nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hate crime? Really?

The Highwayman

There are a lot of things I'd call this behaviour but a hate crime? No, not everything you experience or dislike is a hate crime.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/sinead-burke-talks-about-the-hate-crime-that-led-to-her-new-campaign-in-dublin-schools-38007423.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Here we go; "they are literally nazis" because one of them leap frogged a dwarf.

The language you use matters. They assaulted a defenceless woman, don't minimize the effect of that.

Vita nova

I'm not a legal expert, so can't say whether it meets the requirements to be a hate crime and am not sure it really matters outside of the legal system, however, it was certainly a pretty nasty thing to do and was done solely because of her stature.

It takes guts to go public and reveal her experience and then to try to change things by going to the schools. I have huge admiration for people like her, without them nothing changes.

[Deleted User]

To be fair, and little about this incident is fair, those guys were described as being about sixteen. Lots of people do things at sixteen without any clue about if or how others will be affected by those actions, they simply don't think things through like they will just a few years later. It's perfectly possible that they're even usually decent lads, who did a lousy thing. Maybe one day they'll look back and cringe in shame and embarrassment at it.

Of course they could totally be completely scum who will never think about it again without getting a cheap laugh and never give a thought to the woman. Either of these scenarios could be true, or a bit of both. We don't know.

I hope they look back in shame, for their sakes and for the rest of society.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who does something like this isn't just "ignorant" - they are scum. It's these types that ran the concentration camps in Germany or rushed in droves to join ISIS when they heard they could behead people and have 9 year old "wives". Or like that ISIS German woman and her husband who allowed a 5 year old slave girl to starve to death because she wet her bed. These type of people don't change. They are born with a desire to inflict pain on others.

Here we go; "they are literally nazis" because one of them leap frogged a dwarf.

[Deleted User]

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Its not a case of evil people torturing good people here, it's ignorant people hurting an innocent party.

I don't know if its cool or not, but its completely unhelpful to brand the young lads in this case as "scumbags".

Anyone who does something like this isn't just "ignorant" - they are scum. It's these types that volunteered to run the concentration camps in Germany or rushed in droves to join ISIS when they heard they could behead people and have 9 year old "wives". Or like that ISIS German woman and her husband who allowed a 5 year old slave girl to starve to death because she wet her bed. These type of people don't change. They are born with a desire to inflict pain on others.

I've seen them growing up as a kid. They would be cruel to others with no reason other than pleasure.

recedite

Pkiernan wrote: »

Virtually guaranteed that these 2 dirtbags were on the dole.

Not if they were under 16.

I'm not condoning it, but its fairly a typical kind of prank that two 15 year olds might get up to. The next day, they could be train surfing.

None of it is clever, but there ya go. They grow out of it eventually, if they survive long enough.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

And it was rather unpleasant. Not as bad as being raped or murdered though.

I don't understand this. Did someone claim it was? Did the victim?

Autecher

Candie wrote: »

Those guys wanted a cheap laugh at that poor womans expense and completely dehumanized her, and that is exactly what a lot of posters on this thread have done too with cheap jokes at the victims expense.

It quickly got around to straight white men getting no sympathy and finally wound up with it being no big deal anyway. Depressing, but not surprising.

Just wait for the inevitable "I am a white male and I was attacked by a dwarf woman!!!" post.

grindle

Oxford University Press wrote:

noun
noun: hate
1.
intense dislike.
"feelings of hate and revenge"
synonyms: loathing, hatred, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, resentment, aversion, hostility, ill will, ill feeling, bad feeling; More
antonyms: love, liking

denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.
modifier noun: hate
"a hate campaign"

Upsetting for some other pedants I'm sure, but I'll take my definition from the world's primary source rather than "Ah now but is it though?" from boardsies.

Hostile action? Yep.
Prejudice? Yep.
Assault? Yep.
Dictionary definition met. Legal definition met.

Maybe tweet Oxford University Press and members of the Oireachtas if you want your own personal definitions to be met.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The criminality itself was not the point of the thread. If you want to open another thread about how awful the criminality itself was, go right ahead.

And it was rather unpleasant. Not as bad as being raped or murdered though.

I’ll stick with this thread though. Thanks!

I wasn’t replying to you at all but conversations in threads move on, and the poster I was replying to was upset about people classifying the perps not the actions themselves.

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You can be discriminated against or be victim of a hate crime you know. A racial crime isn’t just white on black.

It should be like that .... but it really isn't ....

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This is what you get from the thread.

I’ve noticed a tendency to be more upset about words used to describe criminals rather than the criminality itself.

The criminality itself was not the point of the thread. If you want to open another thread about how awful the criminality itself was, go right ahead.

And it was rather unpleasant. Not as bad as being raped or murdered though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The law doesn't care, I'm not referring to myself. I actually care about victims no matter what background they have or group they belong to.

You can be discriminated against or be victim of a hate crime you know. A racial crime isn’t just white on black.

Pkiernan

Virtually guaranteed that these 2 dirtbags were on the dole.

[Deleted User]

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

"No one cares"? Speak for yourself dude. People regularly start threads here about sh1tty things being done to defenceless people, whether they're part of a group or not.

The law doesn't care, I'm not referring to myself. I actually care about victims no matter what background they have or group they belong to.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I never said they are from a really ****ty background, I just said that they may be. I don't know for certain, but I'm making an educated guess that i am happy to say from the outset may be wrong. As i said in my earlier post.

I just don't see anything compassionate about branding kids as scumbags based on ignorant, thoughtless behaviour.

It 100% was a really ****ty thing to do, as you say. You seem to be very quick to claim people are being discompassionate towards the victim, while also failing to show any compassion towards the people who committed the stupid act. Its not a case of evil people torturing good people here, it's ignorant people hurting an innocent party.

I don't know if its cool or not, but its completely unhelpful to brand the young lads in this case as "scumbags".

This is what you get from the thread.

I’ve noticed a tendency to be more upset about words used to describe criminals rather than the criminality itself.

[Deleted User]

Candie wrote: »

Those guys wanted a cheap laugh at that poor womans expense and completely dehumanized her, and that is exactly what a lot of posters on this thread have done too with cheap jokes at the victims expense.

It quickly got around to straight white men getting no sympathy and finally wound up with it being no big deal anyway. Depressing, but not surprising.

i agree some of the cheap shots on here by some posters are no better than the original attack.

It's anyone outside the protected groups, not just straight white men. If you are inside the protected group you can "perceive" to be a victim and get someone arrested and possibly imprisoned.

I am absolutely in favour of hate crime legislation, but it shouldn't be narrowly restricted to certain groups, and there should be some clear objective definition of it. Not something subjective that is wide open to abuse.

[Deleted User]

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

If anything there is an active effort to show less empathy here because of the woman's size.

Those guys wanted a cheap laugh at that poor womans expense and completely dehumanized her, and that is exactly what a lot of posters on this thread have done too with cheap jokes at the victims expense.

It quickly got around to straight white men getting no sympathy and finally wound up with it being no big deal anyway. Depressing, but not surprising.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not my definition, it's the definition of the authority that enforces the law of the country so it should be the correct one.

I'm not saying it's not the legal definition, I'm just saying it's a ridiculous definition - whoever came up with that legislation has zero intelligence or doesn't care about justice.

Some on here think compassion and caring about the correct definition of crimes are mutually exclusive. I would argue the opposite - if you are sloppy about legal definitions then you don't really care about people at all. I'm still astonished at the actual definition of hate crime in this country.

Compassion is not jumping on the latest bandwagon about who are victims and perpetrators in society - it's about truth. Who are the actual victims - not the ones that shout the loudest.

I have a huge amount of compassion for this woman. That doesn't stop me criticising what I see as badly written law.

You certainly haven't shown any compassion towards her. And the actual victim in this instance is clear. You seem to be implying that she is not a victim.

Fall_Guy

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

Wow, the mental gymnastics.

They're responsible for their own behaviour.

Where's the evidence that they're from a sh1t background?

No, compassion doesn't always run both ways (where did you pull that from?)

And it was also a really sh1tty thing to do to someone on their own and unable to defend themselves... uncool and all as it is to acknowledge that lol!!!

I never said they are from a really ****ty background, I just said that they may be. I don't know for certain, but I'm making an educated guess that i am happy to say from the outset may be wrong. As i said in my earlier post.

I just don't see anything compassionate about branding kids as scumbags based on ignorant, thoughtless behaviour.

It 100% was a really ****ty thing to do, as you say. You seem to be very quick to claim people are being discompassionate towards the victim, while also failing to show any compassion towards the people who committed the stupid act. Its not a case of evil people torturing good people here, it's ignorant people hurting an innocent party.

I don't know if its cool or not, but its completely unhelpful to brand the young lads in this case as "scumbags".

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

They would have come up with some other way with someone else. If the person was a culchie for example, they would have mocked their accent. Is that a hate crime? Not according to the garda definition as being a culchie isn't a protected "term" like person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.

But sure no one cares unless you are in one of those special groups. I guess we will all be old someday, then we can perceive to be discriminated against all the time and it's a hate crime every time.

"No one cares"? Speak for yourself dude. People regularly start threads here about sh1tty things being done to defenceless people, whether they're part of a group or not.

If anything there is an active effort to show less empathy here because of the woman's size.

And I'd put money on two ways there would be more empathy shown - if she were a man and the two scumbags were girls, or if the two scumbags were muslim/African/travellers.

Identity politics works in various ways.

Sh1tty behaviour is sh1tty behaviour - the type of person the perpetrator/victim is shouldn't change anything.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is the definition you posted.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of the authority that enforces the law of the country so it should be the correct one.

I'm not saying it's not the legal definition, I'm just saying it's a ridiculous definition - whoever came up with that legislation has zero intelligence or doesn't care about justice.

Some on here think compassion and caring about the correct definition of crimes are mutually exclusive. I would argue the opposite - if you are sloppy about legal definitions then you don't really care about people at all. I'm still astonished at the actual definition of hate crime in this country.

Compassion is not jumping on the latest bandwagon about who are victims and perpetrators in society - it's about truth. Who are the actual victims - not the ones that shout the loudest.

I have a huge amount of compassion for this woman. That doesn't stop me criticising what I see as badly written law.

TheDavester

The Late Late Show has its misery spot next week

[Deleted User]

vonlars wrote: »

It was a hate crime because it was motivated by prejudice. Do you think they'd have hopped over a person of regular height? They assaulted her based solely on her disability, therefore a hate crime.

Some of ye would really want to wise up :rolleyes:

They would have come up with some other way with someone else. If the person was a culchie for example, they would have mocked their accent. Is that a hate crime? Not according to the garda definition as being a culchie isn't a protected "term" like person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.

But sure no one cares unless you are in one of those special groups. I guess we will all be old someday, then we can perceive to be discriminated against all the time and it's a hate crime every time.

Gimme A Pound

vonlars wrote: »

It was a hate crime because it was motivated by prejudice. Do you think they'd have hopped over a person of regular height? They assaulted her based solely on her disability, therefore a hate crime.

Some of ye would really want to wise up :rolleyes:

Compassion is for pussies.

vonlars

It was a hate crime because it was motivated by prejudice. Do you think they'd have hopped over a person of regular height? They assaulted her based solely on her disability, therefore a hate crime.

Some of ye would really want to wise up :rolleyes:

Gimme A Pound

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Compassion runs both ways. A pair of inner city kids doing something stupid may be "scumbags" like you say....or they may be young kids with **** parents, no education and lives that you wouldn't swap places with all too quickly....just saying.

Wow, the mental gymnastics.

They're responsible for their own behaviour.

Where's the evidence that they're from a sh1t background?

No, compassion doesn't always run both ways (where did you pull that from?)

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Meh.

Hate crime lol!!

The real story here is the athleticism shown by the young fella! Future Olympian down the line ?

And it was also a really sh1tty thing to do to someone on their own and unable to defend themselves... uncool and all as it is to acknowledge that lol!!!

[Deleted User]

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Not really 😊

The wedding's off.

ohnonotgmail

Hector Savage wrote: »

classy as always.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow you are right !!! Then literally everything is a hate crime, as someone will perceive something perfectly innocent as a racial slur. That is a ridiculous definition.

It is the definition you posted.