender should always be given consideration and credit for having served it. I do so here. It’s a twist on the adage “If you do the crime, you should do the time;” If you do the time, you should be credited for doing so.
[23] The PTC credit issue also needs to be weighed with the other principles of sentencing including the seriousness of the crime, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the timely guilty plea and the offender’s indigenous background. Both the Crown and Defence based their submissions on these agreed-upon principles. So, at the end of the day, the Defence says that time served (9 and ½ months on enhanced PTC credit) and a period of probation is within the range of the 12 to 18 months of jail proposed by the Crown.

C. How Does the “Enhanced PSR” Assist in Arriving at an Appropriate Sentence?

[24] Two things are striking about the enhanced pre-sentence report, one that was ordered because the offender is in custody pending sentence. First, there is no question that the offender is a survivor of the trans-generational effect of residential schooling. Her parents were involved in that schooling and, as a result, the offender was raised by her maternal grandparents. She did well. Unfortunately, they died in a car accident in 2009 in which the offender was a passenger. Not coincidentally, this period marked the commencement of the offender’s criminal record at a time when she had passed 20 of her now 26 years of age.
[25] Secondly, the offender’s use of alcohol to deal with the trauma of losing of what were, effectively, her parents, is closely associated with her criminal offending; this case is another instance. And while she has many convictions, almost half of them are for breaching court orders. There are three previous convictions for violence and, therefore, the Defence concedes that a period of incarceration is warranted.
[26] However, the Defence argues that because the offender’s record is relatively recent and that she is chronologically a youthful offender, rehabilitation is a sentencing factor that cannot be ignored. It submits that rather than a period of incarceration beyond the time already served (which is some three months to reach the low end of the range proposed by the Crown), a lengthy probation order should be imposed.
Conclusion

[27] I agree. Therefore, the record will reflect that the offender had spent 9 and ½ months in pre-trial custody. The sentence imposed today is one day without a further warrant of committal. The offender will be placed on probation for a period of 12 months on terms to be discussed with counsel. There will be the appropriate ancillary orders.


https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2016/2016abpc151/2016abpc151.html?resultIndex=1

I'm reading through it now, but I figured I'd post it before I finished.

@GrandMasterTime: I don't really know.
runec 
38994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

sundin13 wrote:
Okay, so I did more digging. Here is the court's full statement from the Calgary case:


That helps, thank you. I'm still iffy on the judge's ruling but getting the full read shows a lot more nuance than all the sensationalized headlines for this story.




GrandMasterTime wrote:
Hey Sundin, thanks a bunch but why do Americans use Caucasian as a classification for people of mostly Anglo/west European ancestry?


I never thought about that. That's a good question. The answer appears to be good ol' fashion racism causing a legal precedent that ended up sticking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind


The court rejected this argument, holding that while Hindi-speaking high-caste Indians were indeed akin to white European peoples, they had intermarried too freely with the non-white pre-Indo-European populace of India, hence their present skin color. Because of the uncertainty this caused for scientific classification, the court decided to use a "common sense" definition of Caucasian that did not allow for the scientific arguments Thind made and did not classify Indians as white.
23044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You seem to be going out of your way to diss Canada here and elsewhere without knowing very much about us. Do Canadians threaten you in some way?


Yeah the war of 1812, never forget!

Actually its Cause Canada is Americas bro so I like to jab them a bit just like I call the UK old and senile. Its a long running internet trope.






LakeJucas wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You seem to be going out of your way to diss Canada here and elsewhere without knowing very much about us. Do Canadians threaten you in some way?


Canadians on this website call him out for not reading the stuff he posts. This is typically a topic where he pushes some extremist narrative. He then gets mad and says they have no place in a conversation about how America works.


I want hate crime laws applied equally to all.

"extremist narrative"




GrandMasterTime wrote:
I'm not asking for more time behind bars, I'm asking for the person to be charged with a hate crime which you would argue would come with some mandatory minimal sentencing but there's only maximum sentences not minimal sentences for hate crimes. I'm not even a fan of the whole "hate crime" charge.


Me either. The whole idea of it is racist. All violent crime is a hate crime against someone, its crazy to treat the crimes differently depending on the color of the skins of the people involved. I'd like them to be removed but if we have them they need to be applied equally to all.
23044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/8/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

By the way, here are the court records (most states have a justice portal. Just search the name):

EDIT: Fixed the link: https://tinyurl.com/y9p7akxx

Preliminary hearing is in four days.


Hey Sundin, thanks a bunch but why do Americans use Caucasian as a classification for people of mostly Anglo/west European ancestry?


Shouldn't you ask an American that? Part of the reason we say white and Caucasian is because its hard to tell the anglos, germans, norse, italians, or slavs apart anymore. Everyone is so intermixed that its hard to tell a German trait from an Anglo one. Then most Americans cannot even tell the difference even without the intermixing so it blobs into one giant easy to say category.

They say Caucasian instead of white because racism and Hitler.

I also know the origin of Caucasian if your interested.
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

runec wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
Okay, so I did more digging. Here is the court's full statement from the Calgary case:


That helps, thank you. I'm still iffy on the judge's ruling but getting the full read shows a lot more nuance than all the sensationalized headlines for this story.


Ultimately, I do understand it. It is drawing a line which requires the "hate" to be something more deep-seated which makes sense to me. If you wish to say that "this crime would not have happened without the element of 'hate'" you need to prove a fundamental hatred, which is not accomplished by a fairly banal comment said by a drunk person during the commission of a flash-in-the-pan crime.

Whether you disagree with that judgment is likely to vary by person, but I don't think that there is any race-based hypocrisy in that conclusion.


Rujikin wrote:

Shouldn't you ask an American that?


What are you implying?

xD
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.