Gay-bashing incident was hate crime: Police

[AgentM]

Vancouver Police say a gay-bashing incident in Vancouver's West End that saw a 27-year-old man allegedly swarmed and sucker-punched after he was spotted holding hands with a man should be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Jordan Smith – who says he will have surgery Monday to have the broken jaw he suffered in the attack wired shut – told CTV News the incident shows gay people are not safe in Vancouver, despite the city's reputation for tolerance.

“You always hear Vancouver is so accepting of gays, the gay capital of Canada, but it's not accepted,” Mr. Smith said. “Most gay people have fear and they retreat into these ghettos like the West End for safety. But people infiltrate these areas and beat people up.”

Mr. Smith said he was out early Saturday morning near Davie and Hornby Streets holding hands with a man when a group of four or five men approached and began “calling us ***, queers, everything you could imagine. I was just dumbfounded.”

<snip>

Vancouver Police Inspector John McKay told CTV News that police will recommend that the charge be treated as a hate crime, which could result in a stiffer sentence on conviction.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080928.wgay29/BNStory/National/home

[ptac4x4]

I've still don't understand "hate" crime laws. For example, most countries have laws against personal assault. Why should the motive behind the assault determine the severity of the crime? If I was ever assaulted, I would hope the criminal would receive the same punishment as person who is gay.

[AgentM]

I've still don't understand "hate" crime laws. For example, most countries have laws against personal assault. Why should the motive behind the assault determine the severity of the crime? If I was ever assaulted, I would hope the criminal would receive the same punishment as person who is gay.

Here's the wikipedia definition. The motive for the assault determines whether the assault will take place at all. If this man hadn't been gay, his jaw wouldn't have been broken. The police want it prosecuted as a hate crime because the perps were specifically targeting him because of his sexual orientation.

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]
Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes

[ptac4x4]

Here's the wikipedia definition. The motive for the assault determines whether the assault will take place at all. If this man hadn't been gay, his jaw wouldn't have been broken. The police want it prosecuted as a hate crime because the perps were specifically targeting him because of his sexual orientation.

To me the hate crime laws are splitting hairs and I have never been supportive of them. An assault is still an assault. Paraphrasing your example. If a person had not been seen loaded with cash, his jaw would not have been broken and robbed. The perps specially targeted the victim because they had loads of cash. I understand why we have them, I just don't support them because I feel they are duplicating existing laws.

[Democritus]

To me the hate crime laws are splitting hairs and I have never been supportive of them. An assault is still an assault. Paraphrasing your example. If a person had not been seen loaded with cash, his jaw would not have been broken and robbed. The perps specially targeted the victim because they had loads of cash. I understand why we have them, I just don't support them because I feel they are duplicating existing laws.

Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. I guess the difference is that assaulting someone out of greed is considered less bad than assaulting someone out of hate. Greed is accepted as a reasonable motive that an otherwise normal member of society might succumb to and so they are seen as more likely to reform in prison. Hatred isn't seen as something that can be overcome and so they are kept out of society longer for the betterment of society. At the same time I don't like the feeling that certain groups need special laws to protect them.

[Plato]

Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. I guess the difference is that assaulting someone out of greed is considered less bad than assaulting someone out of hate. Greed is accepted as a reasonable motive that an otherwise normal member of society might succumb to and so they are seen as more likely to reform in prison. Hatred isn't seen as something that can be overcome and so they are kept out of society longer for the betterment of society. At the same time I don't like the feeling that certain groups need special laws to protect them.

I think that executing a POW is not as henious a crime as executing someone because they are Jewish. That is why I support more severe punishments for hate crimes. Even though assault and murder cannot be justified the irrational meaninglessness of a crime that is a hate crime makes these crimes even worse. A crime driven by greed is a crime with a logical root. A crime driven by prejudicial hatred is mindless and I think society is entitled to judge it as worse.

[rjamortega]

Maybe these Canadian homophobes are just highly incensed by the gay culture that says public projections of gay life need to depict gay men as nude sexual preditors in heat. (see GayCupid.com ad)

Is it the gay community pushing this image? Or Wall Street? Or both?!

[serenity]

The only people pushing the image of gay predators (as if most sexual predators aren't heterosexual, obviously) are the precise people who might be pushing this image...for whatever reason.

Any gay person who doesn't push this image is not responsible for it.

[AgentM]

I think that executing a POW is not as henious a crime as executing someone because they are Jewish. That is why I support more severe punishments for hate crimes. Even though assault and murder cannot be justified the irrational meaninglessness of a crime that is a hate crime makes these crimes even worse. A crime driven by greed is a crime with a logical root. A crime driven by prejudicial hatred is mindless and I think society is entitled to judge it as worse.

I agree, well put.

[Blueangel]

A crime driven by greed is a crime with a logical root. A crime driven by prejudicial hatred is mindless and I think society is entitled to judge it as worse. If you are attacked for something you are instead of something you've done, it's a hate crime.

[Democritus]

I think that executing a POW is not as henious a crime as executing someone because they are Jewish. That is why I support more severe punishments for hate crimes. Even though assault and murder cannot be justified the irrational meaninglessness of a crime that is a hate crime makes these crimes even worse. A crime driven by greed is a crime with a logical root. A crime driven by prejudicial hatred is mindless and I think society is entitled to judge it as worse.

And I agree with you on those points. My qualm with hate crime laws is that (at least to the best of my knowledge) they aren't applied evenly. It may not be common for someone to hate me because I'm white or because I'm male, but if they do and they kill me for it I'd like them to be prosecuted just as harshly.

[rjamortega]

The only people pushing the image of gay predators (as if most sexual predators aren't heterosexual, obviously) are the precise people who might be pushing this image...for whatever reason.

Any gay person who doesn't push this image is not responsible for it.

I'm not targetting the general culture. That is why I ask the questions at the end of my post.

Gay community, like any other, is comprised of many sub cultures. I am wondering which one it is that decides the gay libido needs to go public.

[FilmFestGuy]

I'm not targetting the general culture. That is why I ask the questions at the end of my post.

Gay community, like any other, is comprised of many sub cultures. I am wondering which one it is that decides the gay libido needs to go public.

Since I haven't seen the ad in question, I can't really comment on it. However, I see no difference is scantily clad men being used to advertise to the gay community as being any different than using scantily clad women to advertise to straight men. The use of the male libido in advertising is common across the board and the target audience shouldn't necessarily be punished or criticized. Criticizing the tactic is perfectly legitimate, however.

Moving on to hate crimes: I look at them this way. A hate crime has more than just the direct victim. Look, if I paint my name on a synagogue, I'm guilty of vandalism. If I paint a swastika on a synagogue, I'm guilty of something completely different.

If I go into a gay neighborhood or entertainment district and rob someone, I'm guilty of robbery. If I call them hate names and beat them in the middle of the street while others watch, I'm telling witnesses that they're under threat.

The same thing could be accomplished by adding criminal intimidation charges on top of assault charges or vandalism charges. And I would support that in place of hate crimes, but additional sentencing is necessary as an additional crime has occurred.

It gets even more complicated with regards to murder, of course. But let's be honest the murders of James Byrd (dragged down a street behind a pickup for being black) and Matthew Shepard (tortued, severely beaten, and tied to a fence - sorry, not the normal MO for robbery) are not the same as, say, a crime of passion or a person murdered in the middle of, say, a bank robbery. These killings are used to "teach a lesson" to those like the victim. It's no different than lynching was. It's sort of "murder plus..."

That's why I believe in additional sentencing for hate-motivated crimes.

[Scottsolo]

And I agree with you on those points. My qualm with hate crime laws is that (at least to the best of my knowledge) they aren't applied evenly. It may not be common for someone to hate me because I'm white or because I'm male, but if they do and they kill me for it I'd like them to be prosecuted just as harshly.

Then again, you might find some crimes that are a mix of different motivations.

And how do you compare someone who is really greedy to someone who is "mildy hateful".

And when do they cross from an attitude of dislike over to hate ?

The whole concept adds more complexity to something that is difficult enough as it is.

I don't want anyone who attacked me for my money to be punished less than someone who attacked me for my sexual preferences. I want them both punished...but good.

[roderic]

I've still don't understand "hate" crime laws. For example, most countries have laws against personal assault. Why should the motive behind the assault determine the severity of the crime? If I was ever assaulted, I would hope the criminal would receive the same punishment as person who is gay.The difference is, that a hate-crime is not only an assault on the person, but on an entire group, the person was picked for belonging to and being representative of that group.

The difference should become clear if you think of a Jew being beaten in the streets of 1930s Germany - the crime clearly exceeds that of 'personal' assault.

[FilmFestGuy]

Then again, you might find some crimes that are a mix of different motivations.

And how do you compare someone who is really greedy to someone who is "mildy hateful".

And when do they cross from an attitude of dislike over to hate ?

The whole concept adds more complexity to something that is difficult enough as it is.

I don't want anyone who attacked me for my money to be punished less than someone who attacked me for my sexual preferences. I want them both punished...but good.

But if you're beaten coming out of a gay bar (or I suppose the possibility of a straight person being beaten by a gay posse coming out of a sports bar - not that I've heard of that happening, but let's say it for the sake of balance), then it's not just you that's been victimized. The business is harmed because it may scare patrons away. A sense of fear where there was once security is instilled on anyone who lives in the neighborhood.

Hate crimes are/should be defined by the message sent by the perpetrator.

Again, painting my name on a church is vandalism - painting a swastika on a synagogue is NOT the same thing.

[ptac4x4]

Hate crimes are/should be defined by the message sent by the perpetrator.



If a person dislikes (hates) pedophiles and happens to assault a know pedophile that is bothering his kid, should the father be charged with assault or a hate crime? I can understand peoples stance on hate crimes when it comes to gays or race. IMO when hate crimes are defined by the message sent by the perpetrator, its way to broad based.

[Demon of Light]

I think hate crimes are rather ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons for committing crimes which are not motivated by discrimination and ultimately are probably far more dangerous. If someone beats people up just to see them bleed I'd consider that individual more dangerous than someone who beats someone up because they don't like black people. However, there's no provision for simply hating everyone and everything.

As for painting a Swastika on a synagogue, I would consider that harassment and hence it already amounts to a more serious crime.

[FilmFestGuy]

If a person dislikes (hates) pedophiles and happens to assault a know pedophile that is bothering his kid, should the father be charged with assault or a hate crime? I can understand peoples stance on hate crimes when it comes to gays or race. IMO when hate crimes are defined by the message sent by the perpetrator, its way to broad based.

Oh, for God's sake. Pedophiles are not a protected class of people, number one. Number two, if a pedophile is near a child, he's committed a crime.

Again, do you think someone who paints "Die ****" on a gay bar or paints a swastika on a synagogue is merely guilty of vandalism? That a kid who paints "Chachi love Joanie" is guilty of the same crime?

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. It's the use of violence to send a message to a community of people that the offender disagrees with. Beat up a gay guy in front of a gay bar and you've "sent a message" to the entire community.

As I've stated, no need for hate crimes legislation IF you allow for criminal intimidation charges to be added on. This covers all the bases and (hopefully) lessens the controversy. I still think statistics should be closely watched, though, for all classes so criminal trends can be watched.

[ptac4x4]

Oh, for God's sake. Pedophiles are not a protected class of people, number one. Number two, if a pedophile is near a child, he's committed a crime.

Again, do you think someone who paints "Die ****" on a gay bar or paints a swastika on a synagogue is merely guilty of vandalism? That a kid who paints "Chachi love Joanie" is guilty of the same crime?

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. It's the use of violence to send a message to a community of people that the offender disagrees with. Beat up a gay guy in front of a gay bar and you've "sent a message" to the entire community.

As I've stated, no need for hate crimes legislation IF you allow for criminal intimidation charges to be added on. This covers all the bases and (hopefully) lessens the controversy. I still think statistics should be closely watched, though, for all classes so criminal trends can be watched.

You missed my point the question was would the father be guilty of a hate crime. Peds are not a class of people as you so stated and being near a kid could be breaking the law, but how many years ago were "gays", not considered a class by law. I agree with your last statement that criminal intimidation could be applied instead of seperate law for "hate". We all should be equal under the law, thereby not needing special laws to protect certain groups. I know we are not their yet, but maybe someday.

[FilmFestGuy]

We can agree, it seems to find satisfactory methods that address my concerns and still make sure that proper punishment for the additional crimes committed are meted out.

And to eliminate all shades of gray, then no - there could never be a hate-crime for the hypothetical you propose. Criminals would not become a protected class of citizens. The only risk for the father in your hypothetical is if the person he assaults is - in fact - an innocent person, and even then, there wouldn't be consideration of "hate-crime". But, your hypothetical says that it's a known pedophile, so in that case - I don't see any legal route through hate crime would become a consideration.