Subject: Re: C-41 THE NEW WEAPON OF SPITE & REVENGE FOR THE SPECIAL INTERESTS.

From: [email-masked] (Ed Panker, Panker Systems Ltd.)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 00:55:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (David Kendall) wrote:
>
>Sheesh Barry... If someone says something you don't like, you punch them? 
>No wonder you're worried.
>

Well, David, since you zeroed in on what a hot-head Barry is and missed his 
point completely, try this on for size...................

You're a) jogging in the park or b) walking to the store for a bottle of milk 
and a newspaper.  Pick SOMETHING! or do you lie there catatonic on the couch 
ALL the time except to vent your blow hole?

With me so far?

Some NANCY BOY is flat broke and is driven to busting into your car and rip 
off some of your "Hootie and the Blowfish" and "Green Day" CDs so they can buy 
some new pink shoes for the Gay Pride march next month.

With me so far?

You spot the crime "en marche" and crack the glitter princess between the 
antlers with the SAME tire iron they used to boost your car.  Yeah, the side 
window is toast, but you're happy to pay the deductible to get that fixed.  At 
least you still have your CDs.

With me so far?  Am I going too fast?

You get to court.  Not only do you have the assult with batteries charge, the 
girly boy's sheister lawyer lays on the court that your attack on her (him, 
it, whatever) was hate motivated because he's light in the loafers.

With Bill C-41 - GOOD LUCK!

---

From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 02:21:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Kevin Wayte <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>SCENARIO: Some guy walks up to you in a bar, or on the street, or in
>>          in Subway station or anywhere else you may be.  He says 
>>          something you don't like to you or your girlfriend or wife
>>          or whatever, and you punch him.  He happens to be black.  You
>>          go to court and you are charged not just with assault, but
>>          a violation of the Hate Crimes Law.  It WILL be two charges.

>Er.... no.... it will not.
>
>This is simple dispute violence.  A scrap.  A fist fight.  

If, during the heat of the passion, one of the combattants says
"i'm going to kill you, you Jewish bastard!"
then police and/or courts and/or prosecutors and/or interest groups will
brand it a "hate crime".

If, on the other hand, what is said is,
"i'm going to kill you, you fat bastard!"

No such accusation is possible, since skinny-challenged people are not
recognied by the hate-crime provisions.

The intent to attribute more punishment to a violent crime because of
a victim's characteristics, rather than the circumstances at the time,
is absurd. The hate-crime sections of C41 are an abomination and verge
on defining thought-crime.

>Skinheads assaulting a black person at random, with no prior contact.

How do you know they didn't just want his money? How can you prove that?

>Satanists burning down a catholic priest's residence.

Why is burning down a priest's house any more evil than burning down the
house of, say, a cheating mate?

>Chauvinist laying off 1 of his 5 colleagues, the female one, even though she
>was his best partner in the business.

This is not a hate crime. Anyone who lays off their best partner is an
idiot, and idiocy is not (yet) a punishable crime.

>A group of 7 gay males walking home from a bar target a lone boy and his
>girlfriend and beat the tar out of the boy.

Maybe the guy was a member of a rival street gang, a "characteristic"
that's not covered by hate-crimes provisions...

>A group of 7 straight males wait outside a gay bar and follow home a gay
>male who left the establishment , and assault and rob him...

If the goal was robbery, how can it be a hate crime? How difficult will
a prosecutor's task be of proving it?

>And so on.... (99% of the time it will be a premeditated crime against
>a specific target group or individual due to a hate of an unchangible
>natural virtue of that person or group)

How is Judaism or homosexuality an "unchangable natural virtue"?
Many can change orientation through life if they desire, as they can
change their's religion too.

This "rationale" is getting more and more absurd.

>Guy X calling guy Y's girlfriend a whore and X & Y getting into a fight
>over it is NOT a hate crime.  And if X was black, and Y a Jew, it was
>irrelevant to the pretense of the violence.  C-41 does not apply.

All it takes is one racial insult to be heard to allow for the accusation,
and force all the legal mechanism to kick in. We'' be forced to get into
life histories of the accuseds' "bigotry" in order to attach credibility.
Truly absurd.

>And as judges are not complete fools, it would be a sunny day in a casket
>before such a case would pass as relevant to C-41....

Judges have frequently ruled against what many would consider the public
good, and many judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine laws.
The judicial system has tarnished its own reputation severely, and does
not have the widespread trust of the populace.

>    C-41  

>    Special rights for whites, blacks, inuits, males, females, christians,
>    muslims, bhuddists, hets, homos, bisexuals, 20-year-olds, 90-year-olds,
>    chinese, polish, germans, french, etc. etc. etc. etc......

It's a special right that I, as a member of one of the groups supposedly
protected by the hate-crimes section, do not want.

The hate-crimes provisions are an abomination. I hope whatever government
succeeds the Liberals does to it what the Harris Tories plan to do to
Ontario's employment equity laws. Look for this one to be a potential
election issue -- it pushes all the right buttons.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
     SCO & Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics