Hate crime? Really?

Shemale

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So leapfrogging is a thing now on nights out? Who do you think that you're kidding?

So drunk people doing things they dont normally do isnt a thing? Who do you think you are kidding?

I was in a niteclub before and two girls came over and said, "do you think you could do the Dirty Dancing lift?" and I said I think so and the girls took a turn runming to me and I lifted them over my head like in the film. I can tell you now that situation would never have occurred at lunchtime on a Tuesday in a shopping centre or on a footpath.

You might note earlier I called the guys that jumped and filmed toerags and said something like toerags are toerags, that situation isnt normal irrespective of dwarfism or someone else short in stature. Scumbgs do this, normal decent people dont

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, really. It says so much more about you that you feel threatened by the idea of an activist. Go have a look at her Ted talk and see if you think her activism is necessary.

:eek:

This is really silly.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm a bit confused now. Is this a Yes or a No answer as to whether hate crimes happen in Ireland?

If there is one thing we can all agree on on this thread, it is that yes you are definitely 'confused' full stop.

I have elaborated on the answer to this question on numerous occasions. and applied proposed legislation and current legislation to it.
I have stated things extremely clearly.
I suggest you re-read my posts and try and educate yourself on the issue, rather than seeing what you wish to see.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I could be wrong of course.

Yes indeed.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If there is one thing we can all agree on on this thread, it is that yes you are definitely 'confused' full stop.

I have elaborated on the answer to this question on numerous occasions. and applied proposed legislation and current legislation to it.
I have stated things extremely clearly.
I suggest you re-read my posts and try and educate yourself on the issue, rather than seeing what you wish to see.

Very interesting to see that you can't give a clear Yes or No answer to a simple question. Is that because you know well that the answer is YES but you just can't possibly bear to admit your mistake?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes indeed.

Deflection again that seems to be your super power.
Which vulnerable group do you consider yourself to be in AndrewJRenko?

You have the floor and everyone's undivided attention.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Very interesting to see that you can't give a clear Yes or No answer to a simple question. Is that because you know well that the answer is YES but you just can't possibly bear to admit your mistake?

It is not very interesting I have on numerous occasions! You just refuse to read or understand the posts to the point of deliberate obtuseness.
So I repeat myself over and over again, where you seem to lack a simple understanding of the issue.
You refuse to even read posts and declare what a hate crime means to you.

At this stage I have to ask myself are you trolling on this thread?

The simple answer is there is no 'hate crime' in Ireland. Both from a legal and layman's standpoint.
Only in the minds of the lobbyists who are agenda led, and people such as yourself. They then force others to use this term like on this thread for example.

A vaccum cleaner is not strictly called a 'hoover'.
Hoover is a brand of vacuum cleaner.
But some use that term is incorrectly used when describing a vaccum cleaner by many in Ireland.
We know what that person means, but they are strictly incorrect.
It is merely an incorrect appropriation of a term now we have 'hoovering' etc.
The term has been used incorrectly for so long it has become accepted in it's usage in normal conversation.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hoover

It is the same when a person uses the term 'hate crime' in Ireland to describe harassment or assault etc etc. It is incorrect.
It is not even a correct appropriation of a term at layman's level - it is mostly for done agenda based political reasons - 'identity politics'
From a legal level 'hate crime' is not a crime it is not legislated for in Ireland.

But how can I explain how the term 'hate crime' has come into the lexicon, when you yourself do not seem to understand what the term means to you and who it applies from your point of view?
If you do not understand from that level how can you understand it from a legal standpoint?

AndrewJRenko

Shemale wrote: »

So drunk people doing things they dont normally do isnt a thing? Who do you think you are kidding?

I was in a niteclub before and two girls came over and said, "do you think you could do the Dirty Dancing lift?" and I said I think so and the girls took a turn runming to me and I lifted them over my head like in the film. I can tell you now that situation would never have occurred at lunchtime on a Tuesday in a shopping centre or on a footpath.

You might note earlier I called the guys that jumped and filmed toerags and said something like toerags are toerags, that situation isnt normal irrespective of dwarfism or someone else short in stature. Scumbgs do this, normal decent people dont

Drunks? Sure. Dirty Dancing? Sure. Picking people up? Sure.

But leapfrogging? Let's be honest - you don't know short people that this happened to.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You refuse to even read posts and declare what a hate crime means to you.

I declared days ago that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crimes means to me.

Now it's your turn - can you please give a straight Yes or No answer as to whether hate crimes happen in Ireland?

Shemale

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, really. It says so much more about you that you feel threatened by the idea of an activist. Go have a look at her Ted talk and see if you think her activism is necessary.

LMAO, threatened ?

My issue is people calling themselves "activist" when they are merely in it for career / ego purposes. Its just snowflake garbage.

A close relative of mine is disabled as a result of a childhood disease. She worked all her life, she is very kind, loads of friends, great craic, she never let it get her down, never took **** or special treatment. Now she is in her 70s and has always made herself available to be poked and prodded in hospital to aid research to try eradicate the disease. Not once has she used her condition to get special treatment, preached through media or called herself an "activist"she is merely inspirational by her actions.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Deflection again that seems to be your super power.
Which vulnerable group do you consider yourself to be in AndrewJRenko?

You have the floor and everyone's undivided attention.

Why would I want or need to disclose personal information to you?

AndrewJRenko

Shemale wrote: »

LMAO, threatened ?

My issue is people calling themselves "activist" when they are merely in it for career / ego purposes. Its just snowflake garbage.

A close relative of mine is disabled as a result of a childhood disease. She worked all her life, she is very kind, loads of friends, great craic, she never let it get her down, never took **** or special treatment. Now she is in her 70s and has always made herself available to be poked and prodded in hospital to aid research to try eradicate the disease. Not once has she used her condition to get special treatment, preached through media or called herself an "activist"she is merely inspirational by her actions.

Good for her. A lot of the services that she gets know are available to her because of the activists of previous generations who ensured that people with disabilities are not locked away in homes.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would I want or need to disclose personal information to you?

Deflection again, but I have told you I had no issue with it.
So now you can pretend that you may or may not be from a so called 'vulnerable group' in this thread.

It is an interesting tactic. Considering you did not know the basic difference between positive discrimination and disabled accessibility.
I sincerely doubt whether you are in a 'vulnerable group' as you term it. Plus you made offensive comments about those with mental disabilities earlier in the thread. With an hilarious 'horny analogy' for sexual assault. You would not commit assault on a person with mental disabilities because you were horny - I believe you said.

If I were to put you in a group it would be a bluffer group.
I could lobby to put that in proposed hate crime legislation for you.

Plus at this stage if I saw you on the street I would probably feel like battering you. Not because of what group you are from.
Just because you are a bit of an @rse!

gormdubhgorm

Shemale wrote: »

LMAO, threatened ?

My issue is people calling themselves "activist" when they are merely in it for career / ego purposes. Its just snowflake garbage.

A close relative of mine is disabled as a result of a childhood disease. She worked all her life, she is very kind, loads of friends, great craic, she never let it get her down, never took **** or special treatment. Now she is in her 70s and has always made herself available to be poked and prodded in hospital to aid research to try eradicate the disease. Not once has she used her condition to get special treatment, preached through media or called herself an "activist"she is merely inspirational by her actions.

Finally someone who get's the issue.
Fair play. I could not have put it better myself.
The lobbyists like the ICCL are more interested in thier organisations self-promotion to make money, not for those they purport to represent.
I do not doubt Sinead feels good about herself while doing her activism.
But the reality is people will always single out difference, even the person with glasses and braces in class etc.
It is not only those from the 'trendy' so called vulnerable groups who get assaulted.

Shemale

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Good for her. A lot of the services that she gets know are available to her because of the activists of previous generations who ensured that people with disabilities are not locked away in homes.

Some man for the assumptions arent you? I said she never looked for or took special treatment. Her parents paid taxes, like every citizen she got treated in hospital until she wasnt contagious and fit to go home. She moved to Dublin to get a job, in time bought her own apartment and drove a modifed car. Some people are tough and get on with it, others wallow and call themselves activists for their own benefit.

No comparison between real activists and snowflaked self professed and self serving activists.

Anyway you are peddling your agenda so I will leave you to it.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Good for her. A lot of the services that she gets know are available to her because of the activists of previous generations who ensured that people with disabilities are not locked away in homes.

Not so long ago on this thread you were claiming I was one of those who wanted to lock the disabled away in homes as well.

As Shemale said you are clearly peddling an agenda.
But worst still you do not seem to have a grasp of the issues at all, even from a proposed Hate Crime Bill standpoint, or even why you think 'hate crime' legislation should be a term. Or what real benefits using the term does in your own view!
I think Shemale is right at this stage you are best left to your own devices.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I declared days ago that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crimes means to me.

Now it's your turn - can you please give a straight Yes or No answer as to whether hate crimes happen in Ireland?

I did not ask for wikipedia's defintion.
I asked for your view in your own words.

I already have given you detailed answers and explained this on this very page - AGAIN.
But I will leave you to it at this stage. It is pointless responding to you. as this thread demonstrates.
I will follow the advice of this site and ignore you.
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-internet-trolling-3485891

AndrewJRenko

Shemale wrote: »

Some man for the assumptions arent you? I said she never looked for or took special treatment.

I never mentioned 'special treatment'. Ensuring that people with disabilities have access to normal services, including normal hospitals, modified cars and more is a direct result of the activism of previous generations.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not ask for wikipedia's defintion.
I asked for your view in your own words.

But I will leave you to it at this stage it is pointless responding to you as this thread demonstrates.

I'm happy with the Wiki definition thanks. I'm not here to do homework for you.

Now your turn - any chance of a straight answer to the Yes or No question?

gormdubhgorm

This message is hidden because AndrewJRenko is on your ignore list.

There might be some who consider this a 'hate crime'......

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This message is hidden because AndrewJRenko is on your ignore list.

There might be some who consider this a 'hate crime'......

After all those days of discussion, and you couldn't answer a simple Yes or No question. I wonder why.

Omackeral

Andrew, did someone leapfrog you before?

gormdubhgorm

Earlier on this thread I used the scenario if Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh was harassed/assaulted because she had Ginger hair and was an Irish speaking woman would it be considered a hate crime'?
(Notably it was not answered by the most vocal advocate of hate crime to 'protect' vulnerable groups on this thread)

Well under proposed Irish legislation the Criminal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015 would make such instances a hate crime.

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

But it would lead to extreme division. Plus create unnecessary laws which are already covered under assault and harassment. etc.
Hate crime legislation focuses on difference for difference sake. It does not focus on real positive affirmative action, such as job creation which would really benefit those groups it is claiming to help'.

I notice the strong advocates of hate crime legislation immediately only think of LGBT, disabled groups, or different racial groups.
They do not think of the wider consequence such legislation could have.

Look at this hyperbole and creation of further lines of division when discussing Blaithnaid and her struggles to use the Irish language in Ireland.
It hardly creates a inclusive atmosphere does it?

https://ansionnachfionn.com/2012/03/03/lets-speak-the-truth-those-who-hate-irish-speakers-do-so-because-they-are-racists/

I assume some proponents of hate crime legislation only mean to include the same groups that are always listed - LGBT, Race, disability - and will have some cognitive dissonance if other categories such as age, language etc are included in that definition.

First and foremost they might not think others should be listed in a protective group alongside thier group. As they feel that thier group are real victims and others are not!
It creates competition among the groups for 'recognition' - among the groups when placed alongside each other.
xyz against blacks is a 'hate crime'?
xyz against an Irish speaker is a 'hate crime'?

People who call crimes 'hate crimes', normally have an identity politics agenda - politically correct.
But they do not realise/choose to ignore it's negative consequences - as it is dangerous and divisive.
Needlessly, placing people in separate boxes with the stroke of a pen is not inclusive - protected groups etc.
So they are not worthy of being called (just) crimes like the ones everyone else has?
Assault harassment etc are no longer good enough terms for those with an agenda.
They must at all costs encourage victim-hood for a 'cause'!

Currently there is no hate crime in Ireland from a layman's point of view and legal point of view.
There are only those who seek to add a further layer of division by re-branding existing current criminal law legislation - to suit thier agenda - to hell with it's consequence.
It is a sad state of affairs, when you really think about it.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Currently there is no hate crime in Ireland from a layman's point of view and legal point of view. There are only those who seek to add a further layer of division by re-branding existing current criminal law legislation - to suit thier agenda - to hell with it's consequence

Yeah but..... Yes or no?

Legend_DIT

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

After all those days of discussion, and you couldn't answer a simple Yes or No question. I wonder why.

‘The simple answer is there is no 'hate crime' in Ireland. Both from a legal and layman's standpoint’ - posted at 11.32 with further clarification...

I don’t have a dog in this fight but it does seem the yes or no question was answered.

AndrewJRenko

Omackeral wrote: »

Andrew, did someone leapfrog you before?

Yes, they did. And I leapfrogged them back. They were good days in High Babies (as Senior Infants used to be called).

AndrewJRenko

Legend_DIT wrote: »

‘The simple answer is there is no 'hate crime' in Ireland. Both from a legal and layman's standpoint’ - posted at 11.32 with further clarification...

I don’t have a dog in this fight but it does seem the yes or no question was answered.

That’s actually a slightly different question to the one I asked - which is "do hate crimes happen in Ireland"?

gormdubhgorm

From an American point of view here is synopsis of the term 'Hate Crime' in america.

https://www.factretriever.com/hate-crime-facts.

It is very fair and explains how the term 'hate crime' came into esistance in America.
It also explains its definition clearly which some of those on the other side of the argument to me, seem to fail to grasp.

There is also this point in it number 9 -

Although the existence of hate-based organizations has increased in recent years, the number of actual hate crimes committed has not, leading some to believe that hate crime laws do not deter Americans from bias and that hate crimes are largely not being committed by those who engage in hateful speech.


I would also argue how can you criminalise thought?
If one person commits a physical assault on another person and says nothing, writes nothing, and made no indications they were going to single that person out for a bias based on 'difference' How do you prove thier motivations - was there a bias there?

'Hate Crime' legislation can easily be circumvented it the perpetrator is sophisticated enough.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Currently there is no hate crime in Ireland from a layman's point of view .

Though it's interesting to note that the term is used on a regular basis by journalists and politicians.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Although the existence of hate-based organizations has increased in recent years, the number of actual hate crimes committed has not, leading some to believe that hate crime laws do not deter Americans from bias and that hate crimes are largely not being committed by those who engage in hateful speech.

Perhaps the absence of increase in the hate crime numbers is due to the effectiveness of the hate crime legislation as a deterrent?