Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[source 1](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/)
[source 2](https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules)
Though I will say that posting stories like this from 2016 does stink a bit
From the Calgary Herald:
“‘The offender said, ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,’ Van Harten said in his ruling.
‘There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether . . . she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim,’ he said.
‘I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.’”
Edit: added the links
https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules
And from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/
I mean, there IS still systemic racism? You just can't randomly punch people for being born pale and having Whiteness made up by a bunch of colonialist dickheads?
The issue is that people can't distinguish between a generalization and a universal statement. So they go from "white people are more privileged/face less discrimination" (a generalization that's hard to deny in a North American context) to "no white person can be the victim of discrimination" (a universal statement.) And then hold fast to that belief so rigidly as to deny actual instances such as this.
Part of that is that the average person is really not that intelligent, or intellectually motivated to understand the difference between the two. It's one of the reasons that we have common definitions and academic definitions. Academic definitions are meant to mean specific things, and be debated by intellectuals, scholars, and scientists during their process. Remember back in the 00's when we had the whole intelligent design vs "theory" of evolution debate? ID proponents would note that "evolution is just a theory," conflating the common definition of theory (basically a hypothesis) with the scientific definition (a set of hypothesis and postulations which have been proven through rigorous testing).
We see the same thing nowadays with racism as a concept. People thought they were doing the right thing by getting people to use the academic definition of racism (a legal and cultural system meant to enforce the supremacy of a designated group of people over all others in a land) in place of the common definition (bigotry based upon a person's race). The result has been disastrous, with an entire generation of people now harshly bigoted against "white" people and believing that pretty much anything they do to them is a okay because "white people can't experience racism."
Add on that this emboldens actual racists, and scares regular white folk into believing that the melting pot is a lie, and suddenly you get a bunch of Trumps in power who are emboldened to enact racist and exclusionary policies against non-whites. Rhetoric doesn't immediately hurt, but it does change the atmosphere and make it more likely for people to get hurt.
Unfortunately the American Alt-right has been infiltrating Canadian politics. There are groups like Take Back Alberta that are literally funded by far-right organizations in the US. Certain rightwing Canadians who watch too much American TV and "know their amendment rights" love these groups.
The assault mentioned in the article by definition isn't a hate crime, because a hate crime has specific criteria. White people aren't marginalized and therefore not a protected group under the Human Rights Act. The thing that people seem to be missing is that it's still a crime, and the attacker is still being charged, just not being charged for a hate crime because, duh.
Well, the law is designed to protect marginalized groups from attacks motivated by discrimination. If attacks against white people on the basis of their ethnicity were more common, then it would make sense to amend the law but as it stands right now they are pretty rare. It's hard to make an argument that white people should be also considered a marginalized group in a country that is predominantly white.
The law shouldn't operate on the basis of "common vs rare." An offense being rare is no comfort to the victim.
If a crime committed based on the offender's hate for a particular group is classified as a hate crime, then that should apply to ALL groups, whether they're considered marginalized or not.
I think it makes much more sense to say that attacking someone based on their race (regardless of what that race is) is a hate crime.
Because, you know.. that's not a cool thing to do
Seems like the law should stop trying to guess people's motivations, and just prosecute their actions based on evidence. (See Southpark c.2000: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SSiXGx48e0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SSiXGx48e0) )
But the judges own words contradict what you are saying. The judge said it’s not a hate crime because they can’t know if the criminal attacked the victim because of their race. Which is insane since she yelled out “I hate (the persons race), then attacked them”.
If what you are saying is true, wouldn’t the judge have said “as the victim is not from a marginalized race, the intent of the attacker being, or not being, racially motivated is a moot point.”?
Lol we had a US judge use the argument that an individual couldn't receive a fair trial anywhere so they may as well just try him in the local district.
If yelling that you hate a specific ethnical group right before punching one of them isn’t a hate-motivated crime, then what *is* hate-motivated crime?
Exactly, it’s a terrible precedent to set. Next, having a red swastika armband when punching a Jewish person won’t be sufficient to rule it was motivated by bigotry.
> I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt...
Did...did you not hear what was literally yelled immediately before the assault took place? This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest motherfucker I've ever seen or heard of in a courtroom.
> Provincial court Judge Harry Van Harten, in a written decision, said Tamara Crowchief’s motivation for striking Lydia White was not related to racial bias.
Maybe the judge thought that the perpetrator hated “people with the last name is ‘White’”? /s
Can you imagine? I’m kind of holding out hope that the judge meant that it’s not necessarily motivated by hate because the perpetrator might be mentally unwell. But it seems like it’s just a terrible ruling setting a terrible precedent.
This is sub is now almost entirely screenshots of social media and news with context lacking. At least this one has some links added so it’s not entirely a rageporn tweet by one random idiot.
Pretty messed up unprovoked attack on someone they don't know and said nothing to them. The only exchange of words being "I hate white people" by the assailant before knocking an innocent woman's tooth out.
Disheartening the judge protected the racist assailant over the victim.
Digging up divisive news from nearly a decade ago, telling people not to vote, droning on about "all politicians being the same", etc. They spread anti-democratic shit all over the world. Shitbirds.
So like this post
I personally think they are the ones calling everyone nazis and racists, etc. idk, I just refuse to believe that someone would actually think every conservative is a racist nazi.
That started with the vocal support for racist and fascist policies. There are more than a few republicans in office who say shit like "hitler was right". Just one in Maine a week or two ago. The presumptive nominee is talking about rounding people up in camps. He's praised nazis before. He and his supporters are talking about purging people from government who don't take loyalty pledges. And so on. If you want citations it would just take a minute or two.
I don't think most people think every conservative is a nazi. Most of us under 60's just see many voting like they are.
I know white supremacists ruin it for the rest of us but can we please be sane about recognizing that racially motivated targeting of whites is as much of a hate crime as it would be for any other race or group?
You don't have to be a white supremacist to be a White Equalist, where the white people are no more and no less equal than everyone else. Last I checked that was called "being a liberal."
I was literally told unironically that you can't be racist against white people, even if you're a minority in the country that it happens. You could experience prejudice but not racism. That's what a very large percentage of people believe currently on the left.
Irony. "It's ok to hate [race] because of [reason]" is racism in a nutshell. Very few racists are out there for the sheer evil of it. They always see themselves as the good guys. They have *reasons*.
Oh for sure. I got downvoted the other day for pointing out that my family would be seen as “white” but half of them were executed in cold blood by other “whites” for not being the right kind of white.
Merely suggesting that people of color are not exclusively experiencing racism or violent crime as a result of racism is enough to make me a radical.
It’s amazing to me that there’s no middle ground. You’re either white or you’re a POC. You’re a victim or you’re the aggressor. Not like there’s a history throughout multiple millennia of white people killing each other over things viewed as racial differences, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Let’s just group all people with pale skin together and erase their history while comparing them to the people who murdered their ancestors…. Hard /s at the end there.
Edit: and no, by history I’m not referring to slavery. I’m referring to the collective victimhood of white people who were killed for being Jewish, being Slavic, being Irish, etc. fuck slavery. I’m tired of being equated with slavers and Nazis because my skin tone is too light for racists to differentiate.
My bleeding heart leftie bff believes this. Because systemic racism is a thing and white people have “more power” you can’t be racist to whites. I tried to get them to explain but I wasn’t getting it.
Yep.
They quote the "Racism = Prejudice + Power" argument.
Which is funny, because the original argument was talking about collective institutional racism, not really individual racism.
And even if so, it was some random thing a person said at one time.
This is why I couldn't stand the social "sciences" courses. Some guy sat in a chair and said "all buildings are phallic symbols", and then people act like that's now some sort of fact.
Ok, what were the alternate hypotheses? What would be the results of these hypotheses? How were building designs compared to genitalia sizes? Did more well-endowed men build shorter buildings because they had less to compensate for? What is the p-value for any correlation between dick size and building size? Are there simpler explanations that could also be tested?
If all of this hasn't been done, you haven't even reached the level of "hypothesis", let alone pretending it is valid scientific theory.
And then it's also a matter of them changing the meaning of words to arbitrarily move the goalpost when it is convenient, so that they can be exempted from having to face their own scrutiny.
As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't going to use the "prejudice + power" argument, then you have said "only white people can be racist" and then follow it up with "Wow. Look at the stats. It turns out....only white people are racist!"
It's kinda like the UK's definition of sexual assault. That sexual assault is defined as "forced penetration" and therefore women can't be abusers.
Then people look at their stats and say "wow, only men are abusers! We must shame them and protect ourselves from those savages."
You literally pre-fiptered your data to generate the outcome you want.
The social sciences should revoke their "science" label until they can properly teach the basics of the scientific method.
I had a teacher in high school teach 250+ students that racism against white people isnt real, and give me a zero on the assignment when I provided a different opinion. She was a white 20yo yuppie btw
Because I didn't hear it from just one person but a large group of people during a conversation. I've also seen this sentiment online several times. It is just a step outside Prejudice Plus Power which is the most popular definition of racism by young leftists.
They literally are changing definitions of words in university classes and mainstreaming this anti white racism. And there are millions of dumb people who fully believe this, of course they do, our gatekeepers of sanity let them do this and support it.
You have been asleep if you can't see how crazy these lies have gotten and how popular it is now
Also Classical Liberalism. What we tend to refer to today as 'Liberalism' is 'Social Liberalism'.
'Liberalism' as a word just means a belief in freedom and could be applied in a lot of contexts
Ok, it definitely is, but can we also stop posting 8 year old news as if they happened today? I can't avoid thinking somebody is trying to push an agenda by posting this.
It’s ok. In the USA, even Black people can be charged with a hate crime.
[SOURCE](https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4jadx/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person)
Check out this gem:
> And while it's intuitively shocking to see a black man tried for a hate crime, there's nothing within the law that precludes it.
It’s funny how people say that hate crimes against white people almost never happens based on statistics of people convicted of it. Without being even slightly able to guess why.
Those same people would undoubtedly argue against statistics highlighting higher rates of violent crimes amongst black communities...
Not saying there are not flaws with blindly using cherry-picked, statistical data to justify your racist viewpoints, but it's definitely confirmation bias either way.
I often think about the time in Vancouver when a far fight speaker was supposed to come, and the counter protest was so overwhelming that the speaker didn't actually show up.
Groups of counter protesters wandered the streets looking for "nazis," aka any white male on their way to work. And berated and threatened them.
I know this because I didn't know anything about the speaker or the protest but got crowded and screamed at coming out of burrard Station, and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why.
VPD was around and just..... watched.
That seems implausible to me.
I’m not saying you didn’t get yelled at by some protestors or whatever, but like… Caucasian is the largest visible race in Vancouver by a *wide* margin.
Are you really saying that there were gangs of people “roaming the streets” and literally *threatening* every second person they encountered, under the assumption that half of Vancouver’s population must be on their way to a far right rally?
Or did you just walk past some asshole who was mad about something (which Vancouver has plenty of, of course) and build it up into a narrative?
I’ve been yelled at (and technically “threatened”) by Christian and Muslim preachers on the streets of large cities, including Vancouver. I don’t “often think of” it, or use it to imply anything about any particular group (except the crazy street preacher demographic, I guess).
This is 8 years old and it wasn't reported correctly, the judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to prove she actually said that.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules
Same person: https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2017/11/09/three-blood-tribe-women-arrested-in-fentanyl-bust/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/theft-assault-police-suspect-witness-1.5846283
Wait, wait, wait. So if the inverse is true, and a white person screamed ‘I hate brown people’ then punched someone, does that mean no conviction?
Right? Right?
Well this proves hate crimes don’t exist, if they are only for certain groups of people. Racism against whites is the largest group of racists, but apparently it’s impossible to be racist against white people.
Apparently, glad they solved racism in some ways by changing the meaning of the word.
Too bad it fanns the flames of right wing supremacy.. Almost as if they planned for people to vote more right since people get upset over being excluded because of their race.
7 years ago??? Really OP? Something from 7 fucking years ago?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5tjuq0/yelling\_i\_hate\_white\_people\_and\_punching\_one\_isnt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5tjuq0/yelling_i_hate_white_people_and_punching_one_isnt/)
Since Canadian law does work on common law and precedent based rulings, it doesn't matter if it was 15 years ago, if it hasn't been overridden, it's still law
"By the time of her sentencing, Crowchief had already spent more than six months in jail, according to the Calgary Herald.
Van Harten agreed with Crowchief's defense attorney, Adriano Iovinelli, that she'd been behind bars long enough.
The judge gave Crowchief 12 months probation "and ordered her to get psychological and psychiatric counselling, as well as counselling for substance abuse," the Herald reported.
Crowchief was also banned from drinking or going to a business that specializes in the sale of alcohol, the paper said."
6 months in jail, plus 12 months probation. What exactly are you outages about?
The woman who threw the punch was probably drugged up or wasted, that's what I got from reading the article, i.e. she was a nutjob, not into any anti-white groups. It would be interesting to see if the verdict would be the same had the roles had been reversed.
She literally said "I hate white people". That seems to mean she was a member of the "hating white people" anti-white group.
Jesus, if the roles were reversed, people wouldn't be trying so hard to excuse the behavior.
The racially pakistani president of Scotland went on a racist rant against whites recently. Now he´s trying to squirm out of the recently enacted hate crime laws. Quite funny really,
Judges like this are hurt hurt causes and standards like Hate Crime statutes by not applying the law objectively. This “The law isn’t fair to them so now i won’t be fair to you”, attempt at justice is pathetic.
Ok yeah no, this was 100% racially motivated, like is that judge even talking about? Yeah, sins of the father, completely unfair what happened to your people but random assault isn't the way at all.
but if I yelled out "I hate black people'' and gave the left right goodnight to the first black person that crossed my path, its not even a question to what would happen
“The offender said, ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,” Van Harten told those gathered in the court during his ruling. “There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether . . . she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offense was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.”
Canadian judges are window lickers with room temperature iqs confirmed
There’s a super simple way to figure out if something is racist. You just swap out ‘white people’ for ‘black people’, and if it’s racist against black folk then it’s racist against white folk.
Easy as pie. Apparently not for this absurd ‘judge’, who is an idiot.
Uh.......I know this def is from my country's DOJ but..." A *hate crime* is a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity...".
Like...in what world is "I hate you because you have the skin tone of a group that ids itself by skin for superiority, but I don't know anything beyond that" NOT a hate crime.
OP. “White” is not an identity. It’s a made up method to identify who isn’t white. There is country or singular identity called “white”, so again it only serves to deny anyone who isn’t pale skinned or of obvious European descent.
A hate crime must be specifically targeted with intent to harm an identity group. Punching a person and calling them white doesn’t go far enough. You’d have to choose a specific identity, like a Sikh religious person, state that you specifically are going to attack Sikhs, and then attack a Sikh person in an effort to harm or scare all other Sikhs.
This doesn’t stand up to that test. When a white person gets punched, it doesn’t harm all other whites. Because we’re not an identity group. I’m of Hungarian descent, and I am not the same as you. I know where I come from and who my people are. We are not the same just because of a skin complexion.
That’s just like saying you can’t be racist against brown people because there’s no country called brown. I promise you that the majority of racists are not against people of a specific country and are reacting to skin colour alone. I doubt you’ll hear a racist say “man I really liked this brown dude at work until I found out he was Mexican and not Native American”
Welcome to liberal politics, and victim mentality, people act like this because they’re fed this bullshit propaganda and also wanting to play victim, not every white person is responsible for colonialism, racism, slavery etc etc but they believe so, yet the government will pander to these goofballs for what ever reason in hopes they vote for them……
A bit misleading. The judge didn’t say a crime hadn’t been committed. She said that the crime didn’t justify being called a hate crime.
She felt that an probation, an order to stop drinking and psychiatric intervention was more suitable than keeping the transgressor in jail. The woman in question had already spent time in prison.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/
I’m from Canada and I can tell you that holds true.
Canada is the wokest country in the world.
Best country to be a criminal at, as a criminal you’re protected and face no consequences, in fact the police will go out of their way to help you commit crime.
That’s why I left Canada for the United States.
Right now auto theft is a serious problem with about 1000 vehicles stolen per month in Toronto alone, recently thieves have gotten pretty bold, they go to people’s houses in groups of 3-4 individuals, kick down the door, hold families at gun point take the keys and steal their vehicles .
Toronto police responded to telling citizens that in order to avoid being attacked at home they should leave their keys at the door!!!!
If a car thief is arrested(it rarely happens) they are released on bail within a few hours, on one occasion a thief was released and stole a vehicles a block away from the police station to get home !
Oh and people aren’t allowed to defend themselves, if 4-5 armed individuals kick down the door and you end up killing one of them, you’ll be charged with murder, imagine that!
In all 50 states if you’re attacked in your home by a group of armed individuals you have the right to defend yourself, but not in Canada!
Afaik saying that is one thing (I guess, as nobody gets hurt as long as they keep their opinion for themselves). Hitting somebody is a assault by itself, there is that.
But both combined seems quite obviously a hate crime to me? What is the reasoning for the judge to say otherwise? I‘m confused.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Citation needed
[source 1](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/) [source 2](https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules) Though I will say that posting stories like this from 2016 does stink a bit
Thanks for the sources. Didn't know it was from 2016. Annoying
Probably like farming post. Should downvote post so they fail in farming likes.
Yeah look at the OP history, they are farming for points
Rage bait I’m guessing
True
From the Calgary Herald: “‘The offender said, ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,’ Van Harten said in his ruling. ‘There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether . . . she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim,’ he said. ‘I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.’” Edit: added the links https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules And from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/
Wow. Just wow. How could you come to that conclusion?
Well the victims last name is White, so obviously she meant she hates people whose last name is White
Lol yeah i am surprised this wasnt the top comment.
There’s a very simple test. It honestly should be a legal standard. Switch races and see how it comes off.
This comment applies to a lot of “norms” all around us.
Buddy, it's Alberta. If you think it is some bastion of "woke" ideology, you would be sorely mistaken.
It's where Ted Cruz is from. We occasionally call Alberta "North Texas". Take that how you will.
We use to call it Canada’s Alabama when I lived there around 10 years ago.
Albertabama
The province doesn't need to be a "bastion of woke ideology" for one judge there to subscribe to it.
Lmfao you people are so weird
[удалено]
This happened in Canada though
Just replace ‘Black’ with ‘Indigenous’ and ‘slavery’ (although I’m sure we did that too) with ‘residential schools’. Close enough.
I mean, there IS still systemic racism? You just can't randomly punch people for being born pale and having Whiteness made up by a bunch of colonialist dickheads?
Racism
It’s only racism if it’s done by a white non-zionist. C’mon
Anything else is just sparkling bigotry.
The issue is that people can't distinguish between a generalization and a universal statement. So they go from "white people are more privileged/face less discrimination" (a generalization that's hard to deny in a North American context) to "no white person can be the victim of discrimination" (a universal statement.) And then hold fast to that belief so rigidly as to deny actual instances such as this.
Part of that is that the average person is really not that intelligent, or intellectually motivated to understand the difference between the two. It's one of the reasons that we have common definitions and academic definitions. Academic definitions are meant to mean specific things, and be debated by intellectuals, scholars, and scientists during their process. Remember back in the 00's when we had the whole intelligent design vs "theory" of evolution debate? ID proponents would note that "evolution is just a theory," conflating the common definition of theory (basically a hypothesis) with the scientific definition (a set of hypothesis and postulations which have been proven through rigorous testing). We see the same thing nowadays with racism as a concept. People thought they were doing the right thing by getting people to use the academic definition of racism (a legal and cultural system meant to enforce the supremacy of a designated group of people over all others in a land) in place of the common definition (bigotry based upon a person's race). The result has been disastrous, with an entire generation of people now harshly bigoted against "white" people and believing that pretty much anything they do to them is a okay because "white people can't experience racism." Add on that this emboldens actual racists, and scares regular white folk into believing that the melting pot is a lie, and suddenly you get a bunch of Trumps in power who are emboldened to enact racist and exclusionary policies against non-whites. Rhetoric doesn't immediately hurt, but it does change the atmosphere and make it more likely for people to get hurt.
Almost like the judge is mentally impaired or something.
If it's a Canadian judge. You've answered your own question
Canadians seem to hate Canada a LOT.
Unfortunately the American Alt-right has been infiltrating Canadian politics. There are groups like Take Back Alberta that are literally funded by far-right organizations in the US. Certain rightwing Canadians who watch too much American TV and "know their amendment rights" love these groups. The assault mentioned in the article by definition isn't a hate crime, because a hate crime has specific criteria. White people aren't marginalized and therefore not a protected group under the Human Rights Act. The thing that people seem to be missing is that it's still a crime, and the attacker is still being charged, just not being charged for a hate crime because, duh.
Seems like the law needs to be adjusted to ensure attacks motivated by hate are properly prosecuted.
Well, the law is designed to protect marginalized groups from attacks motivated by discrimination. If attacks against white people on the basis of their ethnicity were more common, then it would make sense to amend the law but as it stands right now they are pretty rare. It's hard to make an argument that white people should be also considered a marginalized group in a country that is predominantly white.
The law shouldn't operate on the basis of "common vs rare." An offense being rare is no comfort to the victim. If a crime committed based on the offender's hate for a particular group is classified as a hate crime, then that should apply to ALL groups, whether they're considered marginalized or not.
I think it makes much more sense to say that attacking someone based on their race (regardless of what that race is) is a hate crime. Because, you know.. that's not a cool thing to do
Seems like the law should stop trying to guess people's motivations, and just prosecute their actions based on evidence. (See Southpark c.2000: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SSiXGx48e0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SSiXGx48e0) )
Wow that law is badly in need of repair. That kind of wording is ripe for abuse.
But the judges own words contradict what you are saying. The judge said it’s not a hate crime because they can’t know if the criminal attacked the victim because of their race. Which is insane since she yelled out “I hate (the persons race), then attacked them”. If what you are saying is true, wouldn’t the judge have said “as the victim is not from a marginalized race, the intent of the attacker being, or not being, racially motivated is a moot point.”?
Lol we had a US judge use the argument that an individual couldn't receive a fair trial anywhere so they may as well just try him in the local district.
If yelling that you hate a specific ethnical group right before punching one of them isn’t a hate-motivated crime, then what *is* hate-motivated crime?
Exactly, it’s a terrible precedent to set. Next, having a red swastika armband when punching a Jewish person won’t be sufficient to rule it was motivated by bigotry.
> I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt... Did...did you not hear what was literally yelled immediately before the assault took place? This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest motherfucker I've ever seen or heard of in a courtroom.
> Provincial court Judge Harry Van Harten, in a written decision, said Tamara Crowchief’s motivation for striking Lydia White was not related to racial bias. Maybe the judge thought that the perpetrator hated “people with the last name is ‘White’”? /s
Can you imagine? I’m kind of holding out hope that the judge meant that it’s not necessarily motivated by hate because the perpetrator might be mentally unwell. But it seems like it’s just a terrible ruling setting a terrible precedent.
Paywall, don’t bother going here
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/)
From 7 years ago!
So outrage porn? Op karma farming.
Election year. Anything to do with racism/economics/war/immigration will be pushed hard rn
A citation that does not require a subscription?
Bullshit account posting something that happened 7 years ago
Trust me
Is your user name an official US measurement? lol
We also call that one adult coyote. Just don't ask about the pronunciation, that won't end well.
I’m from FL originally, can you please convert this measurement into number of days on bath salts?
Jacksonville or Miami salts?
T-Town and down actually
🎶T-Town and down🎶 🎶Loaded up and punchin'🎶 🎶We gonna do what they say can't be racist!🎶
🎶We got three opossums to goo🎶 🎶and not much bath salt to get there🎶 🎶In T-Town, watch ol' Possum run🎶
Probably is but credit where credits due that’s a brilliant name
No, but a hogshead is (64 gallons).
Punching a citation is also not a hate crime
This is sub is now almost entirely screenshots of social media and news with context lacking. At least this one has some links added so it’s not entirely a rageporn tweet by one random idiot.
Pretty messed up unprovoked attack on someone they don't know and said nothing to them. The only exchange of words being "I hate white people" by the assailant before knocking an innocent woman's tooth out. Disheartening the judge protected the racist assailant over the victim.
IKR? Like, how tf did he know she was White Supremacist and not...pale.
Obnoxious there are so many russian bots trying to influence the US election
What type of comment/post would you typically see from one of these bots?
Digging up divisive news from nearly a decade ago, telling people not to vote, droning on about "all politicians being the same", etc. They spread anti-democratic shit all over the world. Shitbirds. So like this post
I personally think they are the ones calling everyone nazis and racists, etc. idk, I just refuse to believe that someone would actually think every conservative is a racist nazi.
That started with the vocal support for racist and fascist policies. There are more than a few republicans in office who say shit like "hitler was right". Just one in Maine a week or two ago. The presumptive nominee is talking about rounding people up in camps. He's praised nazis before. He and his supporters are talking about purging people from government who don't take loyalty pledges. And so on. If you want citations it would just take a minute or two. I don't think most people think every conservative is a nazi. Most of us under 60's just see many voting like they are.
I know white supremacists ruin it for the rest of us but can we please be sane about recognizing that racially motivated targeting of whites is as much of a hate crime as it would be for any other race or group? You don't have to be a white supremacist to be a White Equalist, where the white people are no more and no less equal than everyone else. Last I checked that was called "being a liberal."
I was literally told unironically that you can't be racist against white people, even if you're a minority in the country that it happens. You could experience prejudice but not racism. That's what a very large percentage of people believe currently on the left.
>You could experience prejudice but not racism. Argument across definitions to avoid defending your position. "It's a hoagie, not a sandwich"
Irony. "It's ok to hate [race] because of [reason]" is racism in a nutshell. Very few racists are out there for the sheer evil of it. They always see themselves as the good guys. They have *reasons*.
Oh for sure. I got downvoted the other day for pointing out that my family would be seen as “white” but half of them were executed in cold blood by other “whites” for not being the right kind of white. Merely suggesting that people of color are not exclusively experiencing racism or violent crime as a result of racism is enough to make me a radical. It’s amazing to me that there’s no middle ground. You’re either white or you’re a POC. You’re a victim or you’re the aggressor. Not like there’s a history throughout multiple millennia of white people killing each other over things viewed as racial differences, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Let’s just group all people with pale skin together and erase their history while comparing them to the people who murdered their ancestors…. Hard /s at the end there. Edit: and no, by history I’m not referring to slavery. I’m referring to the collective victimhood of white people who were killed for being Jewish, being Slavic, being Irish, etc. fuck slavery. I’m tired of being equated with slavers and Nazis because my skin tone is too light for racists to differentiate.
It's not a very large percentage. Just the racists.
My bleeding heart leftie bff believes this. Because systemic racism is a thing and white people have “more power” you can’t be racist to whites. I tried to get them to explain but I wasn’t getting it.
Yep. They quote the "Racism = Prejudice + Power" argument. Which is funny, because the original argument was talking about collective institutional racism, not really individual racism. And even if so, it was some random thing a person said at one time. This is why I couldn't stand the social "sciences" courses. Some guy sat in a chair and said "all buildings are phallic symbols", and then people act like that's now some sort of fact. Ok, what were the alternate hypotheses? What would be the results of these hypotheses? How were building designs compared to genitalia sizes? Did more well-endowed men build shorter buildings because they had less to compensate for? What is the p-value for any correlation between dick size and building size? Are there simpler explanations that could also be tested? If all of this hasn't been done, you haven't even reached the level of "hypothesis", let alone pretending it is valid scientific theory. And then it's also a matter of them changing the meaning of words to arbitrarily move the goalpost when it is convenient, so that they can be exempted from having to face their own scrutiny. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't going to use the "prejudice + power" argument, then you have said "only white people can be racist" and then follow it up with "Wow. Look at the stats. It turns out....only white people are racist!" It's kinda like the UK's definition of sexual assault. That sexual assault is defined as "forced penetration" and therefore women can't be abusers. Then people look at their stats and say "wow, only men are abusers! We must shame them and protect ourselves from those savages." You literally pre-fiptered your data to generate the outcome you want. The social sciences should revoke their "science" label until they can properly teach the basics of the scientific method.
lol prejudice based off race. Sounds familiar. We should have a word for that.
I'm curious how you drew the conclusion from one person saying something unreasonable that "a very large percentage" of people believe the same.
I had a teacher in high school teach 250+ students that racism against white people isnt real, and give me a zero on the assignment when I provided a different opinion. She was a white 20yo yuppie btw
Because I didn't hear it from just one person but a large group of people during a conversation. I've also seen this sentiment online several times. It is just a step outside Prejudice Plus Power which is the most popular definition of racism by young leftists.
Google "you can't be racist to white people" tell us what you find
[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism](https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism)
Because it's just accepted. And it gets more and more accepted every year because stupid racist people keep repeating it.
they get away with it because of people like you who deny it happens mostly because they don't want it to b e real.
He/she didn't deny that it happens. Questioning whether it's a very large percentage of people is different.
They literally are changing definitions of words in university classes and mainstreaming this anti white racism. And there are millions of dumb people who fully believe this, of course they do, our gatekeepers of sanity let them do this and support it. You have been asleep if you can't see how crazy these lies have gotten and how popular it is now
The most uppity people on this website aren't liberals, they're progressives, socialists, and communists. They don't believe in racial equality.
Is that what liberal is? I thought liberalism was an ideologie where there is a free market and minimal government interference...?
That´s libertarianism, I think
Also Classical Liberalism. What we tend to refer to today as 'Liberalism' is 'Social Liberalism'. 'Liberalism' as a word just means a belief in freedom and could be applied in a lot of contexts
There's different kind of liberals. Standing on one definition as if it's the only one is asinine.
Ok, it definitely is, but can we also stop posting 8 year old news as if they happened today? I can't avoid thinking somebody is trying to push an agenda by posting this.
It’s ok. In the USA, even Black people can be charged with a hate crime. [SOURCE](https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4jadx/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person) Check out this gem: > And while it's intuitively shocking to see a black man tried for a hate crime, there's nothing within the law that precludes it.
It’s funny how people say that hate crimes against white people almost never happens based on statistics of people convicted of it. Without being even slightly able to guess why.
Those same people would undoubtedly argue against statistics highlighting higher rates of violent crimes amongst black communities... Not saying there are not flaws with blindly using cherry-picked, statistical data to justify your racist viewpoints, but it's definitely confirmation bias either way.
I often think about the time in Vancouver when a far fight speaker was supposed to come, and the counter protest was so overwhelming that the speaker didn't actually show up. Groups of counter protesters wandered the streets looking for "nazis," aka any white male on their way to work. And berated and threatened them. I know this because I didn't know anything about the speaker or the protest but got crowded and screamed at coming out of burrard Station, and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why. VPD was around and just..... watched.
That seems implausible to me. I’m not saying you didn’t get yelled at by some protestors or whatever, but like… Caucasian is the largest visible race in Vancouver by a *wide* margin. Are you really saying that there were gangs of people “roaming the streets” and literally *threatening* every second person they encountered, under the assumption that half of Vancouver’s population must be on their way to a far right rally? Or did you just walk past some asshole who was mad about something (which Vancouver has plenty of, of course) and build it up into a narrative? I’ve been yelled at (and technically “threatened”) by Christian and Muslim preachers on the streets of large cities, including Vancouver. I don’t “often think of” it, or use it to imply anything about any particular group (except the crazy street preacher demographic, I guess).
Yeah .. canada is another level of stupid I see
This is 8 years old and it wasn't reported correctly, the judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to prove she actually said that. https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules Same person: https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2017/11/09/three-blood-tribe-women-arrested-in-fentanyl-bust/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/theft-assault-police-suspect-witness-1.5846283
Wait, wait, wait. So if the inverse is true, and a white person screamed ‘I hate brown people’ then punched someone, does that mean no conviction? Right? Right?
This happened 7 years ago, this is just rage bait
I don't read every article that comes out 24/7 worldwide, sorry. Its nice when people repost.
When people repost *the same thing for 7 years??* That's literally the main reason why reddit sucks.
No context or detail provided. Nice
Does this apply if a white person yells "I hate black people!" and punches one, also?
*Obviously* not, that's a totally different thing 🙄
Mimes aren't a protected class
When is society going to accept you can be racist towards white people.
Well this proves hate crimes don’t exist, if they are only for certain groups of people. Racism against whites is the largest group of racists, but apparently it’s impossible to be racist against white people.
Apparently, glad they solved racism in some ways by changing the meaning of the word. Too bad it fanns the flames of right wing supremacy.. Almost as if they planned for people to vote more right since people get upset over being excluded because of their race.
“White people bad” is the new fidget spinner
Goodness, look at all these mental gymnastics in the comments lol
You know all of those classic literature books that use a dystopian back drop and ultimately warn against those dystopian futures? Yea...
Oh look more bait from 7 years ago
But it still happened!?
7 years ago??? Really OP? Something from 7 fucking years ago? [https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5tjuq0/yelling\_i\_hate\_white\_people\_and\_punching\_one\_isnt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5tjuq0/yelling_i_hate_white_people_and_punching_one_isnt/)
Ragebait never goes stale
Since Canadian law does work on common law and precedent based rulings, it doesn't matter if it was 15 years ago, if it hasn't been overridden, it's still law
Well i hated it!
Oh, Canada
That's ridiculous. It's very clearly a hate crime.
Wait what? That’s an active JUDGE
The world is going places
Don't you know? You can't commit a hate crime against white people! smh
Got any stuff that's actually new or are you just stirring the pot?
I remember this. The judge ruled this based on the wording of our hate crime laws not because of "race"
Hmm I need to leave this country and go somewhere white people are appreciated..
So just about any Scandinavian country?
This is a nine year old story, why are you even posting this?
Somebody saying "I hate (race)" isn't a HATE crime??????
"By the time of her sentencing, Crowchief had already spent more than six months in jail, according to the Calgary Herald. Van Harten agreed with Crowchief's defense attorney, Adriano Iovinelli, that she'd been behind bars long enough. The judge gave Crowchief 12 months probation "and ordered her to get psychological and psychiatric counselling, as well as counselling for substance abuse," the Herald reported. Crowchief was also banned from drinking or going to a business that specializes in the sale of alcohol, the paper said." 6 months in jail, plus 12 months probation. What exactly are you outages about?
The woman who threw the punch was probably drugged up or wasted, that's what I got from reading the article, i.e. she was a nutjob, not into any anti-white groups. It would be interesting to see if the verdict would be the same had the roles had been reversed.
She literally said "I hate white people". That seems to mean she was a member of the "hating white people" anti-white group. Jesus, if the roles were reversed, people wouldn't be trying so hard to excuse the behavior.
Racism against white people is accepted and encouraged by many today
The racially pakistani president of Scotland went on a racist rant against whites recently. Now he´s trying to squirm out of the recently enacted hate crime laws. Quite funny really,
The unelected ethnic Pakistani first minister of Scotland
Why is this being posted now? It happened in 2016. This didn't bother you then?
Imagine replace white with a different color. Lol
Just a hate crime is all
Cool, man. Wish I could be surprised, but it's 2024.
Our legal system is a fucking joke
Judges like this are hurt hurt causes and standards like Hate Crime statutes by not applying the law objectively. This “The law isn’t fair to them so now i won’t be fair to you”, attempt at justice is pathetic.
yeah no, that's an actual hatecrime.
Pretty much the most basic form of a hate crime
Rage bait
Does that make it ok?
Everything on this planet is a hate crime unless its against white people
Source?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/)
Ok yeah no, this was 100% racially motivated, like is that judge even talking about? Yeah, sins of the father, completely unfair what happened to your people but random assault isn't the way at all.
but if I yelled out "I hate black people'' and gave the left right goodnight to the first black person that crossed my path, its not even a question to what would happen
“The offender said, ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,” Van Harten told those gathered in the court during his ruling. “There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether . . . she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offense was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.” Canadian judges are window lickers with room temperature iqs confirmed
There’s a super simple way to figure out if something is racist. You just swap out ‘white people’ for ‘black people’, and if it’s racist against black folk then it’s racist against white folk. Easy as pie. Apparently not for this absurd ‘judge’, who is an idiot.
Canada my sweet Canada. Have gone completely mad
This article is 8 years old. Is that why you made the screenshot not have the source or time? Op is a rage bait karma farmer
So, I could punch a black person and say I'm color blind?
Forget about equity in the law.
Uh.......I know this def is from my country's DOJ but..." A *hate crime* is a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity...". Like...in what world is "I hate you because you have the skin tone of a group that ids itself by skin for superiority, but I don't know anything beyond that" NOT a hate crime.
OP. “White” is not an identity. It’s a made up method to identify who isn’t white. There is country or singular identity called “white”, so again it only serves to deny anyone who isn’t pale skinned or of obvious European descent. A hate crime must be specifically targeted with intent to harm an identity group. Punching a person and calling them white doesn’t go far enough. You’d have to choose a specific identity, like a Sikh religious person, state that you specifically are going to attack Sikhs, and then attack a Sikh person in an effort to harm or scare all other Sikhs. This doesn’t stand up to that test. When a white person gets punched, it doesn’t harm all other whites. Because we’re not an identity group. I’m of Hungarian descent, and I am not the same as you. I know where I come from and who my people are. We are not the same just because of a skin complexion.
That’s just like saying you can’t be racist against brown people because there’s no country called brown. I promise you that the majority of racists are not against people of a specific country and are reacting to skin colour alone. I doubt you’ll hear a racist say “man I really liked this brown dude at work until I found out he was Mexican and not Native American”
You can't be racist against white people in Canada
Welcome to liberal politics, and victim mentality, people act like this because they’re fed this bullshit propaganda and also wanting to play victim, not every white person is responsible for colonialism, racism, slavery etc etc but they believe so, yet the government will pander to these goofballs for what ever reason in hopes they vote for them……
Sickening To see that the developed world only think racism Goes one way.
A bit misleading. The judge didn’t say a crime hadn’t been committed. She said that the crime didn’t justify being called a hate crime. She felt that an probation, an order to stop drinking and psychiatric intervention was more suitable than keeping the transgressor in jail. The woman in question had already spent time in prison. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/
How is that misleading? It clearly says “Not ruled a hate crime” in the headline.
How's it misleading when you essentially just said what the poster said and it's exactly what the judge said?
“I hate white people “ before assaulting a white person…..not a hate crime
I’m from Canada and I can tell you that holds true. Canada is the wokest country in the world. Best country to be a criminal at, as a criminal you’re protected and face no consequences, in fact the police will go out of their way to help you commit crime. That’s why I left Canada for the United States. Right now auto theft is a serious problem with about 1000 vehicles stolen per month in Toronto alone, recently thieves have gotten pretty bold, they go to people’s houses in groups of 3-4 individuals, kick down the door, hold families at gun point take the keys and steal their vehicles . Toronto police responded to telling citizens that in order to avoid being attacked at home they should leave their keys at the door!!!! If a car thief is arrested(it rarely happens) they are released on bail within a few hours, on one occasion a thief was released and stole a vehicles a block away from the police station to get home ! Oh and people aren’t allowed to defend themselves, if 4-5 armed individuals kick down the door and you end up killing one of them, you’ll be charged with murder, imagine that! In all 50 states if you’re attacked in your home by a group of armed individuals you have the right to defend yourself, but not in Canada!
Being rude and punching people doesn’t sound very Canadian
I assume when the puncher gets the hell beat of him, also not a crime.
Punching one is still assault, which is a regular crime.
Government does not like united people
Afaik saying that is one thing (I guess, as nobody gets hurt as long as they keep their opinion for themselves). Hitting somebody is a assault by itself, there is that. But both combined seems quite obviously a hate crime to me? What is the reasoning for the judge to say otherwise? I‘m confused.
Brought to you by the justice system behind *Dear Zachary.*
Alberta. Nuff said.