Criminal Responses to Hate Motivated Violence: Is Bill C-41 Tough Enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following an apparent upsurge in hate-motivated violence, Parliament enacted Bill C-41 which received Royal Assent on July 13, 1995. This Bill requires judges to treat proof that an accused was motivated by group hatred as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The author argues that Bill C-41, although a step in the right direction, fails to condemn hate crime strongly enough. She argues for the adoption of hate-crime provisions similar to those that exist within the United States. These provisions permit penalties for acts of hate-motivated violence to be increased beyond the maximum for violence that is not motivated by hatred. Many of the provisions also create a distinct offence for violent acts committed with a hateful motive. The author argues that creating a distinct offence for hate-motivated violence and permitting enhanced penalties is a better use of the criminal law than is Bill C-41. She argues that an explicit provision condemning hate crime provides recognition that such violence is different from, and frequently more heinous than, other types of violence. Such a provision would also constitute an important denunciation of hate-motivated violence and would provide groups who face such violence better redress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".