Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(The description is too disgusting to repeat here.)
That was truly revolting. It really goes beyond disturbing. It's definitely mental illness, but I think their lack of sexual conquest and the sick attitude towards women are consequences of that illness - yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd call that a hate group too. But I think it's only possible for them to have become a hate group because of their ability to easily access and connect with each other through social media / internet and then keep feeding and reinforcing the sickness in each other. If they didn't have such easy access and reinforcement of their hatred being fed to and by each other perhaps the misplaced hatred and desire for vengeance towards women wouldn't be so severe.
Tearing up a book, regardless of the book, is not a hate crime. Neither is pulling a "hat" (regardless of the style and meaning of that hat to the wearer of that hat) off someone's head a hate crime. At the same time, people have made a big fuss about those two events being hate crimes.
And their fuss is unfounded; neither are hate crimes under Canadian law. Seriously, people, do you jump to conclusions and not speak with lawyers before you post this kind of unfounded, unsourced, and untrue crud?
If you want to know the true story about what "pulling a hijab off a Muslim woman's head," or "pulling a turban off a Sikh," means in legal terms, you need to talk to a lawyer. Not your neighbour, who knows a guy, whose second cousin knows a girl who has a boyfriend who knows somebody who did such a thing, and got away with it.
In fairness, speaking with a lawyer gets expensive, and I do not expect any client to say, "Chevy, I'd like to post on City-Data about the Toronto van attack, but I want to check with you first." That's unreasonable. But I'd expect a little common sense--and a little respect. I've been here long enough to establish myself as the resident Canada forum lawyer, and if I say something legal-related in this forum, you can trust it and take it to the bank.
(The description is too disgusting to repeat here.)
I saw that, Irene. I was repulsed. I have a few comments, peppered with adjectives from my truck-driving days, which would violate C-D's terms of service if I posted them. So I won't. But holy hannah! What ... stuff ... that is.
That being said, and reverting to the professional me, Incels are not considered a hate group yet. They might well turn out to be, but they are not yet. I have to remain professional at this time, as I am sure you understand. We will just have to see what happens.
You always get the kneejerk reaction from people looking for any reason to pin every incident like this on Islamic fundamentalism. You get kneejerk reactions on a lot of fronts. The mouth speaks before the brain thinks. People like to judge and create enemies, even where none exist.
That is sadly true. However as we've seen multiple times, white supremacists can cause just as much devastation. Brevik in Norway, the Vegas shooting and the Quebec mosque incident all attest to that. When someone isn't right in the head, it doesn't matter what there ethnicity or religious and political leanings are.
Location: Montreal -> CT -> MA -> Montreal -> Ottawa
17,330 posts, read 33,013,815 times
Reputation: 28903
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
One thing I find interesting even in these forums in Canada is that if there is a tragedy like that which occurred with the Humboldt Broncos - the overwhelming response is one of sadness for the victims and prayers for the families. As that is how it should have been. This thread however is what exactly!? Very few people have expressed any sort of sympathy, thoughts, prayers or anything regarding these victims who were essentially murdered. The focus being on the killer and what his 'possible' motives were and an excuse to attack muslims.
I've mentioned something before about what may be at the root of this and was summarily dismissed as being 'off my rocker' but yet, I don't see many if any sad faces for the victims here - quite a bit of silence and indifference to the victims actually.
Compare this thread with that dedicated to the Broncos.
And by "interesting," I think that you mean some other choice words. I'd use those words too and is the reason why I stopped posting in this thread, which quickly became political and all about the killer, rather than about the poor lives lost. Yes, the killer's motives warrant discussion, absolutely, but not to the exclusion of everything else about this event -- the people who died first and foremost, that police officer who exercised incredible restraint in not shooting him, the EMTs, etc.
I'm not exactly sure what you are looking to get from me here. Clearly, it looks like in this case the assumption that Radical Islam is at the root of this tragedy was incorrect. I've already admitted that given the nature of the attack, the first thing that came to my mind was someone who is Muslim and linked to radical Islam based on what's been going on the last few decades. Was it a kneejerk reaction, sure but as I learned more about what happened I've moved on and also checked my own assumptions and kneejerk reactions. Hopefully we all learn from this instead of trying to use this event, this tragedy and these deaths as a platform to engage in attacks against Muslims. Something I certainly am not engaging in... It is ok to have a reaction - it is what you do after that when that reaction and assumption is challenged that is more important.
I wonder why people don't say this when an incident happens that the lefists/Muslims/BLM etc can use to advance their narrative and platform? How many times have we heard about needing to fight against Islamophobia after the Quebec mosque shooting? Isn't that using a tragic event to their advantage? That white supremacy/nationalism and Islamophobia is rampant? That its justified for 'anti-racist/anti-hate' groups to use force and other disruptive methods to stop 'hate groups' from speaking their minds? That we even have a bill like M103 to exist and be passed in Canadian parliament even if its non-binding?? So you tell me who's using incidents to advance their narrative?
Quote:
We've been down this road before with other groups - just because there is a minority within a group responsible for a disproportionate number of incidents of a certain nature, does not mean the majority are contributing to these problems. A male Jordanian citizen visiting his family here was among those killed btw. I mourn his loss every bit as much I do the white 80 year old Grandmother or the teenager killed in a terrible bus accident in Saskatchewan.
Not exactly true. Just because people within those communities aren't all violent and criminal doesn't mean they're all guilt free. If they're harboring these people among them, then they're apart of the problem. If they're not calling the police on these criminals and getting them off the streets, they're apart of the problem. If they're not raising their kids right so that they don't become the next generation of criminals and violent people, they're part of the problem.
In reality its not very difficult to turn things around within a generation or two for people like Somalis and other groups if they really wanted to, but the problem is often they DON'T want to put in the work and take a little short term pain for long term gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene
If Incels have the beliefs described in an image inserted in a post in another thread, I definitely consider them a hate group:
(The description is too disgusting to repeat here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
That was truly revolting. It really goes beyond disturbing. It's definitely mental illness, but I think their lack of sexual conquest and the sick attitude towards women are consequences of that illness - yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd call that a hate group too. But I think it's only possible for them to have become a hate group because of their ability to easily access and connect with each other through social media / internet and then keep feeding and reinforcing the sickness in each other. If they didn't have such easy access and reinforcement of their hatred being fed to and by each other perhaps the misplaced hatred and desire for vengeance towards women wouldn't be so severe.
So let me get this straight a few posts that are bad is enough for you to declare that entire group of people as evil and hateful? While on the otherhand, constant violence, crime, murder and even terrorism from the believers of the religion of peace and what's the response there time and time again? 'We must not generalize. We must not alienate these people. This doesn't represent the majority'.
Gee wouldn't it be nice to give the same leeway to these people who most people didn't know existed up until a couple of days ago? Nawww they're not Muslim/black/Native or some other minority/special group that people love to shill for and defend so they don't get the same leeway.
And also its LAUGHABLE that people are so offended by this group's alledged attitude towards women IN WORDS and they're demonized, but when it comes to REAL LIFE rape gangs of children and the REAL LIFE raping and assault of women by Muslims, that's A OKAY and lets just look the other way on that one. Talk about the EXTREME HYPOCRICSY here and talk about the UTTER INSANITY where insulting women with words is WORSE than real life abuse and harm to women and children. What a world we live in now. >_>
So let me get this straight a few posts that are bad is enough for you to declare that entire group of people as evil and hateful?
No. The very first word in my post only has two letters but is one of the most important words in the English language - IF. Google for a definition if you don’t understand its meaning.
Yes. But it hasn't yet. And there is no indication that Mr. Minassian targeted only women. Just pedestrians, of both sexes, on the sidewalk.
I know the law better than most, as many Canadian posters here are aware. I'm confident in my assertions.
Granted, so that familiarity with the law makes it more likely that you are aware of the fact that laws change in response to changes in societal values.
It has been reported that the majority of victims of Alek Minassian were female. Perhaps it is just coincidence that he chose a street where most of his victims would be female, and perhaps not. We know that this was a planned murder, so it is possible that the location of the murders was pre-planned. We also know from his last statement on Facebook that he believed he was part of the "incel revolution". We don't know what this revolution means exactly, but we do know the meaning of this new word, and we do know that mysogenist views are embedded in this mindset.
It cannot be conclusively proven that Alek Minassian was intent of killing as many women as possible when he decided to drive his vehicle on the sidewalk, but it isn't much of a stretch to see that killing women was on his list of things to do that day.
His motive seems to be that he blamed women for his failure to have sex with a woman, as though it is his right to have sex and that women should suffer if they do not meet his expectations. This "incel" thinking seems to completely objectify women and reduce them to sex objects, rather than companions, equals and friends.
Should men who objectify women and murder them for failing to provide sexual gratification, a crime where the only criteria for the victim is gender, be charged with a new category of hate crime? Perhaps that is a crime that needs to go on the books.
And their fuss is unfounded; neither are hate crimes under Canadian law. Seriously, people, do you jump to conclusions and not speak with lawyers before you post this kind of unfounded, unsourced, and untrue crud?
If you want to know the true story about what "pulling a hijab off a Muslim woman's head," or "pulling a turban off a Sikh," means in legal terms, you need to talk to a lawyer. Not your neighbour, who knows a guy, whose second cousin knows a girl who has a boyfriend who knows somebody who did such a thing, and got away with it.
In fairness, speaking with a lawyer gets expensive, and I do not expect any client to say, "Chevy, I'd like to post on City-Data about the Toronto van attack, but I want to check with you first." That's unreasonable. But I'd expect a little common sense--and a little respect. I've been here long enough to establish myself as the resident Canada forum lawyer, and if I say something legal-related in this forum, you can trust it and take it to the bank.
'Nuff said for now.
Isn't it great that we both agree that neither is a hate crime (see my post that you quoted for a refresher). It is astonishing that some Canadians are stomping their feet and alleging that tearing up the Koran and pulling off someone's turban are hate crimes.
It is unfortunate that these people phone police and the media about these incidents and that everyone has to hear about it.
Who is jumping to conclusions that those two actions are hate crimes? Not I, and not you, so you are you referring to regarding "crud"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
