21-11-2001 10:26									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

mayby such laws (hate crime laws) actually ENFORCE - PROMOTE racial discrimination?

(because they say that you are special and so you are by definition different?)

	21-11-2001 10:37									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

What next for the PC culture who wishes to define everything, perhaps call 911 for regular crimes and 912 for hate crimes??

	21-11-2001 11:17									#63
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by RedFred Some facts: this has been a major item in the news. To put it in context, it was Vancouver's thirteenth homicide of the year. There was a big parade in the West End supporting the victim. Both gays and straights, over 1,000, I think. The second beach area of Stanley Park is supposed to be a big gay cruising spot after dark. I only go by there in the daytime during my long runs on Sunday. The time of the incident was about three in the morning. The victim was found clad only in hiking boots. Police suspect that this was a hate crime against a gay individual, but are by no means certain. The crime would be no less henious if it turned out to be a random act of violence. Apparently the guy was beaten to death. Intolerence and prejudice exists everywhere, I hope people will realise that this is an extremely rare incident and that they don't view Vancouver as a dangerous or redneck kind of city.

Speaking as a law student and Vancouver resident with a strong interest in criminology, I can also attest that this is the first reported homicide apparently motivated by sexual orientation.

My two cents.

	21-11-2001 11:19									#64
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I should add the important qualifier that prompted me to post in the first place.

The first such crime ever reported...in the province of British Columbia.

	21-11-2001 18:14									#65
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ok, for imran (If he can still see this) and white elephant and anyone else who thinks all crimes should be treated the same.

Lets look at hate crimes on a larger scale. It's this little thing called genocide. It's the systematic extermination or destruction of a political, racial or cultural group. When genocide is committed, it isn't because of what a group did to another group, its because of who that group is.

Now war is a nasty nasty thing, and people die. But when a regime commits genocide on say, a minority group, as opposed to going to war with an enemy that is known to oppose the regime and will fight back, is this or isn't this two different things?

If it is indeed (which it is), then why shouldn't there be similar distinctions on a domestic level?

	21-11-2001 21:25									#66
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Additionally Imran, what if it involved a person from Pakistan? Would you sing a different tune then? Uh huh. I believe you would. A double to you. What a hypocritical viewpoint for you to dare and think, much less express. You're better than that. Show it. Thanks for putting words in my ****ing mouth! Mind reader now? Well, perhaps you better work on your skills. Calling me a hypocrite by taking my words and THEN make up what I'd believe. You are lower than scum. And no, I wouldn't sing a different tune. There should be NO Hate Crimes! People have the freedom to hate, if they act upon it, then they should be prosecuted by the regular law, not some tack on law. Any reason why I shouldn't put you on my ignore list, moron?

Watch your mouth, Imran.

As I said earlier, there are different degrees of murder.
That's just documented fact that is part of our legal system.
YOUR legal system.
There most certainly are crimes committed by hate, not passion, not incidental.
Done purely because of a hate of difference, whatever the difference.
That includes beating a gay person to death, dragging a black man to pieces behind a truck, or doing whatever to ...whoever solely because of differences.

As far as putting me on an ignore list, feel free.
You're in America now. You have that right.
To do so because I ask if your feelings would be the same if a group of ignorant asses beat a person from Pakistan to death, is kind of pathetic though.
It's a valid question.

	21-11-2001 22:31									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by godeater I should add the important qualifier that prompted me to post in the first place. The first such crime ever reported...in the province of British Columbia.

Thanks for the additional info, Godeater. Can't wait to visit your beautiful city again.

Now, on to hate crimes, since no one decided to halt the in-progress threadjack and open a debate on a separate thread...

Both sides have good points, and need to tone it down a bit to see where each other are coming from. Here's my view; yes, "hate crimes" do exist, for lack of a better term. Yes, they are indicative of problems within our society, problems which need to be addressed and confronted in the boldest, most decisive way possible. However, that should not translate to lengthened sentences for those who commit "hate crimes". In a free society, people can hold whatever viewpoints they see fit, no matter how repugnant or evil those viewpoints may be. It is the action that is punishable, not the thought. If we want to get rid of (or, realistically, limit) racism, homophobia, etc., legislating thoughtcrimes is not the way to do it. It will only set a precedent that could become hugely damaging in the future.

A gay man was beaten to death, allegedly for being gay. That's a problem for our society (American & Canadian). But for criminal justice? A man was beaten to death. That should be enough.

	21-11-2001 22:45									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Thought crimes, no that's not true.
If that were the case, I could be sentenced for my initial reaction to Imran's childish outburst; that being that I would like to kick his ass to the curb.
It's action, not thought, that gets one put in jail.

	22-11-2001 00:10									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well I think we can all at least agree that killing someone be them gay or Imran kind of sucks

I have a question for Godeater,
In a case like this is it handled by the RCMP or is there another type of crime division?

	22-11-2001 01:27									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The case is being handled by the Vancouver City Police. The only news today is that since the work at the scene of the crime is complete the number of detectives working on the case has dropped from five to two. This has caused criticism of the police handling of the case.

No new leads and the police have advised that those witnessing the crime and not coming forward are obstructing justice.

	22-11-2001 02:01									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by drake Ok, for imran (If he can still see this) and white elephant and anyone else who thinks all crimes should be treated the same. Lets look at hate crimes on a larger scale. It's this little thing called genocide. It's the systematic extermination or destruction of a political, racial or cultural group. When genocide is committed, it isn't because of what a group did to another group, its because of who that group is.

That last statement is pretty sweeping and I would argue that geneocide is most often committed for what a group has done, didn't do, or where preceieved to have or have not done. For instance, the jews who were persecuted in Nazi Germany were only done so after Hitler's propaganda machine created fictious reason to, and in the eyes of the Nazi public this treatment was then justified. So it wasn't just being a jew that spontaneously made Nazi's hate them it was the concocted lies that Hitler leveled against them. I don't think this is any different from the rationale people will use to commit hate crimes. In fact I would bet that if the man in the article was killed for being gay his assaliants will have some twisted rationale behind why they were justified in doing so. By the same token I don't find that the institutioin of the hate crimes bill is any more rational. Meaning that we can invent reasons to institute the bill that, like genocide, are fueled by an equally emotional response. In otherwords, we've injected the same rationale of comminting hate crimes into our justice system and are attempting to use it to stop hate crimes. Are we not, in fact, saying we "hate" people who commit hate crimes by introducing this bill?

quote: Now war is a nasty nasty thing, and people die. But when a regime commits genocide on say, a minority group, as opposed to going to war with an enemy that is known to oppose the regime and will fight back, is this or isn't this two different things? If it is indeed (which it is), then why shouldn't there be similar distinctions on a domestic level?

I'm not sure I differentiate war and genocide, in fact, I think the invention of the term war, or genocide, was a cosmetic difference used to placate those who would oppose such action. For instance, couldn't we argue that the war taking place in Afghanistan is a war of political genocide? Is it not the intention of the United States to prematurely wipe the government of the Taleban out of existance? Couldn't the same be said of the War in Vietnam? Was the United States not there to essentially quell, if not eradicate, the rise of Communism? The Crusades, WWII, WWI, the Reveloutionary War? Aren't "wars" just genocide with a warm fuzzy name?

So to answer your question, no, I don't think war and genocide are two different things. The only difference is the way you spell them.

	22-11-2001 03:29									#72
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That is so not right, 'phant.
War stops when the other people give up and go home.
Genocide stops when the other people are gone for good.

A whole lot of difference, besides the spelling.

	22-11-2001 04:18									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand That is so not right, 'phant. War stops when the other people give up and go home. Genocide stops when the other people are gone for good. A whole lot of difference, besides the spelling.

Call it what you will, but the fact remains that both systems use violence as a means and their ends are the same -- the end being the extinction of a culture, religion, or way of life.

By your definition the United States' treatment of their indigenous people, the Native Americans, was merley a war and not genocide? Are you comfortable with that? Couldn't the same be said for Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews? By the same logic the USA will certainly not kill every last Taleban memeber, but enough to the point that there numbers are insignificant much like any other genocidal attempt, no?

What you seem to be suggesting is that genocide is only genocide if it works.

	22-11-2001 04:23									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by vlad Well I think we can all at least agree that killing someone be them gay or Imran kind of sucks I have a question for Godeater, In a case like this is it handled by the RCMP or is there another type of crime division?

The Vancouver City Police do have jurisdiction over this crime. In particular, because the death is being investigated as a hate crime, the Hate Crime Unit of the VPD has the lead authority to perform the duty to investigate. Currently, the theory released to the press is that the perpetrators are "veteran gay-bashers" who have engaged in less virulent forms of attacks vs. homosexuals in the past.

	22-11-2001 20:59									#75
	Remove this text

quote: It is the action that is punishable, not the thought

Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts?

The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

Compare:
Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife.
Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Who is more likely to strike again?

If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim.

If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again.

Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple.

- mindseye

	22-11-2001 21:31									#76
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by mindseye quote: It is the action that is punishable, not the thought Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts? The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again. Compare: Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife. Killer B murders a man because he is black. Who is more likely to strike again? If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim. If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again. Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple. - mindseye

My point was this--lock them both up, permamently. The idea that anyone convicted of murder should get less than a life sentence is beyond me.

	22-11-2001 21:42									#77
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by mindseye quote: It is the action that is punishable, not the thought Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts? The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again. Compare: Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife. Killer B murders a man because he is black. Who is more likely to strike again? If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim. This is exactly correct. Exactly correct. If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again. Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple. - mindseye

	22-11-2001 22:17									#78
	Increase Your PM Length

I would like to start by saying that I don't know the details of this particular case, so I don't feel it within my domain to comment on it specifically.
But on the matters of hate crimes, we have not had any landmark cases down here, but personally, regardless of the circumstances, if found guilty, the perpetrator should face the maximum sanction of the law for any type of murder.
Having said that, let me say that the notion of a crime being specifically committed towards a particular group on the sole basis of their sexual orientation, race or whatever, needs to be addressed as well, if but to try and prevent such goings on from now on.
This particular case cuts home a bit, but I do feel that the notion of hate crimes needs a lot of work before it is workable, if indeed it is decided by the relevant communities that it is

"Such a tragedy.

I wish it had happened to a straight guy."
Was this comment really necessary? IMO, not, sorry if I offend, but any type of murder diminshes our community, regardless of sexual orientation. Such reverse homophobia makes us look bad, IMO.

So, in summary, a tragedy, but the implementation of legislation and strictures on hate crimes needs to be thoroughly thought through, bfire blanket application (if indeed at all)

	22-11-2001 23:09									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Here's a scenario for all you hate-crime advacates--


A white man passes a black man on the street - Tha black man calls the white man a honkey-white bread-cracker-redneck-trailer trash piece of crap whiteboy. White man procedes to beat BM to a bloody pulp.

reverse this--WM calles BM n***ger -BM beats whity to bloody pulp.

Who here gets charged with hate crime?

answer--white man

just the fact that I cant spell out the N-word is an indication of the Bias of Hate crime legislation.

It is geared toward minorities which flies in the face of the idea of equal protection under the law.

If it cant be handled equally among all races,colors, religion,sexual orientation etc. then it should be abolished.

On a side note the media tends to create news as much as reporting it.

Of course IMHO

	22-11-2001 23:16									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 Here's a scenario for all you hate-crime advacates-- A white man passes a black man on the street - Tha black man calls the white man a honkey-white bread-cracker-redneck-trailer trash piece of crap whiteboy. White man procedes to beat BM to a bloody pulp. reverse this--WM calles BM n***ger -BM beats whity to bloody pulp. Who here gets charged with hate crime? answer--white man

Huh? How do you figure that? Niether of those would be hate crimes - why would the whiteman be charged with a hate crime? especially when it was the black man who provoked him with racist remarks?

quote: It is geared toward minorities which flies in the face of the idea of equal protection under the law. If it cant be handled equally among all races,colors, religion,sexual orientation etc. then it should be abolished.

I've already adressed this - Any law can be abused, not just hate crimes. It's not a problem with the law (or atleast the principles of it) it's a problem with the legal system that allows this to happen.

	22-11-2001 23:31									#81
	Tired of ads?

Because Oswald --

The black man would cry racism and be believed.

the white man would cry racism and be laughed at.

Here in the USA you see it all the time.

Perhaps you Canadians handle it better but this is what I see in the US.

	22-11-2001 23:51									#82
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree with Asher et al.

quote: Hating someone for WHAT they are, rather than WHO a person is a very detrimental to society, way of thinking.

Exactly, we need to take down barriers between first and second degree murders. Damn state criminalizing thought... How dare it make a distinction between murders of passion and pre-meditated murders.

	23-11-2001 10:10									#83
	Got spare money?

Don't be sad folks...the gay man is in heaven now

	26-11-2001 06:42									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mindseye The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again. Compare: Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife. Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Killer C murders a man because he wants his money.

Forget the strawman arguements about a killers propenisity to kill again. This is about bowing to the current ethical trends of society much like the legalization of slavery, or denying women a right to vote. It's really that simple.

	26-11-2001 08:24									#85
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by mindseye The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

I also wanted to add the doling out sentences based on the speculation of what someone may, or may not, do in the future is a long and ugly, ugly, ugly road to start traveling down, especially in light of the advances we've made in the ability to read one's DNA sequence. For instance, if your DNA is close to the DNA of repete offenders then by your logic your sentence should be stiffer since statistically you are more likely to commit more crime, no?

Perhaps sentencing should be confined to the past tense and not the possible future.

	26-11-2001 09:06									#86
	Vancouver Full PM-box? Change here!

Not that this thread seems that interested in Vancouver anymore, but...

Generally the Downtown area, Stanley Park included, are very accepting. But there are always a few bad apples. The further you get into the suburbs, the more bad apples there are. Still no word, on the case, whether it is a hate crime or not.

I.

	26-11-2001 20:36									#87
	Re: Vancouver Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imazalil Not that this thread seems that interested in Vancouver anymore, but... Generally the Downtown area, Stanley Park included, are very accepting. But there are always a few bad apples. The further you get into the suburbs, the more bad apples there are. Still no word, on the case, whether it is a hate crime or not. I.

Thanks, Imazalil--I'm still monitoring this thread for info.

	27-11-2001 18:33									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

(Didn't have time to read pgs. 2-3)

quote: Originally posted by Dissident [Hate crime laws] just creates more hate by discriminating against those people that hate a certain type of people. We aren't treating people as equals. Murder is murder- period

quote: Originally posted by WhiteElephants If you kill someone you kill someone. The only difference is that it's sometimes an accident. There's no need to interject emotion into the picture.

Then I suppose we need to eliminate the crime of manslaughter? How about criminal negligence? First and second degree murder? Or is it only punishments based on hate-based motivations that bother you? If so, why is that?

	27-11-2001 23:26									#89
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by n.c. (Didn't have time to read pgs. 2-3) Then I suppose we need to eliminate the crime of manslaughter? How about criminal negligence? First and second degree murder? Or is it only punishments based on hate-based motivations that bother you? If so, why is that?

The way I see it, there are two types of killings. Those without intent (negligence/manslaughter), and those with intent (murder). When it comes to punishment, I couldn't give a flying rat's ass what that intent was. Murder (or attempted murder) = life in prison, full stop. Now, in regards to society, yes, the intent of ethnic hatred (or whatever kind of ignorance and fear was at play) is an issue, and needs to be addressed on a society wide level, as bluntly and efficiently and quickly as possible. But that shouldn't translate into harsher sentencing.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears over someone who received a longer sentence because he beat the person up because he was black/white/brown/purple/gay/straight/whatever. But that doesn't make it right or philosophically consistent in a nation that professes to be the beacon of free thought.