[peter12]

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.

You have typically used your profession as a bludgeon in debates to overrule all dissent, or outside perspectives. You do it in the most primitive fashion.

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.

Nice one, buddy.

Subtle charges of racism aside, You used arson, but not in a valid way to defend your position. Intent matters, clearly, but not in the demonstrable ways that you want to pretend. I said quite simply that assault or harassment or murder is understandable in its own right, and that the extra category of a hate crime resulting in a stiffer sentence is unnecessary given the difficulty in proving that intent, the difficulty in differentiating that intent from other motivations in the crime, and the sentimentality in placing victimhood above the impartiality of the law.

My overall concern is more for the fairness of the law in dealing with crimes that are objectively similar, and also in the social cleavages created by enshrining identity into the law.

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.

So, you are what, a 27 year old associate? Anyway, the case is still valid, as it was a 4-3 split. It has also been cited in two subsequent landmark cases.