Another Vancouver hate crime?

[BillB]

I was driving around yesterday and a story came on the radio that the VPD had been working hard investigating yet another Vancouver "hate crime" report. It seems some Muslim people where walking down the street when someone threw some water out of a car window and some of the water might have splashed on one of them. Luckily, after a thorough investigation the VPD found the "perpetrators," who were two young Muslim men. It was apparently deemed an accident and no charges were laid, but this no doubt be recorded in the stats as yet another "hate crime report." lol

Yes, they really do report stuff like this on the news here.

[risky biz]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:31:02 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> I was driving around yesterday and a story came on the radio that the VPD had been working hard investigating yet another Vancouver "hate crime" report. It seems some Muslim people where walking down the street when someone threw some water out of a car window and some of the water might have splashed on one of them. Luckily, after a thorough investigation the VPD found the "perpetrators," who were two young Muslim men. It was apparently deemed an accident and no charges were laid, but this no doubt be recorded in the stats as yet another "hate crime report." lol
>
> Yes, they really do report stuff like this on the news here.

Blabbermouth has bragged repeatedly about the low number of people charged with or convicted of hate crimes in Canada and disparaged 'reports' of hate crimes in Canada implying that they must not have been substantial if there were no charges or convictions. What 'Super Competent Lawyer' invariably failed to mention was the below:

'When Is A Crime Considered A Hate Crime In Canada?
October 14, 2021

Note that these numbers only include a small number of crimes reported to the police. The impact of hate crimes exceeds the number of recorded incidents. One of the main reasons for this humble reporting is the fact that there is no definition of what a “hate crime” is in the Criminal Code.

Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/


But the Canadian news media still refers to them as hate crimes, taking their cue from the U.S., apparently, where hate crimes are a codified legal violation. The news media has actually classified Vancouver as the Hate Crime Capital of North America.

See more here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hate+crimes+in+vancouver&t=ffsb&atb=v322-2&ia=web

[BillB]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:38:42 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:31:02 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > I was driving around yesterday and a story came on the radio that the VPD had been working hard investigating yet another Vancouver "hate crime" report. It seems some Muslim people where walking down the street when someone threw some water out of a car window and some of the water might have splashed on one of them. Luckily, after a thorough investigation the VPD found the "perpetrators," who were two young Muslim men. It was apparently deemed an accident and no charges were laid, but this no doubt be recorded in the stats as yet another "hate crime report." lol
> >
> > Yes, they really do report stuff like this on the news here.
> Blabbermouth has bragged repeatedly about the low number of people charged with or convicted of hate crimes in Canada and disparaged 'reports' of hate crimes in Canada implying that they must not have been substantial if there were no charges or convictions. What 'Super Competent Lawyer' invariably failed to mention was the below:
>
> 'When Is A Crime Considered A Hate Crime In Canada?
> October 14, 2021
>
> Note that these numbers only include a small number of crimes reported to the police. The impact of hate crimes exceeds the number of recorded incidents. One of the main reasons for this humble reporting is the fact that there is no definition of what a “hate crime” is in the Criminal Code.
>
> Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
> https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/

Uh, no. The following are hate crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada, and there are others:

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:51:37 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:38:42 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:31:02 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > I was driving around yesterday and a story came on the radio that the VPD had been working hard investigating yet another Vancouver "hate crime" report. It seems some Muslim people where walking down the street when someone threw some water out of a car window and some of the water might have splashed on one of them. Luckily, after a thorough investigation the VPD found the "perpetrators," who were two young Muslim men. It was apparently deemed an accident and no charges were laid, but this no doubt be recorded in the stats as yet another "hate crime report." lol
> > >
> > > Yes, they really do report stuff like this on the news here.
> > Blabbermouth has bragged repeatedly about the low number of people charged with or convicted of hate crimes in Canada and disparaged 'reports' of hate crimes in Canada implying that they must not have been substantial if there were no charges or convictions. What 'Super Competent Lawyer' invariably failed to mention was the below:
> >
> > 'When Is A Crime Considered A Hate Crime In Canada?
> > October 14, 2021
> >
> > Note that these numbers only include a small number of crimes reported to the police. The impact of hate crimes exceeds the number of recorded incidents. One of the main reasons for this humble reporting is the fact that there is no definition of what a “hate crime” is in the Criminal Code.
> >
> > Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
> > https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/

~ Uh, no. The following are hate crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada, and there are others:

>
> Public incitement of hatred
>
> 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
>
> Wilful promotion of hatred
>
> (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Defences
>
> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
> (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
> (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
> (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
> (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Do you think this makes Canada look good? LOL.

A careful reader will note that it only applies to 'communicating statements'. And a knowledgeable person might surmise that this came about only as a result of the Ernst Zundel case. So you can go around spitting on every Asian you come across and you will not be convicted of a hate crime.

AND a person cannot be convicted if, 'in good faith', that person is communicating that you should remove something so that you won't be hated. LOL.

Vancouver - Hate Crime Capital of North America.

[BillB]

You claimed there were no hate crimes in Canada. Once again you had no clue what you were talking about. Your bottomless pit of ignorance is getting extremely boring. And my original post proved how moronic it is to count "hate crime reports."

[risky biz]

~ You claimed there were no hate crimes in Canada. Once again you had no clue what you were talking about. Your bottomless pit of ignorance is getting extremely boring. And my original post proved how moronic it is to count "hate crime reports."


Why don't you contact the Canadian law firm whose webpage I referenced (and whom you, being a talentless copycat and followinbg my lead, reference, also) and tell them they have no clue what they are talking about and that they inhabit a bottomless pit of ignorance? Allow me to caution you, however, that unlike you, they are real lawyers.

Brilliant legal research, counselor. You copied and pasted from the website I referenced, that of a Canadian law firm who are SUCCESSFUL lawyers and that says on the same webpage, '..there is no definition of what a “hate crime” is in the Criminal Code.

Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with.'


That same webpage also says something else you carefully chose to overlook:
'Hate crimes have been a persistent issue in Canada and with numbers increasing by the day, many citizens are wondering why the police have been slow to label many offensive acts.

Data regarding hate crimes show that the numbers have increased from a low of 1167 incidents in 2013 to a high of 2073 in 2017. Although the numbers have decreased by 13% to 1,798 in 2018, the number of hate crimes remains higher (with the exception of 2017) than any other year since 2009. Overall, the data shows an upward trend since 2014.


Canada's 'Public incitement of hatred' doesn't even approach the status of U.S. hate crime laws. I'm guessing that the Canadian statutes presented were intended to suppress the publication of Holocaust denial literature.

Here is what a real hate crime statute looks like:
'Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, initimidate or interfere with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin"[1] or because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Persons violating this law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Data_collection_statutes

And numerous others follow that one in the Wiki reference.

You remain a talentless pretender.

[BillB]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't even click on your link. There is misinformation all over the internet. The Criminal Code codifies CRIMES, and the example sections I provided you specify HATE. They are explicit HATE CRIMES which you claimed did not exist. I can assure you that a person can and will be charged with them if all the essential elements of the crimes are met and can be proved to a criminal standard. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are unwilling to learn from your superiors. There is no point in me trying anymore.

[risky biz]

~ I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't even click on your link.

LOL. It's an exact cut and paste from the website I referenced. You produce more horseshit than the Budweiser Clydesdales.

> There is misinformation all over the internet. The Criminal Code codifies CRIMES, and the example sections I provided you specify HATE. They are explicit HATE CRIMES which you claimed did not exist. I can assure you that a person can and will be charged with them if all the essential elements of the crimes are met and can be proved to a criminal standard. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are unwilling to learn from your superiors. There is no point in me trying anymore.

In other words, you've been slapped in the face by facts on this subject enough today and now you're going to pout and go home. LOL.

[BillB]

It's a cut and paste from a very well known section of the Criminal Code. I did not click on your link.

> > There is misinformation all over the internet. The Criminal Code codifies CRIMES, and the example sections I provided you specify HATE. They are explicit HATE CRIMES which you claimed did not exist. I can assure you that a person can and will be charged with them if all the essential elements of the crimes are met and can be proved to a criminal standard. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are unwilling to learn from your superiors. There is no point in me trying anymore.

> In other words, you've been slapped in the face by facts on this subject enough today and now you're going to pout and go home. LOL.

I haven't been slapped by anything. I proved by quoting the Criminal Code of Canada that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. There are hate crimes in the Criminal Code, and people can be and have been charged with them. And I showed you with my original post why it is ridiculous to count "reports of a hate crime" as a useful crime statistic without any investigation or analysis as to whether a hate crime or any crime motivated by bias [s. 718.2 (a)(i)] actually occurred.

By the way, spitting on someone is not "mischief." Spitting on someone is an assault. An assault is a hybrid offense, and where there is evidence that the assault was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, the Crown would almost certainly proceed by indictment where the accused would face up to five years in prison. The Civil Rights Act maximum punishments you cited are rather lame.

[risky biz]

~ I haven't been slapped by anything. I proved by quoting the Criminal Code of Canada that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. There are hate crimes in the Criminal Code, and people can be and have been charged with them.


It is more than humorous that you should now assert that when you previously at RGP, on the self-same subject, asserted that there were NO convictions for hate crimes in Vancouver, one of the largest cities in Canada. I repeat - you produce more horseshit than the Budweiser Clydesdales.

~ And I showed you with my original post why it is ridiculous to count "reports of a hate crime" as a useful crime statistic without any investigation or analysis as to whether a hate crime or any crime motivated by bias [s. 718.2 (a)(i)] actually occurred.
>
~ By the way, spitting on someone is not "mischief." Spitting on someone is an assault. An assault is a hybrid offense, and where there is evidence that the assault was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, the Crown would almost certainly proceed by indictment where the accused would face up to five years in prison.

~ The Civil Rights Act maximum punishments you cited are rather lame.


Ooh! Canada more good/better than USA. LOL. Psychological disorder and full-scale delusional.

Notwithstanding your devious doubletalk, it appears the only things the Crown could proceed with are either assault or 'communicating statements' that incite hatred. 'Communicating statements' is the only Canadian statute you can hold up in your attempt to claim Canada has 'hate crime laws'. You could outdo a team of Clydesdales.

Once again, why don't you contact the Canadian law firm whose webpage I referenced and tell them they have no clue what they are talking about and that they inhabit a bottomless pit of ignorance? This is what you referred to:

'Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/

And, allow me to remind you- they are REAL lawyers. They don't spend their days trying to convince half a dozen people at a poker newsgroup that they really are lawyers. Any communication from yourself to them could result in you yourself being charged with mischief or, even more dire, being detained for psychological observation.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:47:12 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> ~ I haven't been slapped by anything. I proved by quoting the Criminal Code of Canada that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. There are hate crimes in the Criminal Code, and people can be and have been charged with them.
>
>
> It is more than humorous that you should now assert that when you previously at RGP, on the self-same subject, asserted that there were NO convictions for hate crimes in Vancouver, one of the largest cities in Canada. I repeat - you produce more horseshit than the Budweiser Clydesdales.
>

I believe I said I wasn't aware of any. You cited "reports" of 96 "hate crimes" in Vancouver and I asked you to show me a conviction, and you failed to do so. I would have thought that with 96 "reported hate crimes" you could show me at least one conviction....or an acquittal....or at least a charge...maybe even just an arrest?? But you couldn't, as I suspected.

> ~ And I showed you with my original post why it is ridiculous to count "reports of a hate crime" as a useful crime statistic without any investigation or analysis as to whether a hate crime or any crime motivated by bias [s. 718.2 (a)(i)] actually occurred.
> >
> ~ By the way, spitting on someone is not "mischief." Spitting on someone is an assault. An assault is a hybrid offense, and where there is evidence that the assault was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, the Crown would almost certainly proceed by indictment where the accused would face up to five years in prison.
>
> ~ The Civil Rights Act maximum punishments you cited are rather lame.
>
>
> Ooh! Canada more good/better than USA. LOL. Psychological disorder and full-scale delusional.
>

Can there really be any reasonable doubt about that?

> Notwithstanding your devious doubletalk, it appears the only things the Crown could proceed with are either assault or 'communicating statements' that incite hatred. 'Communicating statements' is the only Canadian statute you can hold up in your attempt to claim Canada has 'hate crime laws'. You could outdo a team of Clydesdales.
>

No, I gave you one EXAMPLE, because that was all that was necessary to prove your idiotic claim wrong. You said nobody could be charged with (much less convicted of) a hate crime in Canada, based on something erroneous you found on some Edmontonian sole practitioner's website (probably written by his assistant). Do you know how many times I have corrected other lawyers on matters of law in court and in the process of case management? It's my job. I am sure it has happened at least a hundred times in the last 30 years.

> Once again, why don't you contact the Canadian law firm whose webpage I referenced and tell them they have no clue what they are talking about and that they inhabit a bottomless pit of ignorance? This is what you referred to:
>

Why would I contact them? You are the one who relied on something you found on their website in a hopelessly lame attempt to contradict me. You are the one who had to suffer total humiliation from that egregious error in judgment. Why don't YOU contact them? I already know what I know.

> 'Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
> https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/
>
> And, allow me to remind you- they are REAL lawyers.

As am I. Remember I showed you a photo of my law degree and call certificate when you foolishly called into question my credentials? That must have been a terribly embarrassing moment for you. Now you are back in denial mode again?? LOL Are you even capable of learning?

So your belief is that, for some inexplicable reason, nobody can be charged with the explicit hate crime provision set out in s.319 of the Criminal Code? They can only be charged with "mischief?" And the reason you believe that is because you read it on the internet?

>They don't spend their days trying to convince half a dozen people at a poker newsgroup that they really are lawyers. Any communication from yourself to them >could result in you yourself being charged with mischief or, even more dire, being detained for psychological observation.

I don't spend my days doing any such thing. Have you gone into full liar mode now? In the past a few stooges (yourself included) have accused me of lying about my education and experience, so I simply provided documentary proof to these stooges (yourself included). It's no different than hanging my several degrees and call certificates on my office wall.

So, now that we are done with your childish and lame ad hominem, let's get back to the hate crime you claim that nobody can be charged with (based on what you read on the internet...lol). Perhaps you can explain this decision in a rather well known case of a hate crime charge under s.319 of the Criminal Code:

"When one hears the audio tape and the fury and passion in the delivery of these statements, the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole purpose and intent in making these statements was to wilfully promote hatred against people of the Jewish faith within the meaning of section 319 (2) of the Act. To equate a definable group of people to a disease is to dehumanize them, to deny them the basic respect and dignity that all human beings are entitled to and that it is justified to kill or to use the more offensive word, “fried”, is clearly to subject them to being despised and subject to ill treatment even in the extreme such as was demonstrated by the Holocaust. Daily Canadians and our Governments are being urged to eradicate diseases such as cancer, aids, tuberculosis – to suggest that any human being or a group of human beings are a disease is to invite extremists to take action and to give a justification for violence against them. This is precisely why Parliament enacted section 319 (2) and our Supreme Court of Canada declared it as being constitutional.

"Similarly, I totally reject your testimony that your comments on December 13, 2002 were prompted or affected by diabetes, wine or change in medication. Your appearance, demeanor and delivery belie that defence.

"Accordingly, I find you, David Ahenakew, guilty of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group to wit people of the Jewish faith contrary to section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada." -- per Laing C.J. in R. v. Ahenakew


Whoops! Convicted of a hate crime, not "mischief." The difference between you and me is that I know exactly what I am talking about, and you are attempting to argue from your comfortable perch of profound ignorance. Stick to the penny slots. You are trying to punch far, far above your intellectual weight class.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:47:12 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > ~ I haven't been slapped by anything. I proved by quoting the Criminal Code of Canada that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. There are hate crimes in the Criminal Code, and people can be and have been charged with them.
> >
> >
> > It is more than humorous that you should now assert that when you previously at RGP, on the self-same subject, asserted that there were NO convictions for hate crimes in Vancouver, one of the largest cities in Canada. I repeat - you produce more horseshit than the Budweiser Clydesdales.
> >
> I believe I said I wasn't aware of any. You cited "reports" of 96 "hate crimes" in Vancouver and I asked you to show me a conviction, and you failed to do so. I would have thought that with 96 "reported hate crimes" you could show me at least one conviction....or an acquittal....or at least a charge...maybe even just an arrest?? But you couldn't, as I suspected.
> > ~ And I showed you with my original post why it is ridiculous to count "reports of a hate crime" as a useful crime statistic without any investigation or analysis as to whether a hate crime or any crime motivated by bias [s. 718.2 (a)(i)] actually occurred.
> > >
> > ~ By the way, spitting on someone is not "mischief." Spitting on someone is an assault. An assault is a hybrid offense, and where there is evidence that the assault was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, the Crown would almost certainly proceed by indictment where the accused would face up to five years in prison.
> >
> > ~ The Civil Rights Act maximum punishments you cited are rather lame.
> >
> >
> > Ooh! Canada more good/better than USA. LOL. Psychological disorder and full-scale delusional.
> >
> Can there really be any reasonable doubt about that?
> > Notwithstanding your devious doubletalk, it appears the only things the Crown could proceed with are either assault or 'communicating statements' that incite hatred. 'Communicating statements' is the only Canadian statute you can hold up in your attempt to claim Canada has 'hate crime laws'. You could outdo a team of Clydesdales.
> >
> No, I gave you one EXAMPLE, because that was all that was necessary to prove your idiotic claim wrong.

~You said nobody could be charged with (much less convicted of) a hate crime in Canada, based on something erroneous you found on some Edmontonian sole practitioner's website (probably written by his assistant). Do you know how many times I have corrected other lawyers on matters of law in court and in the process of case management? It's my job. I am sure it has happened at least a hundred times in the last 30 years.

> > Once again, why don't you contact the Canadian law firm whose webpage I referenced and tell them they have no clue what they are talking about and that they inhabit a bottomless pit of ignorance? This is what you referred to:
> >

> Why would I contact them? You are the one who relied on something you found on their website in a hopelessly lame attempt to contradict me. You are the one who had to suffer total humiliation from that egregious error in judgment. Why don't YOU contact them? I already know what I know.
> > 'Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'
> > https://www.slafereklaw.ca/when-crime-considered-hate-crime-canada/
> >


> > And, allow me to remind you- they are REAL lawyers.
> As am I. Remember I showed you a photo of my law degree and call certificate when you foolishly called into question my credentials? That must have been a terribly embarrassing moment for you. Now you are back in denial mode again?? LOL Are you even capable of learning?
>
> So your belief is that, for some inexplicable reason, nobody can be charged with the explicit hate crime provision set out in s.319 of the Criminal Code? They can only be charged with "mischief?" And the reason you believe that is because you read it on the internet?
> >They don't spend their days trying to convince half a dozen people at a poker newsgroup that they really are lawyers. Any communication from yourself to them >could result in you yourself being charged with mischief or, even more dire, being detained for psychological observation.
> I don't spend my days doing any such thing. Have you gone into full liar mode now? In the past a few stooges (yourself included) have accused me of lying about my education and experience, so I simply provided documentary proof to these stooges (yourself included). It's no different than hanging my several degrees and call certificates on my office wall.
>
> So, now that we are done with your childish and lame ad hominem, let's get back to the hate crime you claim that nobody can be charged with (based on what you read on the internet...lol). Perhaps you can explain this decision in a rather well known case of a hate crime charge under s.319 of the Criminal Code:
>
> "When one hears the audio tape and the fury and passion in the delivery of these statements, the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole purpose and intent in making these statements was to wilfully promote hatred against people of the Jewish faith within the meaning of section 319 (2) of the Act. To equate a definable group of people to a disease is to dehumanize them, to deny them the basic respect and dignity that all human beings are entitled to and that it is justified to kill or to use the more offensive word, “fried”, is clearly to subject them to being despised and subject to ill treatment even in the extreme such as was demonstrated by the Holocaust. Daily Canadians and our Governments are being urged to eradicate diseases such as cancer, aids, tuberculosis – to suggest that any human being or a group of human beings are a disease is to invite extremists to take action and to give a justification for violence against them. This is precisely why Parliament enacted section 319 (2) and our Supreme Court of Canada declared it as being constitutional.
>
> "Similarly, I totally reject your testimony that your comments on December 13, 2002 were prompted or affected by diabetes, wine or change in medication. Your appearance, demeanor and delivery belie that defence.
>
> "Accordingly, I find you, David Ahenakew, guilty of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group to wit people of the Jewish faith contrary to section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada." -- per Laing C.J. in R. v. Ahenakew
>
>
> Whoops! Convicted of a hate crime, not "mischief." The difference between you and me is that I know exactly what I am talking about, and you are attempting to argue from your comfortable perch of profound ignorance. Stick to the penny slots. You are trying to punch far, far above your intellectual weight class.

This person was convicted of this:
'communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group'.

So just as I said earlier in this thread and as the website of the Canadian criminal defense attorney I referenced states the only thing approaching the status of an actual hate crime statute in Canada is one that criminalizes the public propagation of group hatred and in this case, also affirming my assertion earlier in this thread, the statute is applied to someone propagating anti-semitism.

I don't understand why you keep coming back to reinforce the belief that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and that you're the most prolific liar on RGP but I never claimed to have any psychiatric credentials.


BTW- your attempt to disparage the attorney whose website I referenced must leave a lot of people laughing. It doesn't look like HE spends his days on a poker newsgroup attempting to convince half a dozen people that he really is a lawyer, really has clients, really practices law, and doesn't pretend that the condo he bought 30 years ago for $200,000 is the storm center of a powerhouse legal practice. LOL.

Darin H Slaferek, Criminal Lawyer Serving Edmonton
Darin returned to university following his employment with a utility company in 1996. He graduated from the University of Lethbridge with Great Distinction in 1998. He continued his post-secondary education and graduated from the University of Alberta law school in 2001. After articles with a civil firm, he joined Tatarchuk Olson in 2002, practicing primarily criminal defence. Two years later, he joined Engel Law Office for one year and continued his criminal defence practice. Currently, Darin continues his practice in Edmonton, keeping his focus on criminal defence work, overseeing and handling all criminal cases at Slaferek Law.

Darin appears regularly at all levels of court and has argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. Also, he appears in courthouses located all across Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Darin is on the Board of Directors of the Parkinson Association of Alberta. He is a past President of the Western Canadian Disabled Fishing Association, past Director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, and a past Director of the Edmonton Gun Club.

[BillB]

^^ hopeless case, incapable of learning. lol

[risky biz]

~ On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ Stick to the penny slots.

$34,500 in handpays in March.

LOL. What a moron. That's more than you made in legal billings in the lat 5 years. Because you aren't really a lawyer.

[BillB]

More riskytard fantasy. He has to make up these fantasies about me to feel better about is pathetic existence as a penny slot degenerate. Very sad.

[VegasJerry]

.

*** IOW ***
"I have nothing and am presently running..."

[BillB]

Nothing? Are you off your meds again? He claimed there was no definition of a hate crime in Canada, and I gave him an explicit example of one such hate crime being defined, quoted directly from the Criminal Code of Canada. He further claimed you can't be charged with a hate crime in Canada (but only "mischief") and I provided him with a case where someone was convicted of the very hate crime section I provided as an example. It's absolutely amazing to me that some people simply refuse to learn. Why is is so hard for low-IQ individuals to admit they are wrong, even when slapped in the face with irrefutable FACTS proving they are wrong?

[VegasJerry]

.
> Nothing?

Yea, NOTHING.

> Are you off your meds again?

No. Are you dodging again?

> He claimed there was .....

We'll take that as a Yes...

//NEXT//

[BillB]

Knew you couldn't grow.

[risky biz]

~ Nothing? Are you off your meds again? He claimed there was no definition of a hate crime in Canada, and I gave him an explicit example of one such hate crime being defined, quoted directly from the Criminal Code of Canada.

The statute you're hanging your dunce hat on:

'319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group'

The purpose of that law was likely to suppress publication of antisemitic literature which is exactly what it was employed for in the court case you cited. Which I've already pointed out TWICE in this thread. Not to mention that the statute is provided right on the website I referenced. Which is what made you aware of it.

You must think everyone at RGP is as dumb as you. If someone goes around beating the shit out of every Asian he comes across that statute does not apply as long as he isn't 'communicating statements' while he does it. He can be convicted of assault but that will never show up in any record as a hate crime which, of course, will allow a hypocrite like you to claim they weren't hate crimes at all but only 'reports'. That's exactly what you have done in other threads. What a jerk you are.


~ He further claimed you can't be charged with a hate crime in Canada (but only "mischief")

I did no such thing, liar. The website I referenced stated:

'Note that these numbers only include a small number of crimes reported to the police. The impact of hate crimes exceeds the number of recorded incidents. One of the main reasons for this humble reporting is the fact that there is no definition of what a “hate crime” is in the Criminal Code.

Even though there are many acts that are called a ‘hate crime,’ it is not an offence that the police can charge a person with. At most, a person can be charged with mischief but after that, it is up to the judge to decide whether to impose a longer sentence if they believe the crime of mischief was motivated by hate.'

Unfortunately, Blabbermouth is incapable of understanding the context of comments made by a REAL lawyer.


~ and I provided him with a case where someone was convicted of the very hate crime section I provided as an example.

Of which, see a separate post. LOL.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ So, now that we are done with your childish and lame ad hominem, let's get back to the hate crime you claim that nobody can be charged with (based on what you read on the internet...lol). Perhaps you can explain this decision in a rather well known case of a hate crime charge under s.319 of the Criminal Code:

>
> "When one hears the audio tape and the fury and passion in the delivery of these statements, the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole purpose and intent in making these statements was to wilfully promote hatred against people of the Jewish faith within the meaning of section 319 (2) of the Act. To equate a definable group of people to a disease is to dehumanize them, to deny them the basic respect and dignity that all human beings are entitled to and that it is justified to kill or to use the more offensive word, “fried”, is clearly to subject them to being despised and subject to ill treatment even in the extreme such as was demonstrated by the Holocaust. Daily Canadians and our Governments are being urged to eradicate diseases such as cancer, aids, tuberculosis – to suggest that any human being or a group of human beings are a disease is to invite extremists to take action and to give a justification for violence against them. This is precisely why Parliament enacted section 319 (2) and our Supreme Court of Canada declared it as being constitutional.
>
> "Similarly, I totally reject your testimony that your comments on December 13, 2002 were prompted or affected by diabetes, wine or change in medication. Your appearance, demeanor and delivery belie that defence.
>
> "Accordingly, I find you, David Ahenakew, guilty of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group to wit people of the Jewish faith contrary to section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada." -- per Laing C.J. in R. v. Ahenakew
>
>

~ Whoops! Convicted of a hate crime, not "mischief." The difference between you and me is that I know exactly what I am talking about, and you are attempting to argue from your comfortable perch of profound ignorance. Stick to the penny slots. You are trying to punch far, far above your intellectual weight class.

You, unfortunately, do not have the slightest idea about 90% of the subjects upon which you run your blabbermouth. This is just one more instance in which you do not know exactly what you are talking about and, in fact, lack a rudimentary understanding of what you're talking about.

1. The defendant was FINED the princely sum of $1,000. That amounts to two typical traffic tickets.
2. The conviction was overturned on appeal and a new trial was ordered.
3. The defendant was found NOT GUILTY in the second trial.

LOL@ 'I know exactly what I am talking about'.

If you ever were a lawyer as you claim you were you would have been sued for malpractice repeatedly. I can just imagine a goofball like you appearing in a courtroom late after going to the wrong courtroom and then the judge finding that you came prepared to plead the wrong case and are unprepared for the case you're supposed to be pleading.

No wonder Jerry calls you a 'street lawyer'.

[BillB]

You aren't very bright. I gave you that case to prove (as one example) that hate crimes are in fact defined in the Criminal Code and people are in fact charged with them. The case file history is totally irrelevant. His eventual acquittal was not because the police aren't allowed to charge people with hate crimes or because a hate crime is not defined in the Criminal Code. Yes, I know exactly what I am talking about, and every lawyer in Canada knows Ahenakew was eventually acquitted.
Any more total irrelevancies you'd like to embarrass yourself with? lol

[risky biz]

~ Yes, I know exactly what I am talking about, and every lawyer in Canada knows Ahenakew was eventually acquitted.


BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!
Watch it- BillBlabbermouth backing up!

LOL. Every lawyer in Canada may know Ahenakew was eventually acquitted but you didn't.

Canadian courts couldn't convict even on their traffic citation-equivalent statute that you are attempting to parade as a massive 'hate crime' law in Canada.

Canada has no real hate crime laws as they are understood in the U.S.A. where they have teeth and Canada does not collect statistics on hate crimes in Canada because other than this 'publishing hate' statute there are no real hate crime laws in Canada. That's why you're able to shoot off your big blabbermouth claiming there are no convictions, charges, or even arrests for hate crimes and insinuate that reported hate crimes are mostly hoaxes. Wow. That Canada/USA border has a HUGE effect on your racial justice conscience, doesn't it?

SAD and despicable.

[BillB]

So first there was no hate crime defined in the Criminal Code and the police couldn't charge you with one. Now, once proved wrong, you say there is only ONE, is that right? And you claim in your opposite world that it's me who is backing up. LOLOL For the fifth or sixth time...I gave you ONE example to prove you didn't have a clue what you are talking about. You still don't.

[BillB]

By the way, here are the Canadian hate crime statistics that riskytard just told you Canada does not collect.

He clearly just makes things up as he goes along.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006601

[VegasJerry]

.

> > No. Are you dodging again?

*** No Reply Noted ***
(Dodging noted)

> > > He claimed there was .....
> >
> > We'll take that as a Yes...
> >
> > //NEXT//

.

> Knew you couldn't grow.

See? Run and Hide…

[risky biz]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:02:11 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ By the way, here are the Canadian hate crime statistics that riskytard just told you Canada does not collect.

>
> He clearly just makes things up as he goes along.
>
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006601

For the more-intellectually-sophisticated-than-Blabbermouth crowd:

'(selected police services)'

'Over the past two decades, police services across Canada have continued to advance their identification and reporting of hate crime incidents.'
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006601


This is surveyed data from Canadian police departments which, of their own volition, record hate crime statistics in their own jurisdiction. There is no Canadian legal requirement for all Canadian police departments to do that. Nor is there a standard definition or recording procedure adopted throughout Canada. Reason dictates that hate crimes throughout Canada are vastly underreported as affirmed by the REAL lawyer I referenced earlier.

So your reference simply confirms what I said. Congratulations on your latest 'own goal'.

Additionally, the 2,669 figure for 2020, according to you, is mostly 'hoaxes'. Why don't you make up your mind which side of the reporting you're on? It's odd to imply that they're mostly unsubstantiated while also waving them around like a major Canadian achievement. Is your logical predicament on this subject something that goes with the territory when your only objective is to be a mephitic troll?

[BillB]

Stop tripping over yourself, you moron. Everything you have said has been proved false. Learn to lose.

[risky biz]

~ Stop tripping over yourself, you moron. Everything you have said has been proved false. Learn to lose.

LOL. I have proven that everything I said was true vs. your repeated blabbering and attempts to muddy the subject.

Here is a generally recognized denouement on what you are holding up and waving around as a Canadian 'hate crime' law:

'Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Your example is a hate speech law, not a hate crime law. I expect that you're much too much of an intellectual dullard to recognize the difference. That, necessarily, calls into question, once again, your claims that you're an attorney. It seems to me that you're too dumb to be an attorney.


BillBlabbermouth: 'There are hate crimes in the Criminal Code, and people can be and have been charged with them.'

>
>
> It is more than humorous that you should now assert that when you previously at RGP, on the self-same subject, asserted that there were NO convictions for hate crimes in Vancouver, one of the largest cities in Canada.

BillBlabbermouth: 'I believe I said I wasn't aware of any.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/L28S_rUbgAs/m/KZdmqBtGBgAJ

It's abundantly obvious that the last thing Blabbermouth wants to be is aware of any. What a hypocrite.


BillBlabbermouth: 'The source was based on "reports," not crimes, as well as Canada's noted "expanded definition" of what constitutes a hate crime.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/rjf1mz3jpVc/m/jrYsUZgOBAAJ

There is NO Canadian definition in law much less an 'expanded definition'.

BillBlabbermouth: 'there was an incident here last year where a biker-looking dude pushed a 92-year-old man out of a 7-Eleven. The old guy fell and hit his head on the pavement. It was on the news non-stop till they found the fucker. All they could talk about was hate crime, hate crime, hate crime, and I have no doubt it was "reported" as one. They found the guy before long, but he wasn't charged with a hate crime, because it didn't meet the definition.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/rjf1mz3jpVc/m/EbqSVjcIAwAJ

There is NO Canadian definition in law.

BillBlabbermouth: 'it is clear the data is based on "Anti-Asian Hate Crime Incidents *Reported* to Police" (my emphasis)'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/rjf1mz3jpVc/m/Ql0tkTgKAwAJ

BillBlabbermouth: 'It's a "report" of a hate crime, and a huge percentage don't turn out to be "hate crimes" at all. You REALLY don't understand the difference between a hate crime and a report of hate crime?? LOL More risky stupidity. He's a bottomless pit of dumb.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/rjf1mz3jpVc/m/jqFyNn4LAwAJ

BillBlabbermouth: 'And I'm not saying the reports are necessarily "hoaxes". I'm only saying that most incidents that are *reported* as hate crimes turn out not to be hate crimes at all. Show me the number of charged hate crimes (let alone convictions).
If someone tells someone to "go back to China" it's all over the news here, yet for some reason I can't recall one conviction for an Asian hate crime. I don't doubt I might have missed a couple, but even charges are rare.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/rjf1mz3jpVc/m/V-Ljr2oOAwAJ

BillBlabbermouth: 'I asked you to show me a conviction, and you failed to do so. I would have thought that with 96 "reported hate crimes" you could show me at least one conviction....or an acquittal....or at least a charge...maybe even just an arrest?? But you couldn't, as I suspected.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/L28S_rUbgAs/m/KZdmqBtGBgAJ

A person that is both intelligent and honest will realize that charges and convictions of hate crimes cannot be evidenced if there are no hate crime laws on which to arrest, charge, or convict a person.

Has anyone ever seen an example of a ceature more dishonest than BillBlabbermouth?

[risky biz]

~ So first there was no hate crime defined in the Criminal Code and the police couldn't charge you with one.

What's this bonehead's problem?

'Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

[BillB]

There is something seriously wrong with you. You said there was no defined hate crime in Canada. I showed you an example of one. You said nobody can be charged with a hate crime. I showed you a case where someone was. You said the Canadian government doesn't compile hate crime statistics. I showed you that they do. You are proved wrong time after time after time because you simply do not have the very first clue what you are talking about. Stick to the penny slots. The law is WAY out of your league.

[risky biz]

~ There is something seriously wrong with you. You said there was no defined hate crime in Canada. I showed you an example of one. You said nobody can be charged with a hate crime. I showed you a case where someone was. You said the Canadian government doesn't compile hate crime statistics. I showed you that they do. You are proved wrong time after time after time because you simply do not have the very first clue what you are talking about. Stick to the penny slots. The law is WAY out of your league.


My goodness. Isn't that surprising? BillBlabbermouth declaring victory after he has been proven profoundly WRONG on EACH AND EVERY ONE of his latest spastic claims.

[BillB]

Here is how Statistics Canada defines a hate crime for the purposes of collecting the statistics you previously claimed do not exist:

"Hate crimes refer to criminal offences 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, such as profession or political beliefs."

By the wikipedia definition you have quoted, just about every crime against property or the person in the Criminal Code is a potential hate crime. Canada does have a specific law that "enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws." So there's another Canadian hate crime law proving you wrong by your own definition. As a former criminal lawyer, I would define a hate crime law as a CRIME for which HATE (or bias or prejudice) is an essential element of the offense. I don't think you need to be a lawyer to realize a CRIME titled "Public incitement of hatred" is a hate crime.

[BillB]

^^ riskytard's alternate reality. lol

[risky biz]

~ Here is how Statistics Canada defines a hate crime for the purposes of collecting the statistics you previously claimed do not exist:

>
> "Hate crimes refer to criminal offences 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, such as profession or political beliefs."

'Statistics Canada'? And that makes it a 'hate crime law'? Wow. You're relly struggling with this, aren't you?


~ By the wikipedia definition you have quoted, just about every crime against property or the person in the Criminal Code is a potential hate crime.

If you ignore the fact that thetre is no hate crime law in Canada. Something that's easy for a bonehead like you to do.

~ Canada does have a specific law that "enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws." So there's another Canadian hate crime law proving you wrong by your own definition.

BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO REFERENCE AND LINK IT because you think you should be taken at your word? That's a laugh.


~As a former criminal lawyer, [LOL. They're probably all still behind bars, assuminbg this isn't 100% BS.] I would define a hate crime law as a CRIME for which HATE (or bias or prejudice) is an essential element of the offense. I don't think you need to be a lawyer to realize a CRIME titled "Public incitement of hatred" is a hate crime.


No one cares about definitions fabricated by PRETEND LAWYERS. Your false assertions are in tatters and you've made a spectacle of yourself. I think anyone reading this is feeling sorry for you.

[BillB]

I think they feel sorry for me for entertaining your stupidity. lol

[VegasJerry]

No, again. WE feel sorry for your inability at learning to lose.
The more he kicks your ass here, the more you return for another.

[risky biz]

~ No, again. WE feel sorry for your inability at learning to lose.

> The more he kicks your ass here, the more you return for another.

I have to buy shoes more often. That's one achievement he can legitimately claim.

[BillB]

You have Jerry on your side. That's a big win. lol The fact is, though, that I made mincemeat out of all your idiotic claims.

[VegasJerry]

It's not about sides, it's about facts.

> That's a big win. lol The fact is, though, that I made mincemeat out of all your idiotic claims.

See what I mean about BackupBillB not learning to lose?

[BillB]

And the facts are that:

1) Canada does have defined hate crimes in the Criminal Code (and I provided an example),
2) People have been charged with those hate crimes (and I provided an example), and,
3) Canada does keep track of hate crime statistics (and I provided proof).

All contrary to what your hero claimed (I mean riskytard, not Chauvin). Once again you have backed a loser.

[VegasJerry]

You have not learned to lose....

[risky biz]

~ On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> And the facts are that:
>
> 1) Canada does have defined hate crimes in the Criminal Code (and I provided an example),
> 2) People have been charged with those hate crimes (and I provided an example), and,
> 3) Canada does keep track of hate crime statistics (and I provided proof).
>
> All contrary to what your hero claimed (I mean riskytard, not Chauvin). Once again you have backed a loser.

Do you not realize that any reader can review above and see that I refuted every single one of your three claims?

I see you changed 2) to 'charged' after I informed you that the 'conviction' had been overturned. You claim to be a lawyer and that every lawyer in Canada knew it had been overturned. But you didn't. Because you aren't a REAL lawyer.

And 2) was a 'hate speech' charge not a 'hate crime' charge. What you've been waving around as a Canadian 'hate crime' law is NOT a 'hate crime' law. See above. Everything is elaborated above.

Meanwhile, you can keep blabbering BS, which is your default function, all you want. You just reveal what a dishonest fool you are.

[BillB]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:43:58 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> ~ On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
> > And the facts are that:
> >
> > 1) Canada does have defined hate crimes in the Criminal Code (and I provided an example),
> > 2) People have been charged with those hate crimes (and I provided an example), and,
> > 3) Canada does keep track of hate crime statistics (and I provided proof).
> >
> > All contrary to what your hero claimed (I mean riskytard, not Chauvin). Once again you have backed a loser.
> Do you not realize that any reader can review above and see that I refuted every single one of your three claims?
>
> I see you changed 2) to 'charged' after I informed you that the 'conviction' had been overturned. You claim to be a lawyer and that every lawyer in Canada knew it had been overturned. But you didn't. Because you aren't a REAL lawyer.
>
> And 2) was a 'hate speech' charge not a 'hate crime' charge. What you've been waving around as a Canadian 'hate crime' law is NOT a 'hate crime' law. See above. Everything is elaborated above.
>

I said charged because that was the claim you endorsed, remember? Whether was convicted (he was) or whether that conviction was later overturned for lack of evidence on motive is 100% irrelevant. Another riskytard logic fail. Would you admit you are a moron if I showed you another case where the conviction stuck? Of course not. You would just try to move the goalposts again.

[risky biz]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:48:59 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:43:58 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > ~ On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> >
> > > And the facts are that:
> > >
> > > 1) Canada does have defined hate crimes in the Criminal Code (and I provided an example),
> > > 2) People have been charged with those hate crimes (and I provided an example), and,
> > > 3) Canada does keep track of hate crime statistics (and I provided proof).
> > >
> > > All contrary to what your hero claimed (I mean riskytard, not Chauvin). Once again you have backed a loser.
> > Do you not realize that any reader can review above and see that I refuted every single one of your three claims?
> >
> > I see you changed 2) to 'charged' after I informed you that the 'conviction' had been overturned. You claim to be a lawyer and that every lawyer in Canada knew it had been overturned. But you didn't. Because you aren't a REAL lawyer.
> >
> > And 2) was a 'hate speech' charge not a 'hate crime' charge. What you've been waving around as a Canadian 'hate crime' law is NOT a 'hate crime' law. See above. Everything is elaborated above.
> >

~ I said charged because that was the claim you endorsed, remember? Whether was convicted (he was) or whether that conviction was later overturned for lack of evidence on motive is 100% irrelevant. Another riskytard logic fail. Would you admit you are a moron if I showed you another case where the conviction stuck? Of course not. You would just try to move the goalposts again.


No goalposts have been moved. You just keep trying to change the playing field. And failing.

'Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

You have been waving around a Canadian 'hate speech' law and falsely claiming it as a Canadian 'hate crime' law.

OK. Go ahead. Blab some more BS.

[BillB]

I already explained to you what a hate crime is, and it includes hate speech in Canada. If something is a CRIME and an essential element of that crime is HATE, it is on its face a HATE CRIME. I also explained to you that the Criminal Code also codifies a sentencing enhancement for ANY CRIME that is motivated by hate, bias or prejudice. Statistics Canada includes both those categories in their compilation of hate crime statistics. I hope this helps educate you, but somehow I know it won't.

[risky biz]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 2:09:45 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:57:45 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:48:59 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:43:58 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > > ~ On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And the facts are that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Canada does have defined hate crimes in the Criminal Code (and I provided an example),
> > > > > 2) People have been charged with those hate crimes (and I provided an example), and,
> > > > > 3) Canada does keep track of hate crime statistics (and I provided proof).
> > > > >
> > > > > All contrary to what your hero claimed (I mean riskytard, not Chauvin). Once again you have backed a loser.
> > > > Do you not realize that any reader can review above and see that I refuted every single one of your three claims?
> > > >
> > > > I see you changed 2) to 'charged' after I informed you that the 'conviction' had been overturned. You claim to be a lawyer and that every lawyer in Canada knew it had been overturned. But you didn't. Because you aren't a REAL lawyer.
> > > >
> > > > And 2) was a 'hate speech' charge not a 'hate crime' charge. What you've been waving around as a Canadian 'hate crime' law is NOT a 'hate crime' law. See above. Everything is elaborated above.
> > > >
> > ~ I said charged because that was the claim you endorsed, remember? Whether was convicted (he was) or whether that conviction was later overturned for lack of evidence on motive is 100% irrelevant. Another riskytard logic fail. Would you admit you are a moron if I showed you another case where the conviction stuck? Of course not. You would just try to move the goalposts again.
> >
> >
> > No goalposts have been moved. You just keep trying to change the playing field. And failing.
> > 'Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.'
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
> > You have been waving around a Canadian 'hate speech' law and falsely claiming it as a Canadian 'hate crime' law.
> >
> > OK. Go ahead. Blab some more BS.
> > > > Meanwhile, you can keep blabbering BS, which is your default function, all you want. You just reveal what a dishonest fool you are.

~ I already explained to you what a hate crime is, and it includes hate speech in Canada.

Oh, joy! There is a not-real lawyer in Vancouver who has his own personal definition which, surprisingly, fits his false assertions like a glove. LOL.

> If something is a CRIME and an essential element of that crime is HATE, it is on its face a HATE CRIME.

~ I also explained to you that the Criminal Code also codifies a sentencing enhancement for ANY CRIME that is motivated by hate, bias or prejudice.


Please post a link to that 'codification'. YOU WON'T because it will just reveal again how dishonest you are.


~ Statistics Canada includes both those categories in their compilation of hate crime statistics. I hope this helps educate you, but somehow I know it won't.

What Statistics Canada does has zero relevance to what the Canadian laws are. There are no hate crime laws in Canada.

You have previously pretended that there were no substantial number of hate crimes (as defined by U.S. hate crime laws) in Canada by implying that if there were no arrests for, charges, or convictions for a hate crime in Canada then it was proof that there were no hate crimes. Which, of course, is impossible if there are no hate crimes with which to charge someone.

Just another in your decades-long record of extreme dishonesty at RGP.

What a loser.