Hate crime? Really?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I would also argue how can you criminalise thought?
If one person commits a physical assault on another person and says nothing, writes nothing, and made no indications they were going to single that person out for a bias based on 'difference' How do you prove thier motivations - was there a bias there?

'Hate Crime' legislation can easily be circumvented it the perpetrator is sophisticated enough.

It's worth noting yet again that many countries have effective hate crime legislation in place that deal every day with these challenging dilemmas that you keep coming up. There is nothing specific to Ireland in your points, so they don't constitute a reason NOT to have hate crime legislation.

Omackeral wrote: »

Andrew, did someone leapfrog you before?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, they did. And I leapfrogged them back.

Did you grin menacingly at them though!?

Omackeral wrote:

Did you grin menacingly at them though!?

Hey.... That's not fair. He could have PERCEIVED that they did. That's a hate crime.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly did you decide that I'm not a member of a vulnerable group?

Andrew you are as white as the driven snow, as upper middle class as an upper middle class person, as hypocritical as your standard member of your class. Beware of swings.

I’m in favour of existing crime legislation being policed and enforced before we move on. Most hate crimes are crimes anyway.

Omackeral wrote: »

Did you grin menacingly at them though!?

I'll have to be 100% honest and say I don't remember that level of detail. I may well have got Mummy to deal with them, but I can't be sure.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Andrew you are as white as the driven snow, as upper middle class as an upper middle class person, as hypocritical as your standard member of your class. Beware of swings.

I've missed our little chats Franz. Good to see you again. Love to Mrs P and all the little Peppercorns.

Here's some thoughts from one of those dreadful activist people - why can't they just keep their heads down and live in their mammy's front room like the good old days, am I right?

https://twitter.com/luberachi/status/1133354685891600385?s=19

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Here's some thoughts from one of those dreadful activist people - why can't they just keep their heads down and live in their mammy's front room like the good old days, am I right?

How odd. Are you saying we are actively trying to encourage crimes against people with disabilities by treating crimes against them the same as crimes against able bodied people?

YOU are the one that is trying to denormalise people. I look as them as the same. If a black person got beaten up or abused for being black, if a ginger got beaten up or abused for being ginger, if I got beaten up or abused because someone just was being a dick, I would call for them all to get justice against the perpetrators of the crime.

I see people as equal and expect the law to see them as such. Anyone can be a victim of abuse and anyone can be intimidated. Some handicapped people are stronger mentally and physically than people who wouldn't fit into your group and would be appalled that they are grouped in one of your assigned categories.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

am I right?

As you are a fan of yes or no answers...

No. No you aren't.

gormdubhgorm

Having looked at all the issues regarding the use of the term 'hate crime', the term has now been appropriated over here for headlines by journalists (and others) like the one who wrote the Independent article the OP linked.

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[

Without getting into intricacies of legal argument - what is clear is the proponents of hate crime legislation want to re-brand the following crimes as 'hate crimes' against particular groups in society - verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder.

That part is beyond debate regardless of which side is on in the discussion.

To really answer the question of why they want to do this you have to examine not only the effectiveness of so called 'hate crime' legislation itself but the agenda/motives of those calling for the legislation in this country.

To me there are two distinct groups advocating for 'hate crime' legislation.

1) Those who are from outside the proposed-protected group(s) that they want hate crime legislation to apply to.
This group may include lobbyists advocating for a particular grouping in society (they themselves do not belong to), so that the advocacy group gets more notice. So they can make more money for the advocacy group.
Another subset also included - journalists (like the OP's) article and politicians who's patronising narrative is that that they are helping those 'less fortunate' than them in society. Also politicians jump on the bandwagon as it is an easy 'vote-getter' the optics of the headlines are great. For this grouping it is the furtherance of identity politics - the focus on the individual groupings rather than society as a collective. A furtherance of labeling, branding, and headlines

2) The second distinct grouping who are advocates of hate crime legislation who are inside the proposed protected group(s) they want hate crime legislation to apply to.
What are these groups motivations? It is simple this grouping are seeking the intangible word 'empowerment'.
It has little to with how effective hate crime legislation may/may not be in comparison to current legislation.
These groups view themselves as activists at the vanguard they view it as a 'cause' a battle. Re-branding is important to them. Strangely it is always only a very narrow cohort of groupings making the most noise. Any crime given the prefix 'hate crime' by a self interested group automatically attempts to elevate any crime against them.
In thier eyes it elevates it as worse, than other similar crimes committed in wider society assault/harassment etc.
For them the use of the word harassment (in Sinead's case) is no longer enough.
It must be viewed on another level than the rest of society as far as they are concerned.

But they are so focused on this mystical 'empowerment' a furtherance of the 'them' v 'us' - they do not see the larger consequences of introducing such legislation and do not even consider it.
They are focusing solely on their own grouping and have an entitlement complex.
They feel thier group deserves this 'special privilege' of being called a 'hate crime', rather than assault/harassment for example.
Whether the 'hate crime' legislation is actually more effective than current criminal law is not the real concern to them.
What are really concerned with is notice for thier grouping - thier 'cause'.

Sinead Burke herself is one of these 'activists'

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/sinead_burke_892017

From her website we learn - she is

currently undertaking a PhD in Trinity College, Dublin on human rights education

https://www.sinead-burke.com/about (at the end of the page)

Also the Times in England seemed to imply from the article below that Sinead called the 'leapfrog' a hate crime (The rest is behind a paywall.)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leap-frog-was-hate-crime-says-sinead-burke-6rr300g33

Then I then did further digging on Sinead's website -

https://www.sinead-burke.com/about

There I found the original vogue article:

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/how-little-people-of-ireland-is-transforming-hate-through-education

Where Sinead does use the term 'hate crime' in a quote-

'In turn, I speak to the graduating police in the Garda Training College
and try to widen the lens on how they perceive hate speech and hate crime.
Mostly, I ask them to root their policing in empathy.'

But now you must ask yourself the question -
Where has it been shown that introducing 'hate crime' legislation is actually more effective than current legislation in deterring crime?
Any clear, unbiased. empirical evidence, or data demonstrating it?
I have yet to see it. It seems to be just an appearance of doing something rather than anything else. All for the sake of optics, superficial change for the sake of it.

It would end up creating even more division/labels in society rather then promoting real inclusiveness
Taking the OP's example if hate crime legislation was available what difference would it have made to the crime of harassment perpetrated on Sinead?
None - the crime of harassment would still have been committed.

I think Sinead is going about things the right way looking for her own 'empowerment' by talking about these issues to others in that sense. It makes her feel good and if it educates a few people along the way that it is 'nice to be nice' to everyone, that is a good thing. She is all about the use of her favorite buzz words (on her website) 'design empowerment, beauty, disability and empathy'
This is fine this is how Sinead defines herself, and her causes close to her heart.
But unfortunately (in my view) she misguidedly uses the term 'hate crime' in the vain hope the use of it will increase her 'empowerment' and her 'cause'.
She does not realise the wider consequences of using such terms in society - division, focus on difference, competition among these different groupings. It furthers victim-hood mindset for these groupings, that is not a good thing.

The use of the term 'hate crime' appears on the surface to promote inclusiveness, but in reality it does the exact opposite - another needless layer, another needless label, another needless separate box, another needless division.

This is viewed in America - where it is argued there is real negative consequences to hate crime legislation in 2016

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol37/iss1/9/

(anyone can download the full article and read it here)
https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941&context=plr

It echoes many of the same concerns by American legal experts who believe - Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary and Undesirable back in 2009.

In my view, if people want to re-brand crimes to 'hate crimes' they should be honest about thier own motivations for doing so.
Ask will it really help those they purport to help?

Deleted User wrote: »

How odd. Are you saying we are actively trying to encourage crimes against people with disabilities by treating crimes against them the same as crimes against able bodied people?

No, I'm taking a swipe at the 'anti-activist' mentality displayed by yer man, where he clearly feels threatened by someone simply speaking out and suggesting that perhaps traditional ways aren't working for everyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

YOU are the one that is trying to denormalise people. I look as them as the same. If a black person got beaten up or abused for being black, if a ginger got beaten up or abused for being ginger, if I got beaten up or abused because someone just was being a dick, I would call for them all to get justice against the perpetrators of the crime.

I see people as equal and expect the law to see them as such. Anyone can be a victim of abuse and anyone can be intimidated. Some handicapped people are stronger mentally and physically than people who wouldn't fit into your group and would be appalled that they are grouped in one of your assigned categories.

You seem to be missing the point that you may need to treat people differently to create equal opportunities.

In this slightly simplistic example, if you can't take the fence down, you may need to treat people differently by giving them different sizes of boxes to ensure that everyone gets to see the match.

In this arena, as some people are more exposed to crime than others, and experience more crime than others, they need additional protection, above and beyond the rest of the population to ensure they get an equal opportunity to a normal, safe life.

Deleted User wrote: »

I see people as equal and expect the law to see them as such. Anyone can be a victim of abuse and anyone can be intimidated. Some handicapped people are stronger mentally and physically than people who wouldn't fit into your group and would be appalled that they are grouped in one of your assigned categories.

To be honest, I'd have thought they'd be more likely to be appalled by your use of the dated and offensive term 'handicapped'. The 1970s called - they want you back.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Having looked at all the issues regarding the use of the term 'hate crime', the term has now been appropriated over here for headlines by journalists (and others) like the one who wrote the Independent article the OP linked.

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[

Lots of words get appropriated over here for headlines - Murder, killer, paedo, swing - whatever. What's that got to do with the importance of hate crime legislation.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Without getting into intricacies of legal argument - what is clear is the proponents of hate crime legislation want to re-brand the following crimes as 'hate crimes' against particular groups in society - verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder.

That is factually untrue. You seem to have missed out the fundamental basis of the definition of hate crime, where the motivation of the attacker is central. Do you want me to post the link to the wikipedia definition again?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That part is beyond debate regardless of which side is on in the discussion.

Funnily enough, saying something that you've just made up is 'beyond debate' doesn't make it beyond debate.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

To be honest, I'd have thought they'd be more likely to be appalled by your use of the dated and offensive term 'handicapped'. The 1970s called - they want you back.

Oh FFS. Sorry. Is queer offensive when referring to certain gay people too? In that case you'd want to get onto the LGBTQ people to change their acronym. Calling someone handicapped is not offensive.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

In this arena, as some people are more exposed to crime than others, and experience more crime than others, they need additional protection, above and beyond the rest of the population to ensure they get an equal opportunity to a normal, safe life.

By calling something which is already punishable by law a "hate crime" you are doing nothing to give them additional protection. Why can't you see that? There are laws protecting *whatever the pc term is* people. Why is renaming it giving them "additional protection"?

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh FFS. Sorry. Is queer offensive when referring to certain gay people too? In that case you'd want to get onto the LGBTQ people to change their acronym. Calling someone handicapped is not offensive.

Yes, it is offensive. The equivalent of 'queer' as used by some gay people or 'n-i-g-g-e-r' as used by some black people in the disability sector is 'crip'. Check out the US political campaign to 'crip the vote' or the campaign in the film industry to stop 'cripping up'. And of course, it's generally not OK to use those terms from outside the sector - to refer to someone as queer or n-i-g-g-e-r or crip, even where they use those terms for themselves.

The word handicap is not used by people with disabilities to describe themselves. I recall being corrected on this point around the late 80s by a parent of a child with a disability. it is on every list of terms not to use in the disability sector;

http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

https://www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/download/pdf/community_pharmacies_serving_people_with_disabilities.pdf

https://www.inclusionireland.ie/sites/default/files/attach/basic-page/1651/inclusion-ireland-submission-policing-authority-2018-policing-priorities.pdf

https://www.sinnfein.ie/ga/contents/34275

It is used in the US, particularly around facilities like parking, and the translations of handicap are used in some European countries. But it is not used in Ireland or UK.

Deleted User wrote: »

By calling something which is already punishable by law a "hate crime" you are doing nothing to give them additional protection. Why can't you see that? There are laws protecting *whatever the pc term is* people. Why is renaming it giving them "additional protection"?

You're calling - calling something a hate crime does nothing. it's not about calling something a hate crime - it is about how those crimes are treated differently, either in how they are investigated, or how they are prosecuted or how they are punished. Different treatment to produce fair outcomes - to rebalance the imbalance that currently exists for many vulnerable people.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You're calling - calling something a hate crime does nothing. it's not about calling something a hate crime - it is about how those crimes are treated differently, either in how they are investigated, or how they are prosecuted or how they are punished. Different treatment to produce fair outcomes - to rebalance the imbalance that currently exists for many vulnerable people.

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

Can you not see the problem there?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yes, it is offensive. The equivalent of 'queer' as used by some gay people or 'n-i-g-g-e-r' as used by some black people in the disability sector is 'crip'. Check out the US political campaign to 'crip the vote' or the campaign in the film industry to stop 'cripping up'. And of course, it's generally not OK to use those terms from outside the sector - to refer to someone as queer or n-i-g-g-e-r or crip, even where they use those terms for themselves.

Nah. I disagree that if a word is in common usage by that group, it becomes fair game. You cant make up rules that people can only say certain words because of their skin colour or sexual orientation.

Imagine I said that black people can't use a certain word. It's only for whites. Or gay can't use a certain word because it's only for straight people. Bollocks to that. Why does it instantly become offensive when I say it? All depends on the context as with any word.

Handicapped is not offensive and I'm ****ed if I'm going to keep up with every new phrase that people want. Disabled is allowed now, give it a month and that will be gone to. Differently abled will be the "correct" phrase. Again, it's context and intent which is important.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

Can you not see the problem there?

Most countries have some form of hate crime legislation. It's more a matter of time before we legislate more heavily against it and there is party support for it. The reason for hate crime laws coming into existence also tends to be the fact that the prejudice tended to be the primary motivating factor behind the crime.

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

I suppose if it was a provable aggravating factor it should be taken into account but I think that is already the case now anyway. No need for further legislation.

stefanovich wrote: »

I suppose if it was a provable aggravating factor it should be taken into account but I think that is already the case now anyway. No need for further legislation.

Eh the Gardai dispute the legislation being adequate...

batgoat wrote: »

Eh the Gardai dispute the legislation being adequate...

Then they need to actually prove things, which is what they don't like to do. Work.

stefanovich wrote: »

Then they need to actually prove things, which is what they don't like to do. Work.

It's well documented and has been highlighted by numerous groups as an issue..
https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

Deleted User wrote: »

So you want crimes against straight people punished more severely than crimes against gay people?

If I for example, assaulted someone who I didn't know was gay, how could I prove it wasn't a hate crime? Should I have to prove it? Should I get a harsher sentence than if I assaulted a straight man?

What is to stop people lying about being gay in order to get people longer sentence harsher punishments?

This is why we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

What I want is for people not to beaten up or abused because of their disability, or their sexuality, or the race more than their peers.

Hate crime legislation is one step on to achieve this. And no, it doesn't mean that crimes against gay people are punished more severely than crimes against straight people. Don't make my point to the Wiki definition. It means that crimes against gay people that are motivated because they are gay are punished more severely or otherwise treated differently. Many other countries in the world manage to do this, and to deal with the fairly silly 'what if' scenarios that you're coming up with as you clutch at straws.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah. I disagree that if a word is in common usage by that group, it becomes fair game. You cant make up rules that people can only say certain words because of their skin colour or sexual orientation.

Imagine I said that black people can't use a certain word. It's only for whites. Or gay can't use a certain word because it's only for straight people. Bollocks to that. Why does it instantly become offensive when I say it? All depends on the context as with any word.

So just to be clear, do you call many black people 'hey n-i-g-g-e-r' these days, given that you know that term is in regular use among and between black people? Do you call many gay people 'hey queer' given that you know that term is in use among and between gay people?

Deleted User wrote: »

Handicapped is not offensive and I'm ****ed if I'm going to keep up with every new phrase that people want. Disabled is allowed now, give it a month and that will be gone to. Differently abled will be the "correct" phrase. Again, it's context and intent which is important.

Yeah, this isn't something that changes by the month - more by the decade in this particular case. Handicap has been offensive in Ireland for decades now, as you would know if you listened to many people with disabilities. And no, 'differently abled' has never been recommended or requested by Irish disability organisations that I've come across, so you're unlikely to be faced with that huge challenge next month. It's a strawman.

Deleted User wrote: »

You want harsher penalties for what you perceive as hate crimes against people who you deem to need protection than the same crime carried out against what you deem to be people who don't need protection?

I want people to NOT be beaten up or abused because of their disability or their race or their gender or their sexual preferences. Hate crime legislation is one way of achieving this goal that has worked in many other countries. It's not down to 'my perception', it is down to a Court, just like any other crime.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Hate crime legislation is one step on to achieve this. And no, it doesn't mean that crimes against gay people are punished more severely than crimes against straight people. Don't make my point to the Wiki definition. It means that crimes against gay people that are motivated because they are gay are punished more severely or otherwise treated differently. Many other countries in the world manage to do this, and to deal with the fairly silly 'what if' scenarios that you're coming up with as you clutch at straws.

It's impossible to prove in the majority of cases. For example, the leapfrogging incident was more an incident of opportunity rather than one born of hatred.

And my 'what ifs' aren't silly. They are decent points. If hate crime is treated more seriously than regular crime, it would be very troublesome.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So just to be clear, do you call many black people 'hey n-i-g-g-e-r' these days, given that you know that term is in regular use among and between black people? Do you call many gay people 'hey queer' given that you know that term is in use among and between gay people?

Funnily enough I do. I don't do it to strangers but in my day to day encounters with colleagues and friends, some I do call the "despicable n word" and there are more than a few I call queer. I wouldn't say it to a stranger, in much the same way I wouldn't call a stranger a c*nt or a tosser but would have no problem saying it to someone who knew me and knew what way it was intended.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yeah, this isn't something that changes by the month - more by the decade in this particular case. Handicap has been offensive in Ireland for decades now, as you would know if you listened to many people with disabilities. And no, 'differently abled' has never been recommended or requested by Irish disability organisations that I've come across, so you're unlikely to be faced with that huge challenge next month. It's a strawman.

No strawman there. I'm just saying that just because someone or some group is offended by a word, it doesn't make the word necessarily offensive. No word is offensive unless used in an offensive context.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I want people to NOT be beaten up or abused because of their disability or their race or their gender or their sexual preferences. Hate crime legislation is one way of achieving this goal that has worked in many other countries. It's not down to 'my perception', it is down to a Court, just like any other crime.

No it isn't.

I want people not to be raped. Therefore we need legislation put in place to stop that happening and punish people who do it.

Oh wait we do?

And it still happens?

Well then, I guess some people will be rapists, some people will be racist and some people will be homophobic. We have legislation to punish people who commit these crimes. We don't need another label.

batgoat wrote: »

It's well documented and has been highlighted by numerous groups as an issue..
https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties is nothing but a leftwing propaganda machine.

stefanovich wrote: »

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties is nothing but a leftwing propaganda machine.

Sure thing, the CSO has said similar... Based on your post history, you're just okay with hate crime..

Franz Von Peppercorn II

One of the interesting things about debates about hate crime vs crime is this: by adding hate to the crime the normal defenders or excusers of crime reverse their position, as do the lock them up brigade - who become very worried about civil liberties.

If we did police physical hate crimes we’d be locking up a lot of the same people the “lock em up” brigade want in prison anyway. Anto with the 250 convictions.

batgoat wrote: »

Sure thing, the CSO has said similar... Based on your post history, you're just okay with hate crime..

Please don't misrepresent me.

I think someone being attacked because of something outside of their control like skin colour or gender or disability is unforgivable and should certainly be considered an aggravating factor.

What I am highly suspicious of is the push for hate crime legislation. It goes back to identity politics where you categorise some group as special in some way and then use them as a fulcrum for pushing a leftwing agenda. In this case restriction of free speech.

stefanovich wrote: »

Please don't misrepresent me.

I think someone being attacked because of something outside of their control like skin colour or gender or disability is unforgivable and should certainly be considered an aggravating factor.

What I am highly suspicious of is the push for hate crime legislation. It goes back to identity politics where you categorise some group as special in some way and then use them as a fulcrum for pushing a leftwing agenda. In this case restriction of free speech.

Thing is, there are limits to freedom of speech in most countries.in addition, the lack of legislation relates to all types of hate crimes. Hence numerous groups highlighting it.