Calgary man out of a job after racist tirade caught on video.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Technically 'race' is a made up concept and really means nothing scientifically. From Bill Nye:

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-...cial-construct


[/INDENT]

But racism isn't. That's the problem.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I definitely agree but we have a long way to go. All I'm saying is we have to look in the mirror sometimes. We are quick to point over seas into another country yet the issues of how women are treated in North America are largely ignored.

In this case, we're talking about how women are treated in North America by men who were raised outside North America.

I'll probably get flamed for this - and I'm in no way excusing the behaviour of the people who were charged in this case - but I do wonder why people who have tremendously strong feelings against alcohol, sex outside marriage, and women behaving independently choose to drive a cab for a living. It's just a bizarre situation. Imagine if 80 per cent of the bartenders in Calgary were Mormons who tsk-tsked at people doing shots and getting drunk.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is absurd.

This post is absurd. Intent absolutely matters, morally, which is the entire point between absolute liability offenses and other crimes - though it goes far beyond that. A person's motivations for their actions contains a bunch of information about how they're likely to act in the future. Ultimately, all criminal law is is a system to punish and discourage behavior that a particular society has deemed immoral. If we've decided that being racist is bad, and particular behavior classified as criminal is bad, then it isn't at all beyond reason to conclude that the combination of both of them would be worse.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

It seems that by having both, you weaken the overall purpose of the law, which is to be just. You can't have two standards.

How are there two standards? They're not the same crimes. Our laws pretty consistently weigh intentions and mitigating circumstances when distinguishing between crimes. Manslaughter and murder are qualitatively the same crimes if you ignore the intentions behind them. Another example would be the killing of a police officer, which is automatically a first degree murder charge, but the killing of an average citizen is not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I love how peter12 has figured out a meaning behind the term "being just", which he feels is self-evident and requires no further explanation.

The two standards issue is already silly, as already pointed out; there are clearly many standards for more or less the same action based on intent.

Say my neighbour's house burns down, and mine burns down with it. The intent determines how we should perceive the event. If my neighbor was cooking dinner and accidentally left the stove on, that's one thing. If he intentionally burned his house down to try to defraud his insurance company, that's another thing. If he was trying to set the whole neighbourhood on fire because he just hates people, that's a third thing. This should be morally obvious.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This post is absurd. Intent absolutely matters, morally, which is the entire point between absolute liability offenses and other crimes - though it goes far beyond that. A person's motivations for their actions contains a bunch of information about how they're likely to act in the future. Ultimately, all criminal law is is a system to punish and discourage behavior that a particular society has deemed immoral. If we've decided that being racist is bad, and particular behavior classified as criminal is bad, then it isn't at all beyond reason to conclude that the combination of both of them would be worse.

Except this post doesn't explain anything. It merely defends the norm that already exists. You are clearly a lawyer.

If you have decided that being a racist is bad, then you have to decide what expression of racism is illegal. This has been quite a contentious issue in Canada, and is why, in the end, we decided to give a great deal of power to quasi-legal bodies like Human Rights Commissions.

In addition, you also have to explain why racism is actually not a crime, but racism in addition to another crime is a crime, and somehow distinct from the crime already being committed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I love how peter12 has figured out a meaning behind the term "being just", which he feels is self-evident and requires no further explanation.

Justice is fairness that is transferable.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I love how peter12 has figured out a meaning behind the term "being just", which he feels is self-evident and requires no further explanation.

I was going to add that he couldn't have picked a more abstract and constructed idea than "just."

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Igottago

But racism isn't. That's the problem.

The question is whether enshrining and emphasizing race in the law is really a good way to reduce racism. We have made the tremendous progress we have (and anyone who doesn't recognize that progress doesn't know their history) by de-emphasizing race and regarding everyone as individuals. Some claim that this approach will perpetuate the dominance of the majority culture, and it should be discarded in favour of redressing disparities on a group level. It's a matter that exposes pretty serious differences in philosophy, but one which intelligent people of good will can disagree on.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by peter12

It seems that by having both, you weaken the overall purpose of the law, which is to be just. You can't have two standards.

Sure you can. We see it all over the place, intent most definitely matters in nearly every aspect of law. It's the difference between manslaughter, second-degree and first-degree murder. Unintentional torts vs intentional torts. There's many aggravating circumstances in the Criminal Code of Canada and one on prejudice is a perfectly reasonable one to have.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not to sound skeptical but this doesn't sound like something that would happen commonly enough for it to happen more than once to the same person.

Half the fares out there are women, I can't honestly see cabbies berating people who aren't part of their culture for not following their cultural norms. That's just seems completely bizarre and something you'd hear as a crazy one off, not a "It's happened several times from different drivers to my wife" multiple incident.

Odd. What happened in those cases, did you go anywhere with it?

She often has to take a cab early morning or late at night to the airport for work. It has happened 2 or 3 times. Yes, I trust that she is not making it up.

No, she didn't go anywhere with it. Sure, maybe calling the taxi company would be an idea. Mostly she just wanted to get to where she was going without being told she shouldn't be going somewhere without a man.

As for how this is relevant, I don't know what that other women's situation was. But it is certainly possible the cab driver said something similar to her. I mean, how many people explode like that without any provocation?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except this post doesn't explain anything. It merely defends the norm that already exists. You are clearly a lawyer.

Um, this is the point? Are you even paying attention? We're talking about a norm that exists - hate crimes in Canada. You are saying it shouldn't. I'm saying your rationale for that position is idiotic. What are you even talking about?

In addition, you also have to explain why racism is actually not a crime, but racism in addition to another crime is a crime, and somehow distinct from the crime already being committed.

You have to actually make laws that are actually enforceable, which requires an actus reus in addition to intent. This is how our legal system works.

What is this gibberish?

Originally Posted by peter12

Justice is fairness that is transferable.

Oh, that clears it up, thanks. What's fairness, by the way? And why would adding transferability to fairness make it justice? Because you think that should be the definition? By the way, what makes your conception of justice good?

[jayswin]

Man I hate when Peter12 sees an opportunity to make a disingenuous argument to have his fun using CP as his little playground. There's nothing like being part of a community and having a member who comes on with an "well, I'm just trying to challenge you guys to think differently".

Great, thanks teach!!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Um, this is the point? Are you even paying attention? We're talking about a norm that exists - hate crimes in Canada. You are saying it shouldn't. I'm saying your rationale for that position is idiotic. What are you even talking about?


You have to actually make laws that are actually enforceable, which requires an actus reus in addition to intent. This is how our legal system works.

What is this gibberish?

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

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

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.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

No insults please. And no condescending posts, either. Thanks.

[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.

[rubecube]

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.

The difference is when an attacker cites a person's race as a direct reason for, or in a disparaging manner that predicates their attack on the victim. The reason for having hate-crime laws is that people still use race as a reason to assault victims and therefore racial minorities face additional risks of being assaulted. You can argue that perhaps this doesn't fit your ideal conception of justice, but then we have a case where idealism meets pragmatism, and pragmatism wins out.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The difference is when an attacker cites a person's race as a direct reason for, or in a disparaging manner that predicates their attack on the victim. The reason for having hate-crime laws is that people still use race as a reason to assault victims and therefore racial minorities face additional risks of being assaulted. You can argue that perhaps this doesn't fit your ideal conception of justice, but then we have a case where idealism meets pragmatism, and pragmatism wins out.

So would you agree that attempts by the Canadian government to charge groups organizing anti-Israel boycotts were hate crimes?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

So would you agree that attempts by the Canadian government to charge groups organizing anti-Israel boycotts were hate crimes?

That's a fair criticism, but I don't think a law is illegitimate simply because the sitting government wields it inappropriately.