Hate crime? Really?

20-05-2019 10:11am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Like I explained repeatedly, we have different sentencing guidelines for rape and for child sexual assault. That is inequality. That is a good thing.

We also (thankfully) have different sentencing guidelines for leapfrogging over a head and lynching. I wouldn't class them the same umbrella like you want to though

20-05-2019 10:14am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But maybe we should focus on more realistic scenarios?

Says the machete waving, mental deficiency rapist scenario conjuring, blind man thief imagining moral bastion of righteousness?

20-05-2019 10:19am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Wheelchair ramps don't discriminate against anyone. They discriminate FOR wheelchair users - they positively discriminate.

Sorry to bring this one up again but I feel it needs to be addressed.

How can you discriminate FOR something? Perhaps if wheelchair ramps were unavailable for able bodied people to walk up, you might have a point.

But that's not what happens.

Positively discriminate. You actually believe in that. Brilliant

gmisk · 20-05-2019 10:25am

I honestly am confused why this thread has had so much life, it was a horrible thing that happened to the lady.
People arguing about the semantics if it was a hate crime or not isn't really the point to me in this instance.

I do think its pretty bad how on this site some people seem to think hate crime doesn't exist.

I chose to share a story where I was called a f#ggot and slashed in the face with a Stanley knife yet still some people wouldn't classify that as hate crime but hey....

the_pen_turner · 20-05-2019 10:26am

This really shows that we need to update these laws . Years ago 9nly major stuff like murders and atrocities would be considered a hate crime.

I'm not saying this doesn't fit the definition, it technically does but it shouldn't.
Literally the majority of crimes and anti social behaviour would fit that definition.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:27am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If someone assaulted someone who happened to be mentally challenged but the assaulter was unaware of that, would he be charged of hate crime and then be forced to prove his innocence that he was unaware and he should only be charged with a crime instead of a hate crime?

Who knows? I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

Rather than starting from scratch on fairly ridiculous scenarios, have you considered reading up on the piles of existing research into hate crime laws in other jurisdictions?

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:30am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You think that wheelchair ramps discriminate FOR people rather than just be nothing to do with discrimination and just to do with accessibility?

Bizarre

So you think that not being able to access a building in a wheelchair is not discrimination?

20-05-2019 10:31am

gmisk wrote:

I chose to share a story where I was called a ****** and slashed in the face with a Stanley knife yet still some people wouldn't classify that as hate crime but hey....

I'm assuming that word is the Voldemort Nword? Yeah no that's pretty much a cast iron hate crime. Jumping over a small ladies head is disrespectful, disgusting and insensitive. Do you think getting slashed with a Stanley knife while being called a racial slur is comparable to getting jumped over and recieving what was perceived as a threatening smile?

Honestly, I think one is much worse than the other and both shouldn't be hate crimes as it dilutes the seriousness of the horrendous slashing of your face.

Would be like me talking about how I felt terrible when my friend killed himself and you saying that you know how I feel because your guinea pig died.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:32am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We also (thankfully) have different sentencing guidelines for leapfrogging over a head and lynching. I wouldn't class them the same umbrella like you want to though

Yes, we do have different sentencing guidelines, and we will continue to have different sentencing guidelines if we bring in hate crime legislation.

Categorising hate crimes does not mean that we ignore the severity of the crime.

the_pen_turner · 20-05-2019 10:34am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you think that not being able to access a building in a wheelchair is not discrimination?

I think it would only be positive discrimination if only wheel chair users could use it and able bodied people couldn't.
Everybody benefits from a ramp

A better example would be disabled parking spaces

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:35am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly, I think one is much worse than the other and both shouldn't be hate crimes as it dilutes the seriousness of the horrendous slashing of your face.

Categorising both as hate crimes doesn't say anything about the seriousness of any crime. It refers to how and why the victim was selected.

You can have not so serious hate crimes AND very very serious hate crimes. They're still hate crimes.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:40am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I think it would only be positive discrimination if only wheel chair users could use it and able bodied people couldn't.
Everybody benefits from a ramp

A better example would be disabled parking spaces

Yet again, you seem to have come up with your own personal interpretation. There is nothing in the definition of positive discrimination about excluding people.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/positive%20discrimination

gmisk · 20-05-2019 10:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm assuming that word is the Voldemort Nword? Yeah no that's pretty much a cast iron hate crime. Jumping over a small ladies head is disrespectful, disgusting and insensitive. Do you think getting slashed with a Stanley knife while being called a racial slur is comparable to getting jumped over and recieving what was perceived as a threatening smile?

Honestly, I think one is much worse than the other and both shouldn't be hate crimes as it dilutes the seriousness of the horrendous slashing of your face.

Would be like me talking about how I felt terrible when my friend killed himself and you saying that you know how I feel because your guinea pig died.

Not the Vodermort N word no, it was f#ggot.
I went back and changed it.

Obviously with all crime there is a scale of seriousness, this would be the same for me for a hate crime I suppose.

Do I think she was targeted because of her being a little person, yes, so I would personally classify it as a hate crime. It must have been a really horrible experience. Something like that could really knock your confidence big time.

Hector Savage · 20-05-2019 11:00am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So yes, the journalist did not treat Sinead in the same way that they might treat any other person (though you conveniently ignore the fact that other people don't generally get leapfrogged over). And the journalist had very good reason for doing so.

I suppose we might speed things up if we confirm whether you see any kind of crime as 'hate crime' - are you saying that 'hate crime' doesn't exist?

For the record, I've never used the term 'differently abled', so you seem to have me confused with someone else.

Socialist free for all nonsense, why not have them pay for a ticket to see the game ?

20-05-2019 11:08am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So you think that not being able to access a building in a wheelchair is not discrimination?

Nobody said that. I've said that it isn't positive or negative discrimination to have wheelchair ramps. It's not discrimination in any way

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You can have not so serious hate crimes AND very very serious hate crimes. They're still hate crimes.

No. No they aren't. You can have bigotry and crime. If I beat up a black man, it wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime in the same way that if he beat me up, it also wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime.

Racism is racism, bigotry is bigotry. Hate crimes need to have a degree of hatred. Otherwise you look like a ****ing idiot describing it as such.

So apart from wheelchair ramps (which is not positive discrimination), can you give me any other example of what you feel should be implemented?

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:11am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Socialist free for all nonsense, why not have them pay for a ticket to see the game ?

There’s nothing in that image about payment at all. Are you really that desperate that you need to make up stuff so that you can argue with it?

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:17am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody said that. I've said that it isn't positive or negative discrimination to have wheelchair ramps. It's not discrimination in any way

If an employer with a stepped entrance fits a wheelchair ramp, this perfectly fits the dictionary definition of positive discrimination quoted above.

Here's a legal view confirming this

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/Documents/e-bulletin/Employment/2013-06-21.html

It may not fit with your personal incorrect understanding of positive discrimination, but that's your problem, not mine.

20-05-2019 11:17am

In your hallowed Merriam Webster dictionary you can have literally to mean "virtually" which is the polar opposite of literally.

That is the danger of using words and phrases incorrectly. They lose meaning.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:19am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In your hallowed Merriam Webster dictionary you can have literally to mean "virtually" which is the polar opposite of literally.

That is the danger of using words and phrases incorrectly. They lose meaning.

They do indeed.

But none of that applies to the definition of positive discrimination.

20-05-2019 11:19am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

If an employer with a stepped entrance fits a wheelchair ramp, this perfectly fits the dictionary definition of positive discrimination quoted above.

Does it fit in with the word discrimination? If so, tell me who it discriminates against? Cos words have meanings you know.

20-05-2019 11:22am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But none of that applies to the definition of positive discrimination.

So words have no set meaning anymore? A word can literally (pun intended) mean the opposite of what it means through misuse?

Then there can be no hate speech surely?

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:25am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. No they aren't.

Yes. Yes, they are.

By every reputable international definition of hate crimes, these relate to how and why the victim is chosen, not the severity of the crime or the degree of hate involved.

Clearly, you didn't know this, so this thread is a great learning opportunity for you.

Time to stop digging.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:28am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does it fit in with the word discrimination? If so, tell me who it discriminates against? Cos words have meanings you know.

It fits perfectly with the term 'positive discrimination' as confirmed by the legal expert above.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:29am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So words have no set meaning anymore? A word can literally (pun intended) mean the opposite of what it means through misuse?

Then there can be no hate speech surely?

Have any the words involved evolved to mean something else, in the way that 'literally' has evolved?

You're clutching at straws now.

20-05-2019 11:31am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Time to stop digging.

I stand by everything I have said.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It fits perfectly with the term 'positive discrimination' as confirmed by the legal expert above.

I refute that. Discrimination means something

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 11:36am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I stand by everything I have said.

I refute that. Discrimination means something

You can refute away. But you're on your own. Every international definition of hate crime supports my view and contradicts yours.

Blueshoe · 20-05-2019 1:27pm

I hate all of you

gormdubhgorm · 20-05-2019 8:38pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, do you believe in hate crime?

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

20-05-2019 10:15pm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

gormdubhgorm wrote:

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

gormdubhgorm wrote:

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

**** that's such good wordage. Well spoken sir.

AndrewJRenko · 20-05-2019 10:17pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

Check out the justifications for punishing hate crime more severely in chapter 3 of this paper and see if 'discord' and 'difference' are the actual outcomes.

https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

Why 'liberally'? The commonly held definition is that if the victim is selected because of their disability, then it is a hate crime. Leapfrogging isn't a big problem on Dublin streets, so she was clearly chosen because of her disability.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

Yes, it may have been used to attract attention, with the objective of stopping it from happening again to her or two others. What's the problem with that?

Hate crime? Really?

Comments