Hate Crime in Courtenay, BC

[charter.rights]

Perhaps because there is a higher incidence of crimes among these groups than among other groups? Seems more likely to me than our justice system being stacked with white supremacists.

Nope.

It is because the lower courts refuse to recognize Charter rights which require them to deal with natives on a different basis.

Native world view is different than ours. Take Shawn Brant as an example. He stands up in protests as an exercise in preventing expansions of quarries and government imposed police buildings and is criminalized (mischief) for taking a stand. Yet according to the Haudenosaunee law, land is held in common with the women of the territory being the principle title holders. Band Council does not own land nor do they own the Casino Rama Fund and instead only manages it on behalf of the members. They have no right to force their decisions on people withtout fully consulting them.

So the police arrested Brant for standing up against tyranny, and instead of the courts weighing his rights against his actions he is sent to jail for mischief. Yet one cannot commit mischief - even under our laws - for preventing someone from trespassing on our property.....

This is just one of the many cases that come up before the court, and natives are sentenced much harsher than non-natives. However, in some courts they are beginning to request "Gladue" reports as part of the process....

[M.Dancer]

Or Canadian Culture does still have a bad, systemic habit of racial discrimination. Try renting an apartment in Southern Ontario with an East-Indian accent.

The result would be the same if the person had a east coast accent.

Except one is more likely to move in a year to their new condo nearer to the hospital...

[Argus]

Let's see. Natives make up a larger ratio of incarcerated individuals than they do as a part of the wider population. The same applies to blacks in Ontario and Eastern Canada. Oh, but that's right, it's just an accident that they are identifiable groups and they are far more likely to go through the justice system than a whites.

Natives and Blacks have well-documented social dysfunctions within their communities which has led to, again, a well-documented higher incidence of criminal misbehaviour from segments of those communities. That in no way supports a suggestion that racism is involved in their higher incarceration levels.

[Argus]

Or Canadian Culture does still have a bad, systemic habit of racial discrimination. Try renting an apartment in Southern Ontario with an East-Indian accent.

And yet, there does not appear to be even a shred of evidence to suggest there is a higher than normal level of homelessness among East-Indians.

There will always be the apologists who claim that Canada's fine, they're often part of the problem.

Damn those people who keep asking for evidence! Damn them!

[Argus]

It's not likely that 53% of Canadians would attack someone due to race.

Recall ... it's just the hater/attackers who get the 'ice floe' treatment.

What you said was "If you don't respect multicultural Canada, bugger off!"

So you are, essentially, wishing more than half the country would leave.

We're all immigrants. What distinction are you trying to make?

Don't know about you, chuckles, but I am not an immigrant.

[Argus]

Nope.

It is because the lower courts refuse to recognize Charter rights which require them to deal with natives on a different basis.

I think we pretty definitively established in an earlier thread that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the Canadian Charter of Rights. Ironic, given your pseudonym, but there we have it.

Native world view is different than ours.

You mean native culture says it's all right to steal things, to rape women, and to get drunk and have fights in the middle of the street?

[charter.rights]

I think we pretty definitively established in an earlier thread that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the Canadian Charter of Rights. Ironic, given your pseudonym, but there we have it.

You mean native culture says it's all right to steal things, to rape women, and to get drunk and have fights in the middle of the street?

Nothing has been proven. I have an extensive understanding of the Charter - far beyond your limited view. Your ad hominem as usual contributes nothing to this thread. Why not go trolling someplace else.

Native culture does not condone murder, rape or drinking any more that we do in society. They just see them differently in the person, and the SCoC says the prosecution of these types of crimes must be dealt with differently.

Edited July 21, 2009 by charter.rights

[AngusThermopyle]

Take Shawn Brant as an example. He stands up in protests as an exercise in preventing expansions of quarries and government imposed police buildings and is criminalized (mischief) for taking a stand.

Pretty poor example when you consider that Brant is nothing but a common criminal using Native issues as a convenient excuse. In fact Brant himself has admitted to criminal activity and also advocated violence as a solution. As I said, a pretty poor example.

Today, Ontario Provincial Police Officers drew their weapons when they spotted a protester with a rifle. The protesters insist they had no weapons, but prior experience -- as it pertains to Brant -- would contradict that.

"We've made no secret that we have guns within this camp," Brant told reporters during his blockade during the National Aboriginal Day of Action. Although he would be let go with a warning during the Day of Action, he would later surrender to police to face charges stemming from violation of bail conditions applied during his previous arrest for blockading CN rail lines in April 2007.

Shawn Brant

It would appear that Brants opinion of himself doesn't match your perception of him. Or is he just lying?

[charter.rights]

Pretty poor example when you consider that Brant is nothing but a common criminal using Native issues as a convenient excuse. In fact Brant himself has admitted to criminal activity and also advocated violence as a solution. As I said, a pretty poor example.

Shawn Brant

It would appear that Brants opinion of himself doesn't match your perception of him. Or is he just lying?

The news media got the quote wrong. Brant emphatically told the CBC there were no guns at the quarry. When pressed about Mohawks having guns on the territory, he said they do not hide that fact that many have guns....and violence would be met with violence. I saw the entire interview.

Brant is an advocate for change. He is not a leader but is the spokesperson for the Men's Council at the Stone Longhouse. Your bias is evident.

[August1991]

I thought attacks on police in uniform were treated especially seriously because they are an attack not just on a person but also on the rule of law itself.

If it's just that police in uniform are easily identifiable, why aren't attacks on bakers also treated especially seriously? They're easily identifiable... they wear those funny white hats...

I hesitated while using the police uniform example but I figured it illustrated the point well.

We send police people into dangerous situations and so they deserve extra protection through greater sentences. But the principle remains that a crime against a random (uniformed) cop is invariably different from a crime against a random person.

I recall when that when that poor young man was beheaded on the Greyhound last year, there were rumours that the suspect had a shaved head, and that the victim was a native, and people (some on this very forum, I believe) were talking about it being a hate-crime. (Or course, once it was learned that the attacker was Chinese and the victim was white, the same people began to suspect that the attacker was lashing out against racist mistreatment...)

The example is good, if horrific. From what I know of the case, the victim was perfectly random. It happened that the psychopath sat beside some person: who could have been black, white, gay, rich, Martian, etc.

A hate crime involves choosing someone for identifiable reasons. The purpose of penalty is to deter.

----

Let me turn this around and view it from a potential victim's perspective.

If I'm a short person walking in a street where young thugs think short people are dishonest, then why should I suffer for these rumours when other taller people go unmolested? If the young thugs simply want to beat up some hapless passerby, that's different.

So, I'd go along with your baker example. If thugs think that beating up (let's say French) bakers leads to a greater penalty, they may not beat them up. French bakers are as likely a victim as anyone else.

Edited July 21, 2009 by August1991

[AngusThermopyle]

The news media got the quote wrong.

So I guess Shawn himself misquoted himself in this video, specifically at the 8:10 second point where he says he's ready to fight when talking about a "Millitary Convoy". The truly funny part of all this is that the "Millitary Convoy" was actually a student drivers course. I guess he missed all the big student driver signs on the vehicles, or he simply couldn't read them.

Shawns Own Words

[M.Dancer]

COuld you next time flag it for the profanity?

[AngusThermopyle]

Sorry, he is quite profane isn't he.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, he is quite profane isn't he.

Yes, I was playing it the livingroom while the kids were present. We are quite strict about language. The worst they have ever heard from me was a loud gutteral DANG, when I dropped a plate on my toe. My kids are even allowed to call someone stupid...and adjectives actually need provide levant intelligent description....so a "fucking highway" is a double no no....as is "awesome" to describe anything that is a shade above normal.

[Griz]

And Argus has a hero named Scott Peterson. It would be unfair to label all whites as people with dollar sign bugging out of their eyeballs who'll commit horrific acts just for money. So I'II just label Argus

I think we pretty definitively established in an earlier thread that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the Canadian Charter of Rights. Ironic, given your pseudonym, but there we have it.

You mean native culture says it's all right to steal things, to rape women, and to get drunk and have fights in the middle of the street?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hate crimes should not be put in their own catagory all that will do is put more emphasis on race. Whether race was a factor or not should be dealt with during sentencing not as its own thing. All violent crimes should be treated as such with harsh penalties to stop them from happening in the first place. A good punishment for people proven guilty of a violent crime would be castration.

[tango]

While we can be confident in labeling them "goons" I wouldn't be so quick to use the racist label. Young men cast insults - esp when drunk - often based almost entirely on opportunity. That is to say, if the victim in question had been a fat guy, they'd have called him fatso etc. If he'd been bald or worn glasses, or looked effeminate they'd have used that. If he'd been short, or Asian or Hispanic or Arab or whatever, they'd have used that.

Goons aren't particular, and they aren't polite. They don't use politically correct language when they assault people.

It's quite possible that off the juice these three dorks might not have any particular dislike for minorities.

Not actually true.

And by the way, if no one laughs at your "joke" you might consider the possibility that you aren't particularly amusing.

Or more accurately, if you read the thread, those of us who were having a good laugh were rudely interrupted by those who insistently and without any sense of humour want to get rid of hate crimes.

Are you opposed to the 'white nation' ice floe idea?

I think it suits the ws'ies perfectly!

Edited July 22, 2009 by tango

[tango]

Hate crimes should not be put in their own catagory all that will do is put more emphasis on race. Whether race was a factor or not should be dealt with during sentencing not as its own thing.

It is.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is.

Oh nevermind then.

[Mr.Canada]

So did anybody see the recent news about 3 whiteguys attacking a black guy on Vancouver Island? It was caught on camera. This type of thing happens to minorities and aboriginal people all the time and the cops just turn a blind-eye. But one thing you'll notice about these guys who carry-out these hateful actions:

• They never do it on their own!
  They make sure they have lots of back-up before they act big and tough!
  If the black guy had someone with him, the guys in the truck would've been screaming obsenities as they drove away!
  The list goes on, sound familiar Lictor?
  

Blacks swarm and beat down white people much more often then the other way around. Why is this not reported as a hate crime?

Oh, that's right only white folks can be charged with a hate crime...I got it now, sorry.

[CANADIEN]

Blacks swarm and beat down white people much more often then the other way around.

Of course, you can prove this.

Edited July 25, 2009 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Or more accurately, if you read the thread, those of us who were having a good laugh were rudely interrupted by those who insistently and without any sense of humour want to get rid of hate crimes.

oh, boo hoo. Kimmy stopped the lulz by rudely attempting to discuss some of the drivel being posted.

I feel terrible to have ruined your ice-floe fun, but since you think it's such a hilarious idea, maybe you could write a sit-com about it. Maybe the CBC would air it.

-k

[Strangles]

Pf course, you can prove this.

Thats what they said on Stormfront, it must be right.

[GostHacked]

He doesn't feel the need to. He believes people of African descent are subhumans who inherently have criminal tendencies. All this talk about how the notion of a hate crime is simply just a red herring. He hates people of other skin colors.

That is not his point and that is quite clear. I understand what he is talking about, and it seems true for the most part. Black on white, no one gives a hoot, any 'colour' on white simply does not garner the same attention as a white on black crime. All you need to do is sample your daily news sources.

The notion of a hate crime is completely absurd. I don't get put away because I hate you, I get put away because I caused you harm. The motivation are the reasons I commited the act in the first place. I get charged and prosecuted for the act. The reasons are the root of why it happened. But if I did not commit the act, I am still free to hate you as I wish. Then I get called a bigot or something or intolerant, ect ect...

TrueMetis

Hate crimes should not be put in their own catagory all that will do is put more emphasis on race. Whether race was a factor or not should be dealt with during sentencing not as its own thing. All violent crimes should be treated as such with harsh penalties to stop them from happening in the first place. A good punishment for people proven guilty of a violent crime would be castration.

Agreed with everything but the castration part. And why the hell are women not 'castrated' ?? Would you support women getting the equivelent of a castration?

[Griz]

I wonder if those guys would have carried out the same kind of attack on a white guy? They probably came across the black guy first, in other words he was at the wrong place at the wrong time when these idiot's came along. If it was native guy, or other ethinic that person would've been jumped by these cowards. It happnes all the time in some of the hick-towns of the north

That is not his point and that is quite clear. I understand what he is talking about, and it seems true for the most part. Black on white, no one gives a hoot, any 'colour' on white simply does not garner the same attention as a white on black crime. All you need to do is sample your daily news sources.

The notion of a hate crime is completely absurd. I don't get put away because I hate you, I get put away because I caused you harm. The motivation are the reasons I commited the act in the first place. I get charged and prosecuted for the act. The reasons are the root of why it happened. But if I did not commit the act, I am still free to hate you as I wish. Then I get called a bigot or something or intolerant, ect ect...

TrueMetis

Agreed with everything but the castration part. And why the hell are women not 'castrated' ?? Would you support women getting the equivelent of a castration?