Hate crime? Really?

stefanovich

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

The act of disadvantaging those who are not a member of a protected group even if they are often treated unfairly

Positive discrimination. A nice way to explain what an oxymoron is.

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

You say their “marriage” existed?? So if one of them had died, would the living spouse have any spousal rights? Seeing as the marriage existed??

Presumably no, no rights, no legal recognition.

But the absence of rights and recognition doesn't make their marriage go away as they fly in over the Irish coast. The marriage still exists, regardless of whether Irish law recognises it or not.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

The act of disadvantaging those who are not a member of a protected group even if they are often treated unfairly

Positive discrimination. A nice way to explain what an oxymoron is.

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

stefanovich

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

There is no interpretation needed. The phrase is nonsensical. Discrimination can never be positive.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

Idiocy. You can not positively discriminate.

Hedgelayer

I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance.

Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better.
Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity.

I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....

AndrewJRenko

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance.

Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better.
Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity.

I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....

You may have missed the several pages of discussion showing how hate is not part of the definition of hate crime.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

There is no interpretation needed. The phrase is nonsensical. Discrimination can never be positive.

Once again, you might want to check out the couple of decades of research and practice by experts in the field that show how wrong you are on this.

Hedgelayer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You may have missed the several pages of discussion showing how hate is not part of the definition of hate crime.

Ok we're making progress here.

So is the definition of hate crime something which was concocted on a sociology course in America?

Deebles McBeebles

This thread is a hate crime against threads.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably no, no rights, no legal recognition.

But the absence of rights and recognition doesn't make their marriage go away as they fly in over the Irish coast. The marriage still exists, regardless of whether Irish law recognises it or not.

You are full of it. Marriage is a legal term. Their togetherness had no legality, therefore did not exist in the eyes of the state. Just because someone believes in Santa Clause, doesn’t mean that he actually exists.

AndrewJRenko

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Ok we're making progress here.

So is the definition of hate crime something which was concocted on a sociology course in America?

I don't know the full history, to be honest. Why don't you share what you know?

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

You are full of it. Marriage is a legal term. Their togetherness had no legality, therefore did not exist in the eyes of the state. Just because someone believes in Santa Clause, doesn’t mean that he actually exists.

You're right to say it did not exist in the eyes of the Irish state. At what stage on their flight from Canada to Ireland does their marriage cease to exist?

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're right to say it did not exist in the eyes of the Irish state. At what stage on their flight from Canada to Ireland does their marriage cease to exist?

Once they entered the airspace of a jurisdiction that does not recognise gay marriage. Again, just because you believe something exists, doesn’t make it so.

gormdubhgorm

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

Oh give it a rest. How come people who preach tolerance can often be so utterly hostile?

I agree there was bit of a Freudian slip in the phrase below.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would really help if we could stick to the facts. The threat title reads; Hate crime? Really?

So you don't seem to understand English and the purpose of question marks?

It does not read; "Is this a hate crime?". You've chosen to interpret it that way, but that is not what it says. It could (for example) mean; "Would you call this a hate crime?" which is a different question to "Is this a hate crime?". There is no suggestion that the OP means; "Is this a legal hate crime in Ireland?" which is the interpretation that several people are trying to put on it.

But it is what it is - "Hate crime? Really?" - no more and no less than that.[/quote]

HOnestly, I've grasped every nuance of it right from the outset. Unlike others.

You have not because they are simple points I have made, and I tried to explain them on numerous occasions to you at this stage.

That is certainly no legal offence called 'hate crime' in Ireland.

This is correct but then in the next paragraph you contradict yourself.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to what I call things here in this jurisdiction. If they are things that generally meet the definition of hate crimes, I call them hate crimes, with or without Irish legislation. Many other people do the same. I don't need legislation in Ireland to be able to use a particular term. I'm able to understand the term, as it is generally used, and apply to that to situations that I see - regardless of where I see it.

You cannot truly call them hate crimes in this jurisdiction as there is no legal grounds for it. What you have appropriated is a phrase, which can be applied in various ways depending on the users interpretation of it.

So just like how I proved to you that there was same-sex marriage in Ireland before we had legislation for same sex marriage, I'm now showing you how we have hate crimes in Ireland before we have legislation for hate crimes. We don't need legislation to be able to put a name on things.

Did you? (question mark) I missed that. How did you do that? (question mark)

There is no confusion for me. The OP didn't ask the question 'Is it a hate crime?'. THat is a simple matter of fact.

Is it?
So understand question marks, seems to be the bigger problem for you than understanding what Hate Crime is?
Does the crime exist in Ireland?
How would that crime be defined?
Is the OP's linked article a hate crime?
Or do you just ignore question marks, and have a prejudice against them?

Hate Crime? Really?

The phrase 'hate crime' is used in many different countries round the world. Hate crimes happen around the world every day. People are prosecuted for hate crimes around the world. You may not like the term or the approach, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Hate Crime has different definitions in different jurisdictions throughout the world. As I already showed you.
Even in the USA alone, the definition of 'hate crime' various and is only applied to certain groups of people.

Hate Crime is an invented term, it has various interpretations. As such it requires an actual legal definition to give the precise meaning, about what a Hate Crime is.
As a result when the phrase 'Hate Crime' is used in Ireland in a layman's sense of the term it can mean anything from thier point of view. Unlike other jurisdictions where 'Hate Crime' is actually a crime and there are legal parameters set to define it within that jurisdiction.

The term Hate Crime as you use it is not a very precise one as it is more a general assumption on your part rather than an actual definition.
It is not defined therefore it is just a throwaway phrase which can only be used to sensationalise in articles, as there is no definition of it legally in this jurisdiction.

Basically at the moment in Ireland the phrase a 'Hate Crime' can be just trotted out when people feel like it - like the OP's article.
But as there is no set legal meaning for it in Ireland it is purely subjective in nature. The phrase 'hate crime' was appropriated from American culture and it has now reached here. It first started being used in the 1980s over there.

If someone in Ireland used the term 'Jay-walking' we would know what they mean (by our own layman subjective interpretation - a bit clearer than 'Hate Crime' in fairness) . But it does not exist in Ireland. People just appropriate the term from America. The same thing that happened with the phrase 'Hate Crime' which has now entered common parlance. It is used those who want to appear to be modern and progressive in Ireland.

It is just playing with words when all is said and done.
It is yet another example of Ireland becoming slowly Americanised like many other countries.

No, my definition couldn't be 'something completely different' because the various definitions of hate crime aren't 'completely different'. They are largely similar, with subtle differences in scope and interpretation.

It is not subtle some jurisdictions where Hate Crime is actually a crime only apply it to certain groups.
That is hardly subtle that is a major divergance in interpretation

Yes, I've noticed your strong views, and how you've let them cloud your assessment of the facts here. The facts don't change. What happened to Sinead was a hate crime.

My judgement is far from clouded, and I have stuck to the facts.
As my posts will attest to.
For all your talk about comprehensive analysis and sticking to the 'facts'
You seem extremely wishy-washy on the whole subject.
Just posting links without any analysis of them etc
Even the question marks confuse you for a start!

Sensible debate?
Really?

gormdubhgorm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance.

Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better.
Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity.

I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....

Apparently they have to show a bias against that individual because of thier place in society in a protected group. That bias has to be a spark for thier motivations for the crime.
The phrase 'Hate Crime' itself is a bit of a confusing misnomer in that sense.

But different jurisdictions apply the meaning differently where Hate Crime is illegal. So it means different things in different countries

Like you, I think it is just two lads having a laugh and being humiliating and cruel.
It just shows to me how pointless Hate Crime legislation would be in Ireland.
What would it achieve? The Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 does fine.

But instead the so called 'progressives' in society want to create another wedge between people and focus on difference - making it a different 'crime' to crimes already on the statute books.

Like a lot of stuff in the world all this 'Hate Crime' stuff is a result of American societies issues, and was concocted there.
I am starting to think even the phrase 'Hate Crime' is a dangerous word to use.
Personally I have never used it in normal day to day conversation. In fact the first time I ever typed it was on this thread.

I think the people who use the phrase 'Hate Crime' in conversation, and advocate for it in Ireland ,are just trying to sound good/feel better about themselves. So they can show people how caring they are to all groups etc.
Then when it is ever put into law, the number counting of offences can start.
And the shock headlines can be generated. Division is created as a consequence.
Needless stuff.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So you don't seem to understand English and the purpose of question marks?

It's strange that I need to spell this out, but here goes:
"Is this a hate crime?" is not the same thing as "Hate crime?". The second one is missing the words "Is this a", which makes it different to the first one. There is no detail as to what the question is with the second one. Options include;
• Is this a hate crime?
• Would you call this a hate crime?
• Is hate crime a thing in Ireland
The second one is unclear.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You have not because they are simple points I have made, and I tried to explain them on numerous occasions to you at this stage.

Yes, you have explained them numerous times, and I fully understand your explanation. The problem doesn't lie with my understanding. The problem lies with you being wrong.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This is correct but then in the next paragraph you contradict yourself.

You cannot truly call them hate crimes in this jurisdiction as there is no legal grounds for it. What you have appropriated is a phrase, which can be applied in various ways depending on the users interpretation of it.

There is no contradiction between the two things. I can truly call things hate crimes in Ireland. Watch this:
The attack on Sinead was a hate crime.
See what I did there. I called the incident in question a hate crime. So, I absolutely can and did call this attack a hate crime in this jurisdiction.
Hate crimes exist, with or without legislation. I can take, for example, the Wikipedia definition of hate crime and say 'this incident was a hate crime'.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Did you? (question mark) I missed that. How did you do that? (question mark)

Remember where I showed you how Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, a married couple, lived in Ireland for years before their same-sex marriage was recognised? So they were married, they were in Ireland - so there was same-sex marriage in Ireland.
You really should try to keep up.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Is it?
So understand question marks, seems to be the bigger problem for you than understanding what Hate Crime is?
Does the crime exist in Ireland?
How would that crime be defined?

So yes, hate crimes do exist in Ireland. Unfortunately, they happen every day. They would be defined by any of the many international definitions of hate crime. Pick any of them, and you'll have crimes matching that definition happening in Ireland every day.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Hate Crime? Really?

Yes. Really.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Hate Crime has different definitions in different jurisdictions throughout the world. As I already showed you.
Even in the USA alone, the definition of 'hate crime' varies from State to State and is only applied to certain groups of people.

Yes indeed, most crimes have different definitions in different jurisdictions. That's why each jurisdiction has its own Courts and legislation. Nothing unusual about that at all.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Hate Crime is an invented term, it has various interpretations. As such it requires an actual legal definition to give the precise meaning, about what a Hate Crime is.

Everything is 'an invented term'. 'An invented term' is an invented term. It has various interpretations. That doesn't stop it being used in discussion.
A legal interpretation is certainly required to take cases to Court, and I'm glad to see your agreement that the legal definition of hate crime is required here.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As a result when the phrase 'Hate Crime' is used in Ireland in a layman's sense of the term it can mean anything from thier point of view. Unlike other jurisdictions where 'Hate Crime' is actually a crime and there are legal parameters set to define it within that jurisdiction.

Any term used in discussion in Ireland is used in a layman's sense of the term. Most people don't know the precise legal definitions of rape or burglary or assault, and people use those terms every day. That's a fairly normal situation in any discussion here.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The term Hate Crime as you use it is not a very precise one as it is more a general assumption on your part rather than an actual definition.
It is not defined therefore it is just a throwaway phrase which can only be used to sensationalise in articles, as there is no definition of it legally in this jurisdiction.

The term I'm used in based on the Wikipedia definition, which is very precise and far from a throwaway phrase. The only sensationalism involved is from your good self.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Basically at the moment in Ireland the phrase a 'Hate Crime' can be just trotted out when people feel like it - like the OP's article.
But as there is no set legal meaning for it in Ireland it is purely subjective in nature. The phrase 'hate crime' was appropriated from American culture and it has now reached here. It first started being used in the 1980s over there.

Yes, the phrase hate crime can indeed be trotted out when people feel like it. Just like the phrase trotted out can be trotted out when people feel like it. Any phrase can be trotted out when people feel like it.
There is no set legal meaning for it in Ireland, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. I'm using the Wiki definition, which is far from subjective.
And lots of phrases are appropriated from American culture. My teen was telling about the 'stalls' in the bathroom - too much Nick TV I guess. That doesn't make them right or wrong. The world doesn't revolve around your personal vocabulary choices.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If someone in Ireland used the term 'Jay-walking' we would know what they mean (by our own layman subjective interpretation - a bit clearer than 'Hate Crime' in fairness) . But it does not exist in Ireland. People just appropriate the term from America. The same thing that happened with the phrase 'Hate Crime' which has now entered common parlance. It is used those who want to appear to be modern and progressive in Ireland.

Who is this 'we' that you are speaking for here? I'd have thought that it's fairly clear from my responses on the thread that I have zero interest in 'appearing' to be anything. How I appear to you or anyone else has zero significance for me. My interest in this matter is for the people with disabilities that I know to be able to live ordinary lives of their own choosing, without being bullied, assaulted or intimidated.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is just playing with words when all is said and done.
It is yet another example of Ireland becoming slowly Americanised like many other countries.

It's a bit more important than playing with words unfortunately. It is about real life experiences for Sinead and many other people with disabilities, who find themselves abused, bullied, intimidated and assaulted. That's what's at stake here.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not subtle. Some jurisdictions (where Hate Crime is actually a crime) only apply it to certain groups.
Others do not apply it to property.
That is hardly subtle that is a major divergence in interpretation

There are differences for sure, just like there are differences in interpretation of lots of crime categories. Nothing unusual in that.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My judgement is far from clouded, and I have stuck to the facts.
As my posts will attest to.

You've gone a lot, lot further than the facts. You've applied your own personal interpretations. And you're entitled to do that - you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think the phrase Hate Crime is a divisive invention, pitting one group against another rather than just treating crimes as crimes against other human beings. As a I view it as unnecessary. And question the real motivations of 'Hate Crime' legislation proponents.

You seem to have missed the main point of hate crime legislation - to reduce hate crime - not by playing word games, but by actually stopping these crimes happening.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

For all your talk about comprehensive analysis and sticking to the 'facts' - looking for comprehensive analysis of the argument etc.
Arguably, the post where I went through the OP's article in detail did more than you did in explaining 'Hate Crime'.
I actually gave you an opening to say why legislated hate crime should be required in Ireland etc
But you missed your chance to properly debate the issue.
You seem extremely wishy-washy on the whole subject.
Just posting links without any analysis of them etc
Even the question marks confuse you for a start!

You really didn't explain hate crime at all. You just denied that it exists, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary from all around the world, and indeed from Ireland.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sensible debate?
Really?

Yes. Really.
Whatever it's going to take to reduce or eliminate hate crimes.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's strange that I need to spell this out, but here goes:
"Is this a hate crime?" is not the same thing as "Hate crime?". The second one is missing the words "Is this a", which makes it different to the first one. There is no detail as to what the question is with the second one. Options include;
• Is this a hate crime?
• Would you call this a hate crime?
• Is hate crime a thing in Ireland
The second one is unclear.

Yes, you have explained them numerous times, and I fully understand your explanation. The problem doesn't lie with my understanding. The problem lies with you being wrong.

There is no contradiction between the two things. I can truly call things hate crimes in Ireland. Watch this:
The attack on Sinead was a hate crime.

In your opinion based on no precise definition - so it could mean anything based on your subjective opinion and depending on which other jurisdictions interpretation you think is a hate crime

See what I did there. I called the incident in question a hate crime. So, I absolutely can and did call this attack a hate crime in this jurisdiction.
Hate crimes exist, with or without legislation. I can take, for example, the Wikipedia definition of hate crime and say 'this incident was a hate crime'.

Wikipedia can be edited by all and sundry that is not a good primary source to base your definition on

Remember where I showed you how Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, a married couple, lived in Ireland for years before their same-sex marriage was recognised? So they were married, they were in Ireland - so there was same-sex marriage in Ireland.
You really should try to keep up.

No because I did not bother reading it because it makes zero sense - I'm sorry. They were not 'married' in this country, it was not viewed as a marriage in this country. Marriage is a legal contract by its very nature so it cannot just exist without a legal acceptance.
It is just not reality sorry. Which is why there was so much excitement over the referendum which regconised the marriage

So yes, hate crimes do exist in Ireland. Unfortunately, they happen every day. They would be defined by any of the many international definitions of hate crime. Pick any of them, and you'll have crimes matching that definition happening in Ireland every day.

But again you are back to the same problem, which definition do you use.
Your neighbour or fella down the pub might have a completely efferent idea who a hate crime applies to.
Does it apply to race, gender, ethic minority, disabled - some or all of them.
Does the definition apply to the property of the individual etc.
Or is that just covered by the crime of criminal damage instead?

Yes. Really.

Yes indeed, most crimes have different definitions in different jurisdictions. That's why each jurisdiction has its own Courts and legislation. Nothing unusual about that at all.

Which definition is the definition you believe in for the sake of clarity?
There is a wide divergence as far as I can see in it's application.

Everything is 'an invented term'. 'An invented term' is an invented term. It has various interpretations. That doesn't stop it being used in discussion.
A legal interpretation is certainly required to take cases to Court, and I'm glad to see your agreement that the legal definition of hate crime is required here.

Any term used in discussion in Ireland is used in a layman's sense of the term. Most people don't know the precise legal definitions of rape or burglary or assault, and people use those terms every day. That's a fairly normal situation in any discussion here.

The term I'm used in based on the Wikipedia definition, which is very precise and far from a throwaway phrase. The only sensationalism involved is from your good self.

Again wikipedia is not a good source to be basing your definitions on. It is a site that can be edited by anyone.
Plus a number of definitions are given.

Yes, the phrase hate crime can indeed be trotted out when people feel like it. Just like the phrase trotted out can be trotted out when people feel like it. Any phrase can be trotted out when people feel like it.

Exactly which is why the phrase 'hate crime' will lose all real meaning because Bridie from three doors down, will start claiming Mary did a 'hate crime' on her when she hit her with her handbag

Who is this 'we' that you are speaking for here? I'd have thought that it's fairly clear from my responses on the thread that I have zero interest in 'appearing' to be anything.

The proponents of Hate Crime legislation in Ireland..
The likes of Ivana Bacik all the way to the likes of yourself, and/or self interested lobby groups who want a soundbite.

How I appear to you or anyone else has zero significance for me. My interest in this matter is for the people with disabilities that I know to be able to live ordinary lives of their own choosing, without being bullied, assaulted or intimidated.

It will actually make the lives of people with disabilites more difficult as it not treated like a normal crime as it would for others in society. In that way this makes people with disabilities second class citizens in effect, as crimes against them are put in a special separate box.
It only succeeds in highlighting difference rather than treating a crime as a crime. It now gets given another needless 'special' layer.
It only highlights difference even more so.

It will just bring joy to the number cruncher's who can sensationalise this new 'hate crimes' and count them up to thier hearts content.
The agenda led interest groups will delight in trotting out figures on press releases.

It's a bit more important than playing with words unfortunately. It is about real life experiences for Sinead and many other people with disabilities, who find themselves abused, bullied, intimidated and assaulted. That's what's at stake here.

I know playing with words when I see it.
And no it is not that important.
It is window dressing. In the scenario the OP inked the perps can already be charged under the 1997 Non Fatal Offences of the Person Act 1997 s10 under Harassment.
So it is not as important as you think it is. In fact - 'Hate Crime' entering the lexicon in Irish law is not required at all. Disabled people can get along fine without it by using the law as it stands, like everyone else

You seem to have missed the main point of hate crime legislation - to reduce hate crime - not by playing word games, but by actually stopping these crimes happening.

You really didn't explain hate crime at all. You just denied that it exists, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary from all around the world, and indeed from Ireland.

I find this bit amusing. The main point of hate crime legislation is for people and groups to further an agenda. It does not really change anything for the lives of those it is claiming to protect. Those hate crimes that you are so fond of eradicating can be eradicated through law as it stands by treating them for what they are - crimes - see the 1997 non fatal offences act etc

Oh yes I did explain 'hate crime' I went through a detailed interpretation of the 2015 proposed 'Irish Hate Crime Bill' based on the facts of the linked article the OP gave.
It exists only in the mind of those who want soundbites, change for the sake of it and furtherance of agendas since the 1980's in America.

Whatever it's going to take to reduce or eliminate hate crimes.

Those crimes can already be eliminated/reduced using current Irish law again see: the non-fatal offences against the person act, criminal damage act, incitement to hatred act, and so on and so forth.

There is no need to even term them as hate crimes as a result.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Those crimes can already be eliminated/reduced using current Irish law again see: the non-fatal offences against the person act, criminal damage act, incitement to hatred act, and so on and so forth.

There is no need to even term them as hate crimes as a result.

I'll respond on the other issues when I have time, but how's that 'elimination under existing legislation' approach working out for Sinead and others?

soenow what

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

how's that 'elimination under existing legislation' approach working out for Sinead and others?

that wasn't a hate crime, it was a crime of opportunity, if anything

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll respond on the other issues when I have time, but how's that 'elimination under existing legislation' approach working out for Sinead and others?

What of course it would work work! It would still be a prosecution if she so wished. Changing the name to 'hate crime' is not some kind of magic wand that is going to make Sinead into a completely different person.
That is what I think you seem to think, like it would some sort of panacea for all the ills of society at large.

In the UK where they have 'hate crime' on the books there are issues abut how it is reported and recorded.

Not only that some in the UK want to add other groups to 'hate crime' legislation.
Such as ageism, misandry and misogyny. :eek:

When in reality those crimes can already be prosecuted as just crimes.

Some in the UK want to create a 'hate crime' stew and throw everything in it for the sake of optics and social justice.
To protect 'British values' whatever that means...

In the words of a UK police officer when asked about about a scenario where ageism etc were now classed as hate crimes.
His comments were' though it noble it is not needed'.
"This is encouraging the culture of allegation"
'[a policeman] is not to the greater extent a social worker, this is political correctness gone to far'

Furthermore here is a talk in the the University of New York from 2009 by what you would term a 'legal expert'. Where he discusses hate crime laws in the USA very eloquently and simply.



He argues why hate crime laws are unnecessary and undesirable.

He covers a lot of the points I am trying to explain to you.
This the needless direction that Ireland would head towards if 'hate crime' legislation was implemented in Ireland.

Interestingly at @ 8.30 Jacobs says most of these 'hate crimes' are committed by teenagers, but they are not part of a neo-nazi party they do not have an ideology.

He continues:

'They just see people there and say let's go 'em. There are people there they are dressed funny, they do not have any deep seated program of attacking a minority'

(Similar to those lads in the OP's example with Sinead Burke.)

Also @9:10 Jacobs points out:
'This conduct that is captured by hate crime laws is already criminal we love criminal law in the United States'

(Note - This is similar to the current situation in Ireland except for the love of criminal law - we are not that bad yet)





@9;40 he talks of the needless re-criminalisation of actions that are already criminal

@10:02

'This is already criminal activity we are just going through and giving it a star'

(This is what 'hate crime legislation proponents in Ireland want to do as well)

In other words another layer is needlessness added for the sake of it and those crimes that are viewed as 'hate crimes' in the USA like Ireland can already be punished by existing regular criminal legislation.

Do you get the point now from an Irish standpoint is there really a need for that?
We have existing legislation that would punish those in Ms Burke's scenario if she so wished, there is no actual requirement for 'hate crime' law.

@14:00 Jacobs explains the proliferation of hate crime law in the USA.

'It is a way for advocacy groups to rally thier troops, No advocacy group wants to say the problem is pretty well solved.
The position is going to be we are under attack, we are more vulnerable than ever, we need your support we need your money.'

(The advocacy groups in Ireland do exactly the same thing)

Then what is produced is more law and more victim-hood.

(This victim-hood is viewed in the very article that the OP linked)

@16:45 Jacobs says

'Easy win for politicians, costs nothing, but of course it does nothing'.


(A quick net search for Ivana Bacik and hate crime confirms this, nice soundbites nothing more)


@ around 16:45 Jacobs continued -

'It is a misapplication of the affirmative action paradigm, it does nothing for the victims'




Then he talks about the politicisation of crime

@21:35 it turns something that was a consensus builder into something that was a decensus builder, so we can now fight about crime. Who's crime against who is really more serious. And isn't my victimisation more serious than your vicitimisation.

Ken.

Mod- No need for the giant writing.

gormdubhgorm

Also looking at the article again Sinead Burke as an activist seemed more interested in using her experience as a furtherance of her activism. To get bring notice to her cause and give more talks on it.

Her mother urged her to call gardai, which Ms Burke did. She wrote that gardai responded immediately, and an investigation commenced.

Ok I thought that is good thing.

But then Ms Burke then basically said that prosecuting these two teenagers would be a waste of time anyway!

If those boys were taken in and questioned, what would they learn, other than to not get caught?
They would likely not gain any understanding of how the arrogance of being able to jump four feet in the air
had frightened me in such an aggressive way

Shockingly she never thought of contacting a solicitor. And find at least those lads could be prosecuted under the non fatal offences of the person act 1997 when caught.

This is what those lads could get depending on how serious a judge views it - S10.2 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html#sec10

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both



So if Ms Burke thinks prosecuting those Teenagers under current Irish law would be waste of time -
I assume she thinks that prosecuting those same teenagers under any proposed 'hate crime' law would be a waste of time as well?

She seems more interested in creating awareness and espousing a victim-hood angle, while feeling empowered. But not really interested in using the full extent of law.

She seems more interested in the gardai becoming quasi-social workers

Ms Burke has spoken to trainee gardai in Templemoe College, asking them to "root their policing in empathy".

So after all the talk of need for 'hate crime' law in Ireland on this thread.
And is it one or not one?
The likelihood is all Sinead would do is write to the gardai and not take it any further.
What is the point in that?

"raising awareness"

yknow, that thing that doesnt involve any work, helps nobody but you can say you did it

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

"raising awareness"

yknow, that thing that doesnt involve any work, helps nobody but you can say you did it

It is a bit annoying. If she was that upset and felt that strongly about it why not go the whole hog?
She was not that bothered at the end of the day?
For all the talk of her 'value as person', she is not willing to actually fight her corner with the tools available in law.

I would really admire her if she did rather than just speak of 'understanding' and 'empathy'.
What does that really do?
It is like the end of the He-Man Masters of the Universe' where they used to give a moral code at the end of an episode.

Try singing a song if you feel down etc. :rolleyes:
Love and care deeply about others it is a very powerful magic.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What of course it would work work! It would still be a prosecution if she so wished. ]

I didn't ask you if it would work.

I asked you how it IS working.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I asked you how it IS working.

Quite well. This is the only incident of hate crime related leapfrogging that I can recall.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't ask you if it would work.

I asked you how it IS working.

See above, if someone like Sinead actual bother bringing these teenagers to court it would.

As I said above - I laid out why people like you seem to think creating 'hate crime' legislation would be a paneca to Sinead's incident.
It is already covered under regular criminal law and she chose not to persue it properly and just chooses to talk in wishy washy terms like 'understanding' 'awareness' 'empowerment' and so on.

Yet if there was 'hate crime' legislation exactly the same thing would happen she would report it - the headline would be sexier as it would actually have legal standing.
Bang - suddenly Sinead is now a 'hate crime' statistic!!! The advocacy groups would be falling over themselves to publish it, that is the only difference. But she would not have made use of the legislation anyway through the courts - as she does not see a point.
What can you do with a person that does not see to help themselves, but is only willing to talk a good game in touchy freely terminology?

I have explained it very clearly above (and in other posts) just asking me to repeat myself is pointless.

Yet Sinead would not bring her case any further as she would think there is no point.
Sinead is a woman who seems more concerned with 'optics' as an 'activist' rather than actual action as was proven in the article.
It does not matter what word is put on the crime she would not have taken real action.


If those boys were taken in and questioned, what would they learn, other than to not get caught? They would likely not gain any understanding of how the arrogance of being able to jump four feet in the air had frightened me in such an aggressive way.

"They wouldn’t see how scared I was or how easily they could have kicked me in the head or neck and caused serious physical harm. They would not be asked to answer questions about peer pressure or the importance of saying no when called upon to be an accomplice

When I was around the same age as these lads, I was more concerned with pausing Baywatch on the good bits, and finding the cheapest drink with the highest alcohol content.
Yet Sinead seems to think they are suddenly going to get an understanding?

It is all well and good going to Primary schools to -

encourage curiosity, challenge ignorance, empower them with a better vocabulary, and ask them to use their voices to make a difference.


That is He-Man moral lesson stuff, sounds great.

But after they grow up they become teenagers -
When they are male teenagers they are a different breed entirely.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite well. This is the only incident of hate crime related leapfrogging that I can recall.

Have you considered the possibility of other types of hate crimes?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Have you considered the possibility of other types of hate crimes?

Nope. They don't exist in Ireland thankfully.