Hate crime? Really?

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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

She reported the issue to the Gardai. What more do you want her to do?

But it interesting to see how your first reaction is to blame the victim anyway.

That and playing the old "boys will be boys" thinking that has been used for a generation or two to enable and empower bullying, physical assault and sexual assault.

Classy.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But it interesting to see how your first reaction is to blame the victim anyway.

First reaction? Come off it.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That and playing the old "boys will be boys" thinking that has been used for a generation or two to enable and empower bullying, physical assault and sexual assault.

What? You think we as a society are empowering bullying, physical assault and sexual assault?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Classy.

Pot kettle.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

First reaction? Come off it.

That's his opening comment in the post - to blame Sinead for not going to Court, even though the article is clear that she's already reported the matter to Gardai - so I've no idea what he's actually blaming her for.

Deleted User wrote: »

What? You think we as a society are empowering bullying, physical assault and sexual assault?

Yes, we are - with this 'male teenagers they are a different breed entire' nonsense, as if there is some genetic predisposition. This isn't about male teenagers - this is about all those who perpetrate hate crime, whether male or female, young or old, but maybe he's too busy taking a shot a Sinead to notice.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yes, we are - with this 'male teenagers they are a different breed entire' nonsense, as if there is some genetic predisposition. This isn't about male teenagers - this is about all those who perpetrate hate crime, whether male or female, young or old, but maybe he's too busy taking a shot a Sinead to notice.

We as a society are more liberal than we ever have been, at least in my lifetime.

Nobody is saying that male teenagers are a different breed. We are saying that unfortunately, some people are arseholes. That will always be the way. Happily, most people don't find it acceptable.

And yet again, nobody perpetrates hate crime. It doesn't exist.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. They don't exist in Ireland thankfully.

The Garda Research Unit seems to disagree with you, but maybe you'd prefer that they bury their head in the sand too?


https://www.garda.ie/en/About-Us/Publications/Research-Publications/A-review-of-research-on-victimisation-of-the-Gay-and-Lesbian-community-in-Ireland.pdf


I'd guess the family of Declan Flynn would be interested to hear that we don't have hate crimes here. Can they get Declan back then now please?


This young actor who ended up with 11 stitches would like to have his looks and his confidence back too please.


Collie McQuillan would like his four front teeth back please and his jaw unfractured, if that's OK with you?


Gary Daly would like the piece bitten out of his nose back please.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that male teenagers are a different breed.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet again, nobody perpetrates hate crime. It doesn't exist.

Have you told the Garda Research Unit? Because they come across it fairly regularly.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

would be interested to hear that we don't have hate crimes here. Can they get Declan back then now please?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

would like to have his looks and his confidence back too please.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

would like his four front teeth back please and his jaw unfractured, if that's OK with you?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

would like the piece bitten out of his nose back please.

All horrific crimes which nobody is denying. You can call them hate crimes if you want. Doesn't make it so.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

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

Ah.... I missed that one. I see that Andrew has decided to take this completely literally and out of context with the rest of the post.

Easy mistake to make I suppose. Must be exhausting choosing what words actually mean stuff and which don't.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

All horrific crimes which nobody is denying. You can call them hate crimes if you want. Doesn't make it so.

Just to be clear, I wasn't looking for your permission. I can indeed call them hate crimes. Garda research unit call them hate crimes. Much of the press and media call them hate crimes. Many people impacted by these hate crimes call them hate crimes.


Let's not pretend that I'm the odd one out here.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wasn't looking for your permission. I can indeed call them hate crimes. Garda research unit call them hate crimes. Much of the press and media call them hate crimes. Many people impacted by these hate crimes call them hate crimes.


Let's not pretend that I'm the odd one out here.

So basically you did not read my post about the motivations behind calling them 'hate crimes' etc

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Let's not pretend that I'm the odd one out here.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm just saying that you are undeniably wrong.

You don't need my permission. You can be wilfully wrong all you like.

You've already laughably stated that gay marriage existed in Ireland before it did.

You are entitled to be as wrong as you like. Just don't pretend that you aren't. You aren't the odd one out; you're just wrong.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's his opening comment in the post - to blame Sinead for not going to Court, even though the article is clear that she's already reported the matter to Gardai - so I've no idea what he's actually blaming her for.

Re-read my posts. You seem to only see what you want to see, it is clear from her comments in the post.

Either that or it beyond your comprehension, you are being obtuse, or you are just a wind up merchant having a bit of craic.
Either way I think you should actually read my posts I highlight bits in bold and everything.
There is a lot of cogent argument there from experts in the field and other jurisdictions which already have hate crimes.
I have went through legislation both proposed and current and applied it to Sinead's case.

You just seem like one of those types who just don't want to be educated on matters that they have little knowledge in.
You offer little in analysis and actual debate, just asking vague questions when you seem stuck for something to say. Or else if the point does not suit you at all you conveniently ignore it.

I tried my best, I really did. But I am not sure your able for proper discussion for reasons known only to yourself.

Yet straight off one of your first comments to me on this thread was:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ah, I get it now - you want to go back to the 60s and 70s where people with disabilities are locked away in institutions and not talked about because they make you feel uncomfortable.

That was quickly debunked by me.
So after all that debate since then you have now resorted to claiming after all the posts inbetween, my first reaction was to blame Sinead.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She reported the issue to the Gardai. What more do you want her to do?

But it interesting to see how your first reaction is to blame the victim anyway.

That and playing the old "boys will be boys" thinking that has been used for a generation or two to enable and empower bullying, physical assault and sexual assault.

Classy.

For a person who like's saying 'hate crime' a lot you yourself seem to have a certain level of bias towards me. Considering that I qualify being in the 'protected group' - using your own logic you are committing a hate crime by causing me discomfort and attempting to humiliate me.
As Sinead herself put it you are attempting to 'weaponize social media'


In between those comments you have demonstrated the following -

1) You do not seem to grasp that the OP asked a question.

2) You displayed a real lack of knowledge of the difference between disabled accessibility, and positive discrimination

3) You added fuel to the fire by unwittingly insulting all people with learning difficulties, by claiming that if you had sex with a person with a mental disability it would not be because you are horny - it would be because you are sexually assaulting them

4) You also do not seem to understand the definition of what a 'hate crime' is exactly to you. When challenged on this you duck and dive and go on about wikipedia and international law.

5) You do not seem to understand that current Irish legislation would work perfectly fine without the addition of 'hate crime' legislation - for people such as Sinead. The talk Jacobs gave in NYU covers the same arguments why hate crime is unnecessary in the USA

6) You also do not seem to understand the motivation of lobby groups to create hate crime. It is not for the benefit of the victim but so the lobby group can claim victim-hood and generate funds for themselves.

7) There are other claims you made how Gay Marriage existed in Ireland before the referendum showing that you have a real lack of knowledge of law in general - family law and contract law in particular.
Yet somehow you claim you proved you were right!

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

For a person who like's saying 'hate crime' a lot you yourself seem to have a certain level of bias towards me. Considering that I qualify being in the 'protected group' - using your own logic you are committing a hate crime by causing me discomfort and attempting to humiliate me. As Sinead herself put it you are attempting to 'weaponize social media'

That is such a good point. Andrew, by your own very definition, are you now a hate criminal?

Emotional distress caused by your online comments has been experienced by someone who you deem a protected minority. That is as harming and alarming as someone whooshing over another persons head is it not? Or is emotional trauma trivial to you?

What should your punishment be?

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

That is such a good point. Andrew, by your own very definition, are you now a hate criminal?

Emotional distress caused by your online comments has been experienced by someone who you deem a protected minority. That is as harming and alarming as someone whooshing over another persons head is it not? Or is emotional trauma trivial to you?

What should your punishment be?

I looked the proposed Crimnal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015.

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

If it was enacted into legislation I believe this would be the most relevant section as this is a 'public place'?


6A Bias motivated threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place

(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of
the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned where
such words or behaviour are motivated (wholly or partly) by bias against members of a
protected group based on their membership, or their presumed membership, of that group.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding €1000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3
months or to both.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything. I'm just saying that you are undeniably wrong.

You don't need my permission. You can be wilfully wrong all you like.

You've already laughably stated that gay marriage existed in Ireland before it did.

You are entitled to be as wrong as you like. Just don't pretend that you aren't. You aren't the odd one out; you're just wrong.

And the Garda Research Unit - they're undeniably wrong too?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And the Garda Research Unit - they're undeniably wrong too?

Yes. If they think there is any legislation for hate crime in Ireland.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And the Garda Research Unit - they're undeniably wrong too?

I think I can clear this one up I looked at thier website.
It is clearly written for 'the ordinary man on the street' as an easy catch all term.

The examples of the loosely termed 'hate crimes' listed on the site are already covered by a myriad of Irish legislation.

Verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder

https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Hate-crime/Examples-of-hate-crime-.html

They have appropriated the 'umbrella term' as it is easier to understand for those from other jurisdictions, this is who it seems to be primarily aimed at judging by the various files in different languages.
https://www.garda.ie/en/crime-prevention/community-engagement/community-engagement-offices/the-garda-racial-intercultural-diversity-office/

But the Gardai continue to work under current relevant legislation even though an actual offence of 'Hate Crime' in itself does not exist in Irish legislation.

The Garda Research Website vaguely defines it as 'motivated by hate' which is imprecise and can mean anything. Which clearly shows to me it is mostly aimed at immigrants in particular when read in context with racial diversity section. They have tried to keep the language simple and basic.

(Plus the Gardai are not legal experts it clearly says on the website seek the advice of a solicitor)

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

(Plus the Gardai are not legal experts it clearly says on the website seek the advice of a solicitor)

Well done sir

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. If they think there is any legislation for hate crime in Ireland.

Wrong question.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think I can clear this one up I looked at thier website.
It is clearly written for 'the ordinary man on the street' as an easy catch all term.

Fascinating - so for the ordinary 'man on the street' or perhaps even 'man on the bulletin board', it's a good term to use then. Good to know.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fascinating - so for the ordinary 'man on the street' or perhaps even 'man on the bulletin board', it's a good term to use then. Good to know.

It is not a good term to use when a question is asked is this a 'hate crime' incidemt.
There is no set legal definition of what a 'hate crime' is in Ireland.
There is no decision on who it applies to, there is no decision on whether it applies to public property for example.

So when the term 'hate crime' is used it could theoretically cover a wide range of crimes that are already on the Irish statute books.

But the hate prefix gets added in lay mans terms purely as window dressing and a drive towards towards unnecessary political correctness, headed by lobby groups and activists.
When in reality Sinead's incident is very arguably already an offence under the non-fatal offences against the person act 1997. As it would for all people in the Republic of Ireland in the same scenario

The prefix 'hate' is not only unnecessary, but divisive.
It it is a move towards the 'how does that make you feel' society.
It is nothing more than window dressing on laws that are already there.

In jurisdictions where 'hate crime' is actually another unnecessary layer of crime
It is extremely tenuous and has to prove the persons motivations.

As the American Criminal Law expert (James B.Jacobs) eloquently explained perpetrators can actually easily avoid falling into the defition of a 'hate crime' in America by not making it obvious and keeping thier mouths shut, or not explicitly demonstrating that do like a particular minority group
But the perpetrators carry on with thier 'regular' criminal actions regardless.
Then it that is where it difficulty lies.
Then the whole thing becomes superfluous and regular legislation/criminal law would end up been used anyway.

In Ireland the real term for what happened Snead is the crime called harrassment which is an offence under S.10.2 under the non-fatal offences of the person act 1997.

The real reason the journalist used the term 'hate crime' is because of her agenda. Also because it makes a good headline attracts attention - as this thread proves

'Sinead Burke talks about the harassment led to her new campaign in Dublin schools'

It does not have the same ring to it does it?

What I suggest you do since you seem to show a great interest in the subject is that you ask the OP's question in the legal issues section on boards.ie.
There might be some qualified legal professionals there can explain this more eloquently than I have done?

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a good term to use when a question is asked is this a 'hate crime' incidemt.
There is no set legal definition of what a 'hate crime' is in Ireland.

The OP didn't ask about a set legal definition. He asked about calling this incident a hate crime.

And it can be called a hate crime. I've called it that repeatedly. Sinead called it a hate crime.

Garda researchers called lots of incidents hate crimes.

This may come as a shock to you, but it is possible to use term that don't have set legal definitions in everyday conversations: terms like 'hate crime'.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And it can be called a hate crime. I've called it that repeatedly. Sinead called it a hate crime.

Well that's confusing. Perhaps you should use words that are accurate rather than ones that are wrong.

I mean, you COULD say that right is left and up is down, but it wouldn't make it so and people would more than likely have less faith in you being correct on a range of topics.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The OP didn't ask about a set legal definition. He asked about calling this incident a hate crime.

And it can be called a hate crime. I've called it that repeatedly. Sinead called it a hate crime.

Garda researchers called lots of incidents hate crimes.

This may come as a shock to you, but it is possible to use term that don't have set legal definitions in everyday conversations: terms like 'hate crime'.

But that is an 'umbrella term' you are using which is appropriated from other jurisdictions.

Your beloved Garda research unit list crimes under that 'catch all prefix'
as follows


Verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder

I assume the Garda Research Unit are using the prefix 'hate crime' because they want to be extremely politically correct as they have a racial and diversity section. Plus it sounds good for the lobby groups/activists who are obviously putting pressure to use these unnecessary politically correct terms.

In Sinead's case it is called harassment. All the offences listed by the Gardai are offences that can be committed by any upon another person.
If you want to use the term hate crime to be politically correct, and appear like you really care about diversity and difference fair play to ya.
But it is just window dressing, it is not needed nor it is really helpful.
In fact, as I have demonstrated in other jurisdictions where it is there is 'hate crime' law. It is actually counter productive, as one minority group rates thier crimes against them as more serious than another group.
Then the lobby groups try to 'out victim' each other.

If there was hate crime legislation in Ireland, and old people were not included how long would it be before 'age action' kick up a stink about it?

Personally I find the whole use of the term patronising towards all those who would be listed as a 'protected group', if there was hate crime legislation in Ireland.
In a roundabout way it is like saying they are second class citizens/or a non-human species as regular current legislation is not deemed sufficient.
That is not real affirmative action (like helping minority groups get employment). It is window dressing for the 'appearance' of a more tolerant society.

But you can continue using the word 'hate crime' if you wish I am sure you have ideas in your head over who it should apply to and should not.
You have yet to say so.
But as I said it is just an unnecessarily invented term that was first coined in America to try to deal with racial issues they have, then every minority group wanted a piece of the action.
It looks great data and figures can be generated, politicians can be lobbied etc etc. It's a money spinner.

Are you now are able to think to yourself that 'protected groups' are not some homogeneous group as the politically correct like to paint it.
Even among the disabled community there are different viewpoints and opinions.
But those that make the laws are invariably outside these so called 'protected groups' They are put under pressure by vocal lobbyists who have ulterior agendas (they want to spin news - create interest and money for thier group - fight the cause).
But this does not take into account the majority people who some of this groups proport to represent who are 'put into a box' by a small cohort of the 'groups' leadership. But in reality it is just the furtherance of the 'protected group' leaderships agenda so the rest of society politicians etc go along with it.

You can continue to use the word 'hate crime' if you wish (you are well meaning) but don't hate me for saying it is silly and patronising.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well that's confusing. Perhaps you should use words that are accurate rather than ones that are wrong.

I mean, you COULD say that right is left and up is down, but it wouldn't make it so and people would more than likely have less faith in you being correct on a range of topics.

The words are perfectly accurate. If you ask a different question, as to whether they are considered hate crimes in Irish law, you'll get a different answer. But for the question asked, it's a valid, correct answer.

Why don't you just be honest and identify the real barrier here as your own personal ideology. It's not a language issue. You just can't see past your ideology to what is actually happening.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But that is an 'umbrella term' you are using which is appropriated from other jurisdictions.
.

Yes, that's correct - it is an umbrella term appropriated from other jurisdictions.

That doesn't mean it is wrong.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, that's correct - it is an umbrella term appropriated from other jurisdictions.

That doesn't mean it is wrong.

It does mean it is wrong where you just bandy the term about, without giving meaning to how you define the term.
It could mean anything as it is such a broad and vague term, it is not defined.

It is not like saying 'Hoover' for vacuum cleaner (whether you have a hoover or not.)
Your understanding of what the term 'hate crime' means needs to be elaborated on as it can mean different things to different people.

In your eyes does it apply to one group and not another, and if so why?
Why in your eyes, do you think there is there a need for using the term 'hate crime' in the first place?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The words are perfectly accurate. If you ask a different question, as to whether they are considered hate crimes in Irish law, you'll get a different answer. But for the question asked, it's a valid, correct answer.

Why don't you just be honest and identify the real barrier here as your own personal ideology. It's not a language issue. You just can't see past your ideology to what is actually happening.

I would argue that those who use the term 'hate crime' are coming from a strong personal ideology, an overly politically correct ideology. To the point of farce and unintended consequence.


Looking at the OP's example with Sinead Burke.
I would ask you what do you think is actually happening and why?

Now you have to decide the following:

What groups should fit your view of a hate crime?
What groups should not fit your understanding of 'hate crime', if any?
If so why would you exclude these other groups from your definition?


Here are two other scenarios -

If Sinead did not have any form of Achondroplasia Dwarfism and was an infirm old person with Osteoporosis (which made her shorter than average) would this be a 'hate crime ?

Would it be a hate crime? - if it was Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh who got verbally abused by teenagers because she was speaking Irish on the phone?
Also what if the colour of her hair was part of the subject of the abuse 'Ginger'?





The one thing is common all those three cases (Sinead Burke/Old Woman/ Blaithnaid) would have is that they would be termed as harassment already in Ireland. It has legislation.
Everyone, can understand that term legally trained or not.

But with the vague term 'hate crime' we have to decide how you 'the man on the street' views it.
This leads to many different interpretations/agendas of what is and what is not, as the term 'hate crime' is so broad in general usage.

You by using 'hate crime' as a stand alone term are being very politically correct, but unfortunately not very accurate.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Why don't you just be honest and identify the real barrier here as your own personal ideology. It's not a language issue. You just can't see past your ideology to what is actually happening.

Sorry what? My personal ideology that a hate crime should be a label for a crime motivated by hatred and not an exercise in presenting yourself as a bastion of political correctness?

Ok.

Sure.

So as was asked, where do you draw the line as to what is a hate crime? It has been mentioned that you, by your definition, have been guilty of a hate crime on this very thread, causing alarm and distress by your words to a person who has informed you that they were disabled.

Are you a hate criminal?

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It does mean it is wrong where you just bandy the term about, without giving meaning to how you define the term.
It could mean anything as it is such a broad and vague term, it is not defined.

What do you mean by 'bandy about'? That's such a broad and vague term. It could mean anything. You can't go calling things 'bandied about'.

See how ridiculous it is?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry what? My personal ideology that a hate crime should be a label for a crime motivated by hatred and not an exercise in presenting yourself as a bastion of political correctness?

Ok.

Sure.

Apology accepted.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So as was asked, where do you draw the line as to what is a hate crime? It has been mentioned that you, by your definition, have been guilty of a hate crime on this very thread, causing alarm and distress by your words to a person who has informed you that they were disabled.

Are you a hate criminal?

You should probably refer the matter to the Gardai, because everything is well covered by existing legislation, right?