Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Don't be such a tool. I get it, you are a lawyer. Or you have gone to law school. Either way, you are a dweeb.
My point was, how is charging someone with a racist or prejudiced intent to commit a crime categorically different. How is hitting a black person because he is black different than hitting a black person because he is poor? Why is there a difference, and how is it actually enforceable.
Why is that crime, harassment, categorically different if she had said it to a white guy with a Polish accent? What if it was just a 50 year-old Joe Schmo, from Okotoks, Alberta, and she decided to berate and insult him?
You say you are a lawyer, but you seem to be unaware that there has been significant controversy over this very question in Canada.
Maybe you should read this:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...m/695/index.do |
Typically name-calling is not allowed on this forum, and I'm only being hostile to you because that's the second time you've decided it's appropriate to insult me for my profession.
I think I answered - motivation affects the moral judgment of actions, including crimes. My example was arson. In the case of a hate crime, the motivation differs from crimes that are not hate crimes. As a result, it has been categorized differently. This is not unique in our criminal system. You seem to have decided that this particular sort of differentiation based on motivation is particularly troubling for you. I'm inclined to speculate on why that might be, but I'll refrain from doing so.
I've pointed out flaws in your viewpoint. That does not imply that I am unaware of any controversy over whether hate crimes should be a thing. Thank you for condescendingly pointing me to a case I read over ten years ago in high school, which incidentally is now 25 years old and has never been overturned or even significantly questioned by the SCC.
EDIT: PS, I'm not even closed to the idea that this is a debate worth having and that maybe these laws shouldn't exist. My point was that your arguments against it are flatly-asserted unsubstantiated gibberish.