Hate Crime in Courtenay, BC

[Strangles]

It's not just about doing something nasty, but about what was done:

Racial taunts and attacks attempt to exclude people from society by race.

Those who attempt to exclude others should themselves be excluded.

Of course, the 'deport on an ice floe with some Macdonalds fries' was a joke, but serves to illustrate the point: If you don't respect multicultural Canada, bugger off!

Makes sense. I guess we laugh until someone gets hurt. Stormfront is a clown show.

[Strangles]

Why is refusing to respect multiculturalism any worse than refusing to respect any other of Canada's identifying traits?

What about "if you can't speak one of Canada's official languages, bugger off?"

What about "if you can't respect the separation of our law from religion, bugger off?"

What about "if you can't accept the rights of women, bugger off?" Personally, I think that if somebody takes their daughter to East Africa to have her genitals mutilated for cultural/religious reasons, they ought to not bother coming back to Canada.

If we're going to start banishing people for not buying into Canadian values, there's a lot of people I'd put on the boat along with these three.

-k

Was the victim of this attack an east African who didn't learn english and was planning to send his daughter back to East Africa to have her circumcised?

Attacking someone on the street because of their skin colour is not the same as disagreeing with multiculturalism.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Strangles

[kimmy]

Was the victim of this attack an east African who didn't learn english and was planning to send his daughter back to East Africa to have her circumcised?

Who suggested he was? I was responding to Tango's views that we should deport people whose views we disagree with. I'm just wondering why in her opinion that should be restricted to racists, when there are so many other unCanadian views we could deport.

Attacking someone on the street because of their skin colour is not the same as disagreeing with multiculturalism.

I wasn't discussing the attack at all,

-k

[noahbody]

I wasn't discussing the attack at all,

-k

The Queen should give you a merit award for humour.

[August1991]

By the by, as much as I dislike the general tone of just about everything Lictor writes, he is right about one thing: making "hate crime" a crime in and of itself would, indeed, be a perversion of our system of justice.

-k

I haven't read this entire thread so my comment may have already been made above.

We prosecute "hate crimes" differently for a reason similar to our treatment of crimes against police in uniform.

The logic is the following: If a person is identifiable in some way, then they may become a target of attack for that fact alone. By this logic, violence against gays - for example - should not be treated as a "hate crime" unless the gay victim is clearly identified as being gay.

Different crimes carry different penalties and we treat crimes against innocent individuals - identified simply because it is possible to do so - as particularly serious. The penalty is typically more severe.

[Strangles]

Who suggested he was? I was responding to Tango's views that we should deport people whose views we disagree with. I'm just wondering why in her opinion that should be restricted to racists, when there are so many other unCanadian views we could deport.

Then it had nothing to do here with our victim friend.

The angry douche bags who committed the assault are nothing more than beardless extremists. They're no better than thugs with guns in Afghanistan, given a different circumstance they'd be the ones blowing themselves up.

I wasn't discussing the attack at all, but thanks for playing.

Oh I see, another 2c quip on multiculturalism, thanks for losing.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Strangles

[tango]

I wasn't discussing the attack at all,

Then you are off topic because that's what we are talking about in this thread.

I was responding to Tango's views that we should deport people whose views we disagree with. I'm just wondering why in her opinion that should be restricted to racists, when there are so many other unCanadian views we could deport.

-k

We weren't talking about people "whose views we disagree with" but three racist goons and a hate attack on a black man. (Read the OP and stay on topic, please.)

I have to say there are some people here with nnooooooooooooo sense of humour whatsoever.

Recap: We are talking about hateful goons.

Griz, with the authority of an Indigenous person, humourously said "deport them".

We embellished it with an ice floe and french fries. It was obviously a joke: Who'd want those goons anyway? Every country in the world is multicultural now!

Get a friggen grip folks!

Laugh a little! Yer face won't crack!

Hey Griz? Do you deport people for not having a sense of humour?

[tango]

By the by, as much as I dislike the general tone of just about everything Lictor writes, he is right about one thing: making "hate crime" a crime in and of itself would, indeed, be a perversion of our system of justice.

-k

No one has suggested that. It's an exacerbation of an existing crime.

[kimmy]

Then you are off topic because that's what we are talking about in this thread.

This thread hasn't been about the original topic for several pages. Why are you allowed to discuss stuff not on the original topic, but not others? Are you a special snowflake?

We weren't talking about people "whose views we disagree with" but three racist goons and a hate attack on a black man. (Read the OP and stay on topic, please.)

I have to say there are some people here with nnooooooooooooo sense of humour whatsoever.

Recap: We are talking about hateful goons.

Griz, with the authority of an Indigenous person, humourously said "deport them".

We embellished it with an ice floe and french fries. It was obviously a joke: Who'd want those goons anyway? Every country in the world is multicultural now!

Get a friggen grip folks!

Laugh a little! Yer face won't crack!

Hey Griz? Do you deport people for not having a sense of humour?

Obviously the ice floe was a joke, but you don't appear to have been joking when you wrote

"It's racist louts and white supremacists who should have to leave the country, imo."

or

"Those who attempt to exclude others should themselves be excluded."

or

"Of course, the 'deport on an ice floe with some Macdonalds fries' was a joke, but serves to illustrate the point: If you don't respect multicultural Canada, bugger off!"

...so again, I'm curious to know, is it just the racists you think should "bugger off", or are there others too?

-k

[tango]

This thread hasn't been about the original topic for several pages. Why are you allowed to discuss stuff not on the original topic, but not others? Are you a special snowflake?

This is what we were discussing - the topic.

Griz

Ship Lictor and those three guys from Courtenay back to Europe--Deport the immigrant buggers laugh.gif

Obviously the ice floe was a joke, but you don't appear to have been joking when you wrote

"It's racist louts and white supremacists who should have to leave the country, imo."

or

"Those who attempt to exclude others should themselves be excluded."

or

"Of course, the 'deport on an ice floe with some Macdonalds fries' was a joke, but serves to illustrate the point: If you don't respect multicultural Canada, bugger off!"

...so again, I'm curious to know, is it just the racists you think should "bugger off", or are there others too?

-k

Are you volunteering, snowflake?

Obviously no one is seriously talking about deporting anyone.

But in the case of people who victimize others because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, there should be a special place for them to learn how to be a real citizen.

An ice floe sounds like a good place to me!

Would you like fries with that?

Edited July 19, 2009 by tango

[kimmy]

This is what we were discussing - the topic.

The topic has evolved from the incident in Courtenay to the discussion of the validity of the concept of hate crimes, to --apparently-- discussing "alternate measures".

Perhaps these three should be taken to a "sentencing circle".

Are you volunteering, snowflake?

Obviously no one is seriously talking about deporting anyone.

But in the case of people who victimize others because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, there should be a special place for them to learn how to be a real citizen.

We call such a place "prison". Are you advocating something else? "Re-education camps" or something?

-k

{ }

[tango]

The topic has evolved from the incident in Courtenay to the discussion of the validity of the concept of hate crimes, to --apparently-- discussing "alternate measures".

Perhaps these three should be taken to a "sentencing circle".

We call such a place "prison". Are you advocating something else? "Re-education camps" or something?

-k

{ }

Hark! Has kimmy finally found a sense of humour? No, just mocking as usual. sigh.

Re-education sounds good to me. Wifebeaters and drunk drivers go to 'a program'. Violent racist thugs could use one too, to learn how to be a citizen in today's world without victimizing people due to race or other characteristics.

Edited July 19, 2009 by tango

[Bonam]

Hark! Has kimmy finally found a sense of humour? No, just mocking as usual. sigh.

Re-education sounds good to me. Wifebeaters and drunk drivers go to 'a program'. Violent racist thugs could use one too, to learn how to be a citizen in today's world without victimizing people due to race or other characteristics.

Perhaps we should implement a Canadian version of the Gulag to send them to? You know, two birds with one stone... inhabiting the arctic and getting rid of the criminals that commit politically incorrect crimes...

[Griz]

This so funny but I agree the education system needs a major revamping. I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around or things go in a complete circle. About a century ago what they were saying about indians is echoing about Lictor and those 3 hooligans and all the other people who think like them. What were they saying was something like we "need to educate those backward thinking &%#$$! As far as Im concerned they way some people think around aboriginal issues is pretty twisted, backwards, mangled etc etc

Hark! Has kimmy finally found a sense of humour? No, just mocking as usual. sigh.

Re-education sounds good to me. Wifebeaters and drunk drivers go to 'a program'. Violent racist thugs could use one too, to learn how to be a citizen in today's world without victimizing people due to race or other characteristics.

[Argus]

It's not just about doing something nasty, but about what was done:

Racial taunts and attacks attempt to exclude people from society by race.

Those who attempt to exclude others should themselves be excluded.

Of course, the 'deport on an ice floe with some Macdonalds fries' was a joke, but serves to illustrate the point: If you don't respect multicultural Canada, bugger off!

53% of Canadians not Canadians according to Tango

So if we toss 53% of Canadians onto an iceflow - presumably these are all home grown Canadians - that leaves mostly uhm - immigrants I guess.

So immigrants are true Canadians and the ones who were here before should bugger off?

[Argus]

We weren't talking about people "whose views we disagree with" but three racist goons and a hate attack on a black man. (Read the OP and stay on topic, please.

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.

. It was obviously a joke: Who'd want those goons anyway? Every country in the world is multicultural now!

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.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

Obviously no one is seriously talking about deporting anyone.

Only because it's not legally possible. But I often get the impression off posters like yourself that you have such a level of contempt for those who differ from your basic assumptions on social issues that they are, essentially, non-persons, and that you'd be quite happy to see them removed from society permanently.

But in the case of people who victimize others because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, there should be a special place for them to learn how to be a real citizen.

What makes you think you know what makes a "real" citizen. If I don't conform to your concept of reality do I get excluded too?

Multiculturalism is theoretically about inclusion yet I find most of its proponents quite readily exclude anyone who fails to conform to their cultural assumptions.

[August1991]

What a thread, Sunshine.

There's no such thing as race, its a social construct.

I disagree. The colour of one's skin is just as real as the colour of one's shoes. Hair colour or skin colour are not social constructs. They are real.

Strangles, I think your concern is whether this "real" difference "really" matters. Correlation, as they say, is not the same as causation.

In a thousand years, my progeny will inherit, in part, the colour of my skin. God knows whether they will be rich or poor, or whether they will inherit any of my wealth.

[Bonam]

In a thousand years, my progeny will inherit, in part, the colour of my skin.

That seems doubtful, given the current demographics of the human race. We'll all be a uniform, Asiatic, blend.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Bonam

[kimmy]

I haven't read this entire thread so my comment may have already been made above.

We prosecute "hate crimes" differently for a reason similar to our treatment of crimes against police in uniform.

The logic is the following: If a person is identifiable in some way, then they may become a target of attack for that fact alone. By this logic, violence against gays - for example - should not be treated as a "hate crime" unless the gay victim is clearly identified as being gay.

Different crimes carry different penalties and we treat crimes against innocent individuals - identified simply because it is possible to do so - as particularly serious. The penalty is typically more severe.

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 don't disagree with the premise that hate should be a factor to be considered in sentencing, as could numerous other factors.

However, if there were some push to make "hate crime" something more than just a consideration during sentencing, I would be opposed.

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...)

I also recall a few years ago when a pair of hapless white teenagers were swarmed by natives at a north-Edmonton transit terminal, the police spokesperson was bending over backwards to explain why the police weren't looking at it as a racially motivated crime.

When it's white people's behavior under suspicion, I think people tend to be too quick and eager to read race into situations where it's not really at the source of the conflict. And I think that racism might be overlooked or excused in opposite situations.

All of which is a long way of saying that if hate is something that is left to a judge's discretion as a factor to consider when he is determining a sentence for a crime, then I am fine with that... but if hate is something that a crown prosecutor can pull out of his bag of tricks when he is deciding to lay charges, then I think that could only lead to shame and disrepute for our justice system.

-k

[ToadBrother]

Would you care to present any evidence of "long term abuses" against "ethno-racial" groups?

Because this thread has a dearth of such examples. I am unaware of any statistics which says that visible minorities are being attacked by nasty white people at a larger rate than, say, the reverse. I'm unaware of any actual evidence which shows that "ethno-racial" minorities are suffering due to some kind of invisible wide-scale discrimination either.

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.

[Bonam]

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.

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.

[Radsickle]

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.

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

[Griz]

Totally agree! The cops just go out of their way to deliberately "bust indians." In smaller towns, cops are often buddies with the jerks. The jerks drive home drunk while the cops bust the indians. The next day the cops and jerks laugh about it. Anywhere in Canda, you'll find people like those doorknobs from Courtenay and Lictor. What's maybe surprizing to some but not me, is that there's probably some older, cranky fart, redneck, patting thses guys on the back and cheering and encouraging them on. You see these old farts sitting in coffee shops in towns like Courtenay during the day clucking like a bunch of &&$$##

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.

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

[tango]

53% of Canadians not Canadians according to Tango

So if we toss 53% of Canadians onto an iceflow - presumably these are all home grown Canadians - that leaves mostly uhm - immigrants I guess.

So immigrants are true Canadians and the ones who were here before should bugger off?

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.

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