After the Canadian Alliance's motion to define marriage legally as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" was defeated – albeit by a razor-thin five votes after the first vote tied – the New Democratic Party's motion to add homosexuals to the list of minorities protected by hate crimes legislation passed by about 141 to 110. The Canadian Alliance argued that the NDP's motion could limit religious freedom if passed, but since freedom of religion is already protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms most MPs saw that argument as more than a little spurious.
According to the CBC, Canadian statistics have shown that homosexuals are in fact Canada's most persecuted minority (particularly when it comes to violent crimes), and hate crimes legislation certainly doesn't cover what the pastor says on Sunday morning, so I'm glad to see that the NDP motion passed handily.
Of course, I was also glad to see the Alliance motion defeated and would love to see homosexual marriage finally legalized, but hey, I'm a raving liberal
At any rate, just thought I'd give Hatrack the update on what's happening north of the border in this area. Oh, and we've decriminalized marijuana, too. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always get a little irked when they announce new minorities, having de-minoritied Asians. Are Jews still considered a minority? Just talking about the general subject of what constitutes a minority or not. What if the persecution leveled against you tends to be from other minorities?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a serious note, what is being catagorized as "anti-homosexual?" Are we talking propaganda that encourages hate crimes and aggressively working against basic human rights?
If so, that is good news. Everyone should be protected against such propaganda.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:hate crimes legislation certainly doesn't cover what the pastor says on Sunday morning
On the other hand, if it means that pastors can no longer say it is a sin to be avoided, I'd say Canada is in the maelstrom with Kayla.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some questions that normally come up with discussions such as these: What exactly is a hate crime (in Canada)? Why is a crime against gay people worse than crimes against other people? If a stepped up penalty for crimes against gay people reduces that crime against them, wouldn't it be logical just to have that penalty for that crime in general for all people?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: On a serious note, what is being catagorized as "anti-homosexual?" Are we talking propaganda that encourages hate crimes and aggressively working against basic human rights?
If so, that is good news. Everyone should be protected against such propaganda.
I'm of the opinion that you can talk about it all you want, but actually doing it is another thing entirely. (See: NAMBLA, discussion of)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hate crimes are precisely what their name suggests. i.e., it's a crime, but additionally is motivated by hate.
In other words, if you beat a gay man to death, you're guilty of murder. If you beat a gay man to death because he's gay, you're guilty of a hate crime – as of yesterday – and it carries a heavier penalty. If the pastor still wants to say that homosexuality is a sin and will send you to the firey pits of hell, he's allowed to. Given that homosexuals are targeted by hate crimes in Canada more than any other minority, I'd say they need that protection.
...but then, I can also honestly say that I find opposition to same-sex marriage utterly incomprehensible.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is freedom of speech guranteed in Canada? Because I could see how this could be misused to inhibit freedom of speech.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you beat a gay man to death because he's gay, you're guilty of a hate crime – as of yesterday – and it carries a heavier penalty.
I really, really don't like thought-policing. I don't like any kind of hate crime legislation.
It is punishing for intent instead of action. If kill your business partner, is it worse to do it because you hate him for sleeping with your wife than because he was about to find out you stole the money?
It's better to beat someone to death because YOU'RE a worthless bastard than because you think your victim is? Shooting someone for their wallet is less of a crime than shooting someone for their reputation?
If it works to prevent assaults and such, why not strengthen the original punishments? Surely we want to prevent ALL assaults.
posted
All right, all right, I give... I have a huge crush on Caleb.
Ryan, as I said in my first post, freedom of speech and religion are still both guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why the argument made by the Canadian Alliance (that granting homosexuals minority status could inhibit freedom of religion) is complete bunk. It still isn't a hate crime to say "I think homosexuality is a sin." It is a hate crime to spray-paint "fag" on a gay man's house, though. As of yesterday, anyway.
Edit:
>> It is punishing for thoughts instead of intent. <<
No, it's punishing for intent, insofar as you consider motivation part of intent.
posted
I think the point of hate crime legislation is partially to counteract the pre-existing memes that give rise to its need in the first place.
They punish you for a crime of hate specifically because they are trying to fight the hate itself as well as the crime. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Which is why there's a distinction between those who think homosexuality is wrong and say so (not a hate crime) and those who think homosexuality is wrong and believe it so fervently that they actively try to hurt homosexuals (a hate crime).
Edit: Not to mention, kat, that we also might disagree because I think you're more libertarian than I am. I'm definitely a "nanny state" sort of person in many respects.
The memes. The thoughts. The ideas. Using the state to punish those who think a certain way.
It's a good fight, but it shouldn't be fought the threat of jail. It isn't a crime to be rascist, but it is a crime to act on it.
Caleb, your justification was the justification used for the McCarthy hearings. Do you agree with the principle of those?
-------
twinky, that makes lots of sense. Libartarian is almost another word for that Texas individualism by which Bob has become enraptured.
quote:they actively try to hurt homosexuals
They shouldn't actively hurt ANYONE. Why does it matter who the victim is?
It sounds good now because we agree with the thought: don't hate people.
But the idea that the severity of a crime depends on who is doing it and unto whom it is done is horrifying. That's what used to justify capital punishment for black men who kissed a white girl, or who struck a white man.
posted
>> They shouldn't actively hurt ANYONE. Why does it matter who the victim is? <<
Because it happens to homosexuals more than other people, and thus homosexuals require special protection (just like racial or religious minorities).
...it doesn't depend on who is doing it. Only 'unto whom,' which was the second part of your sentence, but isn't included in your analogy. So I don't think the analogy is valid (surprise, surprise).
And remember, I – and Canadians in general – do want our government to legislate a great many "nanny state" type things, which I think this falls under.
(Edited for clarity and because of kat's post above mine.)
quote:it's worse in the eyes of the legal system than your average crime
Why is it worse? Because of the thoughts of the person who did it?
If someone shot me because I beat him at darts, you are saying that is better than if someone shot me because I turned him down and he thought I might be gay?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> If someone shot me because I beat him at darts, you are saying that is better than if someone shot me because I turned him down and he thought I might be gay? <<
Yup.
Intent is important in the legal system, remember? That's why premeditated crimes are punished more harshly than spur-of-the-moment crimes. Motivation is important.
(Edit: Not to mention that the idea is to protect homosexuals, given that under the current system they're being persecuted more than other minorities.)
Edit:
Well yeah I changed my post because when I posted, your post wasn't there. But you don't need to change yours, since I'm responding to it anyway
quote:Caleb, your justification was the justification used for the McCarthy hearings. Do you agree with the principle of those?
I believe the justification for the McCarthy hearings was more along the lines of "holy @*$&, it's the red scare, we need to get rid of the enemy within before they take us over".
Do I agree with the principles of the McCarthy hearings? Not any more than I think they are an applicable comparison to hate crime legislation.
Teaching the members of your society to stop hating each other is a good way to live in peace. Accusations of communism were a good way to forward your own political agenda, back in the day.
Yup, pretty much the same, aren't they?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, you're right. This must be a fundamental libertarian/nanny state difference. I consider that while the state/society has an interest in what I do, they have no interest and no right for a say in why I do it.
I do think there is a difference though, between premeditated murder vs. heat of passion and profit motive vs. hate motive. Premeditated recognizes a long series of decisions - many choices to commit the crime - while heat of passion recognizes a lack of control and a few decisions, but not a long string of evil decisions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Katharina (and with what I am perceiving to be Storm's opinion) on this one.
quote:...but then, I can also honestly say that I find opposition to same-sex marriage utterly incomprehensible.
You seem to be assuming that you could only be opposed to this if you are opposed to same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general. I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, and I am not opposed to same-sex marriages. And I have a problem with hate crime legislation.
quote:It is a hate crime to spray-paint "fag" on a gay man's house, though. As of yesterday, anyway.
Graffiti and vandalism are not illegal in Canada? Things are worse over there than I thought.
People always vandalize, beat, or kill because they hate (even if only temporarily). What you're saying is that hating me because I cut you off in traffic, or because I embezzled money from you, or because I slept with your wife, or because I'm a jerk are all more acceptable than hating me because I'm a minority. Does the reason really make that big a different?
quote:They punish you for a crime of hate specifically because they are trying to fight the hate itself as well as the crime. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't think that's how you fight hate. You can't make people afraid to hate. It doesn't work.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if the state isn't actually policing your thoughts until AFTER you've committed your crime, how can you possibly be against hate crime legislation? You don't think an important part of addressing crime is addressing the reasons that crime exists? How much sense does that make?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teaching the members of your society to stop hating each other is a good way to live in peace. Accusations of communism were a good way to forward your own political agenda, back in the day.
Come on, Caleb. The people in the fifties were scared spitless. Your sentence could be reconstructed to read "Accusations of communism were a good way to live in peace.", and you would be able to find many, many people who supported the hearings who believed exactly that.
The motives of the people who started the hearings were, I'm certain, wildly varied and about as pure as motives usually are in politics. The popular support for the hearings came from a desire to live in peace and to control the monster they say threatening them.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that they were scared and were trying to do anything they could to squelch what they saw as the destroyer. The motives don't matter - the hearings were a travesty whatever the reasoning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've yet to show how McCarthyism, which is based on singling people out and destroying their lives--hate crimes, one might say--is in any way comparable to anti-hate crime legislation, which singles out a certain kind of criminal (yes, those wonderful criminals that need to have their thoughts protected, evidently) for the express purpose of destigmatizing a society against a certain kind of crime.
quote: Because it happens to homosexuals more than other people, and thus homosexuals require special protection (just like racial or religious minorities).
I agree, and I would add that the idea is that they are being murdered *solely* because they are homosexual. Not because they caused their murderers any particular personal grievance. I'm having trouble illustrating my exact thoughts on this matter, but it comes down to "The idea that someone who was homosexual needed to be dead because they were homosexual" is at it's roots, a deeper, more psychologically harmful societal belief than, say, "He slept with my wife." Does that make any sense? I have a feel i'm being unbelievably unclear. It's killing for an idea, like the priest who murdered the abortion doctor. Or if someone decided to kill any child with Down Syndrome. Or if someone decided to kill people who had blonde hair. It's a serial killer-type mentality, that "all homosexuals need to die" and it's more important that it have a stronger label. Thus, "hate crime"
posted
>> Graffiti and vandalism are not illegal in Canada? Things are worse over there than I thought. <<
>> People always vandalize, beat, or kill because they hate (even if only temporarily). What you're saying is that hating me because I cut you off in traffic, or because I embezzled money from you, or because I slept with your wife, or because I'm a jerk are all more acceptable than hating me because I'm a minority. Does the reason really make that big a different? <<
Yes, it does. If I spray-paint "ass-pirate" on someone's house for kicks, and you spray-paint "fag" on someone else's house because its owner is gay and you hate gay people, you should be going to prison for longer than me. Again, intent and motivation are important.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't think an important part of addressing crime is addressing the reasons that crime exists?
But it doesn't. It doesn't address the reasons for the prejudice in the first place. It uses the state and a system of alleged justice to punish people for their thoughts without addressing the underlying issues.
I understand the desire to do something, and this is seen as a symbolic victory. Kind of like the Patriot Act. Congratulations - this means we can put the terrorists on the run, and in the process, destroy the justice of the system we are trying to preserve. It's a Pyhrric victory.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people assume hate crimes are limited to the majority? How many Christian churches have been burned? The law should give protection to EVERYONE, straight or gay, white or black. As long as we act like minorities need special protection, then they will.
Twinky- Intent defininently should NOT be part of the legal system. The heart of man cannot be accurately judged by another.
[ September 18, 2003, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that comparing legislation that imposes stricter punishments only after due process has been applied to legislation that circumvents due process is just a wee bit hyperbolic.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, with that philosophy, the "degrees" of murder that exist now would be totally obliterated. So someone who ended up killing a man in self-defense would be forced to suffer the same consequences as a man who premeditated a murder for years before commiting the act.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kind of like the Patriot Act. Congratulations - this means we can put the terrorists on the run, and in the process, destroy the justice of the system we are trying to preserve. It's a Pyhrric victory.
Again, not comparable--and for obvious reasons.
quote:It doesn't address the reasons for the prejudice in the first place.
What part of harsher penalties for a specific prejudice can you see as not addressing the prejudice? That makes no sense. You would rather the government address prejudice by thought-indoctrination rather than thought-policing?
And please. Thought police? We're talking about criminals that have already committed crimes and addressing the reasons that they do those crimes so that OTHER people that may feel it right to persecute homosexuals can have an extra incentive not to do so, and so they'll know that the government itself disagrees with them.
posted
Thought policing is wrong and a mistake because the people deciding which thoughts are acceptable and which are not, and deciding exactly what someone was thinking at the time of a crime are fallible. Except in very rare cases, you can't know why someone did a crime. I highly doubt this law will be limited to those times that the perpetrator left a secret diary filled with evil thoughts and plans.
It is using the justice system, which means people's lives, to promote an agenda.
You say the hearings destroyed lives, but this law doesn't? Twinky stuck his tongue out at Icky, but Icky has a point. If you spray-paint "You're a &@$*#&^" on someone's house, you get a lighter sentence than if you spraypaint "You're a fag"?
Either the difference in the sentences is huge, in which case you are sacrificing justice and lives to police thoughts, or else the difference is minimal, almost nothing, in which the legislation is toothless and no cause of rejoicing even for those who support it in principle.
When you punish someone MORE GREATLY because of what they were thinking when they did it, you are punishing them for their thoughts. The extra five years in jail are five years for thinking the wrong thing. Not the action - the action was payed for in the first five years - but for the thought.
That isn't blind justice; this doesn't even pretend to be. There is no attempt to make the courtroom a place, in Atticus' words, where every person is equal and judged according to their actions.
posted
Not if you understand the legal system. To get a first degree murder you need to show some sort of premeditation. Any at all will work. Whether it was because the guy was gay or an ass-hole it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's impossible to judge what truly was the motive.
Caleb- Someone seems like they want to create Big Brother to protect themselves.
[ September 18, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think kat's point, Caleb, is not actually that it doesn't address the problem of prejudice, but rather that it doesn't solve the problem.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Why do people assume hate crimes are limited to the majority? How many Christian churches have been burned? The law should give protection to EVERYONE, straight or gay, white or black. As long as we act like minorities need special protection, then they will. <<
They do need special protection, because more crimes are committed against homosexuals per capita than any other group in Canada. If that isn't reason enough to consider protecting their rights then I don't know what is.
In Canada, the Christians aren't persecuted. So they don't need any special protection beyond freedom of speech and religion, both of which they have.
>> Intent defininently should NOT be part of the legal system. The heart of man cannot be accurately judged by another. <<
Do you seriously believe that premeditated murder is equal to involuntary manslaughter? Or are you playing devil's advocate?
Edit:
>> Twinky stuck his tongue out at Icky, but Icky has a point. If you spray-paint "You're a &@$*#&^" on someone's house, you get a lighter sentence than if you spraypaint "You're a fag"? <<
Hey! I stuck my tongue out at Icky's joke, and then responded to his point.
quote:That isn't blind justice; this doesn't even pretend to be.
I'm reasonably certain that the idea behind "blind justice" is not so much that you don't see any difference between defendants, but rather that the process of justice (not the results) should be the same for everyone.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Not if you understand the legal system. To get a first degree murder you need to show some sort of premeditation. Any at all will work. Whether it was because the guy was gay or an ass-hole it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's impossible to judge what truly was the motive. <<
Um... you know that motive and intent are both important to the legal system, right?
Edit: I did indeed miss it. You posted while I was writing. Shame on you! *waggles finger*
So if going home tonight, I'm jumped, beaten and killed, the person would get a lighter sentence than if Caleb was jumped, beaten, and killed?
What happened to equal protection under the law? If harsher penalties prevent crimes, then harsher penalties for everybody!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'm pretty familiar with you skipping details so I'll reiterate since you asked:
The Patriot Act is in no way comparable to hate-crime legislation because, as Saxon said above (and which is perfectly obvious to you as well, since you recognize the faults of the Patriot Act):
quote:I think that comparing legislation that imposes stricter punishments only after due process has been applied to legislation that circumvents due process is just a wee bit hyperbolic.
Let's not beat around the bush. Canada has a problem with anti-homosexual crimes. Rather than making all Canadians watch Queer As Folk episodes until they've been desensitized out of their hatred (which would never work--it's a terrible show), Canada says to its citizens: "this is a problem, and if you're going to be a part of it, we're going to make you pay even more". And since this only applies to THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIMES, none of your comparisons hold any water.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, quit it. So far you've told me I make no sense, that I'm wrong for obvious reasons, and that I skip details.
I don't know if you're upset or if you're always doing that, but knock it off. This is why discussions between us turn into quibbles where I pick at your technique. Stop it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I do think there is a difference though, between premeditated murder vs. heat of passion and profit motive vs. hate motive. Premeditated recognizes a long series of decisions - many choices to commit the crime - while heat of passion recognizes a lack of control and a few decisions, but not a long string of evil decisions. << (kat)
Now I see why you call it 'thought policing.' You're saying that a hate motive moves a crime up to a punishment level comparable with premeditiation because the preexisting hate is considered the same as the premeditation of a crime.
Have I got that right?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
