SkyDekker

I strongly disagree with this statement. hate crimes are not only against one race, or one group. It could be against any identifyable group. There is no juding one better than another. I have also already stated that hate crimes tend to come more into play on otherwise minor offences. Murder is a rather extreme example, in which case the hate crime aspect is often not explored. Whats the point is he/she is already going to spend the rest of their life in jail. And Iago, I also don't agree with your sentiment.

that doesn't stop others.... sometimes it doesn't even stop me....

it doesn't...but she controls what you want...so deal with it

I already addressed this upthread. Motivation/intent/thought is already a determining factor in the criminal justice system. It is the case with murder/manslaughter, shoplifting, etc. Now claiming that motivation/intent/thought should have no bearing on crime is disingenuous.

They still do....and a completely different argument. Meh, Canada really isn't taht different from the US. The US has socialised aspects as well. Yes, the extremes on either side do appear to rule the roost. The rest of the post I choose not to participate in. I simply don't know enough about the ACA as a whole to make a coherent argument.

circle of life - posters here were making those claims about GWB hijacking 'extra' terms too. our posters here really have no idea that they are the exact same people arguing two sides of a diseased coin no we aren't....yes we are....you did it first

Maybe here you are touching on a point as to why we might differ. Our DA and judges are not elected. Plus, in Canada at least, there has to be more evidence than just being from a different culture. Just because somebody in culture A beats commits a crime against some one from culture B doesn't make it a hate crime. Nor can I recall this happening in Canada.

You can see it that way. I think when graffiti is used to express hatred directed at a clearly identifyable group, it is more of a crime than simple graffiti. Beating somebody up becayse they are Chinese is more of a crime than simple assault. keep in mind that hate criems are generally in th realm of what otherwise would be relatively minor convictions. Making a murder a hate crime doesn't do much if they are already going to spend the rest of tehir life in jail.

You do in a hate crime. All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it. Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act. Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there. Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me. So if I understand correctly: "Stick em up and give me your wallet" - robbery/assault "Stick em up and give me your wallet faggot" - hate crime You don't understand correctly. I doubt that has ever been upheld as a hate crime. Now, people who go out to specifically beat up (and kill) some faggots, that would likely be a hate crime.

I don't see that being the case with hate crimes, so the question is a red herring. Those who commit hate crimes (should) get punished equally. If your question is: Are you okay with somebody spray painting swastikas on a synagogue getting a higher sentence than Banksy getting caught? Then the answer is, yes I am.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this

No, but then non of that is a hate crime. yes it is if there is a desire to prosecute it that way - the 'more equal' pigs in charge can define it any way they wish. Wait until it's a hate crime to bad mouth policy from the president (Bush, or Obama). Or pick a hated Canadian politician if you wish. Really? They could, but I doubt it would stand up in court. Slippery slope argument is a nice scare tactic, but isn't that exactly why there are check and balances in the system. For your argument to be valid, it would have to be started by politicians, carried through the legislative process, then upheld by a court, appeal courts and the Supreme Court.

You do in a hate crime. All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it. Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act. Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there. Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me. I understand your point - but those gradations are about the intent that goes into it. This goes beyond a reasonable expectation of intent, but to the philosophy behind the intent. It even goes beyond that and prioritizes the 2nd over the 1st at times. Your example is valid and applies to how to punish the criminal directly based on his actions. hate crime is more than that, it's taking a scapegoat and using him to make a societal statement. That's different. Sorry you lost me at scapegoat. And if the social statement is: don't hate a group a whole group of people because they are different. I am okay with that social statement.

Dude, do you read any of it? I already admitted in the part you quoted that I have told lies. Geez. The rest of the post seems to eb anger at him being black and that nobody can quesiton that. Sorry, I don't agree with that premise and quite frankly, I don't care what Oprah says. I highly doubt the Supreme Court ruled how they did because they were afraid they would be called racsists.

Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple? Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight? No, but then non of that is a hate crime.

You do in a hate crime. All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it. Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act. Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there. Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me.

In that case, the next election will be cake walks for Republicans. They should then be able to make all the necessary changes, or just repeal it completely. Isn't that how the system is supposed to work? (and I highly doubt this is the first time in US history that the President has been a liar. My guess is, all of them have been liars. I know I have told a lie or two. If you are honest with yourself, I think maybe you can see you have told maybe one little white lie along the way too.....)

If I understand this correctly, it would be relatively similar to the Dutch system. There is a tax funded "basic" insurance. Though the tax is based on income and is progressive. Then additional coverage is available beyond that for those who so wish. (Really also how the Ontario system works, though the Dutch sepearte out their premiums from the taxes, if I remember correctly). I don't think it is a bad system, though obviously no system is perfect.

Like you had some substance The "we have so you should too" childish point?? You serious? Uhmm, the part you quoted is my disagreement with regards to the slippery slope argument. The rest of my post didn't say, we ave it so you should to. It contained my opinion that a civilised society should have a form of socialised health care. And yes, I am serious about that part.

You don't leave me much choice rush. Maybe if you added some actual substance to the conversation beyond: you are bullshit You don't know what you are talking about you liberals are all idiots You are all the same I like when you post crap etc etc there would be the possibility of a discussion. It is just my opinion. I don't really care if you think it is right or not. But, thank you for your well thought out response. I see you made it to four "sentences". Personal record? No record for you Go to insults when you lose the point Like usual

I disagree. Killing people is a crime. Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level. Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing. Obviously there are a myriad of other options with other religions, races and ethnicities. I don't have an issue with the concept of hate crimes. Whaddya know - pleasant surprise - we agree.

It is just my opinion. I don't really care if you think it is right or not. But, thank you for your well thought out response. I see you made it to four "sentences". Personal record?

I wouldn't take Pain Killer Abuser and I'm A Radio Star's word that day was light and night was dark. Are you kidding? Get a legit source or don't bother. His credibility and motivations were exposed long ago. He makes a living by trashing, and has staff to assist him in doing so. Exactly why I dont pay any attention to you By replying to him, didn't you by definition pay attention to him?

You are right, next you are going to be required to buy another product. Because in all these other countries where there is some form of socialised health care, the governments have gone on and forced all kinds of other products to be bought.... Its a silly argument, at least not one based on reality. So if you can get past that, we can discuss the merit of having health care for your society. I don't know enough about Obama Care to discuss if it is the right way of implementing it, from the little I know it doesn't seem thatw ay. But, I am a believer in some form of socialised health care. I believe it to be a foundation of a civilized society.

I disagree. Killing people is a crime. Gassing a whole race because you believe them to be inferior is a whole different level. Graffiti is a crime in most places. Spray painting swastikas on a synagogue is another thing. Obviously there are a myriad of other options with other religions, races and ethnicities. I don't have an issue with the concept of hate crimes.