B.C. judge declares attack on gay man a hate crime

What a pile of bs. I doubt if love is eaver the motivation for attacking somebody - so why is it a worse crime to hate a gay person vs a straight one? All attacks should be treated the same.

Every form of attack is a hate-crime, imo. But hey, he is gay, so thats the reason. If he was black, it would be that, if he was transgender, it would be that.

Society just wants to give it a label.

Gays have been particulary targeted in the past for beatings for the sole reason that they were gay.

We made laws to stop this. It's a good thing.

Of course it is a good thing that we make laws to stop attacks.
But I dont think we should separate them from others. By doing that, we are doing the same the attackers do. Singling them out because they are gay.

It's one of the reasons why I don't like the "gay pride"-shit.

What is the difference between being attacked because you are gay, or because you looked the wrong way at somebody and get attacked for that? The result is the same, and so should the punishment be.

Why do we need spatial laws for gays? How is an assault against a non-victim group and less serious and deserving of lesser punishment? We just keep dividing society into little groups that are in or out - it's crazy. I think we're too lax on male on male violence, but the sexual orientation of the victim should have no bearing.

We do need special laws for gays. As long as they are targeted because of their sexuality.

The same laws protect ethnic groups, religious groups or any other minority or the marginalized.

I've investigated gay-bashings. Beatings inflicted on people by gangs of drunk homophobes.
I've seen the stitches, the broken bones. I�ve seen the effects, the fear, the trauma.

The law is there for a very good reason.

What is the difference between the effect on gay-victims or white-straight-male victims? Or black males? Or women? Or any other gang-bang victims? (so to speak...)

If somebody is singled out for an assault purely because they are gay, black, female, Muslim etc, it's a 'hate crime'. They are being attacked purely for what they are. Unacceptable.

The sentences are tougher than if it was two Muslim guys beating each other up etc.

This is a good thing.

Why should you have to live in fear of a beating by anybody just because you are gay? Or female or black?

Why is it acceptable for one Muslim to beat down another Muslim unprovoked, but if a non-muslim does it it's a hate crime? Why is it more of a crime if the attacker says "die you fucking Muslim" as he beats him down than if the says "die you fucking asshole?"

Why with two straight guys is it "two guys beating each other" (ie both are responsible) but if one guy is gay it's that mean straight guy beating a defenseless victim. If you get sucker punched, breaking your jaw and concussing from hitting your head on the ground, are you going to shrug it off as just two guys beating each other, no harm no foul?

Exactly right EB. These kinds of attacks occur because of the way someone was born, not because of something they did.
If someone wants to be a dick cuz they think I looked at 'em the wrong way, that's one thing, but to beat someone up because of the way they were born deserves a little extra harshness in sentencing.
Besides, gay beaters getting some jail time might actually give them what they really want. Ya see, my theory is, when someone is beating on a gay person, what they'd REALLY like to be doing is having sex with 'em. Put 'em in jail and their wish will come true

It's like beating your head against a wall. I don't understand why you guys think it's OK for a straight white man to get assaulted, but not the victims groups. How about we have stiff sentences for any assault?

You need to read up on the law a bit.

There is a defence for assault of 'consentual fight'. Think of the usual bar punch-up or the very Canadian hockey fight. Unless there is actual bodily harm (broken bones or injuries more than 'trifiling') it's a just a fight.

Beating up some poor gay because he's gay is very different.

Two Muslim guys fighting over some issue that isn't hate related is a consentual fight. But...if one is a Shia and the other a Sunni and the fight is about the fact that one is a Sunni and one is a Shia only, it is aggravated because of the Shia-Sunni hate factor. It then becomes a hate crime.

The law is not overly simple for a myriad of good reasons.

At the end of the day, protecting a minority against threats from a majority is something that democracies that value the rule of law do.

An assault is still an assault but if the crime happened because the victim was from a specific and identifiable group singled out for bigoted hatred, it�s a hate crime.

Exactly right EB. These kinds of attacks occur because of the way someone was born, not because of something they did.
If someone wants to be a dick cuz they think I looked at 'em the wrong way, that's one thing, but to beat someone up because of the way they were born deserves a little extra harshness in sentencing.
Besides, gay beaters getting some jail time might actually give them what they really want. Ya see, my theory is, when someone is beating on a gay person, what they'd REALLY like to be doing is having sex with 'em. Put 'em in jail and their wish will come true

Never a truer word said mate!

You obviously get this stuff.

Here's me the supposed neo-Con right winger posting against everybody having guns and posting for gay rights.....

Bloody Tories eh?

But again, you're going with the idea that a straight guy sucker punching another straight guy is a consensual fight, while it he does it to a gay man it's a vicous assault. Assault should be assault. And if a straight and a gay agree to fight, if the straight calls the gay a fucking faggot during the fight, that should not be any reason for the gay to all of a sudden become a victim. Assault should just be assault - no matter what group the aggressor and victim come from.