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?

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

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

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?

At this stage I think you either do not understand my point, or are deliberately ignoring my previous comments.
I have made myself very clear what it problem is -

1) Sensationalism - 'Hate Crime' (for the reasons I already stated)

2) Making disability as something that has to be treated differently to other crimes for the sake of it - its makes the focus on the persons disability rather then the person themselves.
Which is counter productive in my view.

I cannot make it much clearer than that for you, sorry.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

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.

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?

That’s Scottish. Have you anything from Ireland? Where the incident in the OP happened??

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s Scottish. Have you anything from Ireland? Where the incident in the OP happened??

We don't have hate crime legislation in Ireland, so we're not going to have research on how well hate crime legislation works in Ireland.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

At this stage I think you either do not understand my point, or are deliberately ignoring my previous comments.
I have made myself very clear what it problem is -

1) Sensationalism - 'Hate Crime' (for the reasons I already stated)

So you believe that Scotland, Australia, Canada, England/Wales, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and USA are all 'sensationalist?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

2) Making disability as something that has to be treated differently to other crimes for the sake of it - its makes the focus on the persons disability rather then the person themselves.
Which is counter productive in my view.

I cannot make it much clearer than that for you, sorry.

Hate crime isn't 'treated differently for the sake of it'. It is 'treated differently to reduce crime against protected groups'.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you found any legal definition of hate crime that matches your opinion, anywhere in the world?

Legal definitions do not always mean they are correct.
It is just different use of terminology at the end of the day.

http://www.open.ac.uk/health-and-social-care/research/shld/timeline-learning-disability-history

See for example the Idiots Act 1886 -

The Idiots Act 1886 made the legal distinction between "idiots" and "imbeciles".
It contained educational provisions for the needs of people deemed to be in these categories."

Or following that

The Mental Deficiency Act 1913

which introduced further layers -

Use of terms 'idiot', 'imbecile', 'feeble-minded' and 'moral imbecile'.
In particular this influential Act made it possible to institutionalise women with illegitimate children who were receiving poor relief.

I am sure those that wrote this act were well intentioned, but did it really benefit the people it was aimed at?

In my opinion there is the same problem with the distinction of crime/hate crime.
It adds another unnecessary layer of distinction in my view.
I think (in another 90 years or so) people will find this laughable.
And some will find that there was a definition of 'hate crime' as counterproductive in both it's wording and any act itself.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you believe that Scotland, Australia, Canada, England/Wales, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and USA are all 'sensationalist?

Are you not reading my posts?
I said the reporter in this scenario was sensationalist

Hate crime isn't 'treated differently for the sake of it'. It is 'treated differently to reduce crime against protected groups'.

Hate crime - was invented as middle management type word which sounds good but means little in practice.
Regular legislation, would still protect those groups as it does for the rest of society.

For example - I think Section 10 of the non-fatal offences against the person act 1997 would do just fine in my view.

Non-fatal offences against the person act 1997

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html#sec10

Do you really think those individuals in this incident in question care if thier bullying/harassment is a 'hate crime' or not?

No, but the people who do care - are those who want to 'appear' more meaningful, or wish to use the phrase for the sake of a good headline.

The extra layers of legislation only add more invented phrases, the man on the street has to learn.
It has little to with protection, and more to do with not enforcing laws that are already there.

But politicians calling for Hate Crime legislation makes them seem caring and gets votes.
It's a game for them. It is not thier day to day life - like Sinead Burke's.
The labels change but life continues.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Legal definitions do not always mean they are correct.
It is just different use of terminology at the end of the day.

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.

Have you looked at the research showing the benefits arising?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We don't have hate crime legislation in Ireland, so we're not going to have research on how well hate crime legislation works in Ireland.

So any legislation etc that you post here is irrelevant to the OP, which happened in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.

Do you think that there needs to be hate and a crime in a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.

Have you looked at the research showing the benefits arising?

But there is no need for it.

There is legislation on the Irish Statue - that covers all the people of Ireland - not just certain groups.

The Non-Fatal Offences of the Person Act 1997 section 10

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

It could easily be applied to the incident at issue!

Yet the reporter feels the need to re-brand it as a 'hate crime'.

There is was no need for the extra 'labeling' by the journalist who wrote the article. Disabled people get enough of labels already from the less well intentioned.

weldoninhio wrote: »

So any legislation etc that you post here is irrelevant to the OP, which happened in Ireland.

Have you been paying attention to the discussion? It has been mentioned repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think that there needs to be hate and a crime in a hate crime?

Do you think that there needs to be duck in a Bombay Duck dish?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But there is no need for it.

There is legislation on the Irish Statue - that covers all the people of Ireland - not just certain groups.

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report

The harm which hate crime causes: it has a profound effect on the victim and the community group to which the victim belongs.
The symbolic function which legislation fulfils: it sends a clear message to the victim, the group of which the victim is a member, and wider society, that criminal behaviour based on bias and inequality will not be tolerated.
The practical benefits from having a clear set of rules and procedures within the criminal justice system to deal with hate crime. This should provide a structure for consistency in sentencing and rigorous recording, allowing statistics to be kept, and trends to be identified and monitored; the fact that the perpetrator has committed a hate crime should be reflected in his/her criminal record; it will increase awareness of hate crime, encouraging reporting of offences and ensuring that victims of hate crime will be supported throughout the criminal justice process.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/

Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you been paying attention to the discussion? It has been mentioned repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

So you agree that it wasn’t a hate crime. It’s impossible to be a hate crime here. Excellent. That’s that sorted. It was 100% not a hate crime. Can’t believe it took us so long to get here.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/

Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

That’s Scotland again. We live in IRELAND

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/

Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

I just have. I am not going around in circles about the issue.
And I would not describe your posts as 'comprehensive analysis' They are just links from websites

I have made my points clear on it. I am practical individual, who prefers to look at the practicalities of life.
Hate Crime legilsation will not make any real difference to lives of people (who happen to have a disability) like Sinead Burke or others from ethic backgrounds.

All it gives is an opportunity for people with agenda's to change words in legislation, self-congratulate and sensationalise.
It just puts a crime under another label and makes good soundbites.
As for the 'experts' it does not make them correct.
They could be pushing for such legislation for a myriad of issues and agendas (as above).
It is like saying that everything the Law Reform Commission of Ireland proposes is a good idea and should be implemented , or the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).

You use America as an example, but they are one of the most litigious countries in the world. Where fat people sue McDonald's for being fat. They have also had a fraught history with race relations. It was a vote getting exercise by Obama in the link you gave. Nothing more.

The RTE article you linked -
For me the immigrant council of Ireland campaign is purely agenda led, it just highlights difference more than promotes inclusiveness (it annoyed me - actually). As I already said it is needless the non-fatal offences against the person act already covers the issue perfectly adequately.
It is looking to create another label where none is really required.
How can people hope to be included in society where another label highlighting difference is attached?
Will it stop more perpetrators of crimes? No. It just changes the wording so lobby group can do more number crunching, in an attempt to further thier agenda.(Similar to your link to the Scottish Legal article you linked)
It just enables a number counting exercise.
It will not make a difference to people's daily lives.

Also there is no 'hate crime' legislation in Ireland so it makes this journalists article that the OP posted all the more ridiculous. How can it be a hate crime if there is no such thing in Ireland for a start? The journalist was both sensationalist and foolish in the same instance.

There is a proposed Criminal (Law Hate Crime) Bill 2015 (Bill means it is not enacted into law and made into an act - legislation)

http://enarireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WG-Bill-2015-Criminal-Law-Hate-Crime-Bill.pdf

But in my view it is unnecessary for example it seeks to amend the Non-Fatal Offences of the Person Act 1997.

1. The amendment of the Act by the insertion of section 2A as follows:

2A Bias aggravated assault
(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of bias aggravated assault who, without lawful
excuse, intentionally or recklessly –
(a) directly or indirectly causes force to or causes an impact on the body of
another, or
(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely
immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
without the consent of the other where the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by bias
against members of a protected group based on their membership, or their presumed
membership, of that group

To me, this is ridiculous as the Act as it stands functions perfectly against all groups.
Yet the proposed amendment puts some people in another 'protected group'
It is another different label/box where it unnecessary. People are just people. Why make it seem that protected groups are a 'different sort' of people?
It just accentuates difference and is counter productive.

When I hear 'protected group' it makes me think of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.
Where it was set up to protect different species of wildlife, flora and fauna.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/38/enacted/en/print.

Or the EU's Habitat Directive

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

The last time I checked there was no different species of human in Ireland. So there is no need treat PEOPLE as a subset in these scenarios. I think it is wrong.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do you think that there needs to be duck in a Bombay Duck dish?

Oh FFS.

Hahahahhahaha. I'm done with you now. You admit that you think a hate crime doesn't have to be a crime fuelled by hatred by using THAT as your example?

(Putting aside the fact you also admit there is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland)

You are embarrassing yourself at this stage

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you agree that it wasn’t a hate crime. It’s impossible to be a hate crime here. Excellent. That’s that sorted. It was 100% not a hate crime. Can’t believe it took us so long to get here.

Once again, there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. Did it really take you this long to work that out?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh FFS.

Hahahahhahaha. I'm done with you now. You admit that you think a hate crime doesn't have to be a crime fuelled by hatred by using THAT as your example?

(Putting aside the fact you also admit there is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland)

You are embarrassing yourself at this stage

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. It’s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s Scotland again. We live in IRELAND

Actually, it's from a few different places around the world. As Ireland doesn't currently have hate crime legislation, it's difficult to find research on non - existing legislation.

It's a fairly standard approach when developing public policy to look at how things work in other countries.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. Itâ€™s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

Give it up man.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

.

Do I need to explain a third time how positive discrimination discriminates FOR people and not against? Try reading the legal article posted above if you're still struggling. Really, highlighting your own lack of knowledge isn't a great tactic.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

Give it up man.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. Did it really take you this long to work that out?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. It’s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

But the OP creating this thread was asking is the scenario in question a 'hate crime' ?

Very simply the answer is no, because there is no such crime in Ireland.
That is before you even get into the debate of what would constitute one hypothetically, in the case at issue etc etc

A dog with a mallet up his lack of sunshine would realise that this wasn't a hate crime.

Its a bunch of knobs acting the bollix and they seen a target to take out their dickheadness on, probably a spur of the moment lack of insight or foresight.

I don't think they had any emotional connection to the fact that their act would upset the person who they were acting the maggot on.

They didn't hate the victim, they just took an opportunity to act the maggot.

Unfortunately the poor lass was at the other end of their stupidity.

I don't condone their behaviour.

But I don't think it was an act of hate, just simply two rogues with a lack of empathy....

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do I need to explain a third time how positive discrimination discriminates FOR people and not against? Try reading the legal article posted above if you're still struggling. Really, highlighting your own lack of knowledge isn't a great tactic.

Positive discrimination is favouring people who have previously been discriminated against. Affirmative action etc

A ****ing wheelchair ramp isn't positive discrimination, neither is a lift, or braille on bus stops. It's just making life easier for those with mobility or visual difficulties.

Nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. But I suppose, there is no duck in a Bombay duck so you are right.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the OP creating this thread was asking is the scenario in question a 'hate crime' ?

Very simply the answer is no, because there is no such crime in Ireland.
That is before you even get into the debate of what would constitute one hypothetically, in the case at issue etc etc

Actually the OP was about what he would CALL the incident, rather than whether it was a crime in law. As we've seen on this thread, many people will use the term hate crime, regardless of Irish legislation.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A ****ing wheelchair ramp isn't positive discrimination,

So you know more about this topic than the legal expert quoted above who listed a wheelchair ramp as an example of positive discrimination?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually the OP was about what he would CALL the incident, rather than whether it was a crime in law. As we've seen on this thread, many people will use the term hate crime, regardless of Irish legislation.

Well then they are incorrect in the use of the term 'Hate Crime' and so was the journalist.
Worst still the journalist was sensationalist and ill-informed.

Hedgelayer wrote: »

A dog with a mallet up his lack of sunshine would realise that this wasn't a hate crime.

Its a bunch of knobs acting the bollix and they seen a target to take out their dickheadness on, probably a spur of the moment lack of insight or foresight.

I don't think they had any emotional connection to the fact that their act would upset the person who they were acting the maggot on.

They didn't hate the victim, they just took an opportunity to act the maggot.

Unfortunately the poor lass was at the other end of their stupidity.

I don't condone their behaviour.

But I don't think it was an act of hate, just simply two rogues with a lack of empathy....

Have you looked at any of the definitions of hate crime?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So you know more about this topic than the legal expert quoted above who listed a wheelchair ramp as an example of positive discrimination?

Yes. Yes I do. A wheelchair ramp is not an example of discrimination (positive or otherwise) unless able bodied people were not allowed use it and it was the only point of access to a building.

Even if you discriminate FOR someone, you defacto must be discriminating AGAINST others.

Otherwise it's not discrimination.

Jesus.