Government House vandalized

[overoceans]

Wow. Stick-drawing phalluses and "Sex With MILFs". Pretty jerkwater stuff, even by the standards of hatemongering bigots.

Paula Simons

[KC]

I would have assumed that they'd have cameras all over the place. In this day and age it's incomprehensible that they didn't!


"But as an Albertan and Edmontonian, I take the vandalism of Government House seriously. This building is part of our shared history and democratic heritage. It is a unique and remarkable piece of Edmonton architecture and a symbol of the brave lieutenant-governor who lost his home to protect our constitutional rights. It deserves to be treated with respect – and safeguarded by appropriate security." - Paula Simons


Note: it would be great to stop this intellectually deficient individual(s) before they could do any damage. However, this would result in turning them away, a warning or a slap on the wrist. They move on to do their damage elsewhere. So even passive monitoring can payoff with the upside that it lets the criminals reveal their true and complete motives in doing all the damage their weak little minds drive them to do. That evidence can get them off the streets.

[Gord Lacey]

At least they used chalk and not paint.

[Chmilz]

After reading the article, I thought "this is vandalism"? Quick, lock up the 8 year olds that did this.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

After reading the article, I thought "this is vandalism"? Quick, lock up the 8 year olds that did this.

Yeah, it would be some teen(s) on a lark bored silly as the summer holidays drag on. August is always kind of stupid month probably borne out of idle minds.

Plus whats with the talk of security cameras? This is an actual provincial monument. How bout some real live security? With even flashlights.
Is nobody monitoring this and the RAM?

[Medwards]

I'm sure they have the same security guards found at most government buildings

+

[KC]

A bored teen? I doubt it. Read down the article a bit further... Quite the superficial mind for sure.


"After this initial blog post, I received a phone call from Chris Robinson, the director of the Royal Alberta Museum, ... He wanted to let me know that the museum had also been targeted ...

“It was horrible. It was a whole range of...”


.

[Alex.L]

Who cares if it's "just a kid"? They need to be caught and taught a lesson. If they're allowed to get away with it just because they're not wearing white pointy hats, we're sending the wrong message.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

Who cares if it's "just a kid"? They need to be caught and taught a lesson. If they're allowed to get away with it just because they're not wearing white pointy hats, we're sending the wrong message.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

I thought you were libertarian on these issues.

100's of kids take illegal, dangerous narcotics at Raves and you're all for it even though theres been several casualties locally from this narcotic.
Your main issue in that instance is coppers and the nanny state spoiling kids "fun".

Some kid (hypothetically) gets some chalk and crayons out and makes some lewd drawings and you want them sent to the bighouse.

Odd line in the sand.

[BalancedOP]

I saw all of the images, the building was covered, my opinion was that it was kid copying an incident in Lethbridge. Yes they have tapes from the house and the museum.
I think the fines are 50'000 and 1year in jail for heritage government buildings.
AI cleaned the site pretty quickly.

[Mla]

Originally Posted by Ander

Who cares if it's "just a kid"? They need to be caught and taught a lesson. If they're allowed to get away with it just because they're not wearing white pointy hats, we're sending the wrong message.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

This is Canada. Let's be realistic. Even if the culprit is caught all they will get is a slap on the wrist. They definitely won't get a sentence that will make them "learn their lesson," especially if it is a youth.

[Alex.L]

I didn't say lock them away. If it's a kid, give them a healthy dose of reality, make sure they know what a hate crime is, and maybe throw a little community service at them.

Replacement, the comparison to a rave is a pretty big stretch even for you. In that case the city and police were effectively punishing innocent people because of the poor choices of a select few. Whereas in this case I'm saying we punish the one guilty party and leave it at that.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I didn't say lock them away. If it's a kid, give them a healthy dose of reality, make sure they know what a hate crime is, and maybe throw a little community service at them.

Replacement, the comparison to a rave is a pretty big stretch even for you. In that case the city and police were effectively punishing innocent people because of the poor choices of a select few. Whereas in this case I'm saying we punish the one guilty party and leave it at that.

No, its a double standard and you're taking specious reasoning to heights in advocating excessive measures in one hypothetical example of vandalism, while having no such concern with more serious behaviors that possibly kill kids through their own acts of self destruction.

Which one I ask is more serious, which kid is in more serious need of reality check than somebody taking narcotics that have been known to kill people? (and yes with this I'm citing the harmful versions of e that have been trafficked in Canada and this specific region)

Also it isn't a "few" people harming anything for anybody its much more than that requiring immediate medical attention, exhibiting serious side effects, or that die outright. That behavior strangely being less serious to you and less need for intervention then somebody(hypothetically) out playing with chalk.
Nor is it established the individual(s) who tagged RAM and Govt house are in specific need of hate crime deprogramming or serious intervention. Alterntately a kid engaging in specific use of narcotic that has killed many other kids is in much more serious need of intervention.

Its just peoples perceptions on what behavior is really dangerous vs a circumstance here where danger is inferred is off. Perhaps because we're a society that takes a liberal view on self medicating illegal drug and addiction and figures its no big deal. Theres some huge mixed messages out there on this general issue of substance abuse that our society entirely tolerates and empowers.

Sorry in advance for using your posts as a springboard to talk about that issue and your opinion is if anything a postion that persists in present day, . i.e. with some activities(illicit drug use and no matter what kind) its percieved as relatively harmless youth behavior whereas other behaviors or transgressions theres extreme reactions and talk of severe sanctions. Reactionary and before people even know what the facts are.

The strongest sanction and reaction of all should be to gangs and kids, trafficking illicit substances to our children and who's accepted use of substances fully empowers that transaction. Where do you ever see disgust about that? Or comments that being obscene?

No, its just kids partying with harmful llicit substances, its just having fun, don't wreck fun, support the neighborhood gangbangers that deal out that fun and continue to.

Time to realize the notion that using harmful, serious, narcotics is "victimless crime" is misguided nonsense.

Yeah lets protect kids better, I'm all for that.

[Alex.L]

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, I only read the first 2 paragraphs of that before stopping.

1) There is nothing hypothetical about this case of vandalism. It happened. The only part of it that is hypothetical is the notion that it was a kid.
2) So a handful of people did obviously stupid things and died as a result. Should we also ban driving? Drunk drivers kill other...INNOCENT PEOPLE...every day. Yet we're cool with only having a few dozen checkstops per year and running some commercials. We all go ahead and drive (just like the non-illicit drug taking people go to EDM concerts), and chances are the vast majority of us won't drive drunk. If it were up to you in this case there would be a checkstop on every road, or a breathalyzer lock on every ignition just on the off-chance someone might have a drink and get behind the wheel.

No. That's not a society I want to live in. It's not a double standard, and it's not specious reasoning to expect THE GUILTY PARTY TO PAY THE PRICE/BE TAUGHT A LESSON, while the innocent people get to keep on living their lives without penalty.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, I only read the first 2 paragraphs of that before stopping.

1) There is nothing hypothetical about this case of vandalism. It happened. The only part of it that is hypothetical is the notion that it was a kid.
2) So a handful of people did obviously stupid things and died as a result. Should we also ban driving? Drunk drivers kill other...INNOCENT PEOPLE...every day. Yet we're cool with only having a few dozen checkstops per year and running some commercials. We all go ahead and drive (just like the non-illicit drug taking people go to EDM concerts), and chances are the vast majority of us won't drive drunk. If it were up to you in this case there would be a checkstop on every road, or a breathalyzer lock on every ignition just on the off-chance someone might have a drink and get behind the wheel.

No. That's not a society I want to live in. It's not a double standard, and it's not specious reasoning to expect THE GUILTY PARTY TO PAY THE PRICE/BE TAUGHT A LESSON, while the innocent people get to keep on living their lives without penalty.

I encourage you to read it. Theres a lot in that I realize but you do regularly understate the concern with illicit drug use in raves (that is known and established by professionals dealing with the fallout of these events that know much more about that than you do) while you overstate the current event inferring that the individual(s) are in need of hate crime intervention.

Strange reactionary opinion given your established liberal stances on substance use behaviors. Only certainly behaviors allowed I guess.

I could equally say in your society a nanny cop would be standing on each street corner writing notes on any buzzword cussing going on by kids. Hey it might even be hate crime. Gotta get on it..

Finally in any discussion of this you talk about "a few kids" actions at raves whereas its well established that a much larger proportion of participants at raves are illicit drug users. Which you always understate to speciously support your position that raves are unfairly targetted by our society.

But hey, if you can answer one question is do you believe that ALL kids ingesting illicit drugs at a rave are guilty and should be sanctioned? Given your position here I hope your answer is yes. Now the trouble is how is that guilt established other than through say medical trauma requiring intervention? What are your answers to that so that the good kids at raves can have their activity(thats centred around e use) continue to go on.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by Replacement

But hey, if you can answer one question is do you believe that ALL kids ingesting illicit drugs at a rave are guilty and should be sanctioned? Given your position here I hope your answer is yes. Now the trouble is how is that guilt established other than through say medical trauma requiring intervention? What are your answers to that so that the good kids at raves can have their activity(thats centred around e use) continue to go on.

They're doing something illegal, so yes, they should be "sanctioned". I've never said that they shouldn't be. In fact, I specifically remember stating that more security was needed INSIDE these events rather than shutting them down completely (but hey, no event means nobody's going to OD tonight, right? Talk about specious reasoning). Having drug sniffing dogs and assuming everybody going through the doors is just itching to ingest illegal drugs is overkill and you know it. This is Canada. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, whether that means they are caught on camera defacing a heritage building, are taken to hospital for a drug overdose, or are pulled over by the police and given a breathalyzer.

Shutting down the raves is the same thing as fencing off Government House. Doing so would only deprive the law-abiding public of the beautiful, scenic heritage building and viewpoint, just as rejecting a promoter's bid to hold an EDM concert is depriving the public of the opportunity to enjoy the type of music they enjoy.

Kneejerk reactions rarely work.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

They're doing something illegal, so yes, they should be "sanctioned". I've never said that they shouldn't be. In fact, I specifically remember stating that more security was needed INSIDE these events rather than shutting them down completely (but hey, no event means nobody's going to OD tonight, right? Talk about specious reasoning). Having drug sniffing dogs and assuming everybody going through the doors is just itching to ingest illegal drugs is overkill and you know it. This is Canada. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, whether that means they are caught on camera defacing a heritage building, are taken to hospital for a drug overdose, or are pulled over by the police and given a breathalyzer.

Shutting down the raves is the same thing as fencing off Government House. Doing so would only deprive the law-abiding public of the beautiful, scenic heritage building and viewpoint, just as rejecting a promoter's bid to hold an EDM concert is depriving the public of the opportunity to enjoy the type of music they enjoy.

Kneejerk reactions rarely work.

We agree here. Although theres plenty of kneejerking going on in this thread. I'll ask one question. Who was harmed by the chalk depictions. Who was victimized. Whatever perps purposely used something that was easily erasable, easily cleaned, and not indelible. It seems as if they only wanted attention, some personnel to see it, and made it so obvious that it would be spotted before the general public came out to see the facility.

I'm not defending it either and I find hate crime to be as objectionable as anybody else but if this is silly kids doing this maybe its just kids doing something stupid. As a rule every act of vandalism is generally without purpose. Idle silly behavior usually. What do kids learn from this? Summers too long?

Thanks for your answers, I do appreciate that, and your time, we don't necessarily agree. The reason I asked the question is that in the case of the probably hundreds of people that ingest e before a rave that its basically impossible to establish guilt, which you know. The point I'm making is that the ingesting of an illegal, dangerous narcotic is at least as much a concern and therefore the societal response.
In a situation where known crime is going on, and its impossible to detect who is committing that crime, and the crime is taking place largely at known events, then some less than perfect interventions take place by those that are in a position of maintaining safety and security. I'd rather that those actions and concerns continue than not.

Thanks again for the exchange. Please read my earlier post entirely if you could as I express why I initially responded to your post.

[Alex.L]

I definitely never said that the vandalism was in any way worse than people overdosing on illicit drugs.

Anyway, this thread has gone wildly off-topic.

[sundance]

The way this was 1st reported I thought the person used spray paint, but in this case if they catch the person they should get him to wash the chalk off, that should be enough of a punishment to fit the crime.

[Dialog]

Epic intentional thread de-railing

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Dialog

Epic intentional thread de-railing

You the thread police?

The thread is otherwise dead. With no new information forthcoming. I just asked Ander a question in post 9 wondering about his take based on his other stances. With ensuing actual discussion. That discussion being specifically about the perception of what should be societies sanction to behaviors like this vandalism.

This being a community messageboard posting on several different topics after all.

Do I need to start a cross post pollination thread entitled "Ander's concept of sanction narrative across different behaviors" in which to pose such a question?

Finally, what is the purpose of your post. Is it on topic?

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by sundance

The way this was 1st reported I thought the person used spray paint, but in this case if they catch the person they should get him to wash the chalk off, that should be enough of a punishment to fit the crime.

Even the rain would wash this off. I think what happened here is some staff jumped the gun at getting all offended, reported this to the police in worst possible terms, and the media added their own sensationalizing.

Without mentioning one word, not one, of what was alleged offensive, deplorable, or hate crime.

I imagine the same respondent would go epileptic if ever exposed to an episode of southpark..

[Dialog]

Originally Posted by Replacement

You the thread police?

The thread is otherwise dead. With no new information forthcoming. I just asked Ander a question in post 9 wondering about his take based on his other stances. With ensuing actual discussion. That discussion being specifically about the perception of what should be societies sanction to behaviors like this vandalism.

This being a community messageboard posting on several different topics after all.

Do I need to start a cross post pollination thread entitled "Ander's concept of sanction narrative across different behaviors" in which to pose such a question?

Finally, what is the purpose of your post. Is it on topic?

A post pointing out that the thread has been derailed from it's initial intent is more on-topic than the introduced derailing topic.

If the original thread topic has been exhausted, then the thread should 'die'.

You've obviously been holding onto this rave rant for quite a while; why didn't you just post it in the thread about Elements? Raves have nothing to do with this incident, you admitted as much in post #13, so why the indignation over someone else mentioning it?

And lastly, am I the thread police? Hell no! It's a community messageboard and people are free to post whatever they want—within site regulations—about what other people post.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Even the rain would wash this off. I think what happened here is some staff jumped the gun at getting all offended, reported this to the police in worst possible terms, and the media added their own sensationalizing.

Sounds suspiciously like the whole rave thing. Time would 'wash off' the effects of any drugs...except for those who use something that can do permanent damage...like spraypaint, or laced narcotics...

Talk about a double standard.

[moahunter]

Was this really chalk? If so, why does anyone care? Making a big deal out of this seems to me to just be exactly what the idiot/s who did this want.

[Alex.L]

I'm more concerned with the potential hate criminal in the making. The descriptions in the story were graphic enough for me to assume that this is either someone with an agenda, or someone who doesn't realize the implications of their graffiti. Either way, I think it needs to be investigated, if only to ensure that the guilty party knows that what they did was wrong and that they are responsible for their actions. Also that they WILL be caught if they do something like this again.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Dialog

A post pointing out that the thread has been derailed from it's initial intent is more on-topic than the introduced derailing topic.

If the original thread topic has been exhausted, then the thread should 'die'.

You've obviously been holding onto this rave rant for quite a while; why didn't you just post it in the thread about Elements? Raves have nothing to do with this incident, you admitted as much in post #13, so why the indignation over someone else mentioning it?

And lastly, am I the thread police? Hell no! It's a community messageboard and people are free to post whatever they want—within site regulations—about what other people post.

What indignation? I was asking a question. It was more surprise than anything that a person could hold two such contradictory responses specific to two topics.

Is it up to you determining what should take place on a message board?

Are you a mod? Or acting like one. Go away.

[Alex.L]

I don't think my views are contradictory at all.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I'm more concerned with the potential hate criminal in the making. The descriptions in the story were graphic enough for me to assume that this is either someone with an agenda, or someone who doesn't realize the implications of their graffiti. Either way, I think it needs to be investigated, if only to ensure that the guilty party knows that what they did was wrong.

Graphic enough?

I'm concerned that not one phrase or utterance was issued in the media release and people are jumping to these conclusions based on media portrayal.

Why would you assume anything at this point?

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

Sounds suspiciously like the whole rave thing. Time would 'wash off' the effects of any drugs...except for those who use something that can do permanent damage...like spraypaint, or laced narcotics...

Talk about a double standard.

I don't follow this.

Again answer the question. Who's the victim of chalkboard crime that was immediately erased and the public didn't see?

vs

whose the victim when kids die of laced e?


I think its an interesting discussion Ander. Its my hope that you're not offended by it, I don't see the problem with discussing the differences of opinion.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I don't think my views are contradictory at all.

Which is fine, I don't think mine are either. Although I'm at least reading your comments and trying to consider your side.

[Alex.L]

...I'm not assuming anything.

From the article linked at the start of this thread:

One of the “tags” featured a crude cartoon drawing of two large penises – nose to nose, if you will – accompanied by the legend, Gay Marriage.

Robinson says the scrawled remarks were all hateful – not just crude childish porn, but a collection of anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-gay slurs.

“It was horrible. It was a whole range of hatred, the whole spectrum, racist, religious, sexual orientation. It may seem childish but it also seems horrible that one mind can be so full of hate to produce all of this.”

But it was all in chalk...so no hard feelings, right?

[Dialog]

Just stand behind your actions. You had an axe to grind, a simmering beef, and found the nearest possible (flimsy) connection to express it through.

Which is really off-topic.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by Replacement

I don't follow this.

Again answer the question. Who's the victim of chalkboard crime that was immediately erased and the public didn't see?

vs

whose the victim when kids die of laced e?


I think its an interesting discussion Ander. Its my hope that you're not offended by it, I don't see the problem with discussing the differences of opinion.

Chalk graffiti = Festival-goers who use drugs but don't die. They do it, it doesn't affect anybody but themselves (and I guess the people directly involved...i.e. the people washing it off/making sure they don't choke on their tongue)

Paint graffiti = users who OD on laced drugs (permanent criminal behaviour)

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Dialog

Just stand behind your actions. You had an axe to grind, a simmering beef, and found the nearest possible (flimsy) connection to express it through.

Which is really off-topic.

No, I have a societal concern around how much substance abuse is found acceptable in this society. you can ask me about that, and why thats my concern, or assume something else.

I have no issue whatsoever with Ander, or his statements, just that it represents so much of the acceptance of substance abuse I see in our society and also on this board where the opening of five more base is just considered "healthy civic vitality".

[Dialog]

You took his comment about the Government House vandalization, remembered his stance from a previous discussion, and used that to briefly criticize the subject at hand before veering off into paragraphs of topic unrelated to the thread-warranting incident.

So take it to the appropriate thread. Or start a new one about it.

I'm done.

p.s. I'm assuming Ander is a male; apologies if Ander is a female

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Dialog

You took his comment about the Government House vandalization, remembered his stance from a previous discussion, and used that to briefly criticize the subject at hand before veering off into paragraphs of topic unrelated to the thread-warranting incident.

So take it to the appropriate thread. Or start a new one about it.

I'm done.

p.s. I'm assuming Ander is a male; apologies if Ander is a female

The exchange by your definition and edict of on topic wouldn't fit in either thread would it?

You just needed to come in here and play thread cop. Maybe come clean on that.

Good that you're done, you weren't discussing the thread topic at all. At least my posts involve the thread topic.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

...I'm not assuming anything.

From the article linked at the start of this thread:

But it was all in chalk...so no hard feelings, right?

Its all on Robinson at this point. He's the only one that saw the graffiti and that reacted to it, and reported it. You choose to see his comments at face value and that he's an apparent arbiter of what meets the conditions to be considered hate crime, anti specific groups etc.
Without mentioning one word of what was stated. other than "gay marriage" Or that he isn't a noted expert on what constitutes hate crime his comments to the contrary.

Look, I'm as against "hate crime" as much as anybody but I don't see the facts here. We have hearsay here.

Even the police are quoted as not being clear whether it meets conditions of "hate crime".

But Constable Ken Smith, a hate crimes investigator, says it’s not entirely clear whether the tagging qualifies as a hate-inspired incident.
“Unfortunately, in this case it’s kind of ambiguous,” he says.

You chose to ignore that from the same article(and he's the investigating expert authority) while giving full creedence to Robinsons fire and brimstone lecture.

You are making some assumptions.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

Chalk graffiti = Festival-goers who use drugs but don't die. They do it, it doesn't affect anybody but themselves (and I guess the people directly involved...i.e. the people washing it off/making sure they don't choke on their tongue)

Paint graffiti = users who OD on laced drugs (permanent criminal behaviour)

I'm not following this description at all as worded. Probably because you're taking this one comment out of context and trying to make it my entire argument.

I only stated it to ask this one simple question that you still haven't answered is who was the victim of this "hate crime"

Robinson?

In order for "hate crime" to be a crime one would think it implies an audience. I could be wrong on that I admit.
But it seems silly to legally pursue somebody where even the evidence that was read by a police hate crimes investigator before it got erased was inconclusive of hate crime and that nobody else that we know of save for the officer and Robinson saw.

Doesn't hate crime connote the spreading of hate to an audience? Sorry again if I'm wrong on that.

[Alex.L]

I've stated that I'm not talking about legally pursuing the person and throwing them behind bars. I've also suggested that the police investigate (note that the quote about the police not being sure about it being a hate crime came before the update about the vandalism at the RAM) and follow up with a visit and some type of community service for the offender. The follow up is meant to determine whether or not it is, in fact, a hate crime. If they show up at the offender's house and there is nazi paraphenalia all over the place, maybe they pursue it a bit farther. If it's just an impressionable youth who doesn't understand the implications of their vandalism, then make sure they're aware of what could happen to them if they do it in the future, and simply give them a little scare.

The victim of the POSSIBLE hate crime is everybody in the City of Edmonton, and more specifically anybody who may be offended by the vandalism's message/intent.

Hate speech is hate. Period. You're acting as if the only way something can be a hate crime is if someone is beaten to a bloody pulp for being a visible minority.

Regardless whether the audience is a team cleaning up graffiti or a gay student walking home from the bar, hate is hate. This is not a "if a tree falls in the forest" situation. Permanent or not, the perpetrator wrote a message of hate on a public building. That is a hate crime in my eyes.

[overoceans]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Doesn't hate crime connote the spreading of hate to an audience? Sorry again if I'm wrong on that.

I don't know. If you mail a bomb to someone, even if it gets intercepted and defused, you're still guilty of something or other, I'm sure. I'd imagine a similar principle applies with regards to hate-speech, but I'm not a lawyer, so take that with a caveat.

re: thread drift. As the creator of the OP, I don't mind it. Replacement and Ander have gotten onto more "meta" issues, but they're still using the museum vandalism as the main example, so it jibes okay with the original topic. Just my opinion.

[overoceans]

Somewhat cross-posted with Ander.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I've stated that I'm not talking about legally pursuing the person and throwing them behind bars. I've also suggested that the police investigate (note that the quote about the police not being sure about it being a hate crime came before the update about the vandalism at the RAM) and follow up with a visit and some type of community service for the offender. The follow up is meant to determine whether or not it is, in fact, a hate crime. If they show up at the offender's house and there is nazi paraphenalia all over the place, maybe they pursue it a bit farther. If it's just an impressionable youth who doesn't understand the implications of their vandalism, then make sure they're aware of what could happen to them if they do it in the future, and simply give them a little scare.

The victim of the POSSIBLE hate crime is everybody in the City of Edmonton, and more specifically anybody who may be offended by the vandalism's message/intent.

Hate speech is hate. Period. You're acting as if the only way something can be a hate crime is if someone is beaten to a bloody pulp for being a visible minority.

Regardless whether the audience is a team cleaning up graffiti or a gay student walking home from the bar, hate is hate. This is not a "if a tree falls in the forest" situation. Permanent or not, the perpetrator wrote a message of hate on a public building. That is a hate crime in my eyes.

My question was more about the legal system. My working understanding of "hate crime" legislation is that theres dissemination to an audience that is implied. As mentioned I could be wrong on that. I wasn't stating that as philosophy ftr. Just whether theres a legal requirement that the hate is disseminated to others in order for conviction. Thats why I was asking. Also that the actual hate crime legistation, as written, that I've read, is unclear as to audience. Which confuses me somewhat and I imagine most commissions of hate that are sentenced are to a defined audience.

As to the rest of your post you're mistaking my position while admitting that you haven't been reading all of it. C'mon. Don't entirely mistake what I'm discussing here. Which basically boils down to assumption of guilt. Except Robinson is not judge and jury.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by overoceans

I don't know. If you mail a bomb to someone, even if it gets intercepted and defused, you're still guilty of something or other, I'm sure. I'd imagine a similar principle applies with regards to hate-speech, but I'm not a lawyer, so take that with a caveat.

re: thread drift. As the creator of the OP, I don't mind it. Replacement and Ander have gotten onto more "meta" issues, but they're still using the museum vandalism as the main example, so it jibes okay with the original topic. Just my opinion.

Thanks for that, appreciated. As OP I do respect your opinion on what you want to take place in your thread.

Anyway a very complex issue and none of us, so far, are experts. I've enjoyed the discussion in anycase and thanks for the thread.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by Replacement

My question was more about the legal system. My working understanding of "hate crime" legislation is that theres dissemination to an audience that is implied. As mentioned I could be wrong on that. I wasn't stating that as philosophy ftr. Just whether theres a legal requirement that the hate is disseminated to others in order for conviction. Thats why I was asking. Also that the actual hate crime legistation, as written, that I've read, is unclear as to audience. Which confuses me somewhat and I imagine most commissions of hate that are sentenced are to a defined audience.

As to the rest of your post you're mistaking my position while admitting that you haven't been reading all of it. C'mon. Don't entirely mistake what I'm discussing here. Which basically boils down to assumption of guilt. Except Robinson is not judge and jury.

I went back and read the rest of that post a few hours ago. I'm no lawyer, obviously, but I think I've been pretty clear on what I consider a hate crime to be. I can't comment on the actual legislation in place or case law or anything though.

Someone is guilty of defacing public property.
Someone might be guilty of a hate crime.
Robinson isn't judge and jury, he's just the only one who has seen the material in question.
I've said numerous times that it needs to be investigated by police (who also are not judge and jury, but do have the ability to scare a (possibly) young offender out of ever doing it again, or escalating).

If I'm still missing something here you'll have to enlighten me, because I'm pretty sure I've commented on every point you've made.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

I went back and read the rest of that post a few hours ago. I'm no lawyer, obviously, but I think I've been pretty clear on what I consider a hate crime to be. I can't comment on the actual legislation in place or case law or anything though.

Someone is guilty of defacing public property.
Someone might be guilty of a hate crime.
Robinson isn't judge and jury, he's just the only one who has seen the material in question.
I've said numerous times that it needs to be investigated by police (who also are not judge and jury, but do have the ability to scare a (possibly) young offender out of ever doing it again, or escalating).

If I'm still missing something here you'll have to enlighten me, because I'm pretty sure I've commented on every point you've made.

No worries, I think we're all done. Just wanted you to get clarification of what I was saying and not saying. I think we both probably misworded the others argument in the name of debate

Its really unfortunate somebody did this. Of course I don't agree with the behavior, or support the behavior in anyway.

Theres a lot of different roots that elicit hate crime itself which is a large part of the problem and its not just dissemination. Some amount of hate is learned. But the condition of hate is largely a result of how one lives their life, the amount of bile they gather, and the warped ideas that self contempt fosters.

Contempt for others is really the product of self-contempt. Which is poorly understood.

To eradicate hate you need to look at the conditions of breeding hate. Beyond just dissemination.

[sundance]

I disagree with the concept of hate crime, we had enough laws prior to that legislation that would have covered aspects nicely.

Aren't most assaults and murders hate crimes to begin with? Just because someone is different than me doesn't make it more illegal to hurt them.

As for expression, I think that all people have the right to express themselves freely, of course this also carries the concept long forgotten in our society, responsibility. Sure I could say something racist but then society has a right to disagree with me. For example I disagree strongly with the neo Nazi message but I support their right to say it.

The graffiti "artists" have a right to express themselves, but the responsibility to either do it on their own property or clean it up afterwards.

[frostiblack]

Originally Posted by sundance

I disagree with the concept of hate crime, we had enough laws prior to that legislation that would have covered aspects nicely.

Aren't most assaults and murders hate crimes to begin with? Just because someone is different than me doesn't make it more illegal to hurt them.

I disagree. Hate crimes identify and address bias-motivated violence (that which targetins specific groups), which can be an important distinction to make from non-hate crimes.

For example, Hitler's attempt to eradicate Jews was not simply "murder." It was a larger piece of the social movement.

Either way, this vandalism is a shame. I hope they are able to find out who was responsible.

[AShetsen]

One person's graffiti is another one's art. Even when it's rude, crude, and obscene. ...Right?

I truly think that those of us who want an individualistic/civil-liberties society must put put with vandalism. And contrariwise if we have no stomach for graffiti let's stop pretending that individual rights are particularly meaningful compared to collective responsibilities.

[KC]

A couple thoughts.

Chalk use means that they got easy. Seems that it could have just as easily been spray paint or a dremel carving and etching their thoughts into the building and the art/sculptures on the grounds and it might not have been discovered until the next morning.

The childish, racial and discriminatory thoughts themselves. Hate laws are beyond my depth of experience but we all know that there are people that can't think for themselves and so can rally behind undesired causes if they can be sold the proverbial "bill of goods." That combined with the gang / club / forum or whatever effect it is, can lead to things like that other proverbial "madness of crowds". Repeated imaging, phrasing, slurs and immoral behavior can end up being seen as justified or somehow ok in the circumstances.