The Responsibilities of Citizenship

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It's already been demonstrated why it is, an aggravating circumstance. You did not address this other than "No it isn't". I'm not going to repeat the argument.

You don't have to.  Hating someone is not an offence.  The original argument was to the effect that such should not increase the penalty for a crime.  There's no argument that that it's not a factor.  There's no argument that the punishment should not be as severe as you think it should be.  The only argument I make is that I am entitled to equal protection.  If protection is not a factor, as seems to maybe be the case, then equal treatment?  Either or.

The problem with you and Omni is, you think it needs explaining to me.  It doesn't.  I just don't agree with it.

Edited May 14, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Gee I dunno, how many skinheads/ supremacist groups are there out to get old people? Your so-called "logic" is full of holes.

How many skinhead/supremecist groups are there attacking Black people? I haven't heard of an attack, of late, and given the mentality of our national media if a black guy was beat up by white supremacists anywhere in Canada it would be the leading item on all major newscasts.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

 

oftenwrong is absolutely right on this one.

Bcsapper is absolutely RIGHT on this one.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Omni said:

Again it goes to the added harm done to the particular community at large over and above that done to the individual member.

Such harm not and never has been in evidence.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Omni said:

You seem to think that the concept somehow provides you with less protection, therefore you don't seem to understand it. But I guess it is a somewhat complicated issue.  

It must take some interesting internal mental gymnastics to justify a position which says giving a higher punishment to those who attack out of hate is good because it will deter such crimes, and then saying giving a lower punishment for other attacks doesn't result in lesser protection.

[dialamah]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

How many skinhead/supremecist groups are there attacking Black people? I haven't heard of an attack, of late, and given the mentality of our national media if a black guy was beat up by white supremacists anywhere in Canada it would be the leading item on all major newscasts.

 

Last year, the white supremacists next door regularly threatened the non-white people in our complex; if a white person stood up for the non-whites, they were also harassed and threatened.   They used their vehicle to chase people and attempted on two occasions to run people off the road, including a woman walking her dog.   These actions never made the news, of course, because nobody suffered any physical harm.  However, eventually the police took it seriously enough to charge the guy, and the prosecutor/judge took it seriously enough to put a restraining order on him.   He wasn't able to return home, and they've since sold and moved, thank goodness.   

Why do you think we should wait till people are actually hurt to take this stuff seriously?

 

[jbg]

On 5/12/2017 at 5:20 PM, Rue said:

You can say what you want but I am telling you when the MP and Trudeau singled out Islamophobia as they did but remained silent on anti-Semitic diatribes coming out of the same Mosques it spoke loudly to what BC is trying to point out. Its not just my religion  or ethnicity Judaism either that was given the loud message we don't count. I have never heard Trudeau once speak out about hateful speeches given by Mullahs in Canada about gays, women, Christians,  Bahaiis  Buddhists, Siekhs, either.

The groups thinking they're entitled to special treatment don't want equality; they want the right to dominate and force others to submit.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

How many skinhead/supremecist groups are there attacking Black people? I haven't heard of an attack, of late, and given the mentality of our national media if a black guy was beat up by white supremacists anywhere in Canada it would be the leading item on all major newscasts.

The point of these laws to to quell the rise of extremism.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The problem with you and Omni is, you think it needs explaining to me.  It doesn't.  I just don't agree with it.

You're completely entitled to your opinion, even if you disagree with facts given and cannot provide reasonable counter argument other than "No, don't agree".

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Such harm not and never has been in evidence.

Why do you suppose we bother having hate crimes then?

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

It must take some interesting internal mental gymnastics to justify a position which says giving a higher punishment to those who attack out of hate is good because it will deter such crimes, and then saying giving a lower punishment for other attacks doesn't result in lesser protection.

Now you're just making stuff up again. Nobody can actually prove that any form of sentencing can deter a crime because you can't prove why something didn't happen.  But think about this, if you happened to see a stack of cash sitting on someones abandoned desk at work and you looked both ways and then shoved it in your pocket and took off, that's theft. If someone walked into a bank, pointed a gun at a teller and made off with a sack full of cash, that's also theft. Who do you suspect goes to jail for longer? A harsher penalty for a harsher crime, even though in one sense they are common. And yes, harm to communities, not only to the individual member of that community targeted by the crime, and also victimless crimes, such as graffiti on a Mosque, is tracked.   

[Bob Macadoo]

42 minutes ago, Omni said:

Now you're just making stuff upsharing

                  

 again. Nobody can actually prove that any form of sentencing can deter a crime because you can't prove why something didn't happen.  But think about this, if you happened to see a stack of cash sitting on someones abandoned desk at work and you looked both ways and then shoved it in your pocket and took off, that's theft. If someone walked into a bank, pointed a gun at a teller and made off with a sack full of cash, that's also theft. Who do you suspect goes to jail for longer? A harsher penalty for a harsher crime, even though in one sense they are common. And yes, harm to communities, not only to the individual member of that community targeted by the crime, and also victimless crimes, such as graffiti on a Mosque, is tracked.   

Why do the punishments of those convicted of crime against police differ from other classes?

 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

Why do the punishments of those convicted of crime against police differ from other classes?

 

One would assume in an effort to protect police officers.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Last year, the white supremacists next door regularly threatened the non-white people in our complex; if a white person stood up for the non-whites, they were also harassed and threatened.

People are harassed by thugs every day all across the country. And the likelihood of being harassed  seems to have far less to do with skin colour or religion than it does to regular proximity to where the thugs work or hang out. In my neck of the woods, any time a gang of thugs harass and beat someone their last name is far more likely to be Muhammed than Frank.

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

Why do the punishments of those convicted of crime against police differ from other classes?

There are a number of reasons, but I believe the main one is that it is assumed that people who are being arrested for a serious crime might presume they have little to lose in fighting police and resisting arrest. What's one more assault charge on top of the three they already face, so to speak. Another reason is police frequently have to deal with unpleasant and violently inclined people, and must give them orders and require those orders be obeyed. This makes the possibility someone will assault them far higher than for anyone else, and so the punishment is raised so as to increase the deterrence value.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Now you're just making stuff up again. Nobody can actually prove that any form of sentencing can deter a crime because you can't prove why something didn't happen.  But think about this, if you happened to see a stack of cash sitting on someones abandoned desk at work and you looked both ways and then shoved it in your pocket and took off, that's theft. If someone walked into a bank, pointed a gun at a teller and made off with a sack full of cash, that's also theft. Who do you suspect goes to jail for longer? A harsher penalty for a harsher crime, even though in one sense they are common. And yes, harm to communities, not only to the individual member of that community targeted by the crime, and also victimless crimes, such as graffiti on a Mosque, is tracked.   

Well, to begin with, they're different crimes. One is theft, and the other is armed robbery. The first is a non-violent offense, the second is a violent offense.

But some moron assaulting someone because they look like a 'nerd' as opposed to the same individual assaulting someone because he's black does not seem, to me, to be any different a crime. You can say that one is 'hate' but I think the reality of both crimes is that of a bully who thinks he can beat someone up, and wants to, because it makes him feel good about himself.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, to begin with, they're different crimes. One is theft, and the other is armed robbery. The first is a non-violent offense, the second is a violent offense.

But some moron assaulting someone because they look like a 'nerd' as opposed to the same individual assaulting someone because he's black does not seem, to me, to be any different a crime. You can say that one is 'hate' but I think the reality of both crimes is that of a bully who thinks he can beat someone up, and wants to, because it makes him feel good about himself.

Except "nerd" is not really what you could call an identifiable community, which is the focus of hate crimes.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

People are harassed by thugs every day all across the country. And the likelihood of being harassed  seems to have far less to do with skin colour or religion than it does to regular proximity to where the thugs work or hang out. In my neck of the woods, any time a gang of thugs harass and beat someone their last name is far more likely to be Muhammed than Frank.

So then your claim that Muslim immigrants are driving some kind of crime wave is wrong.

My neighbourhood is about 50% immigrant.  The people who engage in petty crime and "harassing/beating" of others is pretty close to 100% white.   

[Guest]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You're completely entitled to your opinion, even if you disagree with facts given and cannot provide reasonable counter argument other than "No, don't agree".

Sure, if you want.

[Bob Macadoo]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

There are a number of reasons, but I believe the main one is themphasizeis assumed that people w ho are being arrested for a serious crime might presume they have little to lose in fighting police and resisting arrest. What's one more assault charge on top of the three they already face, so to speak. Another reason is police frequently have to deal with unpleasant and violently inclined people, and must give them orders and require those orders be obeyed. This makes the possibility someone will assault them far higher than for anyone else, and so the punishment is raised so as to increase the deterrence value.

.....and the identification that a crime against an identifiable group is something we emphasize is a crime against society to discourage or educate the populace....not the perpatrator.

[jbg]

7 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

Why do the punishments of those convicted of crime against police differ from other classes?

 

An attack against police is an attack on social order as much as an attack on another person.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, jbg said:

An attack against police is an attack on social order as much as an attack on another person.

Plus, we put them in harm's way for our protection.  I'm okay with the police having more protection than me.

If indeed, that is what happens.

[DogOnPorch]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

So then your claim that Muslim immigrants are driving some kind of crime wave is wrong.

My neighbourhood is about 50% immigrant.  The people who engage in petty crime and "harassing/beating" of others is pretty close to 100% white.   

 

Immigrants simply do not commit crimes or engage in anti-social behavior. That's the realm of "white people".

[Rue]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

One would assume in an effort to protect police officers.

All laws are intended to protect people. In the case of emergency personnel in the direct line of fire when enforcing our laws inckluding police, fire, paramedics,

laws also stress the immediacy of life threatening situations that could kill them and need to be discouraged, thus some differential. To have to explain a police officer is more in direct line of a threat than a civilian is trite.

In professional sports you touch a referee or upire out you go.

Same reason.

Now in reality when studies have been done in sentencing the difference in length of sentence served on murders whether its a child, police officer or vulnerable person ios neutralized by our early release laws which apply to all due to over-crowding in prison and the way good behaviour release programs work.

While I am at it ditto what BC, Argus have said.

 

[Rue]

13 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

.....and the identification that a crime against an identifiable group is something we emphasize is a crime against society to discourage or educate the populace....not the perpatrator.

Its supposed to be both if you speak to the creators of such laws. They have lofty ideas when they draft such laws. It starts with law professors and interest groups and then by the time the law goes through 3 readings its been watered down from its original form and purpose due to political compromise along the way as groups lobby to change the content and the legislative drafter tries to accommodate both. Most criminal laws in their original draft never make it to the floor in their original form when they are passed.

WE also have to remember a lot of Criminal Laws are still on the books but rendered impossible to enforce due to the Charter and eventually will be deleted but are not a priority and ignored. Blasphemy is the most common example.

Now we haven't had that many hate law sentences. Suprisingly low. There is a reluctance to enforce them because of the slippery line between the Charter and freedom of speech and hateful comments that can be shown to incite crime or violence which a hate conviction will need to show.

I personally believe if the words are hateful but don't encourage crime the best way to deal with them is openly through debate. Relying on a law to enforce behaviour is not as effective as having people voluntarily enforce themselves and sometimes debating haters in public and defusing their comments does far more impact than turning them into martyrs by arresting them and having them play that martyr card.

Now getting back to crime stats again I think if anyone has stats to show Muslims commit more crimes in Canada, it would be suprising. I don't think such stats exist. Even if it did the Law can't assume an entire religious group is guilty. The Charter won't allow it. Let's state the issue. In Europe for years people won't say it out loud but they think all Roma (formerly Gypsies) are criminals. People openly hate and are fed up with them and the crime associated with them is legendary. Its a vicious cycle.  They re isolated unable to go mainstream so pickpocket, etc., but also choose to resist assimilation shunning modern Western ways so its hard to say where one ends the other begins.

I think its fair to argue some of their problems are as a result of discrimination against them, some from self-defeating behaviours.

I think all minorities can and do maladapt aas opposed to adapt, meaning they fail to thrive in external societies of other groups because of at times not just discrimination against them but self-defeating behaviour and refusal to assimilate.

Its explosive to tell black Americans their drug addictions and high crime rates are self-inflicted-some will readily acknowledge the connection to a break down in nuclear family units and self defeating behaviour mixed with discrimination others just say its caused by racism.

Some of the most vocal critics of Black American social break down are black sociologists and social scientists.

In Canada the discussions on assimilation issues of minority groups is not being discussed openly and candidly at times. A classic example is Black Lives Matter a m inority of idiots who are racist and only concerned about their own narrow perspective of how they perceive black people and they shut down liberal do gooders afraid to say anything.

They are vile racists and as putrid as neo Nazi skin heads.. No difference, same m.o.

Discussing hated, intolerance can not and should not single out only certain groups for consideration and this concept of portraying minorities as VICTIMS is a crock.

We minorities have choices, real choices we can male. Our ability to be our best is decided each and every moment we experience the gift to think an dt ake responsibility for our individual and collective actions and that is the basic belief in all religions but is always missed.

I am  not a victim. I have choices. I won't sit on my victim ass and whine and expect someone to save me. You have me confused with some Ultra Orthodox Jew waiting for the Messiah or some Black Lives activist waiting for all their friends to be given jobs they think white people have and they want. Crap. Its all crap.

Revolutions of equality begin and end with each thought process and how you interact in the moment.