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

eviltwin

recedite wrote: »

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.

Typical kind of prank? Are all the 15 year olds you know complete knackers? I don't know any teens who would have such little respect for another person that they would think this is OK

[Deleted User]

Candie wrote: »

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.

I hope so too, but I very much doubt it. It's one thing to rob some apples, mitch from school, or even shouting abuse at someone, because you think it's somehow "cool" but targeted physical bullying like this takes an active mean streak.

[Deleted User]

Vita nova wrote: »

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.

I agree 100%

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope so too, but I very much doubt it. It's one thing to rob some apples, mitch from school, or even shouting abuse at someone, but targeted physical bullying like this takes an active mean streak.

Usually it does but we can always hope that this is more of a thoughtless streak, even if that chance is a slim one. I don't like writing off people at 16, people change a lot in the next few years.

recedite

Candie wrote: »

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

Not sure it counts as assault if the guy "whooshed over her head" without actually touching her.

Not even "verbal assault", as they don't seem to have even said anything within earshot of her.
I'd say one guy dared the other guy, and he just did it on the spur of the moment without thinking too much about it.

Not very nice, but we're not exactly in Nazi or ISIS territory here.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Not sure it counts as assault if the guy "whooshed over her head" without actually touching her.

Not even "verbal assault", as they don't seem to have even said anything within earshot of her.
I'd say one guy dared the other guy, and he just did it on the spur of the moment without thinking too much about it.

Not very nice, but we're not exactly in Nazi or ISIS territory here.

You don't have to make physical contact for assault. They definitely put her under threat.

It's more than not very nice, it's criminal. It could have long lasting effects on how that woman feels just going about her daily life. Its odd that people don't seem to get that, or think it's just a laugh.

is_that_so

grindle wrote: »

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.

OUP don't define how we have drafted the laws we use and we don't have a whole lot in the way of hate crime legislation, just in the area of discrimination.

recedite

eviltwin wrote: »

Typical kind of prank? Are all the 15 year olds you know complete knackers? I don't know any teens who would have such little respect for another person that they would think this is OK

They prefer to be known as the travelling fraternity these days.

recedite

Candie wrote: »

You don't have to make physical contact for assault. They definitely put her under threat.

Its not assault, no.

There are three different categories of assault: Assault, Assault Causing Harm, and Assault Causing Serious Harm. The use or expected use of force is an important element to all three categories of assault. A definition of force includes any form of energy for example heat, light, electric current or noise or any matter in solid, liquid or gaseous form.

https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Assaults/What-is-an-assault-.html

Fall_Guy

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.

What I get from the thread is that many seem to have a misguided notion on what is likely to lead to any change in the ****ty behaviour that was on display in this incident.... Branding people scumbags, people who can't be educated, people who deserve rough justice for their crime (three views put forward, not all by the same poster admittedly).

Ironically, the mindset I have is completely in keeping with the actual victim of the act, who is going into schools around the area where the act occurred and working with the students in order to raise awareness, build empathy and better educate young people on the power that their words and actions can have on others, for better or worse.

More and better education is what is likely to decrease the frequency of this sort of negative, antisocial behaviour. Handwringing, chastising, branding people scumbags and calls for "justice" against kids for ignorant stupidity (talking specifically about this case here) may feel good but if your actual aim is to make this sort of stupid **** happen LESS, its completely counterproductive.

grindle

is_that_so wrote: »

OUP don't define how we have drafted the laws we use and we don't have a whole lot in the way of hate crime legislation, just in the area of discrimination.

Whether an Irish court labels it a hate crime is irrelevant to whether or not it's a crime caused by prejudice (people were arguing over linguistic and legal semantics), having those terms defined on our own books is only a means towards doling out heavier sentences. It was an assault committed based on a prejudice against the victim.
Hate + Crime = ...

I'd certainly expect a use of force if somebody had just leapfrogged me and sneered at me when walking past again like these knackbags did. She wasn't scared for no reason, she quite reasonably expected a further demonstration of scumbaggery which does tick the box for assault after having been explicitly intimidated.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Its not assault, no.

Grindle articulates this better than I can:

grindle wrote: »

I'd certainly expect a use of force if somebody had just leapfrogged me and sneered at me when walking past again like these knackbags did. She wasn't scared for no reason, she quite reasonably expected a further demonstration of scumbaggery which does tick the box for assault after having been explicitly intimidated.

It was definitely assault. Hard to believe anyone would argue otherwise.

the_syco

ollkiller wrote: »

Who cares if it is a hate crime or not. Only thing i care about is catching the idiots who demeaned her. As another poster said this thread is what you got out of that story. Have a word with yourself.

A man was left in a vegetative state after being run over by a scrambler bike in a Dublin park. Pretty sure that the driver got away scot free as they were under 18, and thus not worth the Gardai time looking for them, as they'd get away with no punishment if caught?

How about we build young offenders facilities to imprison those who attack people with physical violence, before spending money on trying to change the young offenders with words?

the_syco

grindle wrote: »

Whether an Irish court labels it a hate crime is irrelevant to whether or not it's a crime caused by prejudice (people were arguing over linguistic and legal semantics), having those terms defined on our own books is only a means towards doling out heavier sentences. It was an assault committed based on a prejudice against the victim.
Hate + Crime = ...

I'd certainly expect a use of force if somebody had just leapfrogged me and sneered at me when walking past again like these knackbags did. She wasn't scared for no reason, she quite reasonably expected a further demonstration of scumbaggery which does tick the box for assault after having been explicitly intimidated.

If under 18, any crime = not prison.
If over 18, hate crime = possible prison, unless you're from a bad area, then it's possible mandatory free counselling for the bully, and nothing for the victim.

Ken.

Mod- Locked for a clean up and some bans for dicks who think its funny to take the p!ss out of a disabled person.

Ken.

Mod- The following people are thread banned along with their other sanctions.

Your Face
Fr_Dougal
jimgoose
Hector Savage

Thread reopened. Anymore jokes will be dealt with harshly.

is_that_so

grindle wrote: »

Whether an Irish court labels it a hate crime is irrelevant to whether or not it's a crime caused by prejudice (people were arguing over linguistic and legal semantics), having those terms defined on our own books is only a means towards doling out heavier sentences. It was an assault committed based on a prejudice against the victim.
Hate + Crime = ..

It's relevant as we don't really have a law to apply, just legislation in the area of discrimination. Anti-social legislation is the way to go with what seems to be very young individuals.

grindle

is_that_so wrote: »

It's relevant as we don't really have a law to apply, just legislation in the area of discrimination. Anti-social legislation is the way to go with what seems to be very young individuals.

We don't have a law to apply to specifically nab them for a hate crime, but our laws would have them pegged for assault and reckless endangerment.
The fact that we haven't got "Hate Crime" shoved into our statutes with it's own heading in a sub-section doesn't stop it from meeting the definition of the term. Crimes committed due to them being prejudiced against a disabled person.

is_that_so

grindle wrote: »

We don't have a law to apply to specifically nab them for a hate crime, but our laws would have them pegged for assault and reckless endangerment.
The fact that we haven't got "Hate Crime" shoved into our statutes with it's own heading in a sub-section doesn't stop it from meeting the definition of the term. Crimes committed due to them being prejudiced against a disabled person.

If it makes you happy to use it that's fine but legally (or otherwise) it really makes no sense unless it's a lawyer pontificating.

Gimme A Pound

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".

You said maybe they're from a ****ty background, but maybe they aren't. Either way, we don't know - plus it's irrelevant. All that's being focused on is their behaviour, only you brought up their possible background. I don't give a toss what it is. I am referring to their behaviour and nothing more. And only they are responsible for their actions. And yes of course they are scumbags for their actions. The way you're saying there should be compassion for them is absolutely bizarre - and kinda obtuse. Why should there be compassion for them? They're the ones who did wrong. There is zero evidence that they are from a bad background or that they're not really bad, just ignorant (

I mean, so what? Their action alone spoke for itself) and even if they were from a bad background and uneducated, only they are responsible for what they did.

Candie wrote: »

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

Aye, all sorts of things being suggested that weren't said.

recedite wrote: »

I'd say one guy dared the other guy, and he just did it on the spur of the moment without thinking too much about it.

You'd say? Based on what? The desperation to downplay here...

GinAndBitter

Your Face wrote: »

I don't think we should overlook her story of being publicly belittled.
I know it might be low on the list of hate crimes but we shouldnt look down on anyone.

Hard to believe there are people that reported this post. I feel sorry for them.

grindle

is_that_so wrote: »

pontificating

This is After Hours.

NickNickleby

Personally, I think 'hate crime' might be a bit strong, because I feel over use of terms like that dilute the more serious stuff.

Now, having said that, I do believe they were real scummy characters to do that. My assertion is based on the available evidence, ie their reported actions. I can only imagine the humiliation, fear and isolation this poor girl felt. No doubt its far worse than the mere words I use to describe it.

What kind of place are we living in now, that no one came to ask if she was alright? I know there's a real fear of retaliation when intervening, but even words of comfort after the fact would have been better than ignoring her.

Gimme A Pound

I have heard of attacks described as hate crimes when there was no evidence that the attacks were due to the person's e.g. skin colour or sexuality and the scumbags who attacked them would have attacked any misfortunate to cross their path at the wrong time.

This woman was targeted because of being a dwarf though, which makes it seem closer to the definition of hate crime. I don't know that it is, and it's not a term I'd be inclined to use, but I'm more bothered by what was done to her than misuse of a phrase.

Yer Da sells Avon

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Hard to believe there are people that reported this post. I feel sorry for them.

Hard to believe there are people so lacking in basic empathy whose first reaction to an assault against a person with a visible disability is to (a) question the terminology used by the victim, or (b) make highly unoriginal 'dwarf lol' comments. At least it would be hard to believe, were this not AH.

Bunny Colvin

Probably a bit much calling the Gardai in fairness. People are bullied all the time, if the Gardai were called for every instance then you'd have no one responding to serious crime. That being said, the two lads were complete dickheads.

NickNickleby

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

I have heard of attacks described as hate crimes when there was no evidence that the attacks were due to the person's e.g. skin colour or sexuality and the scumbags who attacked them would have attacked any misfortunate to cross their path at the wrong time.

This woman was targeted because of being a dwarf though, which makes it seem closer to the definition of hate crime. I don't know that it is, and it's not a term I'd be inclined to use, but I'm more bothered by what was done to her than misuse of a phrase.

Totally agree about the opportunistic nature of many attacks, ie their motivation is simply availability of a victim - any victim.

Take the point about the importance of the description of the crime being secondary to what happened, and on re-reading my own post, it looks like I'm putting the cart before the horse. But that doesn't reflect my own sentiments, just my ability to communicate. (ps, I haven't assumed that you were having a go at me).

ohnonotgmail

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

Probably a bit much calling the Gardai in fairness. People are bullied all the time, if the Gardai were called for every instance then you'd have no one responding to serious crime. That being said, the two lads were complete dickheads.

She was assaulted

suicide_circus

i think "Hate" crime is a bit of a misnomer here. Does anyone actually think these little sheits did what they did because they "hate" small people? Who goes round hating people with dwarfism? nobody, thats who.

their actions were cruel and mean. But being the victim of a a "Mean Crime" doesnt sound quite as good i guess.

strandroad

They could have easily broken her neck or kicked her in the eye. It's far beyond teen stupidity and you don't do it to a person you're neutral towards.