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…1012141516

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    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?

    You clearly are misunderstanding.

    I never said things will be a crime that weren't before. I said I have a major problem with the punishment being changed based on intent, in the sense that if something is intentional it makes no difference if it's intentional because of race or because or any other reason.


  • Options
    #333
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    You clearly are misunderstanding.

    I never said things will be a crime that weren't before. I said I have a major problem with the punishment being changed based on intent, in the sense that if something is intentional it makes no difference if it's intentional because of race or because or any other reason.

    Yet I bet you have no issue with murder and manslaughter having different sentences.

    Same outcome different intent.


  • Options
    #334
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    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?

    Are you seriously trying to make an argument that fight and assault aren't similar enough that it doesn't need two pages of discussion?

    Yes, you're correct, assault not fight, now onto the actual point.

    IMO you have already lost the argument when you resort to arguing a fight isn't an assault. It shows you have no substantial and meaningful disagreement to make.


  • Options
    #335
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Yet I bet you have no issue with murder and manslaughter having different sentences.

    Same crime different intent.

    Yes. I agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher sentence than someone who gets into a bar fight, but I don't agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher punishment than someone who does it because they hate the person for some other reason.


  • Options
    #336
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    He said fight not assault, ...

    Ah here...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    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.

    PM me if you wake up and have a reasonable point.


  • Options
    #338
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Deleted User wrote: »
    PM me if you wake up and have a reasonable point.


    I'll take it I'm right then if you can't come up with any link or quote to tell me how I'm wrong. I have provided evidence for my points, the closest you came was stating "the constitution" or that your love of criticising Fine Gael makes you right somehow.


  • Options
    #339
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    Are you seriously trying to might an argument that fight and assault aren't similar enough that isn't needs two pages of discussion.

    Yes you're correct, assault not fight, now onto the actual point.

    Assault and fight are very different things, and I can only assume you’re trying to use them interchangeably to obfuscate things.

    GarIT wrote: »
    Yes. I agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher sentence than someone who gets into a bar fight, but I don't agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher punishment than someone who does it because they hate the person for some other reason.

    Again here you’re comparing a bar fight, which I take to mean no discernible antagonist, to an assault which has an obvious antagonist. Why are you doing this?


  • Options
    #340
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    GarIT wrote: »
    Yes. I agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher sentence than someone who gets into a bar fight, but I don't agree that someone who assaults someone because of racism should face a harsher punishment than someone who does it because they hate the person for some other reason.
    Yep, hate is hate. It shouldn't matter the reason. Everyone should get a fair hearing, regardless of whether it fits neatly in one of the categories.

    All the legislation seems to be saying in effect is that longer sentences will be given for all crimes where the person is found guilty(intent proven).


  • Options
    #341
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Assault and fight are very different things, and I can only assume you’re trying to use them interchangeably to obfuscate things.




    Again here you’re comparing a bar fight, which I take to mean no discernible antagonist, to an assault which has an obvious antagonist. Why are you doing this?


    You used a comparision of murder to manslaughter. I brought it back to my example of a fight vs a targeted attack which I made a few pages back which I believe is equivalent to your murder vs manslaughter question.


    Yes I believe that someone who commits murder should face a harsher punishment than someone who commits manslaughter. Yes I believe someone who commits assault intentionally based on someone's race should face a harsher punishment than someone who unintentionally ends up in a bar fight.


    But the key point, I don't believe someone who commits assault because of race should face a harsher punishment than someone who commits assault because they just wanted a fight.

    If it's intentional it's intentional it doesn't matter why. Intentional because of race is no worse than intentional because of anything else.

    And on top of that, I don't trust the current government or the justice system to administer it fairly and equally. Evidence of this would be the black guy in Cork who stabbed a white guy while shouting BLM and everyone claims race wasn't a factor. This article https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2020/0607/1145926-cork-stabbing/ makes no mention of the video widely circulated where the guy was told to gesture to support black lives matter or he would be stabbed, and that the assailant said "black lives matter" many times while doing the stabbing. As far as I know it was later decided that race wasn't a factor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    GarIT wrote: »
    Nah, things will keep going, not much will change except the male suicide rate will continue to increase, we'll still get our single email mentioning international men's day on the day while international women's day, and pride, both become a whole week where you get an email reminding you every day for 20 days before it happens and the office is turned pink or rainbow colours but never blue.

    Everyone will keep talking about how privileged we are while it seems to me young white males are the worst off and killing themselves more than anyone else. Still have all the responsibility and expectations of years gone by with none of the benefits.

    Careful now you'll be deplatformed for talking sense.


  • Options
    #343
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    You used a comparision of murder to manslaughter. I brought it back to my example of a fight vs a targeted attack which I made a few pages back which I believe is equivalent to your murder vs manslaughter question.


    Yes I believe that someone who commits murder should face a harsher punishment than someone who commits manslaughter. Yes I believe someone who commits assault intentionally based on someone's race should face a harsher punishment than someone who unintentionally ends up in a bar fight.


    But the key point, I don't believe someone who commits assault because of race should face a harsher punishment than someone who commits assault because they just wanted a fight.

    If it's intentional it's intentional it doesn't matter why. Intentional because of race is no worse than intentional because of anything else.

    And on top of that, I don't trust the current government or the justice system to administer it fairly and equally. Evidence of this would be the black guy in limerick who stabbed a white guy while shouting BLM and everyone claims race wasn't a factor.

    Ok, so intent matters where someone dies but not otherwise.

    Is that your position? - I’m not trying to catch you out here, genuinely curious.


  • Options
    #344
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Ok, so intent matters where someone dies but not otherwise.

    Is that your position? - I’m not trying to catch you out here, genuinely curious.


    No, whether there was or was not intent matters. Whether the intent was becasue of racism or some other hatred makes no difference.


  • Options
    #345
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    GarIT wrote: »
    No, whether there was or was not intent matters. Whether the intent was becasue of racism or some other hatred makes no difference.

    OK, but pretty much all hatred’s are included so it’s not differentiating between them.

    It’s random versus targeted crimes that are affected, so the bar fight would be random while the traveller mugging specifically non-travellers would be targeted and result in a harsher sentence (if AGS actually did their job).


  • Options
    #346
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    OK, but pretty much all hatred’s are included so it’s not differentiating between them.

    It’s random versus targeted crimes that are affected, so the bar fight would be random while the traveller mugging specifically non-travellers would be targeted and result in a harsher sentence (if AGS actually did their job).


    Being ginger isn't on there, and people are attacked for it. If that's the case why not some legislation that implements harsher punishment for targeted attacks? I'd be fully behind that, it just seems like this is missing some of the bases then.


    I don't believe that travellers mugging non-travellers would result in any harsher punishment under this legislation.


  • Options
    #347
    cheezums
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭cheezums


    GarIT wrote: »
    Being ginger isn't on there, and people are attacked for it. If that's the case why not some legislation that implements harsher punishment for targeted attacks? I'd be fully behind that, it just seems like this is missing some of the bases then.


    I don't believe that travellers mugging non-travellers would result in any harsher punishment under this legislation.

    Just checking, are you equating the experience of ginger people to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people?


  • Options
    #348
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    cheezums wrote: »
    Just checking, are you equating the experience of ginger people to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people?

    Just checking, are you equating the experience of blacks today to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people of the 19th and 20th century?


  • Options
    #349
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    cheezums wrote: »
    Just checking, are you equating the experience of ginger people to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people?


    No.


    Im saying if you punch a black person or a ginger person today it won't hurt either of them more or less based on those characteristics, and the person doing the punching is no worse of a person for it being one of those characteristics than the other. Someone who punches a black person because they are black deserves no harsher punishment than someone who punches a ginger because they are ginger.


  • Options
    #350
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    I'll take it I'm right then if you can't come up with any link or quote to tell me how I'm wrong. I have provided evidence for my points, the closest you came was stating "the constitution" or that your love of criticising Fine Gael makes you right somehow.

    Haha, you have done the square root of **** all to prove your point.


  • Options
    #351
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    cheezums wrote: »
    Just checking, are you equating the experience of ginger people to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people?

    Please stop assuming people are the same, or have experienced the same based on a single physical characteristic, its incredibly racist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    PalLimerick
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭PalLimerick


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    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?

    Replace it with "Black People" or "Muslims" and it would be deemed prejudice. So I would say yes your comment is prejudice.


  • Options
    #353
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    the maitre d hotel on First Dates is eastern european

    So one, who is from Croatia.

    Which isn't defined as Eastern Europe


  • Options
    #354
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »
    So one, who is from Croatia.

    Which isn't defined as Eastern Europe

    Are you saying RTE need to positively discriminate & bring in quotas in order to put some more eastern Europeans on the telly


  • Options
    #355
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,462 ✭✭✭jackboy


    cheezums wrote: »
    Just checking, are you equating the experience of ginger people to the historic suffering, slavery and dehumanisation of black people?

    When were black people treated like that in Ireland?


  • Options
    #356
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    I'll take it I'm right then if you can't come up with any link or quote to tell me how I'm wrong. I have provided evidence for my points, the closest you came was stating "the constitution" or that your love of criticising Fine Gael makes you right somehow.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html


  • Options
    #357
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Are you saying RTE need to positively discriminate & bring in quotas in order to put some more eastern Europeans on the telly

    No its just surprising a whole group of people do not seem to be present in our media or represented in ads etc.

    I think the discussion has moved on from this point anyway.


  • Options
    #358
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    PalLimerick wrote: »
    Replace it with "Black People" or "Muslims" and it would be deemed prejudice. So I would say yes your comment is prejudice.

    You have to love this logic. Completely delusional.

    Here's a sentence for you; "I was mugged by a SCUMBAG, I now have a fear of SCUMBAGS, whenever I see a SCUMBAG, I feel threatened. I wish we didn't have SCUMBAGS in this country or anywhere for that matter. I really hate SCUMBAGS."

    You can insert any of the words you like to replace the word SCUMBAG and it changes from a reasonable statement to a racist diatribe.

    When you ignore context the content becomes whatever you want it to be.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #359
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

    So that becomes irrelevant if new legislation passed that will be used instead, you don't have to meet the standard expected in both, just in the newer one. That's the point of this new proposal, to address complaints that the old legislation was too difficult to actually use.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/1217/1185042-hate-speech/
    "The Bill will involve the repeal of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989."

    So you'll have to do better than just posting a link with no explanation of how you think it's relevant. Or are you just going to call me stupid again and tell me to read more without saying anything meaningful?


  • Options
    #360
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    GarIT wrote: »
    That was a wried incident, when they changed his second name to hers to not stand out or something.

    It was pure racism suggesting as a black man that he couldnt be Irish and constant harassment and even death threats.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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?

    This is not the the proposed legislation from the Minister though

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement