Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate crime nonsense

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    GarIT wrote: »
    They get favoured for hiring and promotions to "improve diversity", they get specific scolarships available only to them, they get more air time to speak about their issues and are listened to more, cared for more, supported more.

    You are hitting your head off a brick wall there Gar...this guy thinks there is nothing wrong with the systematic discrimination of men in the workplace it's perfectly acceptable.


  • Options
    #273
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    GarIT wrote: »
    ....
    In general legislation on hate crime is pointless unless it is covering new crimes that previously weren't a crime. If it's just increasing sentencing based on motive I disagree with it.
    I think motive matters, but when it comes to something like 'hate' I don't think it would be straightforward or easy to prove. Compared to something like financial need as a motive for example, that's easy to prove.


  • Options
    #274
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    GarIT wrote: »
    They get favoured for hiring and promotions to "improve diversity", they get specific scolarships available only to them, they get more air time to speak about their issues and are listened to more, cared for more, supported more.

    An NUIG professor literally had to bring the University to court in order to get the promotion which she had been repeatedly and unjustifiably passed over for.

    Are you sure they get more air time to speak about their issues, or is it that they are more willing to offer to speak about their issues or request time to speak about their issues. In either case, it relates back to my previous comments about them being proactive to advocate while many men are stuck in the complaining phase and not doing anything (again, not you specifically).


  • Options
    #275
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    You are hitting your head off a brick wall there Gar...this guy thinks there is nothing wrong with the systematic discrimination of men in the workplace it's perfectly acceptable.

    Evidence please.


  • Options
    #276
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »
    No its bizarre. No Eastern Europeans in the media at all, or in books ads etc.

    the maitre d hotel on First Dates is eastern european


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    I don't believe you.

    I do believe him.


  • Options
    #278
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    eleventh wrote: »
    I think motive matters, but when it comes to something like 'hate' I don't think it would be straightforward or easy to prove. Compared to something like financial need as a motive for example, that's easy to prove.


    I've grown up in rough areas and know people who would go out looking for a fight. Literally pre-drinking they would plan how and where they are going to get into a fight and arrange others for support. I don't think that's any less bad than going out with the intent of fighting a black person.


    Intent can matter if someone pushes someone during an argument and they fall down some stairs and die vs pushing someone down stairs to kill them. But I don't think there is a difference in pushing someone down the stairs because they are black vs because I thought they were an asshole.



    Intentional vs accidental matters, but the why for intentional doesn't matter IMO.


  • Options
    #279
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Evidence please.

    Of what, gender quotas, you've heard of gender quotas right? They exist in Politics, Culture and in recent years Industry....

    What impact in the drop in standards is going to have in the coming years will be interesting....given what we can see for ourselves, in Academia, Culture and Politics.


  • Options
    #280
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Of what, gender quotas, you've heard of gender quotas right? They exist in Politics, Culture and in recent years Industry....

    What impact in the drop in standards is going to have in the coming years will be interesting....given what we can see for ourselves, in Academia, Culture and Politics.

    Gender quotas have been considered to overcome systemic discrimination Silentcorner, they are not evidence of it.

    Try again.


  • Options
    #281
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Not a huge amount but if I am reading things correctly, the intent doesn't need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt like other crimes.

    WRONG!

    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.


    This is your problem. You don't understand the current legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Gender quotas have been considered to overcome systemic discrimination Silentcorner, they are not evidence of it.

    Try again.

    So you admit the existence of gender quotas....right, that's a start.

    You must also logically agree that these laws discriminate against men.

    Show me the discriminatory laws in Teaching, for instance, that discriminate against the hiring of female teachers?


  • Options
    #283
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    **** me, GarIT would you do yourself a favour and go and read the proposed legislation.

    It literally has nothing to do with anything you’re posting about. Like nothing. Not a thing.


  • Options
    #284
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Here’s the proposal, it’s very easy to read and is only a few sentences.

    Read it and once you’ve read it say why you disagree with it.

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

    I’ve read, I understand it. Can you say the same?


  • Options
    #285
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    **** me, GarIT would you do yourself a favour and go and read the proposed legislation.

    It literally has nothing to do with anything you’re posting about. Like nothing. Not a thing.

    It is not right to dismiss the guy like that...

    It's not that he is correct or incorrect, it's the interpretation.

    If a woman beats her husband is that a hate crime?

    If a man beats his wife is that a hate crime?

    Can the legislation be expanded to include both or none?

    What is the motivation behind it...crime is crime after all, we have long standing legislation that offers protection for victims.


  • Options
    #286
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    So you admit the existence of gender quotas....right, that's a start.

    You must also logically agree that these laws discriminate against men.

    Show me the discriminatory laws in Teaching, for instance, that discriminate against the hiring of female teachers?

    Say you have 2 kids, they have a playstation but only one controller. You tell them one saturday that they can play from noon until 8pm, but must swap every second hour so they each get to play a fair amount.

    You head off, and come back at 5pm. You ask how they have been doing and you are told that child A only got to play for 1 hour and child B played for 4. What do you then? Do you still insist that they swap every hour for the rest of the day, or do you tell child B that child A is going to get to play for all the time remaining.

    I suspect that it would be the latter. In this instance, would child B be entitled to say that they are being treated unfairly, or would they recognize that this was being done so as to in fact be fair to everyone.

    Now, the purpose of this analogy is to outline that there are circumstances in which preferential treatment must be afforded to some for a particular reason. In terms of gender quotas, where they are being applied, it is not that they are being done just so as to correct a wrong as outlined in my analogy but also so as to generate a pattern where it is no longer seen as unusual to see women in such positions, as was the case in the past. No one really wants to see the need for quotas but there is a strong reality that in order for people to aspire to positions, they need to grow up seeing their peers occupy them and so in this instance it is a proactive decision to change the landscape because it just hasn't happened organically.

    Lamenting the fact that there are such quotas now is in the same category as those who started claiming 'all lives matter' when they felt black lives were being advocated for a little too much. I have a genuine doubt that many who are against gender quotas now were as concerned when women had to give up their public sector job once they got married as was the case in the past.

    And all that aside, the gender quotas which are in place do not preclude men from applying from any such role, just that particular role.


  • Options
    #287
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Say you have 2 kids, they have a playstation but only one controller. You tell them one saturday that they can play from noon until 8pm, but must swap every second hour so they each get to play a fair amount.

    You head off, and come back at 5pm. You ask how they have been doing and you are told that child A only got to play for 1 hour and child B played for 4. What do you then? Do you still insist that they swap every hour for the rest of the day, or do you tell child B that child A is going to get to play for all the time remaining.

    I suspect that it would be the latter. In this instance, would child B be entitled to say that they are being treated unfairly, or would they recognize that this was being done so as to in fact be fair to everyone.

    Now, the purpose of this analogy is to outline that there are circumstances in which preferential treatment must be afforded to some for a particular reason. In terms of gender quotas, where they are being applied, it is not that they are being done just so as to correct a wrong as outlined in my analogy but also so as to generate a pattern where it is no longer seen as unusual to see women in such positions, as was the case in the past. No one really wants to see the need for quotas but there is a strong reality that in order for people to aspire to positions, they need to grow up seeing their peers occupy them and so in this instance it is a proactive decision to change the landscape because it just hasn't happened organically.

    Lamenting the fact that there are such quotas now is in the same category as those who started claiming 'all lives matter' when they felt black lives were being advocated for a little too much. I have a genuine doubt that many who are against gender quotas now were as concerned when women had to give up their public sector job once they got married as was the case in the past.

    And all that aside, the gender quotas which are in place do not preclude men from applying from any such role, just that particular role.

    I didn't even bother reading this past the first paragraph...it's gibberish.

    Show me the laws or quotas that discriminate against women for roles, positions or jobs?


  • Options
    #288
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Here’s the proposal, it’s very easy to read and is only a few sentences.

    Read it and once you’ve read it say why you disagree with it.

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

    I’ve read, I understand it. Can you say the same?

    I don't get what you think I have said that disagrees with the proposal.
    An offence is aggravated by hate crime against a relevant individual if—
    (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a
    person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or
    disability hate crime towards a relevant individual

    So someone who says "ya black bastard" during a fight won't be treated differently to someone who says "ya ginger bastard" or "ya fat bastard"?


  • Options
    #289
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    It is not right to dismiss the guy like that...

    It's not that he is correct or incorrect, it's the interpretation.

    If a woman beats her husband is that a hate crime?

    If a man beats his wife is that a hate crime?

    Can the legislation be expanded to include both or none?

    What is the motivation behind it...crime is crime after all, we have long standing legislation that offers protection for victims.

    If a woman beats her husband is that a hate crime - NO

    If a man beats his wife is that a hate crime - NO


    ****ing hell, at least try to understand the ****ing law.


  • Options
    #290
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    It is not right to dismiss the guy like that...

    It's not that he is correct or incorrect, it's the interpretation.

    If a woman beats her husband is that a hate crime?

    If a man beats his wife is that a hate crime?

    Can the legislation be expanded to include both or none?

    What is the motivation behind it...crime is crime after all, we have long standing legislation that offers protection for victims.

    It is absolutely right to dismiss someone who has to create situations and scenarios so that he can get outraged about proposed legislation.

    Discuss the proposed legislation on its own merits not on some future or imagined situation that’s doesn’t exist.

    Read the (proposed) legislation; its incredibly easy to understand what is or isn’t a hate crime.


  • Options
    #291
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Say you have 2 kids, they have a playstation but only one controller. You tell them one saturday that they can play from noon until 8pm, but must swap every second hour so they each get to play a fair amount.

    You head off, and come back at 5pm. You ask how they have been doing and you are told that child A only got to play for 1 hour and child B played for 4. What do you then? Do you still insist that they swap every hour for the rest of the day, or do you tell child B that child A is going to get to play for all the time remaining.

    I suspect that it would be the latter. In this instance, would child B be entitled to say that they are being treated unfairly, or would they recognize that this was being done so as to in fact be fair to everyone.

    Now, the purpose of this analogy is to outline that there are circumstances in which preferential treatment must be afforded to some for a particular reason. In terms of gender quotas, where they are being applied, it is not that they are being done just so as to correct a wrong as outlined in my analogy but also so as to generate a pattern where it is no longer seen as unusual to see women in such positions, as was the case in the past. No one really wants to see the need for quotas but there is a strong reality that in order for people to aspire to positions, they need to grow up seeing their peers occupy them and so in this instance it is a proactive decision to change the landscape because it just hasn't happened organically.

    Lamenting the fact that there are such quotas now is in the same category as those who started claiming 'all lives matter' when they felt black lives were being advocated for a little too much. I have a genuine doubt that many who are against gender quotas now were as concerned when women had to give up their public sector job once they got married as was the case in the past.

    And all that aside, the gender quotas which are in place do not preclude men from applying from any such role, just that particular role.

    The problem is the people negatively affected by quotas aren't the same people that have benefitted in the past. Men in politics today are disadvantaged from gender quotas, most of them aren't the same men who benefitted 20+ years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    So someone who says "ya black bastard" during a fight won't be treated differently to someone who says "ya ginger bastard" or "ya fat bastard"?

    All three will be laughed out of any court in Ireland.


    You have no idea what this new legislation entails.


  • Options
    #293
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    All three will be laughed out of any court in Ireland.


    You have no idea what this new legislation entails.

    Say it's not a fight, it's a murder, same words used.

    What does it entail then enlighten me? How isn't calling someone a black bastard during another crime going to be "displaying racism at the time of the offence"


  • Options
    #294
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    bubblypop wrote: »
    ...
    As pointed out, it is the offenders intent that determines what crime they committed.
    I think the victimhood is strong in you.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    WRONG!

    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.


    This is your problem. You don't understand the current legislation.

    From the link above

    “hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to
    be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice....


  • Options
    #295
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Say it's not a fight, it's a murder, same words used.

    What does it entail then enlighten me? How isn't calling someone a black bastard during another crime going to be "displaying racism during another offence"

    Because you have to be seen to 'incite hatred'.


    Your little quote ignores that.


  • Options
    #296
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Because you have to be seen to 'incite hatred'.


    Your little quote ignores that.

    That's not in the proposal.


  • Options
    #297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    I didn't even bother reading this past the first paragraph...it's gibberish.

    Show me the laws or quotas that discriminate against women for roles, positions or jobs?

    No laws or quotas discriminate against anyone.


  • Options
    #298
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    I didn't even bother reading this past the first paragraph...it's gibberish.

    Show me the laws or quotas that discriminate against women for roles, positions or jobs?

    Any wonder so you are so behind the times.


  • Options
    #299
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    I don't get what you think I have said that disagrees with the proposal.



    So someone who says "ya black bastard" during a fight won't be treated differently to someone who says "ya ginger bastard" or "ya fat bastard"?

    So this fight and the person who called the other person a black bastard, which act listed below were they committing a crime under?

    Because disturbing the peace or drunk and disorderly doesn’t apply (afaik).
    1 . An offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991.
    2. An offence under section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011.
    3. An offence under sections 6, 7, 17, 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) 5 Act 1994.
    4. Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
    5. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.
    6. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993. 10
    7. Sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006.
    8. Sections 2 to 6, sections 9 to 13 and section 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.


  • Options
    #300
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Say it's not a fight, it's a murder, same words used.

    What does it entail then enlighten me? How isn't calling someone a black bastard during another crime going to be "displaying racism at the time of the offence"

    Ok, well murder carries an automatic life sentence, so you clearly don't understand the legislation. I'm fact, I doubt you even read it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    From the link above

    “hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to
    be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice....

    No, no, no and NO.

    You're missing that this new legislation is based entirely on our current loose hate crime laws.


    The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the incident was an incitement to hatred.


Advertisement