'I hate white people' attack ruled not a hate crime |

just another example of reverse discrimination, nothing to see hear but a racist indian...

And another a$$hole judge

Reverse their positions and the white woman goes to jail convicted of a hate crime.

Well, the next time a white person is accused, they can use this ruling to defend themselves:

So unless they're a skinhead or have spouted off about their hatred, they have a good case.

Won't work. All that privilege and innate evil we're all apparently born with negates that kind of defense.

The first nations people have been and will always be victims. So there.

Tut tut..

Only whitey can be racist.

This isn't actually a surprise. Hate Crime in Canada is set up to be something incredibly difficult to prove. Most hate crime statistics, after all, are categorized by police officers directly after the incident, and not by lawyers; this will hence be a hate crime statistically by police definitions, but due to the onus of evidence that exists in criminal cases in Canada, it will not be one legally. There is a gap between reported hate crime and legal action on hate crime as a result (as discussed periodically here).

We use a level similar to Americans for evidence of hate crime, where the following is accepted:

- defendant�s membership in a group that espouses hatred for certain groups (such as a black separatist group or an online chat group that opposes homosexuality)
- defendant�s possession of literature or symbols associated with bias, such as Nazi memorabilia or anti-Semitic texts
- defendant�s own writings, graffiti, or tattoos
- the use of biased slurs or graffiti during or at the site of the crime
- the date of the incident, if it coincides with a significant holiday or anniversary, and
- other hate crimes committed by defendant.

I can try to find the case law, but that would take a while, and I don't quite have the time to cite it all right now.

Calling someone "white" is not really a slur, but being technical aside, cases where someone says something once during an attack usually doesn't provide enough information or evidence to prove that an attack was motivated by hate (sadly). This is because for something to be called a hate crime, it has to meet a rigorous standard with a significant amount of evidence that showed pre-existing malice to the instigating incident. All of that, since this is an aggravating factor to a criminal charge, has to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is actually something fairly hard to reach when it comes to things like hate crime. Trust me, the LGBT community complains about the difficulty of reaching that level of proof, even though most who do engage in violence are put behind bars for their original crime (as happened in this case). Dislike for how easy it is to get those aggravating factors dismissed (as some of you have demonstrated in this thread) is both understandable and common among peer groups of victims. I wish the law was different as well.

It's why we hear a lot about hate crime in Canada, but we are more likely to hear about public incitement of hatred cases when it comes to actual charges being successfully proven. Far easier to charge and prove that, then to try and prove an aggravating factor in a hate crimes case.

That sort of pretzel logic shows why hate crimes legislation is dubious at best. So if someone writes hateful graffiti, that's hate, but punch somebody and say it's because you hate their race, that's not.

I very much question if the races were reversed that the outcome would be very different. It seems even the judiciary buys into the bullshit that only whites can be racist.

How is this a case of "he said, she said?" Do you understand what that phrase means at all? The perp said "I hate white people" not "This was consensual." And there were witnesses. What is vague about "I hate white people?"

Racism is fucking racism, if you can't see that then you are beyond hope.

If it was his sister getting punched, he'd be calling for blood...damn the evidence.