Hate crime nonsense

BanditLuke

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0415/1210181-hate-crime-bill/

This part really stood out for me.

"Hate crimes will be defined in law as those motivated by prejudice against a protected characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability and national or ethnic origin including Traveller ethnicity"

So make sure you don't say something mean to members of the travelling community when they are engaged in crimes against you or your property.

Also this little doozie is laughable

"The maximum penalties for threatening or abusive behaviour, displaying obscene or offensive material in public as hate crimes will double from three to six months"

Who decides what's offensive material in public? Will questioning of government policy be deemed offensive maybe. We all know where this leads, the Gardai grabbing people from protest matches who are holding placards that display statements that don't fit the narrative.

This country is becoming more like the UK with every passing day unfortunately

Chips Lovell

"It's political correctness gone mad, you can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car anymore".

Gregor Samsa

BanditLuke wrote: »

Who decides what's offensive material in public? Will questioning of government policy be deemed offensive maybe. We all know where this leads, the Gardai grabbing people from protest matches who are holding placards

The answer to your first question is that a jury will ultimately decide, but of course after being filtered by the DPP, in the sense that cases don’t reach court without the say-so of the DPP. So it’s the same as any other law in that regard.

On your second question, no. The law is only in relation to the protected characteristics you mentioned. So questioning government policy won’t be affected, because “government policy” or “membership of government” isn’t a protected characteristic.

Dublinandy3

I have nothing against this bill. My only question is, and maybe I'm just missing the point because I've just woken up, shouldn't every characteristic be protected? Maybe it is, my question is, is there a characteristic that isn't protected?

Quantum Erasure

Is 'foreign' a national or ethnic origin?

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Is 'foreign' a national or ethnic origin?

Xenophobia is a thing so it would be the former, it's pretty clear. They specifically state nationality..

riffmongous

Will this legislation mean the end of Current Affairs? Or can we set up a literal prison forum too

Smee_Again

Dublinandy3 wrote: »

I have nothing against this bill. My only question is, and maybe I'm just missing the point because I've just woken up, shouldn't every characteristic be protected? Maybe it is, my question is, is there a characteristic that isn't protected?

Height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, hand size, number of fingers.

Imagine thinking that legislation protecting people is a bad thing!

Quantum Erasure

So, a placard with 'deport bogus asylum seekers' could be seen as offensive and a hate crime?

Or any number of other slogans calling out government policy

Nozebleed

so basically you cant critisize anyone anymore for anything at all.

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

"The maximum penalties for threatening or abusive behaviour, displaying obscene or offensive material in public as hate crimes will double from three to six months"

Who decides what's offensive material in public? Will questioning of government policy be deemed offensive maybe. We all know where this leads, the Gardai grabbing people from protest matches who are holding placards that display statements that don't fit the narrative.

Who decides now? Under the current legislation, The Public Order Act, that also outlaws the above behaviours?

Smee_Again

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

So, a placard with 'deport bogus asylum seekers' could be seen as offensive and a hate crime?

Or any number of other slogans calling out government policy

No, why do you think it would be? Or are you just trying to be dramatic?

Chips Lovell

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

So, a placard with 'deport bogus asylum seekers' could be seen as offensive and a hate crime?

Well considering the placard represents current government policy, no.

Quantum Erasure

Smee_Again wrote: »

No, why do you think it would be? Or are you just trying to be dramatic?

I was replying to protonmike, who seemed to suggest it might be the case

Dublinandy3

Smee_Again wrote: »

Height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, hand size, number of fingers.

I wasn't thinking about that minute detail but in theory, shouldn't everything be.

I mean, I'm a bit of a porker, the other day I was walking past a father and child and the child turned around to the dad and said, 'daddy, look at that man, he's really fat'.

It made me chuckle but if I was that way inclined shouldn't I have the option to be able to string that child up for being a hateful monster? (I never will be that way inclined).


Or hair colour, we live in Ireland after all, gingers should be protected.

In all seriousness though. I'm not up for anyone get any type of hate abuse but shouldn't it just specify that, rather than potentially leave some group out?

I hope i'm not sounding too leftist, I try to stay in the safe, nobody shout at me central lane most of the time.

Quantum Erasure

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Well considering the placard represents current government policy, no.

How about 'house the Irish first'

OMM 0000

I hope they clearly define what they mean by "prejudice".

For example, in my opinion travellers are generally bad for an area as they tend to litter like crazy and destroy the environment around their caravans/homes. They also inbreed which is not good for society and have a higher tendency for crime compared to the surrounding community.

Is that prejudice or a valid opinion?

malinheader

How about the victims of some of our ethnic culture groups. Will the law soon change to give them more protection and more justice when looking to prosecute.

I doubt It.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I was replying to protonmike, who seemed to suggest it might be the case

The thing is, I didn't... If those signs had slurs against the groups then you might have some hate speech angle. They would very much so have to establish that it is prejudice that motivates it. So nope, your sign is all good.

Quantum Erasure

OMM 0000 wrote: »

...

Is that prejudice or a valid opinion?

Yes

Jequ0n

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.
So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?

OMM 0000

Jequ0n wrote: »

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.
So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?

That's generally the logic on this stuff.

Head on over to twitter and look how they tolerate calls to kill white people and men.

I really cannot understand what's going on. It's like a sickness.

BanditLuke

Jequ0n wrote: »

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.
So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?

Nothing bizarre about it. It's designed that way. It discriminates against anyone who's not in the perceived groupings. For instance if a traveller/black person abuses/attacks you as an honest tax paying white person it is deemed less important as if the roles where reversed.

riffmongous

Jequ0n wrote: »

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.
So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?

Just going on what the op posted, Irish is a nationality, nationality is a protected characteristic, this would be classified as a hate crime

Jequ0n

Well i better get on to slapping some faces today

Yes it’s similar rules where I am from and has caused nothing but trouble.

It also really doesn’t help eradicate racism but deepens the divide between groups. But well..too late

Wibbs

Jequ0n wrote: »

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Thought experiment: Gang of White thugs beat up a Black person. Gang of Black thugs beat up a White person. Which is more likely to be pitched and tried as a hate crime? A gang of Black thugs beat up a Traveller = some confusion. Will this be applied to those who are vocal in shouting that the Irish are racists? I doubt it. I suspect as usual the oppressor/oppressed politic will be in evidence.

Now Bubblypop noted earlier Imagine thinking that legislation protecting people is a bad thing! and of course that makes perfect bloody sense. Only a moron would be against protecting people and that's how this is framed, but it seems to me at least that (usually rushed through)hate crime legislation is a tacit admission that one's diverse multicultural melting pot society isn't quite the pluralistic paradise it's sold as.

Jequ0n wrote: »

It also really doesn’t help eradicate racism but deepens the divide between groups. But well..too late

Well, yes. Identity politics even with the best most honourable will in the world(and it usually is) by its very nature deepens divides. It marks out those in need of protection by group affiliation and again pushes the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Like this has worked anywhere, ever. But as Ireland has decided, though late to the game, to go down this route, while many other nations are backing off , so we are also firing through the same legislation that didn't work elsewhere. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Hector Savage

Chips Lovell wrote: »

"It's political correctness gone mad, you can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car anymore".

Lovely straw man there, top top marks

Shield

If you're on the receiving end of hate crime, the effects are devastating.

Here is a good example:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uvf-orders-removal-of-catholic-families-from-carrickfergus-housing-estate-in-21st-century-form-of-ethnic-cleansing-40297946.html

Hate crime is real. If you have a better solution other than an increase in the custodial sentence, please let us know.

is_that_so

This seems to be at the heart of what they are proposing, extending the definition of existing crimes, nothing outrageous there TBH.



Ms McEntee said that while the law will also deal with hate speech, it will respect the constitutional right to freedom of expression and will not criminalise "giving offence".

Assault, coercion, harassment, criminal damage and threats to kill are already criminal offences but the Government said new and more severe sentences are to be introduced if these offences are found to be hate crimes.

Hector Savage

Wibbs wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Thought experiment: Gang of White thugs beat up a Black person. Gang of Black thugs beat up a White person. Which is more likely to be pitched and tried as a hate crime? A gang of Black thugs beat up a Traveller = some confusion. Will this be applied to those who are vocal in shouting that the Irish are racists? I doubt it. I suspect as usual the oppressor/oppressed politic will be in evidence.

Now Bubblypop noted earlier Imagine thinking that legislation protecting people is a bad thing! and of course that makes perfect bloody sense. Only a moron would be against protecting people and that's how this is framed, but it seems to me at least that (usually rushed through)hate crime legislation is a tacit admission that one's diverse multicultural melting pot society isn't quite the pluralistic paradise it's sold as.

Well, yes. Identity politics even with the best most honourable will in the world(and it usually is) by its very nature deepens divides. It marks out those in need of protection by group affiliation and again pushes the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Like this has worked anywhere, ever. But as Ireland has decided, though late to the game, to go down this route, while many other nations are backing off , so we are also firing through the same legislation that didn't work elsewhere. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

You cannot legislate something so subjective as "hate" it's ridicolous.
And of course, it won't count if it's toward a native Irish white person.

Hate crime is so moronic, it's either a crime or it's not, I see in the UK they even have "non crime hate incidents" - wtf does that even mean ?? having the wrong opinions ??

Nermal

is_that_so wrote: »

Assault, coercion, harassment, criminal damage and threats to kill are already criminal offences but the Government said new and more severe sentences are to be introduced if these offences are found to be hate crimes.

Why should the motivation of the perpetrator, or the 'feelings' of the victim, affect the sentence?

Gregor Samsa

Jequ0n wrote: »

Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.

So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?

The bill doesn't mention the word "minority" at all. It does mention nationality as one of the protected characteristics.

So your example could indeed be considered a hate crime under the proposed legislation.

Pinch Flat

The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.

Benign news.

Eric Cartman

On its own this might not be so dangerous , but in conjunction with the advocacy and litigiousness of our bloated immigrant/minority/traveller NGO sector , I can see them upping the ante on trying to use this.

All it needs is one case of a landlord being in court for not issuing a form correctly and ‘illegally’ evicting a minority and they'll jump on it to have it bumped up.

However the last true hate crime most of us have witnessed was the blm rioters shouting racist slurs and calling for the deaths of whites and trapping people in a shop in the wake of the blanchardstown knife attacker shooting. Theres nobody wanting to prosecute that blatant hate crime against those people in the shop

Chips Lovell

A defining feature of every thread about this topic is people claiming "this is crazy, you won't be able to do X, Y, or Z" when there is no suggestion that X, Y, or Z is going to be an offence.

I was going to suggest that maybe people should go off and read up on what's being proposed, but I doubt they will because it may undermine some of the stuff they're saying.

It's almost as if people want the legislation to be oppressive in order to have something to moan about. I think there's going to be a lot of folks disappointed when they don't get sent to jail for something they said on Twitter.

granturismo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

...
However the last true hate crime most of us have witnessed was the blm rioters shouting racist slurs and calling for the deaths of whites and trapping people in a shop in the wake of the blanchardstown knife attacker shooting. Theres nobody wanting to prosecute that blatant hate crime against those people in the shop

Is that not what this legislation is for? 'criminal offences ... motivated by characteristics such as race'

Race crimes and racial hatred are not a one way street.

TomTomTim

There was on older man in court in the UK recently for using the term "colored people". Before that a police officer was in court for a meme about George Floyd. Is this the road we're heading down? Wasting police and court time over trivial nonsense, just so we can have our woke equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition?

Normal One

"Brits Out"
"Israel = Apartheid State"
"American warmongers"
"Hairy Japanese bastard"

Hate crimes.

Eric Cartman

Normal One wrote: »

"Brits Out"
"Israel = Apartheid State"
"American warmongers"
"Hairy Japanese bastard"

Hate crimes.

The funny thing is, were this legislation given any teeth, the israel lobby would be the first to use it, all the drippy hippy free palestine crowd who supported this hate crime legislation would likely be the first ones to feel its wrath

Jequ0n

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

Maybe.
Personally I think it’s wrong to have different rules for different people.

seamus

Jequ0n wrote: »

Maybe.
Personally I think it’s wrong to have different rules for different people.

It's the same rules for everyone, so that should put your mind at ease.

malinheader

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

And I'm sure there will be a certain cohort of our population very happy that they will be getting even more protection from being prosecuted or brought to justice.

Wouldn't want to be seen to be picking on them would we.

is_that_so

Nermal wrote: »

Why should the motivation of the perpetrator, or the 'feelings' of the victim, affect the sentence?

Victim impact statements are commonplace these days and can affect sentences. If it can be shown to be a factor in a crime then yes it should be considered.

Jequ0n

seamus wrote: »

It's the same rules for everyone, so that should put your mind at ease.

Not if the sentence can be increased if a perceived minority is involved.

TheValeyard

I dunno, these things tend to snowball. I felt existing legislation covered this. Very wary of those behinds the scenes pushing for this.

blackbox

If someone is assaulted, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator hated them or was trying to rob them.

The crime is the crime, irrespective of motivation.


.

Eric Cartman

malinheader wrote: »

And I'm sure there will be a certain cohort of our population very happy that they will be getting even more protection from being prosecuted or brought to justice.

Wouldn't want to be seen to be picking on them would we.

Our legal system is so afraid of being seen as biased, we constantly under police and under sentence minorities and women anyway, this is just an additional stick to beat us with

paw patrol

Jequ0n wrote: »

Not if the sentence can be increased if a perceived minority is involved.

isn't that the point , it creates a special class of "super" victim for the same crime
We are all equal under the law, until we're not

Helen McEntee is some dose.

Hector Savage

I Hate Man United and their fans , I have been known to fling some "banter" at my Man U mates, is this a hate crime now ?