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…89111314…16

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bubblypop wrote: »
    No laws or quotas discriminate against anyone.

    Quotas specifically gender quotas) don't discriminate against anybody?

    Right....can you see how much sense you just made?


  • Options
    #303
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    That's not in the proposal.

    It absolutely is.

    It's the foundation of the proposal.


  • Options
    #304
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    bubblypop wrote: »
    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.

    Manslaughter then, there is really no need to be so pedantic. Or rape then in case that isn't included because I don't know the other sections by number.


  • Options
    #305
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Quotas specifically gender quotas) don't discriminate against anybody?

    Right....can you see how much sense you just made?

    They dont.
    Quotas positively discriminate for a specific minority. They do not discriminate against anyone. No matter what you think.


  • Options
    #306
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Manslaughter then, there is really no need to be so pedantic.

    Not covered in the legislation either.
    Go and read it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It absolutely is.

    It's the foundation of the proposal.

    Can you tell me what page it is on? Control + f doesn't return any results for it.


  • Options
    #308
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Not covered in the legislation either.
    Go and read it.

    Do you know the criminal justice act by section number?


  • Options
    #309
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Do you know the criminal justice act by section number?

    What do you mean?


  • Options
    #310
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Manslaughter then, there is really no need to be so pedantic. Or rape then in case that isn't included because I don't know the other sections by number.

    You accused me of being pedantic.

    You've now accused Bubblypop of being pedantic.


    Maybe you should tighten up your language.


  • Options
    #311
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because you have to be seen to 'incite hatred'..
    Where are you getting that from? This is what it says:

    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, or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic,anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They dont.
    Quotas positively discriminate for a specific minority. They do not discriminate against anyone. No matter what you think.


    How can you positively discriminate?


  • Options
    #313
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eleventh wrote: »
    Where are you getting that from? This is what is says:

    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, or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic,anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual

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

    The Constitution.

    We've had the Incitement to Hatred Act since 1989 and it has rarely been used. That is the foundation on which this legislation is built.


  • Options
    #314
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    How can you positively discriminate?

    Pretty sure you know exactly what it means.


  • Options
    #315
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They dont.
    Quotas positively discriminate for a specific minority. They do not discriminate against anyone. No matter what you think.

    But it if makes them get a job where they wouldn't have otherwise you are saying there is nobody else that would have gotten the job if they didn't.

    If a board of directors needs 3 females, currently has 2 and one open position the most suitable candidate is male and would get the job if it was legally allowed. He hasn't been discriminated against?

    Are you saying Séighin Ó Ceallaigh wasn't dropped by Sinn Fein because he is the wrong gender to fit the quota despite a good result in the last election? https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40242149.html


  • Options
    #316
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They dont.
    Quotas positively discriminate for a specific minority. They do not discriminate against anyone. No matter what you think.

    Thank you...quota's discriminate.


  • Options
    #317
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The Constitution.

    We've had the Incitement to Hatred Act since 1989 and it has rarely been used. That is the foundation on which this legislation is built.

    This proposal doesn't reference having to meet the requirements in the previous Incitement to Hatred Act. In fact this is being brought in because the last incitement to hatred act was too requirement heavy to be useful. This purpose of this is to do away with the old act and make it easier to prosecute.


  • Options
    #318
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    Do you know the criminal justice act by section number?

    Do you mean do I know the scheduled offences listed in the act?
    These ones,

    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.

    Then, yes I know what they are. If you don't you should look them up.


  • Options
    #319
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Pretty sure you know exactly what it means.




    Discrimination, is discrimination, no mater what adjective word you put before it.


  • Options
    #320
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Do you mean do I know the scheduled offences listed in the act?
    These ones,

    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.

    Then, yes I know what they are. If you don't you should look them up.

    Yes that's what I meant. I can do but it's quite laborious to get a pedantic technically right on a much wider point.


  • Options
    #321
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    This proposal doesn't reference having to meet the requirements in the previous Incitement to Hatred Act. In fact this is being brought in because the last incitement to hatred act was too requirement heavy to be useful. This purpose of this is to do away with the old act and make it easier to prosecute.

    The standard of proof is the same, it’s only the punishment that’s different.

    Literally everything you’re complaining about is irrelevant.

    It’s embarrassing how uninformed you are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    How can you positively discriminate?

    Do it against a white man.


  • Options
    #323
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    The standard of proof is the same, it’s only the punishment that’s different.

    Literally everything you’re complaining about is irrelevant.

    It’s embarrassing how uninformed you are.

    I could say the same about you. You are simply incorrect. Letting your wishful thinking get in the way of seeing how this could be unfairly applied.


  • Options
    #324
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    This proposal doesn't reference having to meet the requirements in the previous Incitement to Hatred Act. In fact this is being brought in because the last incitement to hatred act was too requirement heavy to be useful. This purpose of this is to do away with the old act and make it easier to prosecute.

    All you're doing is showing your cluelessness on the subject.

    My hobby is picking apart Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.

    This legislation is anemic.


  • Options
    #325
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You accused me of being pedantic.

    You've now accused Bubblypop of being pedantic.


    Maybe you should tighten up your language.

    Or maybe you both are focusing on being right on minor mostly irrelevant details to dismiss a wider point.


  • Options
    #326
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    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).
    How about

    8. Sections 2 to 6, sections 9 to 13 and section 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.


  • Options
    #327
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You've already displayed your cluelessness on the subject.

    Have the good grace to retreat, read up on it, and come back at a later date to argue your point.

    I have done. I have argued with you and you haven't provided a counter argument. You're wrong read more isn't an argument.


  • Options
    #328
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    I could say the same about you. You are simply incorrect. Letting your wishful thinking get in the way of seeing how this could be unfairly applied.

    No you can’t, because I’ve read and understand the details of the proposal.

    If it wasn’t already a crime then it won’t be a crime under this legislation. It’s that simple.

    All that changes is the punishment if the criminal’s intent was based on the victims sexually, nationality, ethnicity etc.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?


  • Options
    #329
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,404 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Closing this thread while I review a large number of reports


  • Options
    #330
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,404 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Thread re-opened

    A couple of reminders

    Interact civilly or do not post
    Posters may well interpret words differently - that does not make any interpretation "incorrect". Lawyers can make a living out of differently interpreting words, and we are not allowed to request or offer any legal advice on this site

    Any questions PM me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    How about

    8. Sections 2 to 6, sections 9 to 13 and section 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

    He said fight not assault, assault causing harm, serious harm, threats to kill or cause serious harm, syringe attacks or placing or abandoning a syringe, coercion, harassment or demands for payments of debt.

    Maybe you can explain which is a relevant?


Advertisement