Canadian 'justice' system at it again.

[Grant Bentley]

When is a hate crime not a hate crime?

This incident occurred when my partner and I were in Vancouver for Pride 2008. As we walking down Davie St, we were warned that someone was attacking people with a hammer and maybe we should go back the other way. So, being somewhat opposed to being hit with a hammer, we did.

This comes from that incident.

A provincial court judge ruled he was ?not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt? that the man convicted of multiple assaults with a hammer on Pride 2008 was motivated by hate, despite police evidence that the man made homophobic statements at the time of his arrest.

Khalid Alzghoul was charged with 25 offenses in August 2008 after he began attacking several people with a hammer at Majestic?s Pride party.

McGee acknowledged that ?the offences occurred on a day of celebration for the gay community and that on his apprehension by the police, the accused made anti-gay statements.?

But he was not ?satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that these offences were motivated by hate for members of the gay community.?

This is his reasoning.

The fact that Alzghoul ?made no specific reference of any sort concerning the gay community at the time of committing the offences? must be taken into account, McGee ruled.

Anti-gay comments were only noted at the time of Alzghoul?s arrest ? not during the hammer attack itself.

Therefore, he did not consider it to be a hate crime.

So, lesson learned...when in Canada, committing a hate crime against a specific group, like gays or maybe judges, remember to do it quietly. As long as you don't say bad things to them as you're beating them with the hammer...it's not a hate crime.

WTF?

[Trab]

It is the same sort of crap with drinking and driving, vehicular homicide hit and run with subsequent arrest while intoxicated, etc. I am 100% sure that the judges bring their own bias (and prejudice) to their decisions. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to get off on a technicality, opt for a judge rather than a jury. Your chances are much greater that you can dupe one judge than dupe 12 jurors.

[Cole Parker]

I assume he was still convicted for hitting 25 people with a hammer, even if a hate crime exacerbation was waived?

What exactly did he say was his motivation for his assailing these 25 strangers with a hammer? I can't think of anything in the world other than a hate crime, or complete and total insanity, that could explain such a thing.

I guess by this judge's ruling, someone physically unable to speak is also incapable of committing a hate crime.

C

[Grant Bentley]

He had no trouble speaking. He just didn't speak to the people he was beating on with the hammer.

As for why...first, he was angry that the pride parade was on a Sunday. When police arrested him he said, amongst other things, ?I know Jesus wasn?t gay and it?s wrong to let the gays have their parade on a Sunday,??

Alzghoul also told police that he ?had been sent to punish them [gays] and that this was judgment day.?

To a female arresting officer, Alzghoul asked: ?Are you a lesbian?? and ?Why do you let gays celebrate??

He was sentenced to two and half years in jail, but will serve only four months of that sentence after receiving credit for time already served while awaiting trial.

The Crown had sought a four to five year prison sentence ? and a hate crime designation.

[Cole Parker]

Those remarks he made surely were seen as making what he did a hate crime, weren't they!? Why weren't they?

He did what he did in response to gay people letting the world know they were gay. What he did in response to that was criminal, and obviously a hate crime.

And STB, you missed my point somewhat. I didn't mean he couldn't speak or didn't speak. I was trying, unsuccessfully I guess, to show the absurdity of the judge's comment that if one doesn't make gay slurs while hitting people with a hammer, it isn't a hate crime. By his ruling, there has to be comment during the mayhem; by this reasoning, it would be impossible to indict a non-verbal person for a hate crime. 'Absurd' isn't strong enough.

C

[Grant Bentley]

You're right, I don't see how it could have been interpreted as anything but a hate crime.

Sorry, I missed your point about being unable to speak. Reading it now, it's perfectly clear what you meant.

I guess I should make sure I'm awake enough to understand what I'm reading before I respond.

[JamesSavik]

Hate crime laws are worthless unless judges use them. That's one of the reasons Obama's hate crimes laws are a joke and an insult. They are only applicable in a national park, Indian reservation or if the crime starts and ends over state lines.

I feel safer already.

[The Pecman]

I've heard arguments against hate crimes, and some of them make sense to me -- to a point.

The argument goes like this: for any minority (black, gay, Hispanic, women, handicapped, etc.) to truly be equal, they should neither get an advantage or a disadvantage compared to any other group of people. In other words, a crime against one person should be treated exactly the same as a crime against anyone.

Don't get me wrong: I'm as opposed to hateful behavior as anybody, and I'm dismayed that anybody would be stupid enough to deliberately go to a gay parade and start knocking people around with a hammer. But I can see the argument that he should be charged with 25 counts of assault, and go to jail for 25 years, 1 year per count -- provided he's put in a cell with a very large, angry gay man.

Again, I'm for the idea of laws against hate crimes in some circumstances. But my feeling is that this is not a black & white issue.