kimmy

Good grief, August, didn't you read any of the thread? The concern for ginger kids is because this has become a fad that has prompted dozens of real-world attacks-- last year in Canada, and this year in Canada and the United States as well. The satire was not directed at "ginger kids". The satire was of hate speech and granfalloonery: Cartman, one central characters, incites hatred of "ginger kids", then is inexplicably stricken with "gingervitis" and becomes a "ginger kid" himself. Experiencing life as a ginger kid, Cartman becomes angry and resentful, and rallies the other ginger kids to lash out at their oppressors, with Nazi-like unity and ruthlessness. When his friends reveal that his red hair and freckles are actually a result of hair dye and ink they used on him while he was asleep, Cartman becomes worried for his own safety and reveals to his ginger followers a new vision: everyone must get along. -k

It was a joke that was mildly amusing 3 years ago, but has long since run its course. -k

You keep acting as if the Akenahew and Toronto lesbians incidents are some sort of evidence of balance. Matthew Sheppard was a white male, and his murder also prompted a big media frenzy. You'd think something like that would be devastating to my argument, right? Well, no. No, a number of incidents that have received puzzlingly little coverage have had female victims. I again refer you to my earlier post here. Sure, they can claim hate crime, and they might even be right... but nobody actually takes the claim seriously unless it's coming from a "visible minority", a homosexual, or a religious minority. The family of that young man in Buffalo complained that it was a hate crime, and by any reasonable definition they're right... but that fact was largely ignored ... because he's white. -k

A "Kenny" crosswalk guardian sounds like a recipe for disaster. -k

When I said "anybody who looked at me funny," that was hyperbole, my friend. Along the same lines as "anybody who touched a single hair on my head" or "anybody who so much as laid a finger on me." Had I known I'd be in for a dose of your painful literalism, I would have said "I'd have colored my hair red and provided vigorous retaliation against anyone who confronted me with Kick A Ginger Day aggression." And I would have. And they'd have had it coming. I did indeed find it tremendously satisfying to cause pain, fear, and humiliation to those who had sent my little brother home crying or who had tried to rough me up. I probably enjoyed that far more than I ought to have. That could indicate that I'm not a very nice person. Perhaps it proves that I'm just plain mean. I've never represented myself to be some paragon of virtue, or a pacifist, or a role-model for the peaceful student of tomorrow, or anything of the sort. Does it make me a bully? Some people certainly thought so. That view was usually articulated by the parents of kids who'd lost fights with me. Personally, I don't agree. Personally, I think that the definition of a bully requires some sort of motivation. Whenever I have fought, outside of the realm of competition at least, it has always been with pure motives. Kids who made my brother's life a nightmare deserved what they got. Kids who tried to pick fights with me because they thought I looked weak deserved what they got. What they got, aside from a lesson in high-calibre judo, was an important life lesson. And they're probably lucky they learned it from me instead of somebody even meaner. -k

That we've seen a couple of examples of non-white people accused of hate crimes (the lesbians incident, and Peter Akenahew, although the latter incident actually does fall under the legal definition contained within s318/319...) doesn't dispute the idea that bias exists. It just illustrates that Jews and homosexuals can cry "haaaate criiiiime!" as well as racial minorities. I think my earlier posts address the double standard I'm discussing, and I don't have time to add anything more right now. -k

I hate bullies. We moved around a lot, and at each new school my little brother was a target for bullies. Sometimes even I was a target for bullies, as people wanted to put "the new kid" in her place and probably figured I was an easy target as I look like a creme-puff. As a result, I had plenty of first-hand opportunity to confront bullies. Did I used hugs? Role-playing? Bring in counsellors to work out a non-confrontational solution? I'm just not that high-minded... I used judo. It might not be the politically correct thing to do. But I can report that people stopped messing with my brother once they'd seen what happened once I got involved. As someone who's stood in the middle of that circle of pushing and taunting kids, I completely empathized with the kids in these stories, and wished I could have been there to be on their side. -k

I think the "moral" here is "don't go to Somalia." -k

Believe it or not... LA Times Barrie Picayune Tribune (and many more) ...a year later, "Kick A Ginger Day" resulted in just as many incidents this year, in both Canada and the US. A great way to cap "Bullying Awareness Week". -k {I kind of wish they'd had this when I was in school. I'd have dyed myself red and dished out some absolutely epic beat-downs to anybody who even looked at me funny.}

Yes, that's it. "Hate crime" is a catch phrase that the media is free to toss around because it has no real meaning in this context. However, I'm not sure that people understand that point. The lesbians demanding that their attacker be charged with a hate crime... do they understand that there's not actually a "hate crime" that he can be charged with, that when he's in court it'll be for common assault? Will people be indignant that the hooligans who attacked the man in Courtenay are only going to be charged with assault and not "hate crime"? There seems to be a widespread belief that "hate crime" is an actual criminal offense. They knew the victim was robbed, and they knew why his attackers picked him and not his neighbor. Calling it a targeted robbery is not "pure speculation." It's certainly not comparable to the Vancouver case where media types were asking the police to speculate on a hate motive despite no supporting evidence. Everybody, yourself included, understands the distinction being made here, and I won't waste my time engaging you in an idiotic discussion of the dictionary definition of "speculation". You already know my answer: because two people getting punched in the face isn't news, but "Haaaaate Criiiiime!!" is. -k

Or the Toronto lesbians who got beat up by the black person. Still, clearly there's an idea that it's only a hate crime if a minority is the ones getting hurt. -k

The issue I have been discussing in this thread is that the media inaccurately uses the term "hate crime" for sensationalist purposes. That the media misreport what the police are actually doing is part and parcel of that argument. Specifically, the claim that "the police are treating this as a hate crime" is shoddy because that decision is out of their hands. "Police believe hate may have been a motive" might be an accurate statement, and the police might actually make a statement like that in a case where they had information to support that claim. The police were not investigating a crime at this point. They were enforcing warrants issued by the crown. The police said this suspect is wanted for 1st degree murder because that is what the warrant issued is for. Reread the story you just provided, with the suspects still at large, and notice that there's no reference to "1st degree murder" at this point. Investigating a crime and enforcing a warrant are two different functions. Nothing you've offered disputes the claim that it's the crown and not the police who will determine what charges will be laid and how the case will be prosecuted. Why are we even talking about first-degree murder? Because you proposed that the police have the power to decide whether a homicide will be treated as a 1st degree murder or a manslaughter. They don't. Move along. So they knew that the crime was a robbery, and they knew that reason this man was targeted involved drugs. They had good factual information to support the claim. That's very different from the alleged hate crime cases we've been discussing where they've been asked to speculate on a hate motive with no information other than the skin color of those involved. And no, I don't care to engage in an epistomological debate on degrees of speculation. -k

And I already explained that I believe it was a crown prosecutor, not the police, who recommended that the suspect be charged with 1st degree murder. You haven't provided an example of the police specifying what sort of crime they're investigating before they're finished investigating it. And I don't believe you'll find any such example, because I don't believe such a thing occurs. I could certainly be wrong, and there are at least a couple of real live lawyers here on the board; I'll invite one to weigh in on the issue. I don't believe the police decide what they're investigating before they're done investigating it; in fact I believe it would run counter to the principles of our legal system for them to have such a preconception. How I believe our justice system works is this: The police collect as much information as possible about a possible crime, and provide that information to the crown prosecutor, who weighs all of that information, decides whether he has enough evidence to lay charges with a reasonable chance of conviction, and decides what charges are best supported by the evidence he has been provided by the police. The crown prosecutor is the one who makes the decision as to what charges will be laid, how the case will be argued before the court, and what aggravating factors (ie, hatred) he will argue at sentencing. And that is why I am skeptical of media reports claiming that "the police are investigating this as a hate crime". It simply fails the common-sense test. And no speculation at all as to why he was targetted? Sorry, you've again failed to make the argument you think you've made. They've described the crime, but offered no speculation at all as to the motive. In my view, absolutely not. I stand behind what I've argued here, and I think it stands unchallenged. Well, after re-reading it it is clear that the demand that the incident be considered a hate crime was made by the victims, not lawyers or police. So... when Mr Scott is on trial, will he be on trial for "hate crime", or will he be on trial for "assault"? Let's wait and find out. -k

I mean that it's assault, period. CBC doesn't "define" anything. I think it's quite telling that in explaining what a "hate crime" is, all they could come up with was the sections regarding propaganda, and the reminder to judges that hate should be considered an aggravating factor at time of sentencing. The media may have reported that the RCMP was investigating it as a hate crime. (did the media actually report that?) In fact, I propose that the RCMP was in fact investigating it as an assault. Whether racial hatred may have been a possible motive is undoubtedly a piece of information they will provide the prosecutor to use as he attempts to convict the three miscreants of assault. Perhaps there isn't a point. I don't know. However, there seems to be some misconception in the popular imagination that there's a criminal offense called "hate crime". The media seems to promote the idea. I have yet to see any actual evidence to support the idea that this exists. And we should all be quite thankful that it doesn't, because for reasons already illustrated, it would be a corruption of Canadian ideals of justice. -k

It was explained to me that the Cadillac was emblematic of getting old, selling out, going corporate, becoming The Establishment, and basically "turning into your parents", something the Deadheads swore they'd never do (didn't they?) It symbolizes the loss of youthful idealism and innocence and naivety... it's a metaphor for the the rest of the verse, which goes: A little voice inside my head said "Don't look back, you can never look back." I thought I knew what love was, What did I know? Those days are gone forever, I should just let them go... It all fits with the feeling of loss, regret, longing for the good-old-days that the song evokes. For me, the most powerful metaphor is the abandoned beach... I feel that twinge each day as I walk on the beach and remember that just a few months ago it was packed full of happy people and now there's nothing there except dead leaves. Anyway, if the topic of the thread was lyrics that paint powerful pictures, I think The Boys Of Summer is an outstanding example. I am glad Gosthacked mentioned it. -k

Michael, the cite you've provided once again just confirms that the only actual "hate crime" laws on the books are specific to limitations on freedom of speech, and to remind judges to consider hate as an aggravating factor at sentencing for an existing crime. Shwa, I believe that warrants for arrest are issued on the recommendation of a crown prosecutor. If police are seeking so-and-so for first degree murder, it's because the prosecutor has already decided what charges to lay. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that under law a homicide occurring during the commission of another offense is considered by definition to be a first degree murder.) That an incident is characterized as a home invasion is different from offering pure speculation as to what might have motivated it. (one assumes greed is typically a motivation during home invasion, but it's not specifically stated that this home invasion was a robbery.) As for the rest, I propose that the police are not charging Mr Scott with a "hate crime" because there's no such thing available for the prosecutor to charge him with. I'd be really interested in hearing what actual offense Mr Scott could have been charged under had the police decided the incident "met the threshold" for a "hate crime". I'm open to being proven wrong, but unless the bruises on the womens' faces were a result of propaganda, Section 318 and 319 simply aren't applicable. Why is the media discussing the possibility? I again refer you to the Vancouver "torched hobo" story where media began speculating that the attack was a hate crime based on nothing more than a non-white victim and a white attacker. The police specifically stated that they had no information about the attacker or any motive for the attack, and yet we have a report on the press conference with the headline "Vancouver Police Probe Possible Racial Motive After Man Set On Fire" because the police spokesman conceded that it was a possibility. In Toronto I would think a hate-crime story about gays would probably be quite newsy, and I'm sure that the reporters asked the police about that aspect of it to get police to talk about whether they were treating it as a "hate crime" to get the responses you referenced. -k

Didn't you read the earlier citations? Why do you keep lying? Why aren't you afraid that Baby Jesus is going to fry you like a f***ing chicken!? -k

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/23/charest-pq.html They've fought to acquire enough rope to hang themselves... let's see if they can tie a decent noose. -k

The Statue of Westminster says that the Statute of Westminster can't be repealed without Canada's consent. That's open and shut. I think the real question here is why are you risking the wrath of Baby Jesus by continuing to Bear False Witness about this issue? Don't you realize that you are damning yourself to eternal flaming damnation?! -k

I'm talking about news reportage, and about how the general public (ie, us) discusses these events. I can't recall the police themselves ever saying "we're investigating this as a hate crime" or anything of that nature. I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter. That distinction is up to the crown prosecutor to make. And certainly, they release information about what, when, where, and who if possible. As far as I know, they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why. They would certainly investigate that aspect of it, but I believe they again leave it up to the crown prosecutor to argue motive at trial (and at sentencing, if appropriate.) Well, my only disagreement with what you're saying is that the police don't decide what gets in the paper, the paper decides what gets in the paper. For the police, it would undoubtedly help their cause if a picture of every suspected bad-guy got published. But the media is considerably more choosy, and as we discussed in another thread, that choice isn't motivated by altruism or activism, but by their notions of what might sell papers and page-hits and TV ads. -k

I did make mention of that in my previous post, and pointed out that it's of no relevance to any of the cases being discussed as "hate crimes" on this forum lately. And that falls under the heading of "the police investigate an incident to see if a crime was committed and to provide evidence to prosecute a case." The notion that because the motive might factor into the sentencing, such a thing is a crime in and of itself is silly. Would people go around saying "police are investigating this as a possible greed crime" or "police are investigating this as a possible self-defense crime"? The police are investigating it as an assault, and will provide whatever information they can find, including possibly a motive, to the prosecutor. -k

I can only imagine that his response to this will involve the words "Jesus", "Hell", and "trash". -k

I'm surprised that people are wasting their time talking to this imbecile, when they could be talking about more important things like Take Your Dog To Work Day. Did you know there's just 215 more days until Take Your Dog To Work Day? -k

classy -k

You're acting as if Greg is having us drive on the left side of the road... in reality, at most he has put some ornamental plant pots on the median. -k