Typical Media anti White Bias-

[JB Globe]

Lictor,

As you already know, a situation where a crime occurs between two people who happen to be of two different groups (race, religion, etc) is NOT a hate crime.

Thus, the case you cited is NOT a hate crime.

It can only become a hate crime if it's determined THROUGH EVIDENCE (usually testimony from witnesses or friends/family) that a person's race/religion/etc. was the primary factor in the perp targeting the victim.

You know this, but you went ahead and tried to pass off this case as a hate crime.

This is yet another in a long line of instances that justify everyone's opinion of you as a dishonest hack.

[kimmy]

An old link to a previous discussion on the topic of the Duke lacrosse players...

Maple Leaf Web circa 2006

What a naive kimlet I was, holding out hope that the legal process was not being abused for political reasons. But the traveling time machine salesman was right.

Here's the 60 Minutes piece on the case that was referred to in the earlier thread, a feature by the late Ed Bradley. (Bradley was black... one might wonder if a white journalist offering a similar piece would have received a different reaction. Having a black journalist report on this case defuses the "just a white guy sticking up for white kids!" counterattack, doesn't it. I wonder if there was some white journalist who thought about doing a similar story and second guessed the idea because he was worried about how people react.) Anyway, this is a good report that illustrates the misconduct by the prosecutor.

-k

[kimmy]

It can only become a hate crime if it's determined THROUGH EVIDENCE (usually testimony from witnesses or friends/family) that a person's race/religion/etc. was the primary factor in the perp targeting the victim.

How evenly is that standard applied? I think it's been pointed out that the phrase gets thrown around pretty liberally in certain situations.

And, by the way: is there actually such a thing as a "hate crime"? It seems like the phrase "police are investigating this as a hate crime" has been used a number of times lately, and I'm skeptical that it's accurate. I don't think that the police can investigate an incident as a "hate crime" in the same sense that they would investigate a fire as a possible arson or investigate a traffic accident as a possible criminal act.

I think the police investigate an incident to see if a crime was committed and to provide evidence to prosecute a case.

I don't think the police investigate an incident to see if it's a "hate crime", because I don't believe there is actually such a thing as "hate crime" in any criminal code in Canada. As we all know, there is a law which can be used to classify certain speech as dissemination of hate, but that's certainly not what people are referring to when they say "the police are investigating this as a possible hate crime." No, the police really aren't.

-k

[Shwa]

Yes, the police really are. Don't get fooled into making direct correlations between the terms in the Criminal Code and popular phrasing used in the media:

Hate Propoganda including Advocating Genocide and Inciting Hatred:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318

Also, under The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

[kimmy]

Yes, the police really are. Don't get fooled into making direct correlations between the terms in the Criminal Code and popular phrasing used in the media:

Hate Propoganda including Advocating Genocide and Inciting Hatred:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318

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.

Also, under The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

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

[Shwa]

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.

Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use?

There are often reports of a particular kind of murder - first degree, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, etc. There are most always some sort of qualification reported about crimes, including type, location, suspects, time of day, etc.

Sometimes the police will control those qualifications and what information is made public for investigative purposes. If someone is reported for hate crimes it might encourage others to come forward with similar complaints if that information were reported. In the same way that sexaul assualt "suspects" are reported or have their picture in the paper.

[kimmy]

Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use?

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.

There are often reports of a particular kind of murder - first degree, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, etc. There are most always some sort of qualification reported about crimes, including type, location, suspects, time of day, etc.

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.)

Sometimes the police will control those qualifications and what information is made public for investigative purposes. If someone is reported for hate crimes it might encourage others to come forward with similar complaints if that information were reported. In the same way that sexaul assualt "suspects" are reported or have their picture in the paper.

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

[Michael Hardner]

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.

-k

Kimmy, I did find a quote where the RCMP was investigating the BC incident we were discussing as being 'racially motivated' The CBC story linked to this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

[Shwa]

I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter.

A recent example from Toronto:

Police seek two more suspects in home invasion slaying

Gabriel McKoy, 17, and 36-year-old Daniel Colacito are wanted for first-degree murder, Peel region police said.

Emphasis is mine.

they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why

From the same story as above:

during what investigators called a targeted home invasion.

The police do this sort of thing all the time and many times for their own investigative purposes. If they can release information that will influence the perptrators, they will.

Agreed, the newspaper decides what copy is going to be published, but let's agree here that the police have a heck of a lot influence on what that copy will look like and it is in the newspaper's best interests to co-operate with the police.

I recently went back to a local story about a black man that assaulted a couple of lesbian woman while all three were waiting for their children to be released from school. You might find this interesting how the story played in the local newspaper which belongs to the TorStar group of newspapers (Toronto Star)

Man charged in schoolyard assault a victim: Lawyer

No hate crime charges in connection with attack on lesbian couple

Man charged in attack on couple back in court Jan. 22

An interesting quote from the last story:

But Durham police determined in December the incident does not meet the threshold for a hate crimes charge.

So the police investigate the nature and severity of the crime and make recommendations to the Crown as to what charge should be laid. That is their job. The Crown ultimately decides which charge to lay and prosecute, but the investigation of the crime most often falls completely within the purview of the police service and that includes any hate crimes.

BTW - the case is in the trial stage, but has been put off until January.

[kimmy]

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

[Michael Hardner]

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.

-k

Hi Kimmy - do you mean that 'hate crime' as described below, is just a sub-class of 'assault' ?

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a family or a property.

If so, that what of it ? The BC case was reported as progressing with the RCMP investigating it as a 'hate crime'. That factor will be considered in the sentencing, and if it's not a factor then it will likely just be considered an assault.

What is the point of us dissecting the term 'hate crime' again ?

[PocketRocket]

A black savage raped, horribly disfigured and robbed a white woman... does news about the story include the word "hate" or "racism" or "bigotry"... ahahahaha! of course not!

If he had raped a woman who was NOT white, then your contention regarding this being a "hate crime" would not exist.

But what is the typical motivation for rape???

But if we take this definition, linked previously by Michael Hardner.....

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a family or a property.

.....then this crime would not qualify as it was not designed to intimidate "an entire group of people to which the victim belongs."

[Shwa]

Kimmy, just so we are clear here:

S - "Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use?"

K - "I'm talking about news reportage..."

K2 - "I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter."

S2 - "Gabriel McKoy, 17, and 36-year-old Daniel Colacito are wanted for first-degree murder, Peel region police said."

K3 "As far as I know, they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why."

S3 - "during what investigators called a targeted home invasion."

Just trying to clarify whether or not you agree that it is often reported in the news that the police qualify crimes according to type and why. This recent example makes it pretty clear that they do. As for S3, the investigators are calling it a 'targetted home invasion' the Crown isn't. That aspect has been proven in court yet. The idea of a targetted home invasion is speculation right there.

So do you stand corrected or not?

"Why is the media discussing the possibility?"

I think they are discussing it because one of the lawyers brought it up in the news report.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Shwa

[kimmy]

Hi Kimmy - do you mean that 'hate crime' as described below, is just a sub-class of 'assault' ?

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.

If so, that what of it ? The BC case was reported as progressing with the RCMP investigating it as a 'hate crime'. That factor will be considered in the sentencing, and if it's not a factor then it will likely just be considered an assault.

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.

What is the point of us dissecting the term 'hate crime' again ?

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

[kimmy]

Kimmy, just so we are clear here:

S - "Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use?"

K - "I'm talking about news reportage..."

K2 - "I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter."

S2 - "Gabriel McKoy, 17, and 36-year-old Daniel Colacito are wanted for first-degree murder, Peel region police said."

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.

K3 "As far as I know, they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why."

S3 - "during what investigators called a targeted home invasion."

Just trying to clarify whether or not you agree that it is often reported in the news that the police qualify crimes according to type and why. This recent example makes it pretty clear that they do. As for S3, the investigators are calling it a 'targetted home invasion' the Crown isn't. That aspect has been proven in court yet. The idea of a targetted home invasion is speculation right there.

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.

So do you stand corrected or not?

In my view, absolutely not. I stand behind what I've argued here, and I think it stands unchallenged.

"Why is the media discussing the possibility?"

I think they are discussing it because one of the lawyers brought it up in the news report.

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

[Shwa]

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.

The issue is not who decides to to lay what charges, it is about what is reported in the news - you say so yourself:

I'm talking about news reportage..."

In the example I provided it clearly says "Peel Regional Police said." It doesn't say anything about the Crown, lawyers or who laid what charges or anything of that nature for these two suspects. So the "news reportage" clearly states that the police are looking for men wanted for first degree murder. They could have said they were looking for two suspects of interest, two witnesses, but they didn't.

"I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter."

In the recent example I provided, your statement here is clearly wrong or simply insufficiently detailed. If you would like to revise your position or consult a lawyer on that, please feel free.

And no speculation at all as to why he was targetted?

Ah, so if you had actually read the article, you would have seen this:

"Kalogerakis was killed in his Earth Star Trail home, near Dixie Rd. and Bovaird Dr. E. at about 1 a.m., during what investigators called a targeted home invasion."

The suspects are being sought for murder, not targeting home invasion. A man was killed. The police purely speculate that it is a targeted home invasion. It is reported in the news. Kalogerakis was killed. Why? Because he was the victim of a targeted home invasion.

As far as I know, they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why."

Ah, so you want motive. For that you have to go to the first story of this crime:

Fatal Brampton home invasion was 'targeted'

He was killed as part of a "targeted" home invasion, Peel Homicide Inspector Norm English said.

"This home was targeted for a specific reason," English said at a news conference at Peel Police headquarters. "This wasn't a random act ... This was a home invasion robbery that went very, very wrong."

So the Homice Inspector of the Peel Regional Police gives you robbery as the motive and, since it hasn't been proven in court, it must be speculative. So clearly, with this recent eexample police do give reasons why a crime took place.

So kimmy, do you now stand corrected or not?

[Michael Hardner]

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

Ok, point taken that there's no individual crime called a 'hate crime', and that the term is mostly used to describe either a ) a class of other crimes or b ) distribution/production of hate propaganda.

It's still a term that's in common use, and evokes shock - which is likely why the media likes to use it.

You, like I, appear to pine for better media. How do you envision such a thing ? New thread for this ?

[Argus]

Ok, point taken that there's no individual crime called a 'hate crime', and that the term is mostly used to describe either a ) a class of other crimes or b ) distribution/production of hate propaganda.

It's still a term that's in common use, and evokes shock - which is likely why the media likes to use it.

But only during an attack by a White person on a non-White person.

Why do the media never speculate about "hate crimes" when it's a non-White person brutally attacking a White person?

[M.Dancer]

But only during an attack by a White person on a non-White person.

Why do the media never speculate about "hate crimes" when it's a non-White person brutally attacking a White person?

Aside from the time they do of course.

WHo was that indian chap who opined about the Holocaust?

[Shwa]

You, like I, appear to pine for better media. How do you envision such a thing ? New thread for this ?

That would be a fine topic to chew on!

[kimmy]

The issue is not who decides to to lay what charges, it is about what is reported in the news - you say so yourself:

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.

In the example I provided it clearly says "Peel Regional Police said." It doesn't say anything about the Crown, lawyers or who laid what charges or anything of that nature for these two suspects. So the "news reportage" clearly states that the police are looking for men wanted for first degree murder. They could have said they were looking for two suspects of interest, two witnesses, but they didn't.

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.

In the recent example I provided, your statement here is clearly wrong or simply insufficiently detailed. If you would like to revise your position or consult a lawyer on that, please feel free.

(...)

So the Homice Inspector of the Peel Regional Police gives you robbery as the motive and, since it hasn't been proven in court, it must be speculative. So clearly, with this recent eexample police do give reasons why a crime took place.

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

[kimmy]

Aside from the time they do of course.

WHo was that indian chap who opined about the Holocaust?

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

[M.Dancer]

Or the Toronto lesbians who got beat up by the black person.

-k

I obviously don't read the crime pages...

[Michael Hardner]

But only during an attack by a White person on a non-White person.

Why do the media never speculate about "hate crimes" when it's a non-White person brutally attacking a White person?

Argus, I guess you missed the collective shutting down of Lictor's posts.

We found that the speculation followed reports from police to that effect. There are lots of black-on-white and white-on-black crimes that don't get national coverage, too.

[Michael Hardner]

That would be a fine topic to chew on!

I messaged you about discussing such things online but didn't hear back - do you read your messages ?