Hate crime? Really?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Actually, the clue is the several decades of international work on this issue

Sorry, I disagree. I am pretty sure that a crime fuelled by hatred is the definition of hate crime.

Without the hatred part it's just a crime. Without the crime, it's just hate. It needs the two elements to be present to qualify.

Jumping over someone's head is neither.

There was no evidence of hatred. Just a person being a dick.

(Again, not condoning it)

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. I am pretty sure that a crime fuelled by hatred is the definition of hate crime.

Without the hatred part it's just a crime. Without the crime, it's just hate. It needs the two elements to be present to qualify.

Jumping over someone's head is neither.

There was no evidence of hatred. Just a person being a dick.

(Again, not condoning it)

This case fits the Metropolitan Police definition of a hate crime:

hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other perceived difference.

It doesn’t always include physical violence. Someone using offensive language towards you or harassing you because of who you are, or who they think you are, is also a crime. The same goes for someone posting abusive or offensive messages about you online.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote:

definition of a hate crime:

By that definition, it would be a hate crime to call someone a speccy ****er because he wears glasses.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

By that definition, it would be a hate crime to call someone a speccy ****er because he wears glasses.

That's either an unintentionally idiotic post or your bizarre urge to diminish a hate crime experienced by a person with a physical disability is leading you down a wholly disingenuous and willfully obtuse path.

Requiring glasses for reading, driving or whatever is extremely common and also isn't a disability to quite the same extent as being a 3' 5" adult negotiating a built environment designed for people at least a foot and a half taller than that.

not sure how it works that its now a question of extent or commonness of the instance of whatever categorisation the crime is supposedly based on

the whole thing is so fuzzy as to be a useless sop as it is without it becoming a farce about the level of blindness or shortness or redneckedness or baldness or whatever

and if disingenuity or wilful obtuseness is a concern for you then you would be very well advised to shimmy a few paces further away from renko because if you are on that side od the argument but turning a blind eye to his uh erratic outbursts then im afraid you cant credibly call out anyone else on that measure

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote:

That's either an unintentionally idiotic post or your bizarre urge to diminish a hate crime experienced by a person with a physical disability is leading you down a wholly disingenuous and willfully obtuse path.

The definition you supplied is so ridiculously vague I was pointing out how almost anything could be defined as a hate crime.

Jumping over someone's head is not a hate crime

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

The definition you supplied is so ridiculously vague I was pointing out how almost anything could be defined as a hate crime.

Jumping over someone's head is not a hate crime

Singling a vulnerable person out for public harassment and ridicule, for no reason other than the fact that they have a disability, and using their disability (in Sinéad Burke's case, the fact that she is 3'5" and therefore easy to jump over) against them is a hate crime. You (and other posters of an empathy-averse, right-wing persuasion) might disagree with the concept of hate crimes (and we all know why), but you thankfully don't get to decide what does and does not constitute a hate crime.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote:

You (and other posters of an empathy-averse, right-wing persuasion) might disagree with the concept of hate crimes (and we all know why), but you thankfully don't get to decide what does and does not constitute a hate crime

What are you trying to infer? At least be honest enough to say what you mean.

I've already said that I do agree with the concept of hate crimes. This doesn't fall under that umbrella though.

I've countlessly reiterated how much respect I have for Sinead and how the act was terrible. I'm not sure how you can define that as empathy averse or right wing but I'm sure you will find a way.

Words are seemingly interchangeable these days so knock yourself out with your veiled, vague judgements.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you trying to infer? At least be honest enough to say what you mean.

I've already said that I do agree with the concept of hate crimes. This doesn't fall under that umbrella though.

I've countlessly reiterated how much respect I have for Sinead and how the act was terrible. I'm not sure how you can define that as empathy averse or right wing but I'm sure you will find a way.

Words are seemingly interchangeable these days so knock yourself out with your veiled, vague judgements.

I've inferred from reading the thread that nobody here has any issue whatsoever with Sinéad Burke, or any latent hostility towards people with Achondroplasia. However, if they were to concede the fact that she (a person with a physical disability, which was targeted and exploited by people who wanted to publicly demean her for their own amusement) was a victim of a hate crime, then there might perhaps be some fear that it could open the floodgates to crimes against other vulnerable minorities being treated similarly. When you put that level of sheer effort into a pedantic argument about the terminology used by the victim of an attack, it's inevitable that people will be suspicious as to what motivates you.

Can you be specific about where you believe the spectrum of 'hate crime' begins and ends? This case is (obviously) not on the same level as, for example, burning someone's house down because they're the 'wrong' colour/religion/sexuality, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'hate crime'.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote:

When you put that level of sheer effort into a pedantic argument about the terminology used by the victim of an attack, it's inevitable that people will be suspicious as to what motivates you.

It's not inevitable. I was asked what my definition of hate crime was and I said it was a crime carried out because of hatred. If it means anything different then it's absolutely ridiculous to use those words.

If that makes you suspicious of my motives then that's on you.

I don't believe Sinead was targeted through hatred. I believe it was a bollox who thought he'd be funny.

Not on but not hatred

Yer Da sells Avon wrote:

Can you be specific about where you believe the spectrum of 'hate crime' begins and ends? This case is (obviously) not on the same level as, for example, burning someone's house down because they're the 'wrong' colour/religion/sexuality, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'hate crime'.

Not really. Can you be specific about where offensive language begins and ends? I don't think you can. That's the danger of having a spectrum and vague language when it comes to this type of thing.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. I am pretty sure that a crime fuelled by hatred is the definition of hate crime.

Have you found any legal definition of hate crime that matches your opinion, anywhere in the world?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

not sure how it works that its now a question of extent or commonness of the instance of whatever categorisation the crime is supposedly based on

the whole thing is so fuzzy as to be a useless sop as it is without it becoming a farce about the level of blindness or shortness or redneckedness or baldness or whatever

Extent or commonness aren't part of any definition I've seen. Where did you get these from?

It's nothing to do with the level of the condition involved. It is to do with how and why the victim was selected.

It's actually not fuzzy at all. It is crystal clear and simple.

It happens to be a bit different to what you assumed it was based on the name, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or bad. It just means that you should read up on stuff before you make assumptions.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Have you found any legal definition of hate crime that matches your opinion, anywhere in the world?

Any chance you could answer my question before you start asking me more?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's the danger of having a spectrum and vague language when it comes to this type of thing.

All crimes are defined on a spectrum of severity - that's not specific to hate crime and is not unusual at all.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

All crimes are defined on a spectrum of severity - that's not specific to hate crime and is not unusual at all.

Yes it is. Tey aren't usually grouped in such a catchall blanket name.

Usually you know where you stand when you hear about a crime.

Murder/manslaughter
Rape/sexual assault
Gbh/violent assault

But hate crime? That's too vague.

Especially with the definition I was talking about. It's too broad of a spectrum from (apparently) using offensive language to someone who is disabled to lynching someone can be all just labeled a hate crime

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes it is. Tey aren't usually grouped in such a catchall blanket name.

Usually you know where you stand when you hear about a crime.

Murder/manslaughter
Rape/sexual assault
Gbh/violent assault

But hate crime? That's too vague.

Especially with the definition I was talking about. It's too broad of a spectrum from (apparently) using offensive language to someone who is disabled to lynching someone can be all just labeled a hate crime

Hate crime is no more or less vague than 'crime'. It is a qualifier that outlines how or why the victim was selected.

Have you identified any regime worldwide that matches your opinion?

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hate crime is no more or less vague than 'crime'. It is a qualifier that outlines how or why the victim was selected.

Have you identified any regime worldwide that matches your opinion?

The danger here is that we end up with inequality in the justice system where crimes are miscategorised as hate crimes just because the victim is from a protected group.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Hate crime is no more or less vague than 'crime'. It is a qualifier that outlines how or why the victim was selected.

Christ on a bike. So you are sticking with your fantastic earlier logic that if you sexually assault a person with learning difficulties it's a hate crime?

Again, if someone jumped over a child, would that be a hate crime? Would they have to hate the child?

I think Sinead was selected as it would be easy to jump over her, not because there was any hatred.

Is it a hate crime to take the piss out of a friend that has a speech impediment? They mightn't be offended about it but I'm sure if you heard someone say something to them, you could get offended on their behalf?

You going to answer me about the whole positive discrimination balls you were spouting earlier?

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

The danger here is that we end up with inequality in the justice system where crimes are miscategorised as hate crimes just because the victim is from a protected group.

That wouldn't be miscategorisation. That would be correct categorisation - to protect protected groups.

Inequality is a positive feature. That's why we have 'inequality' in sentencing of rape on one side and child sexual assault on the other.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Inequality is a positive feature. That's why we have 'inequality' in sentencing of rape on one side and child sexual assault on the other.

What the hell are you talking about?

Inequality is positive?

You are unintentional comedy gold.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That wouldn't be miscategorisation. That would be correct categorisation - to protect protected groups.

If someone assaulted someone who happened to be mentally challenged but the assaulter was unaware of that, would he be charged of hate crime and then be forced to prove his innocence that he was unaware and he should only be charged with a crime instead of a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Extent or commonness aren't part of any definition I've seen. Where did you get these from?

It's nothing to do with the level of the condition involved. It is to do with how and why the victim was selected.

It's actually not fuzzy at all. It is crystal clear and simple.

It happens to be a bit different to what you assumed it was based on the name, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or bad. It just means that you should read up on stuff before you make assumptions.

extent and commonness a direct response to the post before mine

listen i have to say it- you coming in and pretending you didnt say, or not addressing, the absolute bolloxology that you come out with every third post makes it very difficult to engage with you as if you were being serious itt

its a problem.

if ten people, three of whom had a disability, were put into a sack and hung from the ceiling and the sack hit with a stick, under the definition accepted by the pushers in this thread there is a thirty percent chance that a hate crime has occurred

its balderdash lads.

schrodingers category.

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That wouldn't be miscategorisation. That would be correct categorisation - to protect protected groups.

Inequality is a positive feature. That's why we have 'inequality' in sentencing of rape on one side and child sexual assault on the other.

Uh. No. Hate crime is specifically a crime that is committed because of someone's gender / race / disability not despite it.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about?

Inequality is positive?

Like I explained repeatedly, we have different sentencing guidelines for rape and for child sexual assault. That is inequality. That is a good thing.

Which bits of the above are you having difficulty comprehending?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wheelchair ramps are positive discrimination? Are you mental? Who do they discriminate against?

Have you made another false assumption about the definition of positive discrimination, like you made about the definition of a hate crime?

Wheelchair ramps don't discriminate against anyone. They discriminate FOR wheelchair users - they positively discriminate.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyway, as I asked, are you in favour of actual positive discrimination eg gender and/or race quotas?

Don't know much about race quotas, so I'm not going to comment on that. I don't think they exist in Ireland afaik.

The last time I looked at the research on political representation, temporary gender quotas were the one measure that actually worked to get close to gender balance so that seems like a good thing to me.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

Uh. No. Hate crime is specifically a crime that is committed because of someone's gender / race / disability not despite it.

That’s not the internationally accepted definition

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if ten people, three of whom had a disability, were put into a sack and hung from the ceiling and the sack hit with a stick, under the definition accepted by the pushers in this thread there is a thirty percent chance that a hate crime has occurred

its balderdash lads.

schrodingers category.

If the three were selected for the sack BECAUSE of their disability, and they were hit with the stick, then yes, a hate crime would have occurred.

But maybe we should focus on more realistic scenarios?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Wheelchair ramps don't discriminate against anyone. They discriminate FOR wheelchair users - they positively discriminate.

You think that wheelchair ramps discriminate FOR people rather than just be nothing to do with discrimination and just to do with accessibility?

Bizarre