dialamah

As I understand it hate crimes are defined by legislation to apply to gender, race, sexual orientation, religion. Can't remember if there is another category, but there is no geek, fatty or stupid-looking hair category, so beating somewhat up for those reasons would be a crime, but not a hate crime.

I don't believe.

So you haven't noticed the mental gymnastics of Trump supporters?

Trump supporters are hypocrites. Consider how they complained about Obama taking too many vacations, yet not a peep about Trump golfing every weekend. Consider their demand to throw Clinton in jail because FBI was investigating emails, yet when Trump fires someone who is investigating his possible ties to Russia, they say it's 'unfair media tactics' to cover such a bizarre happening. Consider how they casually accept all the contradictory statements coming out of Trump's mouth but scream bloody murder if they even suspect Trudeau has contradicted himself. This is only a small sampling of all the bizarre stuff he's done, which his supporters find excuses for while vilifying people who've done much less bizarre things. Trump is a disaster by any sane measure. The fact that Trump supporters can't see this is a testament to how blind partisanship makes you. For me, the idiocy of Trump supporters is fascinating and the ways in which they justify their support, but ultimately he's ruling America, not Canada, so he's their problem and not ours. If anything, this example of how partisan politics makes absolute fools out of people makes me determined not to fall into the trap of supporting an ideology above everything. I agree; the stuff important to Canada often gets missed. But here on this board, same partisanship makes actual discussion pretty much impossible anyway. Personally, I don't think Canada should be sending troops anywhere at all. Nor should the States, Britain, Austrailia; if there are problems in these lands, let them sort it out. We should offer non-military assistance to support human rights and democracy and that's it, imo.

Trump Derangement Syndrome = Trump supporters.

They already track gender and ethnicity in the prison system, which is where many crime stats come from. Country of origin overlaps with ethnicity so in many cases that would be redundant. Religion is not tracked as far as I know.

Nobody is 'protected' by punishments meted out to criminals. What happens is that victims are revenged, through the State. Your objection should more properly be "I want the State to revenge my injury as greatly as they do someone else's injury regardless of what motivated the attacker." IMO, of course.

I've read some studies on this. For the most part, the penalties are irrelevant because the perpetrator assumes he won't get caught.

I believe that past a certain point, penalties for crime is irrelevant in terms of deterring people or rehabilitating them, so mostly it is just punishment, our society showing our disapproval, anger and vengeance on behalf of the victims. Strictly as punishment, I do believe that some crimes deserve more than others -generally those crimes committed against children, or those who are physically or mentally impaired. I'm not sure I believe crimes of terror or hate are worse than the same crimes committed for monetary gain, revenge for perceived wrongs, domestic abuse or family honor. Just going to have to think on it some more.

Do you think terror crimes should be punished more harshly than similar crimes for other reasons?

One aspect of a hate crime is the effect it has on others of the same group. If anti-rape groups/activists were randomly attacking and castrating men a few times a year for the offense of being heterosexual, the larger group of heterosexual men might start feeling like targets. This is different from a random crazy deciding to castrate a man because he thinks it will give him magic powers or something.

My view is that inasmuch as the justice system is about punishment, additional punishment for crimes with the designation of "hate" doesn't do squat for deterrence and does nothing to protect targeted groups any better than just regular punishment would. But having and using such legislation does allow us to signal our collective disapproval of beating or killing someone because they are gay/Muslim/Jewish/etc. It also helps in the tracking of violence against certain groups; analysts do like to know why someone was attacked whether its a woman by her husband, a gangster by a rival gang or a Jew by a White Supremacist.

Not the point of my example. A designation of "hate" applied to a crime can enhance penalties, if certain legislated criteria are met (ethnicity and sexual orientation in my example). Whether that should or shouldn't be the case is a different discussion.

If a bunch of women kidnapped you, beat you, cut off your privates and branded the word "rapist" on your a$$, because you are a heterosexual male. If a bunch of Jews painted "Nazi" on your house, burned an effigy of Hitler on your lawn and threatened death to you because of your German heritage. Of course those would also be crimes subject to prosecution; the hate aspect would also have to be proven. I believe that is the procedure for any prosecution of a hate crime: the prosecutor has to prove the crime also included hatred of the group you belong to (German, heterosexual male) as a motivating factor.

Andrew Coyne:

I don't think hate crimes are ill-defined, perhaps you meant hate speech? I think the laws against hate speech and hate crimes would apply whether such are directed against Muslims, Jews, gays etc.

We disagree on the threat posed by Muslim immigrants. So far, given the fact that we've got over a million Muslims in Canada and no stonings, I'd say my logic is more on point than yours. Anyway Argus, thanks so much for noting and responding reasonably when I made a good faith effort to express my understanding of your point of view, even if I still disagree with you. Carry on.

Don't be ridiculous, Argus.

Nope, I posted that because I read what you posted and thought to myself "This is what Argus believes and it makes sense he'd feel the way be does" and then I thought I'd say so out loud, as it were. Understanding why you feel as you do doesn't mean I agree with you, and disagreeing with you doesn't mean I want people being stoned in Canada.

And you are entitled to feel that way. Who could blame you, given what you believe?

So I did ....

When I was in Egypt for almost three weeks, I don't recall ever seeing either of my two brothers-in-law praying, even though I spent significant time with them. This isn't to say they didn't, but if so they kept it private.

That's not true. The people who are called 'racists and xenophobes' are those who have a pattern of doing some, most or all of the following: Post endless verses from the Quran to "prove" Muslims are evil, ignoring and dismissing any contradictory quotes, hadiths or beliefs held by actual Muslims Post endless stories about the barbarity practiced by some Muslims and project it to all Muslims, even though some of these stories are outright false, and even the ones that are true are in the news because they are *unusual* - it's why they are news. Speak as if Muslims are the only group who practices barbarity, ignoring any other groups, including our own, either current or historical who are just as barbaric Believe they know what a woman is thinking and feeling based on her wearing of a scarf Believe Muslims when they say they are devout and attend mosque, but assume they are lying if they also say they are proud to be Canadians Believe the debunked story that Mohammed married a six-year-old; ignore, and dismiss all the stories that put her age at mid-to-late teens, as well as the experts on Islam and Mohammed who put her age at mid-to-late teens. Believe, without question, stories of unrestrained rape and assault by Muslims against 'white girls' in European countries, despite any facts presented to the contrary Call Muslims unable to learn and progress Call Muslim women too retarded to learn to use birth control Believe that M103 is a "Sharia" law instead of a proposal for a study; then claim that it's the 'first step' to Sharia law. Without any understanding of Sharia law and it's several different forms, claim it's coming and that it means we're all going to be oppressed/killed/stoned/etc. Relentlessly assume the worst of Muslims in general, discount any suggestion that most of them, whatever their personal beliefs are, follow the law of the land they are in. We do agree, and we have laws against those practices already. The problem has already been solved.

Who is saying there aren't religious fanatics among Muslims?

You only see me in the context of opposing the anti-Muslim rhetoric I find on this board. You haven't seen me opposing misogynistic people of either gender or any religion. They dislike me as much as you do. Its true I have had limited opportunity to oppose homophobic people, but when the opportunity has arisen, I'm all in. Do you donate to female-empowering organizations?