Brickbat: Pre-Crime and Punishment

Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani, who is also the nation's attorney general, says it is very important that the government have the power to punish someone it believes might commit a hate crime even if that person
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Canada is not now and has never been a "nation of laws, not men." Canada inherited the European political tradition that "the people" are the subjects of the government no matter how that government is chosen. The American experimental tradition, although becoming quite blurred over the last two centuries, has always been that the people rule and that the government is the servant of the people. That used to mean that the only function of government was to protect the individual rights and privileges of each person. That has never been true of Canadian government, so it would be wise for Reason writers to focus on how US political philosophy is becoming more and more like Canada's, not just how reprehensible a particular Canadian law might be.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, you're serious. Now I'm sad.
How long before that comes to America?
We will need Montana to become Texas - - - - - - - -
What time is it?
Your comment says "2 hours ago". Hope that helps.
it says 3 hours ago can you not tell time?
Damn!
.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but we’re already there (i.e., the government having the power to deprive someone of their civil liberties based on their speech):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
But Virani insists the bill would not infringe on free speech, saying speech that is "awful but lawful" would not be punished.
See? As long as it's not deemed a crime you're fine.
Canadian justice = "Let the punishment fit the non-crime!"
"Trust me" said the spider to the fly.
Fascists gotta do fascism.
It's for your own good.
Someone subject to this nonsense is fully justified in resisting.
What's a hate crime?
Exactly. Hate can serve as a motive, but cannot be a crime.
>>it believes might commit a hate crime even if that person actually hasn't committed a crime.
nobody just jumps right into hate crimes.
This law would make it easier to put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member. Hiow's that a bad thing?
Muggers, carjackers and gang members don't commit hate crimes. They commit regular crimes.
But based on the stock photo, pre-crime (and post-crime) determined by a woman inclined to tell fortunes with cards and candles seems legit to me. I mean, it says "Believe Her" right in the Constitution, right?