If I answered you I obviously read the thread LOL. The two man have been charged for aggravated assault no hate crime. They should be punished severely.
'Hate is alive here': Wife of beaten Mississauga man speaks out after attack
- Thread starter bver_hunter
- Start date
Okay go ahead and show us how common such violent crimes are just based on the fact that two brothers just decide to violently beat up a person who is pulling his car out of the parking lot.
If the individual was a white person who has his wife and family with him, do you think that it would have been the same outcome? Prove it.
They were investigating as possible, but now Adam and Janis Corhamzic, age 27 and 19, two brothers from Brampton, are each charged with aggravated assault and two counts of assault. I don't see no charges for hate crime. Its road rage.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...r-viciously-beaten-in-road-rage-incident.html
Okay go ahead and show us how common such violent crimes are just based on the fact that two brothers just decide to violently beat up a person who is pulling his car out of the parking lot.
If the individual was a white person who has his wife and family with him, do you think that it would have been the same outcome? Would they have even caused some injuries to the wife, like it occurred in this incident? Prove it.
You never think facts support hate crimes but it seems the Crown sees the need to ckeck it out.
I see that we live in politically charged times, and that both political parties and bureaucrats (who want to hang onto their jobs that political parties could take away) often try to make political points out of conflict that happens in society. When I see a criminal matter become a political football, I gets my interest as to whether the police/prosecution are overplaying their hand, for political effect. I don't ask any questions that wouldn't have to be answered at a trial. As a result, anyone with a interest in the matter should be thinking about those same questions.
You have the criminal system backwards. It's up to the state to prove that racism had a role in the beating. It's a sentencing consideration. Here's the relevant section of the Criminal Code:
Other sentencing principles
718.2 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 gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
If you want to take the side of the state, you take on the burden of proof. Interestingly, the consideration is whether "the offence was motivated by", not "the harm inflicted by the offence was aggravated by".
You seem to have proven my point and that of the police:
An attack in southern Ontario that sent a Muslim man to hospital appears to have been motivated by hate, police said Wednesday, as his family tried to come to grips with the incident.
So now we have to wait for the court hearing based on the evidence by the police.
Not sure what is your point??
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ississauga-appears-to-have-been-motivated-by/
You had no point. You missed my point. The point was - what about this assault suggests that the assault was motivated by bigotry, as opposed to an assault motivated by outrage at the victim's driving error (and the perpetrators just happen to be bigots)? It seems highly unlikely that these two perpetrators were: a) only enraged because the driver happened to be "an Arab", b) out looking to be struck or nearly stuck by "Arab" drivers in order to justify a beating. Did the police consider it to be enough that the perpetrators were bigots and made bigoted statements?
Again these are all your assumptions. The police always put out a statement to the press based on evidence that they have. Please show your evidence that contradicts the statement put out by the police to the press. i.e. that it "appears to have been motivated by hate". Did the driver actually strike either of the victims? Was it okay for the perpetrators to scream derogatory and racist threats in the presence of the victim's family including his children and then assault him to the extent that he had to be hospitalized. What exact evidence do you have that contradicts the police??
Beaver, subtleties seem to be lost on you, at least in these legal discussions. The police can "say" anything they want about their analysis. The question is, do the reported facts back up their claims? That's what is interesting about the story to me. The way it is reported represents that the reporter is giving a complete account of the salient facts as they relate to the issue of the role of "hate". If the police analysis is based on the same analysis as the news story, I think they are mis-applying the law. The sentencing criterion is meant for crimes that are MOTIVATED by hate. It is not meant to simply increase the sentences of law breakers who happen to be bigots. It is far from clear from the reported facts that these two would have reacted in more forgiving manner if the driver had been white. I'm sure that accidents and near accidents have instigated many assaults between people without the need for any additional racial animus (I recall watching one that was caught on video involving a cyclist just last summer). It is reasonable to think that the assault would have occurred regardless of the racism of the perpetrators, once the driver got out of his vehicle and approached the men. But this is where politics steps in. Some groups claim to be object of persecution. They have asked for special protection under the law. Do you think that crimes against some groups should be treated more harshly than the same crime committed against others? Doesn't it go without saying that no one puts a beating on someone else unless they have some measure of "hate" for them, whether is over what they are perceived to have done, or their personal characteristics, or any other reason?
The problem with your default retreat of "let's wait until the trial to discuss what the law means" is that we, as a society, are already discussing it. The media has reported, and its report suggests to the public that yelling racial slurs before you assault someone MEANS it is hate crime. I think that reporting is misleading, and reflects a particular political stance.
And again you stoop to claiming it is some kind of liberal conspiracy. Meanwhile the police see reason to look into the hate aspect.
Let me help you out. If you really think there is no point discussing such stories until after there is a trial, you can stop posting on threads like this one. Let others (like me) waste their time talking about the legal and political issues they believe are raised by these stories.
And, btw, you would have to be an idiot not to realize as a public servant that you may be deemed a hero for "standing up for vulnerable minorities" and that you would likely be made a villain (and political scapegoat) if you are seen to be "not doing enough to protect vulnerable minorities". No conspiracy required, just predictable human behaviour based on perception of the political climate. Clearly, its safer to err on the side of finding hate crimes to have occurred, and then pass the hot potato to the courts to sort out.
A tidy summary of the clearest sort of hate-crime evidence.
Although you overstated the certainty of correlation a little, it's hard to imagine any sane person beating someone while complimenting their origins, or uttering unconnected inanities about their ethnicity just to pass the time while whaling on them.
It's entirely reasonable — at least at the evidence collecting, charge assembling stage — to suppose what assailants say to their victims during the act has some relation to their motivation. And unreasonable to suggest all that should be ignored until sentencing.
As I thought absolutely zero evidence from Budplug , and just plain speculation. Were you at the scene to claim that the reporting is "misleading"? You seemed to be lost in a fantasy world where all the reporting is false whether it is the right wing Sun or the left leaning Toronto Star, especially when the Muslims are the victims. This was despite the fact that they reported exactly what was stated by the police. So what if the Judge rules it to be a Hate Crime based on the evidence? My feeling is that you will still believe what you want to believe!!
There's no point in you making up details and conspiracy theories to try and justify what may be a racist attack but there is a point in me challenging your bullshit.
The police and Crown (you know, the people with full access to the information) feel the need to look at this so I'm willing to accept them at their word before accepting your claims.
Beaver, the evidence is what the press have reported. I don't need any more evidence than that to comment, because I'm commenting on their reporting, in particular their reporting about the approach that the police are taking to the matter. My point is that the police need more evidence than what has been reported if they are going to ask for a finding that the assaults were motivated by hate, and the circumstances make me doubt whether the kind of evidence they would need exists.
What is misleading is that the reporting gives the false impression that merely making racist statements during the course of an assault triggers the hate crime sentencing criterion.
It's no fantasy that the media are extremely left leaning, and that the police are sensitive to being criticized by the media for not protecting so-called vulnerable groups. This dynamic influences decisions of the police. The police perceive it to be the "safe" thing to overreach with charges in these circumstances. In my view, the justice system is not working correctly when the police feel they have to overreach, and accused citizens and the courts are left to take on the burden of rolling back charges to what they always should have been.
Finally, anyone who has ever had much direct contact with the press ought to know better than to accept their reporting at face value. They have a nearly impossible job. They have to aspire to expertise on almost every subject imaginable and do it on very tight deadlines. As a result, they get MANY things wrong that you read in your newspapers every day. They do provide a valuable service in bringing issues to the attention of the public. If you are placing more faith in what you are reading than that, your faith is misplaced.
Reread my last post, and then actually think about it. If you do, you won't have to touch your keyboard.
To begin with, all of this IS a sentencing matter. The hate speech laws (as opposed to the hate sentencing criterion) are VERY specific to things like advocating genocide (and the like) and is not what the police are looking at here. There is no "hate crimes" section of the Criminal Code, per se.
If "reasonable" were a sufficient standard of proof in criminal cases, you would have a point. However, what the Crown has to do is to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt". As a result, if it were "reasonable" to think that persons uttering racial insults during an assault may be motivated in their assault by hate, and also reasonable to think that someone who was nearly struck by a car may be motivated to assault the driver by the near accident, and then merely insult him (for whatever reason) in the course of doing so, the Crown would fail to meet its burden of proof. "Reasonableness" in the law encompasses a range of possibilities, not a single possibility. For the crown to succeed, they have to discount the viability of all reasonable alternative explanations, not merely offer a reasonable explanation for their point of view.
You are right that there is nothing wrong with the police investigating such issues in the abstract. However in this case I think that, barring evidence of a plan to engage "Arabs" in some sort of conflict that day, or evidence that the assault would not have occurred "but for" the racial views of the accused, they are wasting their time, misapplying the justice system, and misinforming the public in the process.
