AndrewJRenko wrote: What do you mean by 'bandy about'? That's such a broad and vague term. It could mean anything. You can't go calling things 'bandied about'.
AndrewJRenko wrote: See how ridiculous it is?
AndrewJRenko wrote: Apology accepted.
AndrewJRenko wrote: You should probably refer the matter to the Gardai, because everything is well covered by existing legislation, right?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » What do you mean by 'bandy about'? That's such a broad and vague term. It could mean anything. You can't go calling things 'bandied about'. See how ridiculous it is?
Deleted User wrote: » It really isn't. It means to throw about recklessly.
Deleted User wrote: » No. It highlights the fact that when you misuse certain words that have an emotional attachment such as hate, it is dangerous and confusing.
Deleted User wrote: » For clarification, I was apologising for not being able to accept your accusation of dishonesty.
Deleted User wrote: » Yes. It is. I am asking if you consider yourself to be as guilty of a hate crime as the people who leapfrogged Sinead. Because according to your definition, both can be constituted as hate crimes.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No it is not ridiculous. This is yet another example of you deflecting and not answering questions when it suits you (which you have done with numerous posters - but I am not letting you get away with it)
AndrewJRenko wrote: Certainly, there is a danger in misuse, which is literally what you keep trying to do. You've seen the definitions of 'hate crime' used worldwide, all based around the same basic principles, but you keep trying to misuse it by tying hate into it, even though you well know it's not part of the definition. Why would you be trying to create such confusion?
AndrewJRenko wrote: That's even more confusing. Why would you not be able to accept something? I'd understand if you chose not to accept it, but 'not able'? You really shouldn't bandy about words like that if you don't really mean them.
AndrewJRenko wrote: So have you reported this to the Gardai yet? You're sure that all hate crimes are covered under current legislation, and you believe that a hate crime has taken place, but you haven't yet reported this to the Gardai? That's highly irresponsible - why would you not report a crime to the Gardai?
AndrewJRenko wrote: Are you sure? Bandy is an ice-hockey style of game played in Canada. Words don't change meaning when you put them together with other words (remember the whole 'positive discrimination' thing?) so it must be something to do with playing bandy. So what's the ice-hockey connection all about?
Deleted User wrote: » **** me. You accuse me of misuse of words by trying to tie "hate" into "hate crime" and say I am the one trying to cause confusion? Words matter.
Deleted User wrote: » That's just nonsense.
Deleted User wrote: » No. Silly goose. I DONT believe a hate crime has taken place because they don't exist. I'm sure ALL hate crimes are inexistent. I won't report it to the gardai because it's not illegal to be wrong. That's all you are guilty of. Bless
Deleted User wrote: » verb verb:Â bandy; 3rd person present:Â bandies; past tense:Â bandied; past participle:Â bandied; gerund or present participle:Â bandying
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You seem to be confusing me with an expert in hate crime. I'm not an expert in hate crime. I don't claim to have all the answers. Here's what I do know. Hate crimes everywhere. Some countries recognise them in law, some don't. Those that do recognise them in law seem to manage to work out decent definitions that all them to progress through the legal system. They don't seem to have huge problems over the tiny details of the definitions. This assault on Sinead Burke was most certainly a hate crime. She was chosen as the victim because of her disability.
AndrewJRenko wrote: They do indeed matter. And if every definition of hate crime in the world doesn't include hate, the fact that you misunderstood this is YOUR problem, not mine.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » So really the whole idea of 'hate crime' loses its effectiveness as everyone is different in some way. And any attack that seems to have a motivation because someone is different to them becomes a 'hate crime' rather than just assault/harassment for example.
[Deleted User] wrote: » No. Just no. Think about what you just said.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you tried reading up on how other countries with hate crime legislation deal with these challenges? Because there's nothing unique to Ireland here.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Now you have given yet another vague answer and deflected, using a vague phrase 'challenges' I have answered how other jurisdictions deal with hate crime in numerous posts! Which you do not seem to be reading/understanding. Or are simply ignoring them. Other jurisdictions like America have created issues/challenges for themselves firstly by creating the term 'hate crime' in the 1980's. Then 're-criminalising' crimes that were already in regular criminal statute, then gradually having to include more and more people. The term was originally created for crimes against racial minority groups in America. I also mentioned how some in the UK now wish to add ageism to thier definition of 'hate crime' - And how the police are worried about being made into quasi-social workers rather than being let do police work. They have to ask 'how does that make you feel?' even after looking at the bias element of an alleged perpetrator. Now we have the situation in Ireland, where if the Criminal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015 is passed here - it would even mean the following two scenarios are hate crimes. If a pro-lifer attacked a pro-choicer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion. If a pro-choicer attacked a pro-lifer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion. Looking at the definition of Hate Crime again in the Bill -protected group” includes individuals who are identified on the basis of their race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, membership of the Traveller or Roma communities, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or health; The two scenarios above could be classed as a 'hate crime', as it comes under 'political or any other opinion' Now can you understand the direction in which this ends up going, and unintentional divisiveness in society it creates? It focuses on difference. It starts with good intentions calling the crime of harassment against Sinead a 'hate crime' in a story focusing on the woman's activism. Then in time it is legislated for. Then all 'groups' want in on the act as they feel left out (a hate crime in itself), so they lobby to be included. Thus groups end up trying to 'out victim' each other. And the whole meaning of 'hate crime' ends up in farce as it now covers every group conceivable. It merely gives the lobby groups an opportunity to do a totting up exercise, and create data collection of reported crimes that they wish to brand for thier own 'cause'. Then it enables them to look for more funds from the general population, paid members of the group, and they can lobby the government for more soundbites on 'hate crimes' that effect thier grouping. If you refuse to grasp it that, and see how silly, divisive, and unnecessary it is, that is your prerogative. And you can continue your sidetracked debates about ducks, bandy, or whatever you like. If that brings you some sort joy.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you worked out how come there is no ice hockey game involved when you bandy about?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So in summary, many other countries manage to protect vulnerable people and navigate a course through these choppy waters. And there is no reason why Ireland cannot do the same.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Hate is not one of them.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No!! That is not in summary, that is what you have taken from my post? Are you taking the mick? Have you even listened to the you tube video?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Of course I haven't watched the video? Why would you consider the one oddball professor who published a couple of polemic papers in the 90s to be an authoritive source? But it's great to hear that vulnerable people are protected. You should try sharing that news with the gay couples who got beaten up on the streets, and the people with disabilities who get bullied and exploited, and the women and girls who get abused and attacked - nothing to see here, eh?
Candie wrote: » I imagine it's called a hate crime since it only occurred because she is a dwarf. If she wasn't, it wouldn't have happened so she was targeted specifically because she was different. I don't think anyone is promoting it as the worse example of a hate crime but still, what it's called is very much a secondary consideration.
AndrewJRenko wrote: The dictionary disagrees with you.
AndrewJRenko wrote: But it's great to hear that vulnerable people are protected. You should try sharing that news with the gay couples who got beaten up on the streets, and the people with disabilities who get bullied and exploited, and the women and girls who get abused and attacked - nothing to see here, eh?
Deleted User wrote: » What? There are laws in place to punish people who do that. Are you saying rebranding the laws as hate crimes would give them extra protection? Delusional.
Shemale wrote: » It could have happened to someone 4ft11 or 5ft, toerags are toerags.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you heard of it happening much?
Deleted User wrote: » It doesnt
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Again deflection, gay people. the disabled, and women are covered under criminal law like everyone else. This seems beyond your comprehension?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Though interestingly enough, we have some of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU;https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/ But that's probably just a big coincidence, right? Why do you think your beloved professor hasn't manage to persuade his own country about the futility of hate crime in the 20 years he's been banging on about it?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » If you ever researched for a legal paper you will find they are more interested in sensationalism, rather than facts.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So are there any factual errors in the ICCL paper showing that we have one of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Do you understand the word sensationalism? It is disingenuous. All of those crimes can be prosecuted under current criminal law. What the author is really concerned with is re-branding - effectively repeating the same laws with more legislation re-crimnalising current crimes for the appearance of progress. From a pure numbers standpoint there are more Irish pasty white people, then people with other colour skin. So it stands to reason that there is more chance of a white on black crime. Then there black on black for example. Ireland is not a homogeneous multicultural society compared to other countries. Plus at the moment those black African's have not risen up the social ladder to a sufficient level to have them move out of more 'working class' areas like Lucan, Balbriggan etc. So there is even more chance of crime in disadvantaged areas on top of that regardless of what minority group you are from. It is more of a societal problem rather than a racial one in truth. Once black Africans in Ireland move up the social ladder the problem will decrease as they will be living in better areas. That has nothing to do with what the cirme is named. That is a red herring. It is a societal issue.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
