July 06, 2016

Double standard? Native woman yells “I hate white people” while punching victim, judge says it's not a hate crime

StaffRebel Columnist

Alberta Provincial court Judge Harry Van Harten ruled that Calgary indigenous woman did not commit a hate crime when she knocked out a Caucasian woman's tooth despite yelling “I hate white people.”

In a written ruling he said that Tamara Crowchief motivation for striking Lydia White (yes, her actual last name, go figure) was not race-related.

White was outside a pub with a friend when an acquaintance of Crowchief asked for a cigarette. White and her friend were speaking to the woman when Crowchief came out of nowhere, yelled “I hate white people” before punching her in the face.

Crown prosecutor Karuna Ramakrishnan was in search of a sentence of 12 to 15 months and argued that the incident was a hate crime. However, defence counsel Adriano Iovinelli made a case for their being insignificant evidence that Lydia White was attacked because of her skin colour.

According to National Post, Judge Harry Van Harten said that unlike other hate-crime related cases, there was no suggestion Crowchief was associated with any group that promoted hatred.

“There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether . . . 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.”

Judge Van Harten agreed with the defense that the more than six months Crowchief had spent behind bars, which he equated to a 9 1/2-month sentence, was sufficient jail time. She was placed on 12 months probation and ordered her to get psychological and psychiatric counselling.

SOUND OFF in the comments: if a Muslim woman was punched, do you think the result would have been different?

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-07-08 11:33:01 -0400
At their core a judge is a lawyer who got promoted. What is right and fair matters not. What matters is so called “social justice”. As someone else said we have a LEGAL system in the guise of a JUSTICE system.
commented 2016-07-08 10:37:37 -0400
This so-called POS who considers himself to be a judge should lose his position immediately. What a disgraceful human being.
commented 2016-07-08 00:52:33 -0400
Hate is in the eye of the left wing beholder. No others need apply. I have no faith in :
1. government
2. our courts
3. our schools
4. our police
5. our media.

Anyone want to add to this list?
commented 2016-07-07 18:31:00 -0400
Exactly Drew. By the judge’s reasoning, if 2 white men drag a black man behind their truck til he is dead, unless they are card carrying members of the KKK, they are not committing a hate crime.
commented 2016-07-07 02:23:15 -0400
I can just see the ruling if the white woman punched her back, she would have an added charge of a hate crime for assuming that the other woman was committing a hate crime.
commented 2016-07-07 02:21:49 -0400
I wonder what this judge would consider for hate crime charges , other than the attacker being white i mean? I bet she could have a full on i hate whitey manifesto on her facebook page and it would still not be enough. I wonder if the ruling will apply anywhere else, as if belonging to a group is a requirement for hate.
commented 2016-07-07 02:19:28 -0400
Gotta love EQUALITY! Seems the definition of that word has changed since i was a kid.
Anon that is the only way these scum will ever realize how wrong this kind of thing is. Of course they assume there is little chance of them being a victim so they do not really care, but you never know.
commented 2016-07-06 19:53:45 -0400
This judge is setting a dangerous precedent for other attorneys to use as case law. Just remember that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, should you ever be in the same situation.

In other words, if a white man were to yell, “I hate black people” and then punched him/her in the face, if later prosecuted, the white man’s attorney can point the court to this particular ruling as case law. The judge could always rule differently, though they rely HEAVILY on case law when making their rulings.

But we all know that the Judge will do what he wants anyway as it’s the JUST US system and guess what? You and I aren’t a part of it!
commented 2016-07-06 19:46:15 -0400
The Courts of Justice Act states simply; Judges cannot be held accountable for their decisions.

I think we need an addendum to that. That they can be charged with Breach of Trust for decisions that are so blatantly biased or political in nature.

Whenever ppl cannot be held accountable, whether it be professors with tenure, judges, union bosses, corruption inevitably slides in. Which is not surprising. There are slimy ppl that will seek out such positions for the very fact they can force their (twisted) views on others without recourse. Society just can’t have such positions – at all!!
commented 2016-07-06 18:54:53 -0400
“…All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others…”
commented 2016-07-06 17:47:21 -0400
Obviously NOT a hate crime. Native chick was simply saying she hated people named White.

It’s 2015, people!
commented 2016-07-06 17:34:17 -0400
Yes, Paul Maurice and Guy Fraser, we’re all in full agreement. The absurdity of the hate crime concept is simply an adjunct to the main point. And that main point is that there isn’t a double standard, but a multi-tiered standard of justice in our society. This SJW activism permeates the entire system, at every level. Which means the entire system is rotten to the core, and the only real cure is purge it completely from the ground up, and start over. Of course, that’s not going to happen… at least not without a mass revolt, and probably blood shed. I just hope I’m not around for it.
commented 2016-07-06 16:28:59 -0400
I agree, Maurice Potvin.
But since their is a rule for using ‘Hate’ as an extenuating factor, any crime based on victimizing someone because of their race, religion or sex should be applied evenly in all circumstances or removed from ever being considered a factor.
commented 2016-07-06 15:52:01 -0400
I agree, Maurice Potvin.
One does not kill or assault someone without a feeling of hate or extreme dislike.
The whole “hate crime” concept has to be abandoned.
But while it is in place, Unjustice Van Harten, should be removed from his position. He would probably have acknowledged such as a hate crime had it been a white person assaulting an Indian or a Muslim.
commented 2016-07-06 15:12:22 -0400
I completely disagree with the whole concept of hate crimes. What difference does it make whether someone shoots me because I’m Metis or because they want to rob me? Either way, I’m still just as shot. However, I take the point about the double standard, although I don’t think double standard is the correct term. I think a more appropriate term would be “multiple category” standard. If I were charged with a crime, it may well be to my advantage to reveal my Metis status. I’ve also had job interviews for government positions, for which one look at my resume would tell the panel I was clearly not qualified, simply because I was Metis. But full blooded Indian trumps both Metis and white, black trumps white, female trumps male, LGTB trumps heterosexual, single drug addicted Mom on welfare trumps stay-at-home Mom in traditional nuclear family, everything trumps Christian and Muslim trumps everything. We don’t just need to purge our governments of SJW in order to return to some semblance of a truly just, fair and compassionate society, they must be purged from Universities, government bureaucracies, law enforcement, MSM and especially our law societies and our judicial system. We need to dump them all and start over from scratch. But, of course, that’s just a pipe dream. It’s not going to happen.
commented 2016-07-06 14:52:14 -0400
Crowchief is probably the 7th cousin 8 times removed from someone who went to a residential school. So obviously has been traumatized into hating whitey. Reality is, because of the trauma she has suffered, she should not have experienced any jail time and should be paid for being in jail. She should clearly go before the A.H.R.C. to demand such payment at the same time charging the judge with racism for not doing so in the first place.
commented 2016-07-06 14:38:06 -0400
It couldn’t have been more clear that it was a race based hate crime.

But Chris :L is correct, the problem is that there even is such thing as a hate crime. It was a physical assault plain and simple. The prosecuting attorney should not have even attempted arguing for a hate crime, but a simple assault.
commented 2016-07-06 14:00:11 -0400
The group of 5
One of the 5 p’s—- prosecutors
commented 2016-07-06 13:52:45 -0400
Don’t you know? Only white people can be racist, not non-white people.
commented 2016-07-06 13:27:05 -0400
What is wrong is the whole concept of a hate crime.
commented 2016-07-06 13:15:05 -0400
If anything should be on trial here it should be the Marxist poison spewed by all the usual media suspects which radicalized this booze-addled zombie with the white oppressor/native victim hate narrative.

Every public sector union and every First Nations and diversity industry parasitic interest spews this Marxist identity group warfare gibbersh. One day the “oppessed” class are going to beat on the wrong “oppressor” and get their ass handed back to them in a bloody dixie cup – then we will see the bench go to work adjudicating the Marxist white hate narrative – at that point we have to take to the streets and demand justice system reform and a return to equality under law – because that’s what is at risk here – the left are running a race war against the majority to undermine our rule of law western culture by creating group identity based inequity under law.
commented 2016-07-06 12:59:30 -0400
I wonder who is going to pay for Lydia White’s dental bill? I can almost attest that Tamara Crowchief won’t be coughing up any dough, although,undoubtedly, she gets all her teeth worked on for “free” (except that the hated white people have to pay for it through their taxes).
commented 2016-07-06 12:56:31 -0400
Keith Barnes commented 35 mins ago
All Judges are Liberal appointees, this should explain everything.

Same fucking douche bag mentality that let Crooked Hillary go loose.
commented 2016-07-06 12:53:00 -0400
Tamara Crowchief didn’t get her flask of whiskey by 900a, so she got hostile.

At least that’s what Jimmy Two-skidoos said.

Canada is such a fucking shit show.
commented 2016-07-06 12:52:31 -0400
well said Marty Ashfield. Fact as well. Have been saying this for a long, long time. OUr own Prime minister along with all the rest of our representatives/politicians HATE WE WHITE CANADIANS AS WELL. Not to worry though as the white genocide is moving along according to plan all across the western world. Only problem is they need our money! Gee, what to do!
commented 2016-07-06 12:51:56 -0400
Open season on white folk. You can bet BLM and other hate groups have this at the top of their minds now.
commented 2016-07-06 12:31:37 -0400
I will not bother to comment as Marty Ashfield has put it all out there with perfect accuracy.
commented 2016-07-06 12:21:07 -0400
All Judges are Liberal appointees, this should explain everything.
commented 2016-07-06 12:21:00 -0400
Double standard? Ha, ha, that’s putting it a bit mildly isn’t it?
For many years most Canadians knew that there were 3 sets of laws in Canada. 1 for Canadians, 1 for Quebecois, and 1 for the FN’s, now of course in 2016 there are 4 laws in Canada, the first and most important one is for Muslims, but I digress.
So, no I don’t see any double standard with the story, just regular Canadian justice dished out by a biased judge, who BTW see’s no wrong in his learned decision, after all he went to law school and was appointed a judge. He is above the rest of us peons, he knows much better.