Gay man beaten to death in Vancouver park

[Bereta_Eder]

mayby such laws (hate crime laws) actually ENFORCE - PROMOTE racial discrimination?

(because they say that you are special and so you are by definition different?)

[vlad]

What next for the PC culture who wishes to define everything, perhaps call 911 for regular crimes and 912 for hate crimes??

[godeater]

Originally posted by RedFred
Some facts: this has been a major item in the news. To put it in context, it was Vancouver's thirteenth homicide of the year.

There was a big parade in the West End supporting the victim. Both gays and straights, over 1,000, I think.

The second beach area of Stanley Park is supposed to be a big gay cruising spot after dark. I only go by there in the daytime during my long runs on Sunday.

The time of the incident was about three in the morning. The victim was found clad only in hiking boots. Police suspect that this was a hate crime against a gay individual, but are by no means certain. The crime would be no less henious if it turned out to be a random act of violence. Apparently the guy was beaten to death.

Intolerence and prejudice exists everywhere, I hope people will realise that this is an extremely rare incident and that they don't view Vancouver as a dangerous or redneck kind of city.

Speaking as a law student and Vancouver resident with a strong interest in criminology, I can also attest that this is the first reported homicide apparently motivated by sexual orientation.

My two cents.

[godeater]

I should add the important qualifier that prompted me to post in the first place.

The first such crime ever reported...in the province of British Columbia.

[drake]

Ok, for imran (If he can still see this) and white elephant and anyone else who thinks all crimes should be treated the same.

Lets look at hate crimes on a larger scale. It's this little thing called genocide. It's the systematic extermination or destruction of a political, racial or cultural group. When genocide is committed, it isn't because of what a group did to another group, its because of who that group is.

Now war is a nasty nasty thing, and people die. But when a regime commits genocide on say, a minority group, as opposed to going to war with an enemy that is known to oppose the regime and will fight back, is this or isn't this two different things?

If it is indeed (which it is), then why shouldn't there be similar distinctions on a domestic level?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Additionally Imran, what if it involved a person from Pakistan?
Would you sing a different tune then?
Uh huh. I believe you would. A double to you.
What a hypocritical viewpoint for you to dare and think, much less express.
You're better than that. Show it.

Thanks for putting words in my ****ing mouth! Mind reader now? Well, perhaps you better work on your skills.

Calling me a hypocrite by taking my words and THEN make up what I'd believe.

You are lower than scum.

And no, I wouldn't sing a different tune. There should be NO Hate Crimes! People have the freedom to hate, if they act upon it, then they should be prosecuted by the regular law, not some tack on law.

Any reason why I shouldn't put you on my ignore list, moron?

Watch your mouth, Imran.

As I said earlier, there are different degrees of murder.
That's just documented fact that is part of our legal system.
YOUR legal system.
There most certainly are crimes committed by hate, not passion, not incidental.
Done purely because of a hate of difference, whatever the difference.
That includes beating a gay person to death, dragging a black man to pieces behind a truck, or doing whatever to ...whoever solely because of differences.

As far as putting me on an ignore list, feel free.
You're in America now. You have that right.
To do so because I ask if your feelings would be the same if a group of ignorant asses beat a person from Pakistan to death, is kind of pathetic though.
It's a valid question.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by godeater
I should add the important qualifier that prompted me to post in the first place.

The first such crime ever reported...in the province of British Columbia.

Thanks for the additional info, Godeater. Can't wait to visit your beautiful city again.

Now, on to hate crimes, since no one decided to halt the in-progress threadjack and open a debate on a separate thread...

Both sides have good points, and need to tone it down a bit to see where each other are coming from. Here's my view; yes, "hate crimes" do exist, for lack of a better term. Yes, they are indicative of problems within our society, problems which need to be addressed and confronted in the boldest, most decisive way possible. However, that should not translate to lengthened sentences for those who commit "hate crimes". In a free society, people can hold whatever viewpoints they see fit, no matter how repugnant or evil those viewpoints may be. It is the action that is punishable, not the thought. If we want to get rid of (or, realistically, limit) racism, homophobia, etc., legislating thoughtcrimes is not the way to do it. It will only set a precedent that could become hugely damaging in the future.

A gay man was beaten to death, allegedly for being gay. That's a problem for our society (American & Canadian). But for criminal justice? A man was beaten to death. That should be enough.

[SlowwHand]

Thought crimes, no that's not true.
If that were the case, I could be sentenced for my initial reaction to Imran's childish outburst; that being that I would like to kick his ass to the curb.
It's action, not thought, that gets one put in jail.

[vlad]

Well I think we can all at least agree that killing someone be them gay or Imran kind of sucks

I have a question for Godeater,
In a case like this is it handled by the RCMP or is there another type of crime division?

[RedFred]

The case is being handled by the Vancouver City Police. The only news today is that since the work at the scene of the crime is complete the number of detectives working on the case has dropped from five to two. This has caused criticism of the police handling of the case.

No new leads and the police have advised that those witnessing the crime and not coming forward are obstructing justice.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by drake
Ok, for imran (If he can still see this) and white elephant and anyone else who thinks all crimes should be treated the same.

Lets look at hate crimes on a larger scale. It's this little thing called genocide. It's the systematic extermination or destruction of a political, racial or cultural group. When genocide is committed, it isn't because of what a group did to another group, its because of who that group is.

That last statement is pretty sweeping and I would argue that geneocide is most often committed for what a group has done, didn't do, or where preceieved to have or have not done. For instance, the jews who were persecuted in Nazi Germany were only done so after Hitler's propaganda machine created fictious reason to, and in the eyes of the Nazi public this treatment was then justified. So it wasn't just being a jew that spontaneously made Nazi's hate them it was the concocted lies that Hitler leveled against them. I don't think this is any different from the rationale people will use to commit hate crimes. In fact I would bet that if the man in the article was killed for being gay his assaliants will have some twisted rationale behind why they were justified in doing so. By the same token I don't find that the institutioin of the hate crimes bill is any more rational. Meaning that we can invent reasons to institute the bill that, like genocide, are fueled by an equally emotional response. In otherwords, we've injected the same rationale of comminting hate crimes into our justice system and are attempting to use it to stop hate crimes. Are we not, in fact, saying we "hate" people who commit hate crimes by introducing this bill?

Now war is a nasty nasty thing, and people die. But when a regime commits genocide on say, a minority group, as opposed to going to war with an enemy that is known to oppose the regime and will fight back, is this or isn't this two different things?

If it is indeed (which it is), then why shouldn't there be similar distinctions on a domestic level?

I'm not sure I differentiate war and genocide, in fact, I think the invention of the term war, or genocide, was a cosmetic difference used to placate those who would oppose such action. For instance, couldn't we argue that the war taking place in Afghanistan is a war of political genocide? Is it not the intention of the United States to prematurely wipe the government of the Taleban out of existance? Couldn't the same be said of the War in Vietnam? Was the United States not there to essentially quell, if not eradicate, the rise of Communism? The Crusades, WWII, WWI, the Reveloutionary War? Aren't "wars" just genocide with a warm fuzzy name?

So to answer your question, no, I don't think war and genocide are two different things. The only difference is the way you spell them.

[SlowwHand]

That is so not right, 'phant.
War stops when the other people give up and go home.
Genocide stops when the other people are gone for good.

A whole lot of difference, besides the spelling.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That is so not right, 'phant.
War stops when the other people give up and go home.
Genocide stops when the other people are gone for good.

A whole lot of difference, besides the spelling.

Call it what you will, but the fact remains that both systems use violence as a means and their ends are the same -- the end being the extinction of a culture, religion, or way of life.

By your definition the United States' treatment of their indigenous people, the Native Americans, was merley a war and not genocide? Are you comfortable with that? Couldn't the same be said for Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews? By the same logic the USA will certainly not kill every last Taleban memeber, but enough to the point that there numbers are insignificant much like any other genocidal attempt, no?

What you seem to be suggesting is that genocide is only genocide if it works.

[godeater]

Originally posted by vlad
Well I think we can all at least agree that killing someone be them gay or Imran kind of sucks

I have a question for Godeater,
In a case like this is it handled by the RCMP or is there another type of crime division?

The Vancouver City Police do have jurisdiction over this crime. In particular, because the death is being investigated as a hate crime, the Hate Crime Unit of the VPD has the lead authority to perform the duty to investigate. Currently, the theory released to the press is that the perpetrators are "veteran gay-bashers" who have engaged in less virulent forms of attacks vs. homosexuals in the past.

[mindseye]

It is the action that is punishable, not the thought

Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts?

The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

Compare:
Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife.
Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Who is more likely to strike again?

If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim.

If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again.

Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple.

- mindseye