A Calgary indigenous woman who knocked out a Caucasian woman’s tooth while yelling “I hate white people,” didn’t commit a racially motivated crime, a judge says.
Provincial court Judge Harry Van Harten, in a written decision, said Tamara Crowchief’s motivation for striking Lydia White was not related to racial bias.
But Van Harten agreed with defence counsel Adriano Iovinelli that there was insufficient evidence to establish Crowchief attacked White because of the colour of her skin.
“The offender said, ‘I hate white people’ and threw a punch,” Van Harten said in his ruling.
“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,” he said.
“I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.”
White was outside Jaimieson’s pub on 17th Avenue S.W., with a friend when an acquaintance of Crowchief’s approached and asked for, and was given, a cigarette.
As White and her male friend spoke to that woman, Crowchief approached and, without warning, yelled “I hate white people” and punched her in the face, knocking out a tooth.
Crowchief and the woman then walked away, but White and her friend followed and called police, who arrived a short time later and arrested the offender.
During her arrest, Crowchief told police “the white man was out to get her.”
White guilt seems to encourage these types of nonsensical rulings, and there is an entire lobby of black activists who make a living from being “victicrats” and seeing racism in every action of every white person or government institution. The pay for playing the race card is excellent, as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can attest to. Although Crowchief is not African-American, the standard that judge Van Harten set is troubling, to say the least. It is clear that Crowchief was given a lighter sentence because her victim was white, and apparently white victims are not as important or do not have the same rights as victims of color. Justice apparently is not blind, and the victim was not adequately protected simply because she is white, which by definition means the attack was not motivated by racial animus.
In fact, the ruling is correct, but the reasoning is faulty. The crime should be punished based on its severity, and the concept of a “hate crime” should be purged from the law. All physical crimes involve some element of “hate,” so that should be assumed when judging a personal assault without assuming the crime is more serious because it is committed against a person of color, or less serious because it is committed against a white. But in our racist society, with black activists demanding that “attitude” as well as action be punished, we will have the ridiculous outcomes such as the one in Toronto committed by Crowchief.