Hate Crime in Courtenay, BC

[Guest TrueMetis]

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?

Depends when a man is castrated it's severly decreases or elimantes violent tendancies if the same is true about women then I would support it. Although women make up a very small portion of violent crimes so we may not have to worry about it.

Probably wouldn't even actually have to do it if everyone knew that the punishment for a violent crime was castration who is going to commit a violent crime?

Edited July 25, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Mr.Canada]

Of course, you can prove this.

Sure, you're probably a white guy. Walk through Jane/Finch after dark and hang around there for a bit see what happens then post tomorrow about your experience.

Jane/Finch is a predominately black area in Toronto, oh but wait black areas are the same as white areas right? Yeah sure.

[CANADIEN]

Sure, you're probably a white guy. Walk through Jane/Finch after dark and hang around there for a bit see what happens then post tomorrow about your experience.

Jane/Finch is a predominately black area in Toronto, oh but wait black areas are the same as white areas right? Yeah sure.

Does being in a bus in Jane/Finch area after dark count?

Of course, i would not count that as evidence regarding the prevalence of racially motivated attacks by Blacks against Whites. I will for numbers on that. Numbers that you will of course gladly provide as usual, right?.

Edited July 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Does being in a bus in Jane/Finch area after dark count?

O course, i would not count that as evidence regarding the prevalence of racially motivated attacks by Blacks against Whites. I will for numbers on that. Numbers that you will of course gladly provide as usual, right?.

Well, far be it for me to stick up for Mr Canada, but what he says seems to be true.

I found this US Department of Justice report from 1993 that contains some facts and figures.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/144525.pdf

In four-fifths of all violent crimes, the victims and offenders are of the same race

Of all single-offender crimes of violence, 80% are intraracial including

* 69% where the victim and offender are white

* 11% where the victim and offender are black.

For the 20% of violent crimes that are interracial

* 15% involve white victims and black offenders

* 3% involve white victims and other-race offenders

* 2% involve black victims and white offenders.

(page 23.)

Of interracial attacks in the US, 90% of the time the victim was white and the attacker was non-white. Surely that has to be a stinging rebuttal to the theory that whites are the ones going around attacking people of other races. It's a particularly astounding number when one considers the relative populations.

Of course, that was 1993. Now that we're in the new Post Racial America, I'm sure there are no interracial crimes of any description.

And while I'm sure it will be argued that these are US figures and don't apply to Canada, it must be pointed out that our politically correct police forces don't maintain information about the races of attackers and victims, and so providing equivalent figures for Canada is impossible.

-k

Edited July 26, 2009 by kimmy

[charter.rights]

We're not the US. So statistics like that are irrelevent to the discussion and MR. Canada still has to prove his point.

Edited July 26, 2009 by charter.rights

[CANADIEN]

Well, far be it for me to stick up for Mr Canada, but what he says seems to be true.

I found this US Department of Justice report from 1993 that contains some facts and figures.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/144525.pdf

In four-fifths of all violent crimes, the victims and offenders are of the same race

Of all single-offender crimes of violence, 80% are intraracial including

* 69% where the victim and offender are white

* 11% where the victim and offender are black.

For the 20% of violent crimes that are interracial

* 15% involve white victims and black offenders

* 3% involve white victims and other-race offenders

* 2% involve black victims and white offenders.

(page 23.)

Of interracial attacks in the US, 90% of the time the victim was white and the attacker was non-white. Surely that has to be a stinging rebuttal to the theory that whites are the ones going around attacking people of other races. It's a particularly astounding number when one considers the relative populations.

Of course, that was 1993. Now that we're in the new Post Racial America, I'm sure there are no interracial crimes of any description.

And while I'm sure it will be argued that these are US figures and don't apply to Canada, it must be pointed out that our politically correct police forces don't maintain information about the races of attackers and victims, and so providing equivalent figures for Canada is impossible.

-k

Interesting that these numbers do not say anything about motive (and I will not dismiss them because they're American). Another interesting statistic:

for every Black American, there are 7 White Americans. For every Black American who is a victim of a violent interracial crime, there are... 7 White Americans.

The likehood that violent Black-on-White crime is motivated by race is less then with White-on-Black crimes, as other factors enter in the mix (more Black men growing up in poverty without adequate paternal model being the main one).

Not to put the issue of violent hate crimes committed by White men out of proportion (it is, thankfully, a rare occurence thse days), but there are no Black organizations wose members parade in robes and burn crosses. I doubt there are many Black organizations with Websites praising Adolf Hitler.

Mr. "Canada" would have us believe that about every time three or four Black men meet their priority is to go find some white guy to beat up to death just because he's white. Of course he could not prove it even with stats, but hey that will nto prevent him from making a fool of himself... as usual.

Edited July 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Interesting that these numbers do not say anything about motive (and I will not dismiss them because they're American). Another interesting statistic:

for every Black American, there are 7 White Americans. For every Black American who is a victim of a violent interracial crime, there are... 7 White Americans.

The flip side: for every white American who commits a violent crime against black people, there are 7.5 black Americans who commit violent crime against white people.

So ... per capita, that would make blacks about 50 times more likely to attack whites than whites are to attack black people.

A pretty stunning figure, yes? Before we run ahead and try to start rationalizing it, can we at least agree that that's a remarkable statistic?

Does this actually correspond with the public perception? I mean, "Mr Canada" talks about this and people react like he's a retard posting crap from Stormfront... but the truth of the matter is that the statistics back up what he's saying: whites are far more often the victims than the attackers in interracial crime. Yet, saying so provokes an angry reaction from some people.

The likehood that violent Black-on-White crime is motivated by race is less then with White-on-Black crimes, as other factors enter in the mix (more Black men growing up in poverty without adequate paternal model being the main one).

Sure, that makes sense.

However, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the possibility of racial hatred in a factor in crimes where whites are the victims rather than the attackers. Doesn't it make sense that when people believe they've been mistreated, they'd resent the people they believe mistreat them, that they'd take the opportunity to express their anger at their mistreatment?

Anecdotally, my experience tells me that there are a lot of non-white people who have a chip on their shoulder and look for an excuse to lash out at whitey.

Not to put the issue of violent hate crimes committed by White men out of proportion (it is, thankfully, a rare occurence thse days), but there are no Black organizations wose members parade in robes and burn crosses. I doubt there are many Black organizations with Websites praising Adolf Hitler.

As if the Klan and the Nazis have a monopoly on hate. Of course there are no black Klansmen or black neo-Nazis running around. However, we're both aware that there are black groups advocating hate and violence in the name of race. It takes little effort to find such groups on the web.

Mr. "Canada" would have us believe that about every time three or four Black men meet their priority is to go find some white guy to beat up to death just because he's white. Of course he could not prove it even with stats, but hey that will nto prevent him from making a fool of himself... as usual.

As I said, far be it from me to stick up for "Mr Canada".

I simply wanted to provide some perspective. Someone reading this thread would be under the impression that bands of whites are roaming the street looking for non-whites to beat up. In the US, the stats show that the opposite is much more likely the case, and we Canadians imagine ourselves to be less racist than our American neighbors, don't we?

I'd love to see corresponding Canadian statistics, but as I mentioned before, Canadian authorities keep this kind of information top secret. Maintaining statistics about the race of criminals and victims in Canada would hurt peoples' feelings too much.

-k

[CANADIEN]

"Mr Canada" talks about this and people react like he's a retard posting crap from Stormfront... but the truth of the matter is that the statistics back up what he's saying: whites are far more often the victims than the attackers in interracial crime.

What Mr. Canada is implying is not that. He is implying that hatred is necessarily the motive for any violent crime committed by a Black person against a White person. As for his possible link to racist groups. Never thoguth of it... But then, he couldn't care less if Muslims and Jews killed each other, he does not mind honour killings as long as they do not happen here, and he has quoted Holocaust denier and claimed they had a point a few times in the past.

[kimmy]

What Mr. Canada is implying is not that. He is implying that hatred is necessarily the motive for any violent crime committed by a Black person against a White person.

That's not what he said at all, unless (as suggested in another thread) you have some capability to read minds that the rest of us lack. What Mr Canada actually said was this:

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.

What he's implying is that the media made a big production about this because it was white attackers and a black victim.

And, he's right. This is big news only because the attackers are white and the victim was black. Race is played up in situations where whites attack non-whites, and race is not mentioned at all in situations where the victim is white and the attacker is non-white.

This is, at its core, a "Man Bites Dog" story.

As for his possible link to racist groups. Never thoguth of it...

You hadn't thought of it? That surprises me. I suspect all of us have probably thought of it at one point or another. As for playing the "Stormfront" card to shut him up, Strangles beat you to it...

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

Yeah, well, that's what they say at the US Department of Justice, too. plbbbbt!

But then, he couldn't care less if Muslims and Jews killed each other, he does not mind honour killings as long as they do not happen here, and he has quoted Holocaust denier and claimed they had a point a few times in the past.

Sure, Mr C is a tool, no question about that.

However, it seems to me as if your demand that he provide proof strikes me as more an attempt to shut up a poster you perceive as weak and inept rather than an attempt to advance discussion of the issue.

Upon being provided with information to support what he said, your only response is "yeah, well, Mr Canada still sucks", which does not speak well for your intent.

-k

[CANADIEN]

That's not what he said at all, unless (as suggested in another thread) you have some capability to read minds that the rest of us lack.

What he's implying is that the media made a big production about this because it was white attackers and a black victim.

He's implying a lot more than that

You hadn't thought of it? That surprises me.

Be surprised. Stormfront did not cross my mind.

However, it seems to me as if your demand that he provide proof strikes me as more an attempt to shut up a poster you perceive as weak and inept rather than an attempt to advance discussion of the issue.

Why would I want or try to shut him up? He's a constant source of comic relief

Upon being provided with information to support what he said, your only response is "yeah, well, Mr Canada still sucks", which does not speak well for your intent.

Him being about half right once in a blue moon does not hide the absurdity of his ideology.

Even George Bush had a good idea once in a while

Edited July 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Mmm.. I doubt that would be a judge's solution. What's to stop you from kicking your new neighbour's ass every day?

One of our neighbours had a feud with about everyone of oour neighbour. After she moved out, nobody in the neighbourhood had a feud with the new neighbour.

Those whose mtovation is racism do not stop because they're dealing with a new person of the hated group.

That's the difference.

[CANADIEN]

Which is where I feel the nature of the crime should be considered. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt. To be sure, motive is an enormous part of that, but the particulars of the crime during trial should only be considered as to whether they point towards guilt or innocence.

I dislike the nature of hate crimes laws precisely because of they create an extra layer on top of the trial. If one beats a guy up because he's gay, let the judge make the determination during sentencing.

There are various categories of murders depending on the circuumstances and the intent (btw, yes I know nobody died in this case). Manslaughter is not homice.

So the motive already plays a role in the determination of what someone should be accused of. No difference here.

[CANADIEN]

so a system of complete racial equality, which doesn't consider race AT ALL... is still somehow ... RACIST? am I getting this right? Wanting to treat people of different races EQUALLY... is RAcist...

Now you would have us believe that you believe in equality for all? Edited July 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Griz]

Those goof ballls were on the news tonight! When the media tried to talk to them they ran and after awhile the media caught up to them. They actually were making homophobic remarks to the news guy. What a bunch of idiots. Right up Lictor's avenue

[Argus]

The likehood that violent Black-on-White crime is motivated by race is less then with White-on-Black crimes, as other factors enter in the mix (more Black men growing up in poverty without adequate paternal model being the main one).

This site pops up with a lot of interracial crime stats if anyone is interested.

Black on white crimes: 1,916,380

White on Black crimes: 362,784

One important bit of information people need to bear in mind when looking at interracial crime statistics from the United States. Hispanics are considered as White in terms of crimes. And while there is no disputing that the statistics show Blacks committing far more crimes than Whites on a per capita basis, I think that anecdotally we all know that Hispanics, for different sociological reasons, are right up there with Blacks. Logically then, the "white" on Black crime rate (excluding Hispanics) is exceedingly small.

interracial crime states - us

Also, in several Nordic countries, it has been observed that interracial sexual assault has skyrocketed, with 99% of the victims being white and the perpetrators being Muslims. If a gang of White men raped a Muslim girl I would suggest that everyone in media and government would be calling it a hate crime. However, this appears to happen routinely in reverse and raises no such outcry.

Now in the US, it has been observed that sexual assault with an interracial element is lopsided in favour of White victims and Black perpetrators. Why? Is there not a clear racial motive in many of these attacks? Yet has anyone ever heard of a group of Blacks charged with hate crimes for gang raping a white woman?

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

Frontpage - Interracial Sexual Assault

Edited July 31, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

There are various categories of murders depending on the circuumstances and the intent (btw, yes I know nobody died in this case). Manslaughter is not homice.

So the motive already plays a role in the determination of what someone should be accused of. No difference here.

Untrue.

Motive in other crimes is only a consideration in terms of whether or not the perpetrator should be given some degree of leniency because he was provoked in some way, or under the influence of something.

Intent is only present in homicide, and for my money, should be done away with. As far as I'm concerned it's the action that counts. If you point a gun at someone and shoot it you're guilty of attempted murder unless you can prove you are a crack shot and deliberately missed him or shot him in the leg, say. In Canada it is almost impossible to prove attempted murder. You can shoot someone fourteen times and then just claim you weren't trying to kill them and that's that.

[Argus]

Of course, you can prove this.

Not possible without anecdotal information as the police are not permitted to keep statistics based on race. However, everyone knows in Ottawa, that whenever the media reports a swarming they can safely substitute the word "somalians" for "youths".

Which is why, despite their small numbers, more than half the "youths" in custody in Ottawa are Somalians.

[Argus]

We're not the US. So statistics like that are irrelevent to the discussion and MR. Canada still has to prove his point.

We're not in the US which means that we have no statistics. I've said this already and presuming you've read the thread you know it damned well. The police are not permitted to keep crime statistics based on race except for aborigines. I'm not sure I can even understand the mental gymnastics the Lefties go through to explain this. We started keeping crime stats based on race for aborigines as a measure of the problems of aborigines and as a pointer/clue we could use in efforts to help. No one seems to have a problem with this, including the aborigines.

However, whenever the RCMP even hints it would like to start collecting crime states based on race for other groups the Left goes apeshit. Whichever wacked out nitwit is currently the mayor of Toronto is always the first to shout thunderously that never in his city will they ever keep such statistics because they would only help racists.

How would they help racists? Uhm, well the Left never says that, because there is only one obvious reason: the stats show that certain visible minorities commit a vastly disproportionate amount of crime in this country. One Toronto Division superintendant got in huge trouble for saying that Blacks in his division, while constituting 5% of the population, were responsible for 95% of the crime, and that that was mostly Jamaican Blacks. Another Toronto cop, an Asian guy on their Asian crime task force said that most Asian crime is committed by Vietnamese, and that caused another howling uproar. Toronto's lefty city councilors were running around in circles gnashing their teeth, foaming at the mouth and pulling at their hair in horror, while demanding the heads of the cops for daring to keep any statistics, however unofficial.

[Argus]

The flip side: for every white American who commits a violent crime against black people, there are 7.5 black Americans who commit violent crime against white people.

So ... per capita, that would make blacks about 50 times more likely to attack whites than whites are to attack black people.

It's actually far higher than that. In the US, all crimes committed by Hispanics are put into the classification "White" for the purpose of collecting statistics. Why? I could only speculate. Years ago, when the Justice Department started keeping stats it lumped Hispanic crime in with Whites because there wasn't a lot of it. But after thirty years of almost completely uncontrolled illegal immigraton from Mexico, and central and south America, Hispanic crime is huge. However, deciding to suddenly classify them as something other than White, ie, in effect, saying "Hispanics aren't White" would cause a huge political fuss. Hispanics don't want to be thought of as NOT white, and they certainly don't want statistics showing that, like Blacks, they're responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of crime.

[lictor616]

Apparently Lictor aint good a googling...

How many people attacked the girl Lictor? You said what? 16?

http://www.cjad.com/news/565/607842

A hate crime you suggest?

no, as I said hate crimes are ridiculous concepts... there should no such thing as a hate crime. that's my position.

My point was that a gang of black guys calling a white girl a "white whore" because she refused to consort with them, then following her around, calling her names, following her inside a restaurant to through ice cubes at her and finally provoking her into hurling an insult BACK to the blacks- to make the blacks pounce on her like a pack of wild baboons kicking punching spitting on her and hurling creole racial slurs at her as they film the little white 14 year old girl's humiliation while they dance and laugh with a merriment that is simply inhuman: is A MUCH CLEARER cases of a "hate crime" (if we have any reasonable definition of what that is)- /then the incident in Courtenay, where a fully grown black street thug with a wrap sheet probably a mile high that lured 3 whites guys (who apparently where in a bar fight with him and some of his other friends) in an alley, raising his fists, throwing punches and putting on a show for the well concealed and ROLLING camera oh so conveniently on the spot at the time of the incident.

in the montreal case the word hate crime was not even suggested:

"Charges that could be laid, we're talking about assault, assault causing bodily harm."

in the courtenay case... hate crime is immediately the lead charge.

that's a double standard isn't it?

[lictor616]

It's actually far higher than that. In the US, all crimes committed by Hispanics are put into the classification "White" for the purpose of collecting statistics. Why? I could only speculate. Years ago, when the Justice Department started keeping stats it lumped Hispanic crime in with Whites because there wasn't a lot of it. But after thirty years of almost completely uncontrolled illegal immigraton from Mexico, and central and south America, Hispanic crime is huge. However, deciding to suddenly classify them as something other than White, ie, in effect, saying "Hispanics aren't White" would cause a huge political fuss. Hispanics don't want to be thought of as NOT white, and they certainly don't want statistics showing that, like Blacks, they're responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of crime.

there's always the rape angle that the media NEVER EVER talks about (less they awaken slumbering americans from their liberal hypnotic trance)

In 2005 there were just over 37,000 rapes and serious sexual assaults by Black males against White women - in the same year there were LESS THEN 10 white on black rapes (deemed statistically insignificant)... .

think about that and remember that the US is 66-68% white and 12-13% black. and the disproportionate rate becomes even more dramatic.

Blacks are a 12-13% minority and yet on average commit 50% of all violent crimes in the US...

I suspect we have comparable rates here in canada, but as a result of our truly nutty ideology of integral political correctness: we DON'T KEEP RACIAL CRIME STATS...

[tango]

from kimmy's stats above, of every 100 crimes against people

white on white.........69

black on black.........11

black on white.........15

other race on white... 3

white on black...........2

Seems to me that crime is often by poorer people against richer people, so SES would likely account for any differences in rates of b-w vs w-b crime. Ie, It may not be racial; at all. The main finding in that data is that the vast majority of crime is white-on-white.

Has anyone a link for any case where a white person alleged a hate crime by a black person?

It's possible, as speculated by some here, but I've never seen it reported.

The Courtenay case will be interesting, and may not ultimately be judged to be a racial hate crime, since the same goons later that night threatened a white kid too. Not sure how that will be seen.

[Griz]

Lictor would fall into the "complete nutcase category"

there's always the rape angle that the media NEVER EVER talks about (less they awaken slumbering americans from their liberal hypnotic trance)

In 2005 there were just over 37,000 rapes and serious sexual assaults by Black males against White women - in the same year there were LESS THEN 10 white on black rapes (deemed statistically insignificant)... .

think about that and remember that the US is 66-68% white and 12-13% black. and the disproportionate rate becomes even more dramatic.

Blacks are a 12-13% minority and yet on average commit 50% of all violent crimes in the US...

I suspect we have comparable rates here in canada, but as a result of our truly nutty ideology of integral political correctness: we DON'T KEEP RACIAL CRIME STATS...

[CANADIEN]

from kimmy's stats above, of every 100 crimes against people

white on white.........69

black on black.........11

black on white.........15

other race on white... 3

white on black...........2

Seems to me that crime is often by poorer people against richer people, so SES would likely account for any differences in rates of b-w vs w-b crime. Ie, It may not be racial; at all. The main finding in that data is that the vast majority of crime is white-on-white.

Has anyone a link for any case where a white person alleged a hate crime by a black person?

It's possible, as speculated by some here, but I've never seen it reported.

The Courtenay case will be interesting, and may not ultimately be judged to be a racial hate crime, since the same goons later that night threatened a white kid too. Not sure how that will be seen.

Don't you dare claim economic conditions may be a factor in violence. Or to talk about how non-whiite criminals tend to get harsher sentence for similar crimes. And don't even consider pointing out that most non-whites are NOT criminals.

That's not the point. the victims either are not the point. Making sure that everyone knows that non-Whites are dangerous, each and everyone of them.

[Griz]

What's that "land-squatting terrorist?"

Don't you dare claim economic conditions may be a factor in violence. Or to talk about how non-whiite criminals tend to get harsher sentence for similar crimes. And don't even consider pointing out that most non-whites are NOT criminals.

That's not the point. the victims either are not the point. Making sure that everyone knows that non-Whites are dangerous, each and everyone of them.