Hate crime? Really?

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If we remind ourselves of AGS definition, which seems to be the first definition used, you'll see it actually does...

First definition used? Used by who? For what?


The standard Wiki definition of hate crime does not include hate. Any of the definitions in national legislation from the many other countries that have hate crime legislation do not include hate, though I don't claim to have done exhaustive research on this.


I don't really have time to go back over that old ground again and again. There is no legal definition of hate crime in Ireland. Whatever definition the Gardai use is for their own purposes, and has no impact on how crimes are prosecuted or sentenced. It has all the hallmarks of something made up internally, rather than something that went through the rigour of policy development and legislation.

We're in Ireland, i'll use our national police service's definition, seeing as it was the first definition introduced to the thread.

"By whom" you shrill.
As you say yourself "I don't really have time to go back over that old ground again and again".

If one is advocating for prosecutions of "hate crimes", one should really inform themselves rather than a judicial position grounded in Wiki, and repeatedly bleating about a point long lost.

You really are a parody.
Great craic though.

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're in Ireland, i'll use our national police service's definition, seeing as it was the first definition introduced to the thread.

Of course, you're welcome to use whatever definition you choose.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"By whom" you shrill.

Meaow.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If one is advocating for prosecutions of "hate crimes", one should really inform themselves rather than a judicial position grounded in Wiki, and repeatedly bleating about a point long lost.

I'd have thought that it would be sensible to recognise the difference between something made up by a police force for their own limited purposes and something that has gone through the rigour of policy development and legislative drafting. It's like comparing a Sunday morning jumpers-for-goalposts soccer team with the premier league. The wiki definition and the many similar legal definitions that are active in the many countries that have hate crime legislation, and manage to operate that legislation every day without getting tied up with the silly scenarios that you pose.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Great craic though.

So my friends tell me.

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're in Ireland, i'll use our national police service's definition, seeing as it was the first definition introduced to the thread.

Of course, you're welcome to use whatever definition you choose.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"By whom" you shrill.

Meaow.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If one is advocating for prosecutions of "hate crimes", one should really inform themselves rather than a judicial position grounded in Wiki, and repeatedly bleating about a point long lost.

I'd have thought that it would be sensible to recognise the difference between something made up by a police force for their own limited purposes and something that has gone through the rigour of policy development and legislative drafting. It's like comparing a Sunday morning jumpers-for-goalposts soccer team with the premier league. The wiki definition and the many similar legal definitions that are active in the many countries that have hate crime legislation, and manage to operate that legislation every day without getting tied up with the silly scenarios that you pose.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Great craic though.

So my friends tell me.

We're in Ireland.
I'll use the closest we have to a definition, from our police force, the ones who would enforce such crimes, handily also the first one posted in the thread, rather than a wiki definition that u or i can edit.

You can continue waving your beaten docket claiming you "dont have time to explain things", and Dunne (?) has seen the error of his ways thanks to your tutelage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Laughing faces your fate.

And the "silly scenarios" should be easily dismissed. Yet alas...

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're in Ireland.
I'll use the closest we have to a definition, from our police force, the ones who would enforce such crimes, handily also the first one posted in the thread, rather than a wiki definition that u or i can edit.

You can continue waving your beaten docket claiming you "dont have time to explain things", and Dunne (?) has seen the error of his ways thanks to your tutelage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Laughing faces your fate.

And the "silly scenarios" should be easily dismissed. Yet alas...

It may be the closest definition, but it's not in legislation, unlike the many other definitions used in many other countries, which don't include 'hate' in the definition.

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're in Ireland.
I'll use the closest we have to a definition, from our police force, the ones who would enforce such crimes, handily also the first one posted in the thread, rather than a wiki definition that u or i can edit.

You can continue waving your beaten docket claiming you "dont have time to explain things", and Dunne (?) has seen the error of his ways thanks to your tutelage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Laughing faces your fate.

And the "silly scenarios" should be easily dismissed. Yet alas...

It may be the closest definition, but it's not in legislation, unlike the many other definitions used in many other countries, which don't include 'hate' in the definition.

Yet here we are with "silly scenarios" /"edge cases" you're unwilling to address, because the answer will reveal not only the difficulties with this legislation, but also your bias.

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Yet here we are with "silly scenarios" /"edge cases" you're unwilling to address, because the answer will reveal not only the difficulties with this legislation, but also your bias.

How come many, many other countries manage perfectly well with legislation based around definitions similar to the Wiki definition, regardless of what edge cases arise?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

How come many, many other countries manage perfectly well with legislation based around definitions similar to the Wiki definition, regardless of what edge cases arise?

How about you answer the question that many people have asked rather than deflecting?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

How about you answer the question that many people have asked rather than deflecting?

That is the answer to the question. I don't need to be an expert in dealing with edge cases to show that these aren't a barrier to implementing hate crime legislation.


I just point to the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation without getting bunged up on edge cases.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That is the answer to the question. I don't need to be an expert in dealing with edge cases to show that these aren't a barrier to implementing hate crime legislation.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I just point to the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation without getting bunged up on edge cases.

Is calling someone fat a hate crime in your opinion?

Fair enough chief. It's over. Don't worry.

You either have to admit that you:

A) have no opinion
it is a hate crime
C) it's not a hate crime
D) deflect and point to a different country

We asked your opinion. That's all.

If you aren't willing to give your opinion, then frankly, why are you on a discussion board?

I don't expect an answer buddy. I expect a question or a veiled jibe that just floats under the mods radar.

Talk soon

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is calling someone fat a hate crime in your opinion?

Fair enough chief. It's over. Don't worry.

You either have to admit that you:

A) have no opinion
it is a hate crime
C) it's not a hate crime
D) deflect and point to a different country

We asked your opinion. That's all.

If you aren't willing to give your opinion, then frankly, why are you on a discussion board?

I don't expect an answer buddy. I expect a question or a veiled jibe that just floats under the mods radar.

Talk soon

You think I'm here for your entertainment, chief buddy?

How about option E

I just point to the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation without getting bunged up on edge cases.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You think I'm here for your entertainment, chief buddy?

No. I'm thought you were here to give your opinion.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

How about option E

I'm all ears.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I just point to the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation without getting bunged up on edge cases.

So, option d.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. I'm thought you were here to give your opinion.



I'm all ears.



So, option d.

You got my opinion long ago. But you don't like it, so you're playing some kind of childish game to distract attention from the need for hate crime legislation.

And while you play games, Joe Duffy spends the week listening to people's stories about how they get racially abused in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You got my opinion long ago. But you don't like it, so you're playing some kind of childish game to distract attention from the need for hate crime legislation.

I didn't. But it's ok. I know I'm not going to get it.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And while you play games, Joe Duffy spends the week listening to people's stories about how they get racially abused in Ireland.

Ok. So that's a hate crime?

gormdubhgorm

Blueshoe wrote: »

Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

That's what you are dealing with here. Don't even bother

I copped on to that as well.
And that is only one thread of many if you just do a quick search.

He also has an obsession with cyclists - see garda traffic twitter thread -

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Cleaned up the cyclist crap once again. AndrewJRenko do not post in here again. If you do it will be a 24hr ban

I dunno why he cannot just be a happier fella, and just watch the 'Hill Street Blues' boxset.
Seems like a lot of rage there.
Plus he does not listen or read posts properly.
I don't know what to make of the fella.
I know autistic people obsess with subjects.
But most people with autism show a high level of intelligence, so I ruled that out.

Omackeral

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You think I'm here for your entertainment, chief buddy?

How about option E

I just point to the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation without getting bunged up on edge cases.

That's literally Option D; deflect and point to another country.

Not very good at this AJR, are you?

A) Yes I am
No, I'm not
C) I'm unsure
D) Deflect and point to another country

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote:

A) Yes I am No, I'm not C) I'm unsure D) Deflect and point to another country

E) I've already answered because of Australia

gormdubhgorm

Anway the reason I returned to this thread was - I thought that those who posted on it might be interested to know there was a very one-sided debate on 'hate crime'/racism on Primetime RTE.
It was coming at it from a racism angle.
They only had two proponents of hate crime legislation on the show a FG councilor of African origin and a social studies lecturer from UL.

But there was no individual to state the alternative view about the futility of 'hate crime' legislation and how it is not required.
Ironically it was a very biased debate!
I actually wished I was on the show to give the other side of the argument!

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't. But it's ok. I know I'm not going to get it.



Ok. So that's a hate crime?

You got my opinion long ago. But you don't like it, so you're playing some kind of childish game to distract attention from the need for hate crime legislation.

x 2

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Anway the reason I returned to this thread was - I thought that those who posted on it might be interested to know there was a very one-sided debate on 'hate crime'/racism on Primetime RTE.
It was coming at it from a racism angle.
They only had two proponents of hate crime legislation on the show a FG councilor of African origin and a social studies lecturer from UL.

But there was no individual to state the alternative view about the futility of 'hate crime' legislation and how it is not required.
Ironically it was a very biased debate!
I actually wished I was on the show to give the other side of the argument!

Strange, given that Prime Time have a bit of a reputation for digging up a climate change denier or an oul racist for 'balance' on other topics. Maybe the alternative view'is too extreme even for them in this case?

AndrewJRenko

Omackeral wrote: »

That's literally Option D; deflect and point to another country.

Except that it's not a deflection, it's just a fact. I appreciate that you may not like to recognise that many other countries manage to operate hate crime legislation successfully, but they do.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Strange, given that Prime Time have a bit of a reputation for digging up a climate change denier or an oul racist for 'balance' on other topics. Maybe the alternative view'is too extreme even for them in this case?

What you are exhibiting here is a clear example of confirmation bias.
You are assuming that all people who question the validity and need of hate crime legislation are racist for a start.
Ergo this must be the reason there was no balance on the show!

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024

I won't a full detailed explanation of why this is confirmation bias.

Because your ranting on this thread has shown -

1) You only selectively read posts - No mater how cogent the post you ignore it when it does not suit you.

2) You often take posts completely out of context to try and twist them to your own argument.

3) Constantly ask people the same questions even if they have already clearly answered it

4) Refuse to answer others questions with nothing but deflection tactics

5) You still display a frightening lack of knowledge about both sides of the argument, despite weeks of posting on here. Wiki definition still seems to be your default argument

6) There is no thought about the broader consequences/unintended consequences from any proposed hate crime legislation from you.

7) You have yet to find definitive evidence that hate crime legislation is more effective than the current legal situation, and actually results in a decrease in crime - otherwise it is just a number counting exercise for vested interests.
If it does not lower crime rates why is there an actual need for it?
You have proven time and again that you are unable to answer this question.

8) Finally regarding the OP's question - you seem very strong on your opinion that this case is a 'hate crime' - but when asked your reasons why in comparison to other examples - your default answer is that you are not a legal expert - again wiki definition.

In other words there is no application of reasoning.
Just noise.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You got my opinion long ago. But you don't like it, so you're playing some kind of childish game to distract attention from the need for hate crime legislation.

No I didn't. Asking someone to confirm their opinion is not childish. Refusing to answer while desperately trying to claim moral higher ground is childish

Hector Savage

AJR would be happy to see people shipped to the gulags for having "incorrect" opinions.

gormdubhgorm

Hector Savage wrote: »

AJR would be happy to see people shipped to the gulags for having "incorrect" opinions.

Ironically (he/she) claimed very early on that I wanted all disabled people, locked up and the key thrown away!
This still make me laugh.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

No I didn't. Asking someone to confirm their opinion is not childish. Refusing to answer while desperately trying to claim moral higher ground is childish

What's to confirm? I've clearly stated my opinion about the need for hate crime legislation. What else needs to be confirmed?

We both know that this is nothing to do with 'confirming my opinion'. This is about choosing edge cases to tie up a convoluted discussion between a bunch of amateurs.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ironically (he/she) claimed very early on that I wanted all disabled people, locked up and the key thrown away!

Except I didn't.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What you are exhibiting here is a clear example of confirmation bias.
You are assuming that all people who question the validity and need of hate crime legislation are racist for a start.
Ergo this must be the reason there was no balance on the show!

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024

Except that I didn't say that 'all people who question the validity and need of hate crime legislation are racist'. Just to avoid any doubt, I don't believe that

'all people who question the validity and need of hate crime legislation are racist'.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I won't a full detailed explanation of why this is confirmation bias.

Because your ranting on this thread has shown -

1) You only selectively read posts - No mater how cogent the post you ignore it when it does not suit you.

2) You often take posts completely out of context to try and twist them to your own argument.

3) Constantly ask people the same questions even if they have already clearly answered it

4) Refuse to answer others questions with nothing but deflection tactics

5) You still display a frightening lack of knowledge about both sides of the argument, despite weeks of posting on here. Wiki definition still seems to be your default argument

6) There is no thought about the broader consequences/unintended consequences from any proposed hate crime legislation from you.

7) You have yet to find definitive evidence that hate crime legislation is more effective than the current legal situation, and actually results in a decrease in crime - otherwise it is just a number counting exercise for vested interests.
If it does not lower crime rates why is there an actual need for it?
You have proven time and again that you are unable to answer this question.

8) Finally regarding the OP's question - you seem very strong on your opinion that this case is a 'hate crime' - but when asked your reasons why in comparison to other examples - your default answer is that you are not a legal expert - again wiki definition.

In other words there is no application of reasoning.
Just noise.

Noise? I've stated a simple, direct, clear position repeatedly, and I've refused to be drawn into a convoluted debate among a bunch of amateurs (including myself). That's pretty much the exact opposite of noise.


Your demands for lower crime rates demonstrates a lack of understanding of how social policy works. Yes, lower rates may result if all other things were equal. But in social policy, all other things are never equal. Crime rates may well be impacted by other issues and changes, so a simplistic demand for lower crime rates doesn't work.



You're correct to say that I haven't produced evidence about benefits of hate crime legislation. Just as others haven't produced evidence of the dangers of hate crime legislation. If I had a couple of days to research it, I might be able to come up with something. But I don't, so I won't. Just as others haven't produced evidence.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What's to confirm? I've clearly stated my opinion about the need for hate crime legislation. What else needs to be confirmed?

Is calling someone fat a hate crime? Confirm that to me please.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Is calling someone fat a hate crime? Confirm that to me please.

What's that got to do with my opinion? My opinion on hate crime legislation is crystal clear. What remains to be confirmed about the need for hate crime legislation?



I'm not going to get into convoluted discussions on edge cases for your entertainment.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What's that got to do with my opinion? My opinion on hate crime legislation is crystal clear. What remains to be confirmed about the need for hate crime legislation?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I'm not going to get into convoluted discussions on edge cases for your entertainment.

We are all bored at this stage chief.

You've been asked on many multiplies of times if you agree that by your definition, if calling someone fat is a hate crime. You refuse to answer and lie that you have answered before.

We understand. It must be embarrassing to have painted yourself into such a corner that no matter what you say will make you look idiotic.

I will leave you alone.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

We are all bored at this stage chief.

You've been asked on many multiplies of times if you agree that by your definition, if calling someone fat is a hate crime. You refuse to answer and lie that you have answered before.

We understand. It must be embarrassing to have painted yourself into such a corner that no matter what you say will make you look idiotic.

I will leave you alone.

It's funny how you have to exaggerate to try to justify your painful nagging. I never said that I've answered the question about whether calling someone fat is a hate crime before. I've been absolutely crystal clear that I haven't answered this question and I won't answer this question.


Why would I need to answer this question? If you have a point to make about whether calling someone fat is a hate crime, you don't need my permission or my position to argue with. Is your own opinion that feeble and week that you're unable to put it out there on your own?


It's clear that you have no good faith on this matter. You're not out for a sensible, mature, adult discussion about hate crime legislation. If there was any chance of a sensible discussion on this, I'd have engaged further weeks ago. But clearly there isn't - just people who are more interested in scoring points against me than actually making any point.



So no, I'm not going to play your game.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's that got to do with my opinion? My opinion on hate crime legislation is crystal clear. What remains to be confirmed about the need for hate crime legislation?



I'm not going to get into convoluted discussions on edge cases for your entertainment.

What’s your opinion on general crime though? As I recall you were rather soft on it.