Is this a Hate Crime? Really???

[Nick Danger]

CHANGING MY STORY:
After looking into this a little deeper I've found that burning a flag, one form of a larger set of actions called "flag desecration", is a protected action under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I guess that would mean that in this case the offendor's liability would be restricted to theft and destruction of private property. Still, maybe they could try his case in front of a gay judge...

 

[gerryh]

So I burn a religious text, is that a hate crime?

yes.

 

[taxslave]

yes.

Why would that be any any different than burning any other book?

 

[JLM]

yes.

Then so is burning a copy of "Little Red Riding Hood"!

 

[Omicron]

Pride flags burned at Fort McMurray’s first gay pride event, RCMP investigating | National Post
Based on security camera video viewed by LGBTQmunity vice-president Michael Kenny, around 11 p.m. the theft of one of the flags is visible. The incident occurred in the parking lot outside of the pub. Kenny said that once the burning took place, security guards approached those involved and asked them not to return to the pub. Kenny has since turned the videos over to the RCMP, who are reviewing them.

As someone who has grown up in Fort McMurray, Parsons said that the city has been “moving in the right direction” when it comes to accepting the LGBTQ community.

“I have been watching Fort McMurray change and grow,” Parsons said. “But there are still changes that have to happen within the community.”

At at this time, Kenny said they are viewing the incident as a hate crime, but he believes issues such as these are more about awareness than hate.

Lol... so a bunch of northern-Alberta working-drunks went on a spin.

One of the funnier things I saw in Alberta was a party of working Albertans (note the word *working*, le lamers) was an elephant-dance of a chain of guys naked grabbing each other's hands from under the one-before's legs, with the lead-dancer holding a square wood shale with a semen deposit on it, an "offering" unto the gods of party-craziness.

Because we lived in the country, we were allowed to attand as kids if the adults figured we were smart enough.

Just kidding. I wasn't a kid. They let me in because I was a teen.

 

[gerryh]

Why would that be any any different than burning any other book?

because it is not "any other book"

Then so it burning a copy of "Little Red Riding Hood"!

nope.

 

[Nick Danger]

But if burning a flag, even our national flag, is a protected act under the charter, wouldn't book burning get the same protection ? It all falls under freedom of expression in the eyes of the law.

 

[JLM]

But if burning a flag, even our national flag, is a protected act under the charter, wouldn't book burning get the same protection ? It all falls under freedom of expression in the eyes of the law.

As far as I'm concerned it boils down to a matter of property, if it's your property "fill yer boots", if its someone else's property, it's vandalism plain and simple.

 

[DaSleeper]

It's all so simple to the PC crowd.....
EG......

 

[SLM]

I don't think any of this is simple.

If we break it down, are we really making 'hate' a crime? Or is it the actions resulting from hate that are criminal? I'm leery of supporting 'hate crime legislation' because of what I see being misused about it, perhaps it's too broad that it's being evoked (perhaps not in criminal court but in the court of public opinion anyway) to compensate for 'hurt feelings'. And I do see that happening. Also, it's a fine line to extrapolate from a single innocuous (more or less) event, like a flag burning, to a full blown hate crime, even though hate may well be the source of the singular event in the first place. It can be making mountains out of mole hills. Also, don't people simply just have a right to hate if they want to?

But then there is the "on the other hand" when I look at it too, where I would liken these types of events as similar to stalking in a sense. Prior to the enactment of anti-stalking laws, the most common phrase heard was "we can't do anything until he/she does something", but of course by then it's often too late. Now I'm not saying the two are the same thing, but if we can, correctly, realize that standing on the sidewalk outside someones home, for instance, (a seemingly harmless thing to do) can be a forewarning that puts, potentially, lives in danger, can we not say the same thing about any targeted message like the one in the OP? When does it cross the line and become the precursor to something more?

 

[Nick Danger]

You're certainly right that it is far from simple.The section of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate crime defines it as follows:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.''

That sure clears things up, eh?

On the other hand, Charter freedoms such as that of personal expression put many so-called "victimless" crimes out of reach of the law. It is legal for me to burn a Canadian flag as a form of political statement as long as I own it or have permission from the owner. Does this extend into areas where the act in question goes beyond political statement and into the realm of prejudice against a group on the grounds of their sexual orientation ?

(Geez, I thought I had this figured out but it looks like something relatively straight-forward on the surface could keep a whole team of lawyers busy)

I do agree that it is not uncommon for a special interest group to cry prejudice or persecution in situations where that charge is inappropriate, but isn't that a sign of the times we have worked ourselves into ? We fight for human rights to protect society's less fortunate members only to have others of dubious morality slide in and abuse those rights for personal benefit.

 

[SLM]

I do agree that it is not uncommon for a special interest group to cry prejudice or persecution in situations where that charge is inappropriate, but isn't that a sign of the times we have worked ourselves into ? We fight for human rights to protect society's less fortunate members only to have others of dubious morality slide in and abuse those rights for personal benefit.

Yes, and we do, as a society, seem to allow the abusers to define the system too, don't we? (A personal pet peeve of mine.)