Hate crime? Really?

gormdubhgorm

The Highwayman 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.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/sinead-burke-talks-about-the-hate-crime-that-led-to-her-new-campaign-in-dublin-schools-38007423.html

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

The OP did ask whether it was a hate crime or not!

Also clue in the title - Hate Crime? Really

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

Are you a policy maker?

Yes, I'm Director of Policy Making at the Bombay Duck Institute, based on a fishing trawler in Howth.

But please don't tell the other lads, as I fear it could take six weeks or so for them to get their heads around it.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Also clue in the title - Hate Crime? Really

Words apparently change all meanings when put together.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Words apparently change all meanings when put together.

Yes, sometimes they do. Is this really a first for you?

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

Though they do seem to manage prosecutions based on similar definitions in many other countries for a decade or two now.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The OP did ask whether it was a hate crime or not!

Also clue in the title - Hate Crime? Really

They literally did not ask that question. Those words are not in the OP or the post title.

The only question in the OP is whether they would CALL it a hate crime.

Hedgelayer

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.

Falling over your own contradictions seems to be your savoury flavor of the day.

Have you looked up the words hate and crime yet?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yes, sometimes they do. Is this really a first for you?

Yes. It is.

Contextually, describing something as a hate crime knowing that hate isn't involved is disingenuous at best and sinister at worst.

It'd be like calling something a paedophilic crime despite there being no act of paedophilia involved.

It conjures a prejudice and an unwarranted perception of an act.

The fact that you willfully call something a hate crime with full knowledge there is no hatred and compare it to Bombay Duck for its lack of meaning is bizarre.

You stick to definitions when it suits you and abandon them whenever you want.

Ridiculous.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

They literally did not ask that question. Those words are not in the OP or the post title.

Erm.... It is the post title?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Erm.... It is the post title?

There are three words in the post title. It does not ask "Is this" a hate crime. Taken in context with the post body, the question asked is 'would you call this a hate crime'.

AndrewJRenko

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Falling over your own contradictions seems to be your savoury flavor of the day.

Have you looked up the words hate and crime yet?

Have you looked up any of the many definitions of "hate crime" yet?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

There are three words in the post title. It does not ask "Is this" a hate crime. Taken in context with the post body, the question asked is 'would you call this a hate crime'.

Three words and two question marks.

Hate crime? Really?

"Is this a hate crime" is the same question as "would you call this a hate crime".

Unless you think the original poster is asking "would you purposely mislabel this act?"

Lunacy

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. It is.

Contextually, describing something as a hate crime knowing that hate isn't involved is disingenuous at best and sinister at worst.

It'd be like calling something a paedophilic crime despite there being no act of paedophilia involved.

It conjures a prejudice and an unwarranted perception of an act.

The fact that you willfully call something a hate crime with full knowledge there is no hatred and compare it to Bombay Duck for its lack of meaning is bizarre.

You stick to definitions when it suits you and abandon them whenever you want.

Ridiculous.

Look, I'm sorry that you've dug this big hole for yourself based on your own false assumptions as to what 'hate crime' is about.

These aren't my definitions. I didn't make them up. You're wasting your time arguing with me about the definitions.

Basically, that's how hate crime is defined all over the world, as far as I can see.

It might be time to stop digging.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Three words and two question marks.

Hate crime? Really?

"Is this a hate crime" is the same question as "would you call this a hate crime".

Grand so. My answer is "Yes, I would call this a hate crime".

So we're all happy now, right?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Grand so. My answer is "Yes, I would call this a hate crime".

Cool. You would call it a hate crime despite the fact that you know it isn't as there is no such thing in Ireland.

Perfect sense.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool. You would call it a hate crime despite the fact that you know it isn't as there is no such thing in Ireland.

Perfect sense.

You seem to be confused between the absence of legislation and the actual occurance of crime. The absence of legislation does not mean that hate crimes don't occur in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You seem to be confused between the absence of legislation and the actual occurance of crime. The absence of legislation does not mean that hate crimes don't occur in Ireland.

Oh ok. We can just call stuff whatever we want as long as there is a precident anywhere in the world?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You seem to be confused between the absence of legislation and the actual occurance of crime. The absence of legislation does not mean that hate crimes don't occur in Ireland.

In other words, you want to call something a hate crime despite knowing that it isn't one.

You do you. Call it what you want.

Just don't pretend that it IS one.

id just like to point out that my post about schrodingers category was the highlight of this classic thread and thank you all for your service

did we ever find out btw if the lad jumped clear over here without touching her or whether there was an actual leapfrog

thats much more relevant imo than the many interpretations and opinions on whether a purported victim's identity makes a crime more serious

gormdubhgorm

Right, I went through the whole lot and applied legislation both current and proposed. Based on the facts we know from the article.


Facts –

Sinéad Burke (aged 28) is an Irish writer, academic, influencer, activist and broadcaster.
Ms Burke has a condition known as Achondroplasia.
Achondroplasia is a bone growth disorder that causes disproportionate dwarfism. Dwarfism is defined as a condition of short stature as an adult. People with achondroplasia are short in stature with a normal sized torso and short limbs. It’s the most common type of disproportionate dwarfism.
The average height for a person with this condition is Four Foot for females.
Sinead Burke is of Average height for a person with this condition

On the day in question Ms Burke travelled to Dublin's city centre and got off on O'Connell Street. From there, she walked towards a new Japanese restaurant where she was looking forward to meeting a friend for lunch.
She was close to the Department of Education buildings, not far from the restaurant, when she spotted two teenage boys.
Ms Burke alleges that the two teenage boys no older than 16 walked past her.
As they did so they pointed at her and laughed. One of the boys then proceeded to leapfrog over her from behind. The boy who jumped over her then walked past her again, and grinned.
Ms Burke was furious and scared. She was on the verge of crying
One of the teenagers recorded the incident on his phone. Ms Burke claims that the boys looked ‘proud of themselves’.

"

Firstly, this cannot be called a Hate Crime as the offence does not exist in Ireland.



So I will look at it through the prism of what I believe is the most relevant Act in Irish law.
The Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997. In particular S.10.2 of that Act.


10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

The boys acts were intentionally or recklessly, seriously interfering with Ms Burke’s peace and privacy, causing her alarm, distress or harm?

Yes, definitely

Would a reasonable person view these acts in that way?

I think they would.


All that seems very clear and simple, the two teenage boys could be convicted under section 10.2 of the 1997 Act.


Now, looking at it through the prism of the Proposed Criminal Law (Hate Crime) Bill 2015.


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

It would be necessary to look at the motivations of the two teenagers in question.
Had they a bias towards Ms Burke who would be defined a member of a ‘protected group’ under the proposed Bill.

As defined by the proposed 2015 Hate Crime Bill -

Protected group ” includes individuals who are identified on the basis of their race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, membership of the Traveller or Roma communities, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or health;

Yes Ms Burke is a member of the proposed‘ protected group’ as the words birth and disability are there.


It then must be decided whether the two boys pointing and laughing at Ms Burke, one of them jumping over here, and then taking pictures of her fall under the definition of bias in the proposed Bill.

It defines Bias as hatred, hostility, bias, prejudice or contempt.

Did the boys show hatred? No – there seemed to be no evidence of that.

Did the boys show hostility? Yes, definitely.

Did the boys show prejudice? Possibly - unknown.

Did the boys show contempt? Definitely



Under the proposed Amendment to The Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 by the CL(Hate Crime) 2015 Bill.

S10A inserts

10A Bias aggravated harassment
(1) Any person who, where motivated (wholly or partly) by bias against members of a
protected group based on their membership, or their presumed membership, of that
group,

Looking at his I do not think the boy’s motivations were wholly because Ms Burke was a member of a protected group. But it looks to me like it could have been at least part of their motivation.
As their actions prior to jumping over her included pointing and laughing, they also took an unsolicited picture of her.

So taking all that into consideration. I think the incident involving Sinead Burke would fall under the proposed Hate Crime Bill 2015 if it was legislation.
But currently under Irish law this scenario is not a Hate Crime.



But since it already falls neatly into the Non-Fatal Offences against the person Act 1997 why the need to add a needless layer to things?

Who does it benefit exactly?
Personally, as I already said it would annoy me if someone was charged under a hate crime act (for acts against me) as I would placed into the membership of a 'protected group'.
It would really disgust me, as I never asked to be a member of this exclusive club based on the 2015 Bill.
The 1997 Act as is works perfectly fine and it should be left alone.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Looking at his I do not think the boy’s motivations were wholly because Ms Burke was a member of a protected group. But it looks to ne like it could have been part of their motivation. As their actions prior to jumping over her included pointing and laughing, they also took an unsolicited picture of her.

I would like to point out your honour that the taking of an unsolicited picture is moot as she was out in public and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. This should not be taken into account in your final ruling and I hereby ask the court to drop all charges.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

“Presumably you also noticed that the OP was about whether you would call this a hate crime” -AndrewJRenko


Make up your mind buddy. You seem confused.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand so. My answer is "Yes, I would call this a hate crime".

So we're all happy now, right?

Under what Irish legislation??

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote:

Under what Irish legislation??

He already "explained".

Just because it isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't a thing apparently.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He already "explained".

Just because it isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't a thing apparently.

He also explained that the OP both did and did not ask if this was a hate crime. Tying himself in knots.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote:

He also explained that the OP both did and did not ask if this was a hate crime. Tying himself in circles.

Yeah but a Bombay Duck is a fish so it's a hate crime.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah but a Bombay Duck is a fish so it's a hate crime.

But if the Bombay Duck is from India, does that make it a racist attack also??

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote:

But if the Bombay Duck is from India, does that make it a racist attack also??

That's still covered under hate crime so we are good. Leapfrogging, rape, murder and racism. All the same. Good to have a catch all phrase which doesn't differentiate between them and creates a prejudice regardless of the severity.

It's good for social media and media in general.

Also makes me shed my privilege and show how good I am because I care about people who I deem to be more disadvantaged than me.

Am I doing this right?

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to point out your honour that the taking of an unsolicited picture is moot as she was out in public and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. This should not be taken into account in your final ruling and I hereby ask the court to drop all charges.

But it shows the lads contempt for her especially when done in conjunction with the pointing and jumping over her
(Under proposed legislation it would be contempt I think. But the proposed legislation really pisses me off the more I think of it.
As I think there are ulterior motives for those who are looking for it.)

They would not have taken a picture of her unless it would increase the fun they were getting from thier actions.
It was thier 'trophy' of sorts.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

id just like to point out that my post about schrodingers category was the highlight of this classic thread and thank you all for your service

did we ever find out btw if the lad jumped clear over here without touching her or whether there was an actual leapfrog

thats much more relevant imo than the many interpretations and opinions on whether a purported victim's identity makes a crime more serious

Reading the article yer man got a clear jump. They surprised her.

"whoosh, followed by a thud"



"One of the boys landed in front of me.
He had jumped over me, leap-frogged over my head from behind.
I couldn’t believe it"

Otherwise Sinead would have mentioned it

As said the victims identity should make no difference as it would be covered under harrasment in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

I also picked that 1997 act because I thought it was clear from the article no actual contact was made.