Double standard: 'I hate white people'

In light of the recent violence against whites, especially police officers, in the United States, it is worth taking a detailed look at a recent judgement from the Alberta Provincial Court that has been garnering attention in outlets as politically diverse as The Blaze and the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, there has been little serious critical commentary of the case, its context in recent decades, and recommendations for where the law should be headed.

The facts are straightforward:

The offender, Tamara Crowchief, pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to Lydia White and three counts of breaching a recognizance (being out after curfew, not carrying release documents and consuming intoxicants).

She admits that on November 1, 2015, while bound by a recognizance, she was outside a southwest Calgary pub with two friends. It was about 9:00 p.m., a time when the offender was to be in her residence.

White came out of the pub with a friend. One of the offender's friends approached White's friend and asked for a cigarette. White's friend obliged and began a conversation. Suddenly the offender came up to White, yelled "I hate white people" and punched White in the mouth. The blow knocked out one of White's front teeth.

The offender and her friends walked away. The victim and her friends followed the group while calling the police. The police arrived and arrested the offender, who was intoxicated and not carrying a copy of her recognizance. When she was booked, the offender told police that "the white man was out to get her."

The judge, H.M. Van Harten, held that the assault was not a hate crime motivated by race or color under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, giving his reasons as follows:

The offender said "I hate white people" and threw a punch. ... But there is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether (as in the cited cases) she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. ... I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.

The evidence, in contrast to the claims of the presiding judge, is quite clear. When the offender, who -- as the judge acknowledged -- has an extensive criminal record that includes convictions for other violent offences, said she "hate[s] white people," she meant that she hates white people, and consequently, she attacked a white woman (coincidentally named White).

Clearly, this level of common sense and obviousness has no place in the law, even when the facts of the case (i.e., an apparently poor socio-economic condition which the offender blames, at least in part, on the historical actions of white people) show otherwise.

Had the situation been reversed, and a white person assaulted a visible minority while yelling "I hate [insert applicable non-white demographic here]," the findings of the case would likely have been different, and if the judge had not convicted, the public outcry would have been immense. And yet, in the current case there is hardly a peep, especially from the neutered white commentariat who have appropriately swallowed their weekly dose of white guilt.

For those of us who have followed the discussions among Canadian aboriginals in social media circles for the past several years, there is undeniable evidence of widespread hatred towards whites being circulated among what are often termed First Nations. The assault in Calgary appears to be just another expression of the anti-white hate within this racial group that builds as the aboriginals continue to radicalize and, in many cases, agitate publicly for violence against whites.

The double-standard in hate crimes became even more obvious after this case: racism is apparently unacceptable when perpetuated by whites, but to be tolerated or excused when on display against whites by other racial groups. In some circles, anti-white racism is even culturally celebrated. One need only look as far as much of the disgusting rap music genre that has grown from the 1970s and 1980s onwards. If hate crimes by non-whites were prosecuted and judged in the same manner as those by whites, much of the rap music industry would be incarcerated.

In his judgement, Van Harten went through the intellectual hoops in an attempt to distinguish the case at hand from previous trials, suggesting that prolonged verbal and physical exchanges -- potentially also including racist paraphernalia -- are required to meet the criteria as evidence of racial hatred motivation. Clearly, such standards are an absurdity. An individual can harbor just as much racial motivation during an attack, without ever showing a long evidential history of racist views, as does another individual who carries out a sustained assault while adorned in racist garb and engaging in excessive verbal explanations as to his/her feelings.

These issues collectively undercut the validity of so-called hate crimes legislation. An assault is no worse because it is racially motivated. The motivation is irrelevant -- the crime is equally offensive to society regardless of the ideology behind it. And when we see how these laws appear to be selectively applied against whites, especially Christian whites (as is most evident in the UK), the real direction of modern institutional racism comes to light.

It is long overdue to repeal all such hate crimes legislation and let the cases be tried absent nebulous claims over supposed racial bias that seem to be a one-way street against whites.

In light of the recent violence against whites, especially police officers, in the United States, it is worth taking a detailed look at a recent judgement from the Alberta Provincial Court that has been garnering attention in outlets as politically diverse as The Blaze and the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, there has been little serious critical commentary of the case, its context in recent decades, and recommendations for where the law should be headed.

The facts are straightforward:

The offender, Tamara Crowchief, pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to Lydia White and three counts of breaching a recognizance (being out after curfew, not carrying release documents and consuming intoxicants).

She admits that on November 1, 2015, while bound by a recognizance, she was outside a southwest Calgary pub with two friends. It was about 9:00 p.m., a time when the offender was to be in her residence.

White came out of the pub with a friend. One of the offender's friends approached White's friend and asked for a cigarette. White's friend obliged and began a conversation. Suddenly the offender came up to White, yelled "I hate white people" and punched White in the mouth. The blow knocked out one of White's front teeth.

The offender and her friends walked away. The victim and her friends followed the group while calling the police. The police arrived and arrested the offender, who was intoxicated and not carrying a copy of her recognizance. When she was booked, the offender told police that "the white man was out to get her."

The judge, H.M. Van Harten, held that the assault was not a hate crime motivated by race or color under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, giving his reasons as follows:

The offender said "I hate white people" and threw a punch. ... But there is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether (as in the cited cases) she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. ... I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.

The evidence, in contrast to the claims of the presiding judge, is quite clear. When the offender, who -- as the judge acknowledged -- has an extensive criminal record that includes convictions for other violent offences, said she "hate[s] white people," she meant that she hates white people, and consequently, she attacked a white woman (coincidentally named White).

Clearly, this level of common sense and obviousness has no place in the law, even when the facts of the case (i.e., an apparently poor socio-economic condition which the offender blames, at least in part, on the historical actions of white people) show otherwise.

Had the situation been reversed, and a white person assaulted a visible minority while yelling "I hate [insert applicable non-white demographic here]," the findings of the case would likely have been different, and if the judge had not convicted, the public outcry would have been immense. And yet, in the current case there is hardly a peep, especially from the neutered white commentariat who have appropriately swallowed their weekly dose of white guilt.

For those of us who have followed the discussions among Canadian aboriginals in social media circles for the past several years, there is undeniable evidence of widespread hatred towards whites being circulated among what are often termed First Nations. The assault in Calgary appears to be just another expression of the anti-white hate within this racial group that builds as the aboriginals continue to radicalize and, in many cases, agitate publicly for violence against whites.

The double-standard in hate crimes became even more obvious after this case: racism is apparently unacceptable when perpetuated by whites, but to be tolerated or excused when on display against whites by other racial groups. In some circles, anti-white racism is even culturally celebrated. One need only look as far as much of the disgusting rap music genre that has grown from the 1970s and 1980s onwards. If hate crimes by non-whites were prosecuted and judged in the same manner as those by whites, much of the rap music industry would be incarcerated.

In his judgement, Van Harten went through the intellectual hoops in an attempt to distinguish the case at hand from previous trials, suggesting that prolonged verbal and physical exchanges -- potentially also including racist paraphernalia -- are required to meet the criteria as evidence of racial hatred motivation. Clearly, such standards are an absurdity. An individual can harbor just as much racial motivation during an attack, without ever showing a long evidential history of racist views, as does another individual who carries out a sustained assault while adorned in racist garb and engaging in excessive verbal explanations as to his/her feelings.

These issues collectively undercut the validity of so-called hate crimes legislation. An assault is no worse because it is racially motivated. The motivation is irrelevant -- the crime is equally offensive to society regardless of the ideology behind it. And when we see how these laws appear to be selectively applied against whites, especially Christian whites (as is most evident in the UK), the real direction of modern institutional racism comes to light.

It is long overdue to repeal all such hate crimes legislation and let the cases be tried absent nebulous claims over supposed racial bias that seem to be a one-way street against whites.