gormdubhgorm wrote: » The Dunne is correct by the way Positive Discrimination - the act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly because of their race, sex, etc.
weldoninhio wrote: » You say their “marriage” existed?? So if one of them had died, would the living spouse have any spousal rights? Seeing as the marriage existed??
stefanovich wrote: » The act of disadvantaging those who are not a member of a protected group even if they are often treated unfairly Positive discrimination. A nice way to explain what an oxymoron is.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.
AndrewJRenko wrote: Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.
Hedgelayer wrote: » I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance. Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better. Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity. I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....
stefanovich wrote: » There is no interpretation needed. The phrase is nonsensical. Discrimination can never be positive.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You may have missed the several pages of discussion showing how hate is not part of the definition of hate crime.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Presumably no, no rights, no legal recognition. But the absence of rights and recognition doesn't make their marriage go away as they fly in over the Irish coast. The marriage still exists, regardless of whether Irish law recognises it or not.
Hedgelayer wrote: » Ok we're making progress here. So is the definition of hate crime something which was concocted on a sociology course in America?
weldoninhio wrote: » You are full of it. Marriage is a legal term. Their togetherness had no legality, therefore did not exist in the eyes of the state. Just because someone believes in Santa Clause, doesn’t mean that he actually exists.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You're right to say it did not exist in the eyes of the Irish state. At what stage on their flight from Canada to Ireland does their marriage cease to exist?
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » Oh give it a rest. How come people who preach tolerance can often be so utterly hostile?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It would really help if we could stick to the facts. The threat title reads; Hate crime? Really?
It does not read; "Is this a hate crime?". You've chosen to interpret it that way, but that is not what it says. It could (for example) mean; "Would you call this a hate crime?" which is a different question to "Is this a hate crime?". There is no suggestion that the OP means; "Is this a legal hate crime in Ireland?" which is the interpretation that several people are trying to put on it.
HOnestly, I've grasped every nuance of it right from the outset. Unlike others.
That is certainly no legal offence called 'hate crime' in Ireland.
No, I'm not. I'm referring to what I call things here in this jurisdiction. If they are things that generally meet the definition of hate crimes, I call them hate crimes, with or without Irish legislation. Many other people do the same. I don't need legislation in Ireland to be able to use a particular term. I'm able to understand the term, as it is generally used, and apply to that to situations that I see - regardless of where I see it.
So just like how I proved to you that there was same-sex marriage in Ireland before we had legislation for same sex marriage, I'm now showing you how we have hate crimes in Ireland before we have legislation for hate crimes. We don't need legislation to be able to put a name on things.
There is no confusion for me. The OP didn't ask the question 'Is it a hate crime?'. THat is a simple matter of fact.
The phrase 'hate crime' is used in many different countries round the world. Hate crimes happen around the world every day. People are prosecuted for hate crimes around the world. You may not like the term or the approach, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
No, my definition couldn't be 'something completely different' because the various definitions of hate crime aren't 'completely different'. They are largely similar, with subtle differences in scope and interpretation.
Yes, I've noticed your strong views, and how you've let them cloud your assessment of the facts here. The facts don't change. What happened to Sinead was a hate crime.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » So you don't seem to understand English and the purpose of question marks?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You have not because they are simple points I have made, and I tried to explain them on numerous occasions to you at this stage.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » This is correct but then in the next paragraph you contradict yourself. You cannot truly call them hate crimes in this jurisdiction as there is no legal grounds for it. What you have appropriated is a phrase, which can be applied in various ways depending on the users interpretation of it.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Did you? (question mark) I missed that. How did you do that? (question mark)
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Is it? So understand question marks, seems to be the bigger problem for you than understanding what Hate Crime is? Does the crime exist in Ireland? How would that crime be defined?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Hate Crime? Really?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Hate Crime has different definitions in different jurisdictions throughout the world. As I already showed you. Even in the USA alone, the definition of 'hate crime' varies from State to State and is only applied to certain groups of people.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Hate Crime is an invented term, it has various interpretations. As such it requires an actual legal definition to give the precise meaning, about what a Hate Crime is.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » As a result when the phrase 'Hate Crime' is used in Ireland in a layman's sense of the term it can mean anything from thier point of view. Unlike other jurisdictions where 'Hate Crime' is actually a crime and there are legal parameters set to define it within that jurisdiction.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The term Hate Crime as you use it is not a very precise one as it is more a general assumption on your part rather than an actual definition. It is not defined therefore it is just a throwaway phrase which can only be used to sensationalise in articles, as there is no definition of it legally in this jurisdiction.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Basically at the moment in Ireland the phrase a 'Hate Crime' can be just trotted out when people feel like it - like the OP's article. But as there is no set legal meaning for it in Ireland it is purely subjective in nature. The phrase 'hate crime' was appropriated from American culture and it has now reached here. It first started being used in the 1980s over there.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » If someone in Ireland used the term 'Jay-walking' we would know what they mean (by our own layman subjective interpretation - a bit clearer than 'Hate Crime' in fairness) . But it does not exist in Ireland. People just appropriate the term from America. The same thing that happened with the phrase 'Hate Crime' which has now entered common parlance. It is used those who want to appear to be modern and progressive in Ireland.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is just playing with words when all is said and done. It is yet another example of Ireland becoming slowly Americanised like many other countries.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is not subtle. Some jurisdictions (where Hate Crime is actually a crime) only apply it to certain groups. Others do not apply it to property. That is hardly subtle that is a major divergence in interpretation
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My judgement is far from clouded, and I have stuck to the facts. As my posts will attest to.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I think the phrase Hate Crime is a divisive invention, pitting one group against another rather than just treating crimes as crimes against other human beings. As a I view it as unnecessary. And question the real motivations of 'Hate Crime' legislation proponents.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » For all your talk about comprehensive analysis and sticking to the 'facts' - looking for comprehensive analysis of the argument etc. Arguably, the post where I went through the OP's article in detail did more than you did in explaining 'Hate Crime'. I actually gave you an opening to say why legislated hate crime should be required in Ireland etc But you missed your chance to properly debate the issue. You seem extremely wishy-washy on the whole subject. Just posting links without any analysis of them etc Even the question marks confuse you for a start!
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Sensible debate? Really?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's strange that I need to spell this out, but here goes: "Is this a hate crime?" is not the same thing as "Hate crime?". The second one is missing the words "Is this a", which makes it different to the first one. There is no detail as to what the question is with the second one. Options include; • Is this a hate crime? • Would you call this a hate crime? • Is hate crime a thing in Ireland The second one is unclear. Yes, you have explained them numerous times, and I fully understand your explanation. The problem doesn't lie with my understanding. The problem lies with you being wrong. There is no contradiction between the two things. I can truly call things hate crimes in Ireland. Watch this: The attack on Sinead was a hate crime.
See what I did there. I called the incident in question a hate crime. So, I absolutely can and did call this attack a hate crime in this jurisdiction. Hate crimes exist, with or without legislation. I can take, for example, the Wikipedia definition of hate crime and say 'this incident was a hate crime'.
Remember where I showed you how Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, a married couple, lived in Ireland for years before their same-sex marriage was recognised? So they were married, they were in Ireland - so there was same-sex marriage in Ireland. You really should try to keep up.
So yes, hate crimes do exist in Ireland. Unfortunately, they happen every day. They would be defined by any of the many international definitions of hate crime. Pick any of them, and you'll have crimes matching that definition happening in Ireland every day.
Yes. Really. Yes indeed, most crimes have different definitions in different jurisdictions. That's why each jurisdiction has its own Courts and legislation. Nothing unusual about that at all.
Everything is 'an invented term'. 'An invented term' is an invented term. It has various interpretations. That doesn't stop it being used in discussion. A legal interpretation is certainly required to take cases to Court, and I'm glad to see your agreement that the legal definition of hate crime is required here. Any term used in discussion in Ireland is used in a layman's sense of the term. Most people don't know the precise legal definitions of rape or burglary or assault, and people use those terms every day. That's a fairly normal situation in any discussion here. The term I'm used in based on the Wikipedia definition, which is very precise and far from a throwaway phrase. The only sensationalism involved is from your good self.
Yes, the phrase hate crime can indeed be trotted out when people feel like it. Just like the phrase trotted out can be trotted out when people feel like it. Any phrase can be trotted out when people feel like it.
Who is this 'we' that you are speaking for here? I'd have thought that it's fairly clear from my responses on the thread that I have zero interest in 'appearing' to be anything.
How I appear to you or anyone else has zero significance for me. My interest in this matter is for the people with disabilities that I know to be able to live ordinary lives of their own choosing, without being bullied, assaulted or intimidated.
It's a bit more important than playing with words unfortunately. It is about real life experiences for Sinead and many other people with disabilities, who find themselves abused, bullied, intimidated and assaulted. That's what's at stake here.
You seem to have missed the main point of hate crime legislation - to reduce hate crime - not by playing word games, but by actually stopping these crimes happening. You really didn't explain hate crime at all. You just denied that it exists, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary from all around the world, and indeed from Ireland.
Whatever it's going to take to reduce or eliminate hate crimes.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Those crimes can already be eliminated/reduced using current Irish law again see: the non-fatal offences against the person act, criminal damage act, incitement to hatred act, and so on and so forth. There is no need to even term them as hate crimes as a result.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » how's that 'elimination under existing legislation' approach working out for Sinead and others?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'll respond on the other issues when I have time, but how's that 'elimination under existing legislation' approach working out for Sinead and others?
Deleted User wrote: » "raising awareness" yknow, that thing that doesnt involve any work, helps nobody but you can say you did it
gormdubhgorm wrote: » What of course it would work work! It would still be a prosecution if she so wished. ]
AndrewJRenko wrote: I asked you how it IS working.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I didn't ask you if it would work. I asked you how it IS working.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Quite well. This is the only incident of hate crime related leapfrogging that I can recall.
AndrewJRenko wrote: Have you considered the possibility of other types of hate crimes?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)