Hate crime? Really?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you looked at any of the definitions of hate crime?

If you look at the proposed Irish definitions of hate crime there has to be some sort of Bias involved in it.
That is a very vague term in my view and would be hard to enforce.
Why make it so difficult when there already is the non-fatal offences against the person Act 1997?
Again it is a superfluous layer in my view.

Did the perpetrators act on that 'bias' or did they do so because the individual was an easy target, such as vulnerable elderly person?
It can be made much easier if individuals are name calling (which will show thier motivations), but again this already can be covered in Non-Fatal AP Act 1997 where a person is not physically attacked.

There was no name calling in the OP's example just a leaf-frogging.
Were the perpetrators 'thinking fcuking dwarfs I hate the sight of them let's get her' ? Or were they thinking' let's have some craic here this will be funny.' ?
Much more easier to convict using the NFAPA 1997 on this occasion as you cannot definitively prove the perpetrators motivations.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. Yes I do. A wheelchair ramp is not an example of discrimination (positive or otherwise) unless able bodied people were not allowed use it and it was the only point of access to a building.

Even if you discriminate FOR someone, you defacto must be discriminating AGAINST others.

Otherwise it's not discrimination.

Jesus.

I think I'll stick with the legal expert view.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I think I'll stick with the legal expert view.

Cool. (That's discrimination against me btw)

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you look at the proposed Irish definitions of hate crime there has to be some sort of Bias involved in it.
That is a very vague term in my view and would be hard to enforce.

You do recognise that many other countries manage to enforce exactly this?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You do recognise that many other countries manage to enforce exactly this?

You are missing the point is not required.
Re-read my response to your 'comprehensive analysis' post.

In the case at issue how do you prove it?
Much easier to use existing legislation as the vague muddy waters of 'hate crime' would be harder to prove in Sinead's particular scenario.

Why add the extra layers for soundbites and number counting?
Waste of time.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool. (That's discrimination against me btw)

Yes, I often do discriminate against people who know nothing about a particular topic.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In the case at issue how do you prove it?

In the same way that they prove it in the many other countries that have hate crime legislation based on similar definitions.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Why add the extra layers for soundbites and number counting?

To reduce the likelihood, severity and frequency of hate crimes in the future.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think I'll stick with the legal expert view.

Deleted User wrote: »

Cool. (That's discrimination against me btw)

The Dunne is correct by the way

Positive Discrimination -
the act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly because of their race, sex, etc.

Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, or environments for people with disabilities. The concept of accessible design and practice of accessible development ensures both "direct access"

Being allowed access to a building in another manner does not discirmate against other individuals in any way. It is another form of access.
Practically speaking both able bodied and disabled can use the same ways to access a building if they wish.
If a person is lazy they could walk up a ramp instead of steps for example.
Anyone can do it. The same with wheelchair accessible lifts they are available for everyone to use at airports/shopping centres etc. Mothers with buggy's - elderly use them.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To reduce the likelihood, severity and frequency of hate crimes in the future.

But hate crimes themselves are a legal invention from other jurisdictions.
It sounds good - soundbites
It is semantics it will not help in the long term and will just be counter productive.
In a few more years they will invent more terminology.
It is far easier to keep things simple, and stop putting people in boxes/labels where it is not required.
There is already legislation there that can be used as I have already stated numerous times.
The term 'Hate Crime' just makes activists feel like they are making a 'difference' and doing something.
But the reality is legislation as it stands in Ireland is sufficient.

Hate Crime legislation will not make one bit of difference to people's day to day lives, it sounds good though!
I think some people get that warm fuzzy feeling inside when they use the term 'Hate Crime' they feel great.
It shows they care for all sectors of society in thier eyes. Hooray for themselves - self praise. (like the journalist from the Indo)
But it is not needed really.
In Sinead's sceanario it is clearly a potential offence under the Non-Fatal-Offences Against the Person Act 1997

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In the same way that they prove it in the many other countries that have hate crime legislation based on similar definitions.

That's a bit vague isn't it.
If there was Hate Crime legislation in Ireland how would that 'Bias' be proven in Sinead's case?

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. Did it really take you this long to work that out?

No. I’m just happy that you have eventually admitted that this was not a hate crime.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually, it's from a few different places around the world. As Ireland doesn't currently have hate crime legislation, it's difficult to find research on non - existing legislation.

It's a fairly standard approach when developing public policy to look at how things work in other countries.

Are you a policy maker?

Hedgelayer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you looked at any of the definitions of hate crime?

I looked up hate in the dictionary and I looked up crime.

And I got my answer.

Hate and Crime two words which are translated in the Oxford dictionary.

Look them up.

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

No. I’m just happy that you have eventually admitted that this was not a hate crime.

I've stated repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland, as have others. It's not a big win for you that you eventually noticed this.

Presumably you also noticed that the OP was about whether you would call this a hate crime, not whether it actually is a hate crime.

gormdubhgorm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Are you a policy maker?

Jayus I hope he is not! :eek:

There would be a raft of contradictions and confused use of terminology, mixed with inventions of even more confusing terminology.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

The Dunne is correct by the way

Just quoting this for my own pleasure!

Discrimination, hate, crime and Bombay Duck all don't mean what they mean.

That is pretty much the argument.

AndrewJRenko

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I looked up hate in the dictionary and I looked up crime.

And I got my answer.

Hate and Crime two words which are translated in the Oxford dictionary.

Look them up.

I looked up Bombay and I looked up duck. But I didn't get a fish.

Try a bit of joined up thinking. Your own ignorance of hate crime isn't really something to crow about.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That's a bit vague isn't it.
If there was Hate Crime legislation in Ireland how would that 'Bias' be proven in Sinead's case?

No more vague than your claim that it is unworkable despite your lack of knowledge of how it works elsewhere.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I looked up Bombay and I looked up duck. But I didn't get a fish.

Try a bit of joined up thinking. Your own ignorance of hate crime isn't really something to crow about.

What is all this about Duck's anyway?
Was it a Duck who leapfrogged over Sinead, or a fella dressed as a Duck, or a fella that looked like a duck?

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've stated repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland, as have others. It's not a big win for you that you eventually noticed this.

Presumably you also noticed that the OP was about whether you would call this a hate crime, not whether it actually is a hate crime.

“There are a lot of things I'd call this behaviour but a hate crime? No, not everything you experience or dislike is a hate crime.“


The OP gives his/her opinion. He doesn’t ask whether you/me/Xenu would call this a hate crime. It’s basic reading comprehension.


And we have the answer that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland henceforth it cannot be a hate crime, as such a crime does not exist in this jurisdiction. Everything else is just waffle, most of it from you.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I looked up Bombay and I looked up duck. But I didn't get a fish.

Hahahahhahaha. FFS. You are doubling down on this?

So hate crime isn't hate or a crime?

Cool.

Probably should think of a better term.

****ing Bombay Duck. Classic.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No more vague than your claim that it is unworkable despite your lack of knowledge of how it works elsewhere.

What do mean my lack of knowledge?
I have given you pages of cogent argument about my feelings on the issue the OP raised..
I have also have practical experience on the issue and understand the legal argument and nuance.
I refer you to my previous comments they were far from vague.
I stuck to the facts based on current Irish legislation and proposed legislation.

You on the other hand just randomly picked bits from websites (with no analysis from yourself) and starting going on about ducks for some reason?

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

You on the other hand just randomly picked bits from websites (with no analysis from yourself) and starting going on about ducks for some reason?

He gotcha.

*Plot twist*

The duck he was talking about......


IS A FISH!!


M Night Shalamanamamanam confirmed

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No more vague than your claim that it is unworkable despite your lack of knowledge of how it works elsewhere.

I also did not say it was unworkable, I said it was unnecessary (Ireland already NFOP Act 1997 S10) and a hate crime more difficult to prove in the OP's scenario.
In my opinion.

Hypothetically -

Are you going to find out that the two teenagers used to have a mother who resembled Snow White. But beat this mother thier siblings. Since then the two teenagers had a pathological hatred/bias against all things that reminded them of the Snow White fairy-tale?

That was the reason they leapfrogged Sinead - aha your honour! etc etc

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hahahahhahaha. FFS. You are doubling down on this?

So hate crime isn't hate or a crime?

Cool.

Probably should think of a better term.

****ing Bombay Duck. Classic.

Is it really that difficult for you to comprehend that sometimes, when you put two words together, the meaning is not the literal combination of the two individuals words?

So yes, to answer your question that has been repeatedly answered before, the definition of hate crime does not include hate.

Go back and read the definition one more time and see if you can get it. It's written down there in black and white. I've no idea why you would want to repeatedly blame your own lack of comprehension on others.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So yes, to answer your question that has been repeatedly answered before, the definition of hate crime does not include hate.

.........

Amazing.

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

“There are a lot of things I'd call this behaviour but a hate crime? No, not everything you experience or dislike is a hate crime.“


The OP gives his/her opinion. He doesn’t ask whether you/me/Xenu would call this a hate crime. It’s basic reading comprehension.


And we have the answer that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland henceforth it cannot be a hate crime, as such a crime does not exist in this jurisdiction. Everything else is just waffle, most of it from you.

The OP doesn't ask the question as to whether it is a hate crime or not, though you seem a little obsessed on this particular aspect.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.........

Amazing.

Not really. Two minutes of reading would have brought you up to speed on this at the start of the discussions.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it really that difficult for you to comprehend that sometimes, when you put two words together, the meaning is not the literal combination of the two individuals words?

So yes, to answer your question that has been repeatedly answered before, the definition of hate crime does not include hate.

Go back and read the definition one more time and see if you can get it. It's written down there in black and white. I've no idea why you would want to repeatedly blame your own lack of comprehension on others.

It is irrelevant because then you have to move on from 'Hate' and prove what bias is.

If you pretend the Irish Hate Crime Bill 2015 passed for argument sake.

The proposed Irish legislation defines bias as -

“bias” means hatred, hostility, bias, prejudice or contempt;

http://enarireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WG-Bill-2015-Criminal-Law-Hate-Crime-Bill.pdf



Very vague difficult to prove.

It is just jam on a sandwich instead of sticking to bread and butter legislation.
New definitions created to make it appear what just and far society we have etc.
Makes the lobby groups happy.

Was it motivated by hatred, hostility, bias, prejudice or contempt or just lads falling under the Non-Fatal OAP Act 1997 s10?