http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules

How is this not a hate crime? She said "I hate white people" and then threw a punch.

If a white woman said "I hate Inuit people" and threw a punch would that be a hate crime? I would venture a guess that it would.

I guess Canada does not have hate crimes...

bbauska wrote:http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules

How is this not a hate crime? She said "I hate white people" and then threw a punch.

If a white woman said "I hate Inuit people" and threw a punch would that be a hate crime? I would venture a guess that it would.

I guess Canada does not have hate crimes...

I read the article. There is a legal concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" that the judge cited. It looks like there were other factors, and you have no idea what would have been the case if it were an opposite assault, and have cited no equivalent cases that were.

It says that the judge said “I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.”

Even in part? How can that be when the assailant said ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,”

Let's see...
You have hate.
You have an anti-race sentiment.
You have a crime.

Explain how this is NOT a racially biased hate crime. Which of those three facts above are in dispute?

Well, why do we have hate crimes in the first place? I mean, why should it matter that a person committed a battery on someone because they didn't like their bring in a particular group as opposed to not liking them as an individual.

The reason is that we are concerned about the chilling effect these crimes based on prejudice have and that usually has something to do with power arrangements in society. To give extreme examples the effect of a Jew beating up a German in the 1930s because he did not like Germans was not the same as a German that beat up Jews. The effect of a black person beating up a white person in the segregated south because he did not like white people was not the same as a white person beating up a black person in the segregated south.

In the segregated south and Nazi Germany there was also sanction for such crimes by power structures of society such as the police and local politicians. That is not necessary for something to be a hate crime but are we really that concerned that Inuit people are prejudiced against Whites that we have to more severely punish this woman?If that's the law, yes. I just don't think that's it's that much of a concern.

There is much more of a concern, however, that a majoritarian group will commit crimes against a minority group due to prejudice. In general, we are not really concerned that white males are being treated in this way. There might be some places where this could be true. But being concerned that an Inuit woman punches a white person because she doesn't like them seems strange to me, given that we are mostly concerned about minority groups without power being subjected to crimes based on prejudice. When a white person complains about such "unequal treatment" I have to wonder if they are blithely unaware of the special treatment they get on a routine basis. White people dont have their resumes rejected because they sound black, police don't stop them more because they are white, white taxi cab drivers do not get less money than black taxi drivers, white males generally don't get looked askance by shopkeepers. I think you could only be bothered by this if you are blissfully unaware of the fact that white males still have it pretty good relative to other groups.

If some person were attacked and seriously injured during a riot merely because they were white then, yes, by all means complain if a judge refused to punish the offender more severely. I would join you. But an Inuit woman punching someone? Not a big deal IMHO.

freeman3 wrote:Well, why do we have hate crimes in the first place? I mean, why should it matter that a person committed a battery on someone because they didn't like their bring in a particular group as opposed to not liking them as an individual.

The reason is that we are concerned about the chilling effect these crimes based on prejudice have and that usually has something to do with power arrangements in society. .

So, hate crime legislation is a de facto statement that justice is unequal and hate laws are an attempt to level the playing field?

I agree that there should not be specific hate crime penalties. Either it is a crime, or it is not. My problem is the hypocrisy of the employment of them.

If there are laws for hate crimes, should they not be equally employed?

It should not matter who is on top regarding a "power arrangement". It should only matter if a crime was committed.

bbauska wrote:It says that the judge said “I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.”

Even in part? How can that be when the assailant said ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,”

Let's see...
You have hate.
You have an anti-race sentiment.
You have a crime.

Explain how this is NOT a racially biased hate crime. Which of those three facts above are in dispute?

The person you need to ask is the judge, who is more familiar with the details of the case than you or I.

If he had satisfied his "beyond a reasonable doubt", then it would have been a guilty verdict. Often there is a question in criminal law of not just the action, but the intent, and how deliberate it was.

Clearly it was assault, and she was convicted of that.

bbauska wrote:I agree that there should not be specific hate crime penalties. Either it is a crime, or it is not. My problem is the hypocrisy of the employment of them.

If there are laws for hate crimes, should they not be equally employed?

It should not matter who is on top regarding a "power arrangement". It should only matter if a crime was committed.

You have not actually demonstrated that they are unequally employed. You seem to be assuming that they are not but that is not the same thing.

Where is your evidence?

Are the Dallas shootings that targeted white officers considered a hate crime?

I did not say there were incidents that were not equally employed. I asked if they should be.

bbauska wrote:Are the Dallas shootings that targeted white officers considered a hate crime?

Certainly should be a consideration, although as it is likely to be the single assailant who is now dead, it's kind of moot.

I did not say there were incidents that were not equally employed. I asked if they should be.

Apart from when you wrote:

"My problem is the hypocrisy of the employment of them."

Of course they should be applied consistently. Why are you suggesting/insinuating they are not?

There is much more of a concern, however, that a majoritarian group will commit crimes against a minority group due to prejudice. In general, we are not really concerned that white males are being treated in this way. There might be some places where this could be true. But being concerned that an Inuit woman punches a white person because she doesn't like them seems strange to me, given that we are mostly concerned about minority groups without power being subjected to crimes based on prejudice. When a white person complains about such "unequal treatment" I have to wonder if they are blithely unaware of the special treatment they get on a routine basis. White people dont have their resumes rejected because they sound black, police don't stop them more because they are white, white taxi cab drivers do not get less money than black taxi drivers, white males generally don't get looked askance by shopkeepers. I think you could only be bothered by this if you are blissfully unaware of the fact that white males still have it pretty good relative to other groups.

Above is Freeman's quote. He says that a white person gets special treatment on a routine basis. If that is so, it should be dealt with. If an Inuit gets special treatment, they should not either.

All I am saying is that ALL people should be treated equally from the government.

Does anyone really disagree with that statement anymore? It seems pretty common sense nowadays, but apparently there are those that still think that the government should treat some differently.

You make a complaint about the government not enforcing the law equally against an Inuit woman.
Are you aware that black get longer jail sentences than whites for committing the same crime?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 ... 3789858002

Blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at far higher rates than whites yet use at lower rates.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Ar ... Blacks.pdf

Blacks get searched more often at traffic stops but illegal stuff was found more often with whites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... drivers-2/

Blacks are far more likely to get the death penalty than whites because of the color of their skin, controlling for other factors.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-p ... ho-decides

But you're concerned that an Inuit woman not get special treatment over a white person? Before we start to worry overly much about the rare occurrence like the Inuit woman you referenced perhaps we should try to fix the differential treatment of blacks in the justice system which is like a million times worse of a problem.

I didn't understand your answer. Are you saying there should NOT be equal treatment from the government?

I am for mandatory sentences for a crime. Are you?

I think my answer was quite clear. Yes, government should not punish people differently based on their race. Owen pointed out that it is not even clear that this Inuit woman received special treatment. But even if she did it would be a pea in the ocean compared to the government's differential treatment of blacks. The question is: why are you getting so exercised that this Inuit is getting special treatment (as opposed to a white person) when there is so much injustice against blacks by the government?

freeman3 wrote:Before we start to worry overly much about the rare occurrence like the Inuit woman you referenced perhaps we should try to fix the differential treatment of blacks in the justice system which is like a million times worse of a problem.

Statistics are funny things (not in a humorous way):

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, white men and women were arrested for 60 percent of all violent crimes in 2012. Violent crimes include murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Here’s the arrest data:


All races Whites (incl. Hispanics) Blacks (incl. Hispanics)


Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 10,351 4,955 5,138

Forcible Rape 15,571 10,038 5,030

Robbery 82,189 38,041 42,460

Aggravated Assault 352,017 223,426 116,984

Total 460,128 276,460 169,612

Percent 100% 60.1% 36.9%

Population 240.165 million 192.319 million 30.971 million

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data Analysis Tool

Drilling down on the number of crimes committed by whites who are also male is more challenging. Federal data allows you to sort on race and sex, but not both at the same time.

The exception is for homicides. While you won’t find that information on the Justice Department website, it can be culled from federal records, which is what James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, has done for many years.

Fox sent us the following homicide arrest numbers:

Year Race Sex Reported Percent Rate per 100K
2012 White Male 4,631 41.5% 4.9
2012 Black Male 5,095 45.6% 35.2
2013 White Male 4,486 41.7% 4.7
2013 Black Male 4,863 45.2% 33.0


Source: James Alan Fox (The percentages are based on all homicide arrests, not just the ones you see in the table.)

Looking solely at murders, black men are arrested more for murder than white men, and at a much higher rate when you account for population.

Statistically, blacks commit more violent crime than any other racial group when adjusted for percentage of the population. Even unadjusted, they commit more murders. It should not be too shocking that they do more time.

Additionally, I wonder if the numbers freeman3 is using take into account prior offenses and other factors.