OftenWrong

The argument is NOT to find a way to hide a criminals record from a judge. Why would anyone want to do something like that? We all have families and we want them protected, whether liberals or conservatives. What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP. One should read carefully and decide based on what little we know. Use reason. But one good point that he raised is why there are not enough appointed judges. I find this inexcusable. Get to work.

Nothing is most definitely. If Donald Trump looks like the best candidate for winning the election, he's the man. Make no mistake, there's a lot more real work going on for a president than the juvenile garbage we hear liberals ranting about in the media. Those are merely talking points to disturbed liberal minds.

What a relief.

You're completely entitled to your opinion, even if you disagree with facts given and cannot provide reasonable counter argument other than "No, don't agree".

The point of these laws to to quell the rise of extremism.

It's already been demonstrated why it is, an aggravating circumstance. You did not address this other than "No it isn't". I'm not going to repeat the argument.

She deserves it. The way I see it, equal crime deserves equal punishment. If someone is assaulted because they are Jewish, the perpetrator committed assault and another offence. They don't get a pass for the second offence.

Thats not what she told me

You're also dead. The punishment is not only to avenge you, it's also to help us carry on now that you're gone. That is what I meant by the "shocks the public conscience" part. Terrorism, or hate crimes are intended to raise fear in groups of people who are not directly involved in the crime, but who are implicitly threatened by it. So this is two crimes.

There are situations where that would not be fair, as there are different forms of murder, and countless scenarios in which they are enacted. Motive is part of the difference between first and second degree murder vs.manslaughter. The law recognizes that premeditated murder requires forethought and planning, and takes time to prepare. During this time the perpetrator has a chance to reconsider their actions, but if they choose to commit murder anyway, that's a different level of evil. Manslaughter applies when the perpetrator intended to cause harm to the victim, but not death. For example guy gets punched in a bar fight, falls over hit his head and dies. It was accidental but there was some intent to harm, and the victim may also be partly responsible, or wholly not responsible at all. What you propose is a unilateral form of punishment regardless of the circumstances, which is like a mandatory sentence. Legal matters are more complicated than that, and should be decided by a judge on a case-by case basis.

Well then, I'll raise a glass of Glenlivet and sing you this song- Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling, from glen to glen and down the mountain side...

Yeppers. Me and you buddy.

Actually the Edmonton Sun article does (briefly) mention these arguments, although Argus' post does not. Good on you to point these out.

Gee I dunno, how many skinheads/ supremacist groups are there out to get old people? Your so-called "logic" is full of holes.

Even after I asked you this, to which you agreed was correct- You're only out by 3 orders of magnitude. Perhaps you need to check your math there, Billy.

Here's what you said earlier: Perhaps check you facts. Once you got that sorted out, get back to us.

Lotsa square km's up in the arctic. 90 x 90 km, I can drive around that in about 3 hours.

Hypocrisy is everywhere. I am the patron saint of hypocrisy. I absolve you, I absolve you, I absolve you...

Even if you don't support the guy, you must admit what we're seeing from the media is just awful. That's what I'm talking about. I don't "support" him, I think he's behaving like an amateur. But give us serious things to discuss, and stop conflating everything using innuendo and suggestion. Anyone can see this is a campaign to get ordinary people to react. I am watching CBC news right now. Top story- Trump's plane is landing somewhere and he will be giving a speech at some university. Carole - "What did Trump say this on the flght this morning?" Steven - "He spoke to reporters off the record saying that he can hire a new Director any day now." and more blah blah blah about what he might do next, press releases to be cancelled. Russian collusion still possible, maybe. He gets two scoops of ice cream. Why should I care? How about something important to discuss, like Canada's impending commitment to put troops back in Afghanistan. That gets 10 seconds.

It's now impossible to NOT hear about what Trump said or when he farted, every day. Every Canadian news outlet is totally obsessed with presenting the minutia of Trump/ US politics. CTV news, CBC news. Can't find relevant useful news about Canada, all I hear is Trump, Trump, Trump. Some guy on a panel giving his opinion whether it's constitutional or not. Today the narrative is that "Trump firing Comey is essentially an admission of guilt". Eventually, people with common sense will grow tired of the nonsense and this will backfire on liberals.

Certain crimes are intended to create offence beyond the immediate act of the crime itself. It's not the same as murder of an individual after a bar-fight, say for example, where two people have a serious disagreement that is between them. A hate crime is directed at all people which the hater hates, not just the victim. The perpetrator is sending a "message" to the whole group. It is a form of terrorism, and so it should be on a different level.

"There were green alligators, along the shore..."

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26833-the-responsibilities-of-citizenship/?do=findComment&comment=1243866

I do agree with them. Reading is hard