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
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
RandomName2 wrote: »I hadn't read the post you replied to carefully.
Essentially there's two ways to define nationality, either through ethnicity or legal definition.
Anyone can be a Saudi national. Only ethnically Saudi people can be ethnically Saudi though.
Most countries are defined by common nationality. This is particularly important in modern democracies (as opposed to empires). Because democracies are, by definition, the dictatorship of the majority, having countries being relatively nationally homogeneous works well, in a way that we can clearly see wasn't present across the border. There's a reason why people say that Palestinians should have their own country instead of saying they should just be considered Israeli.
Well that seems a far more reasonable position than claiming ethnicity or nationality has anything to do with genetics and ancestry as though it were scientific fact. It appears your position is that it’s based upon politics, which informs legal instruments such as international treaties and agreements and so on, encompassing ideas such as sovereignty and domestic government elected in a representative democratic society. That’s what Ireland is - a representative democracy as opposed to a pure democracy where the idea of the majority vote in all aspects of government decisions. Democracies aren’t at all by definition dictatorship of the majority, as there are many different types of democracy, all centred around politics, and it’s those politics which inform our laws, which are far more objective than any one individuals ideas of ethnicity, ie - nobody has to care for some jackass’ ideas of ethnicity, what matters is legal recognition of how nationality is recognised in Irish and International law -
Irish nationality law
I think it’s pretty much beyond the scope of this discussion though as every country will have their own domestic laws regarding citizenship, nationality and so on, and frankly I don’t imagine the jackass who gives it welly about their patriotism and genetic lineage which can be traced back to Brian Boru cares all that much for either the politics or the legal nitty gritty (their lineage is never traced back to Ug, the hunter-gatherer who neither hunted nor gathered, but spent his days being bitter and giving out about those new farmer types who were takin’ all de wimminz
).RandomName2 wrote: »The way to safeguard large, distinct minorities in large countries was to either support bids by them to form their own countries (as has happened throughout Europe). In this sense nationalism and politics is inseparable. Of course integration and assimilation of minorities also plays a very important part.
The rejection of both these approaches to instead protect minorities by policing people's opinions seems well meaning but flawed. While such an approach may aid integration, it is more likely to stifle debate while simultaneously having no effect on the behavior of scummy people who already don't care about the law.
Why are we only interested in safeguarding large minorities? Surely the point of legislation is that it is intended to protect all people equally from unlawful discrimination and prejudice? The intent of the proposed legislation isn’t as I read it simply to protect minorities, but rather it is intended to protect all people equally on the basis of protected characteristics which already exist in Irish legislation? I don’t see how it could be construed as any attempt to stifle debate, discussion, criticism, satire, nor do I see it as in any way an infringement upon anyone’s freedoms which are recognised in Irish law already. Government simply doesn’t have the resources to police people’s opinions, and I’m not convinced they would even want to. There does exist in Irish society a tiny minority of people who seek to control other people’s freedom to express themselves, and claim victimhood on the basis that they imagine their right to freedom of expression is being impeded upon with the proposed legislation.
But it has always been the case that there are limitations on the right to freedom of expression in order to maintain order in Irish society. The new legislation doesn’t change that, nor does it have any influence upon it. The new legislation is solely intended to address the behaviour of that minority of jackasses who have no regard for the fact that other people have the same rights as they do, and the same protections against prejudice and discrimination in Irish law as they do. Imagining they are above the law, ironically enough puts them in the category as the people they seek to claim are above the law as if Irish law doesn’t equally apply to them, whether it’s based upon ethnicity, nationality, religion or any of the other grounds of discrimination which are recognised in Irish law -
The protected characteristics under the proposed bill have been expanded from the 1989 Act to cover race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, gender and disability.
The draft heads make clear that “gender” includes gender expression or identity, that “ethnicity” includes membership of the Traveller community, and that “religion” includes the absence of religious belief.
Crimes including assault, coercion, harassment, criminal damage and threats to kill or cause serious harm, endangerment and other offences will become aggravated offences under the bill.
The aggravated offences will generally carry an enhanced penalty, compared to the ordinary offence, and the record of any conviction for such an offence would clearly state that the offence was motivated by prejudice.
The new offences also carry a provision for an alternative verdict, where the ‘hate’ element of the offence has not been proven. In such cases, the person can be found guilty of the ordinary version of the offence, rather than the aggravated version.
Ms McEntee said: “Creating these new offences will mean that a crime can be investigated as a potential hate crime by gardaí, and evidence of the hate element can be presented in court.
“Where the jury finds that the crime was a hate crime based on the evidence, and convicts the person of a hate crime, the enhanced penalty for the new offence will be available to the judge at sentencing.
“Where the jury finds that the hate element is not proven, they will still be able to convict the person of the ordinary form of the offence.”
For other offences, where a specific, hate aggravated form of the offence has not been created, but where the court finds the crime was motivated by prejudice, prejudice must be considered as an aggravated factor at sentencing. This must also be placed on the formal record.
Ms McEntee said: “The nature of the crimes will be properly recorded and taken into account so we have accurate data to inform our wider responses.
“Offenders will also be managed appropriately, and perpetrators will know that their crimes will be reported, investigated and prosecuted, which is the most effective form of deterrence.”
The general scheme also proposes new offences of incitement to hatred, which the government says are “clearer and simpler” than those in the 1989 Act.
These offences cover inciting hatred against a person or persons because they are associated with a protected characteristic, and also disseminating or distributing material inciting hatred.
The threshold for criminal incitement to hatred in the new offences is intent or recklessness. The minister said the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and of association will be respected in the new legislation.
Ms McEntee said: “This legislation will be proportionate, specific, and clear. The offences will be capable of being proven beyond reasonable doubt and will be absolutely clear as to what constitutes criminal hate speech.
“The legislation we are working on will be evidence based, while respecting the vital constitutional right to freedom of expression and association.”
Ireland’s first hate crime bill approved by ministers
None of the above seems unreasonable to me at least?0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement