Hate crime? Really?

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand. And I will stick to the reality that there is no need as they have protection already.

You should share that good news with the folks who were on Joe Duffy all week talking about the racial abuse they got on Irish Rail trains and elsewhere.

Deleted User wrote: »

Vulnerable groups you say? Who do you deem as vulnerable? Is it an exhaustive list or can you keep adding as you go along. I mean, if I identified as feeling vulnerable, would I be protected under hate crime legislation? What's the criteria?

The Wiki definition would be a great starting point;

Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

It's similar enough to the nine grounds in Irish equality legislation. There might be a few issues to be worked out through the normal legislative processes.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are protected against that. I think calling it a hate crime would change absolutely sweet **** all. What extra protection would a name change do?

Obviously, the current level of protection isn't working if people are suffering these kinds of attacks and worse because of their race or their disability or their sexual orientation.



Hate crime legislation would provide different ways of handling the enforcement, prosecution and punishment of these crimes to provide extra protection, as they do in many countries around the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

Physical appearance? Please explain to me how that would work in your opinion?

It's not something I'd have much expertise or experience on. It would work in the same way that it works in other countries around the world that have hate crime legislation.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funny how you're so desperate to drag me down a rat hole of a discussion? Would that be to try to distract from the reality of how hate crime legislation works fine in many other countries?

Nah just showing you in black and white that you're showing yourself up as an absolute coward is all. Of course, you already know that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus you are like a broken record.

In fairness, if you keep asking the same question, you're going to keep getting the same answer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you keep prattling on if you aren't willing to give your OPINION on how you think hate crime laws will work according to your definition?

Mainly because I recognise that my OPINION on how hate crime laws will work is about as useful as my OPINION on the inner workings of nuclear reactors or my OPINION on the fine details of heart surgery. I'm able to see that it would require considerable expertise or research on these matters to give a sensible opinion. So until I've done that research, I'll hold back rather than pontificating on something that I know very little about. I know that might seem like a novel approach here on boards. where everyone is encouraged to have an opinion about everything, including the things that they know SFA about - but that's the way I work around here.

Deleted User wrote: »

But sure let's have a look at America then. Do they have hate crime legislation? Tell me about how there is no racism or social disharmony there.

If you want me to do your research for you, we'll need to agree an hourly rate in advance. How does €100 an hour sound to you?

Omackeral wrote: »

Nah just showing you in black and white that you're showing yourself up as an absolute coward is all. Of course, you already know that.

There's no 'showing up' involved. I've made my position crystal clear from the start - that I'm not going to be drawn down a rathole for your entertainment.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Everything (s)he has to offer could be written on 2x3 placard.

Just repetition of the same stuff.
"Something edge case...but something wiki...something other countries...not interested in a discussion...something".


Ample opportunities to move things along.
But no. Pages of the same shîte.

Obviously all the legislation in relation to:

Murder
Assault
Sex assault
Rape
Theft
Drink driving
Speeding
Motor tax
Tax evasion
Litter
Fraud etc. is insufficient to protect people, irrespective of sex, race, disability, ethnicity.

Although, now that i think of it, maybe there is an arguement for increased penalties for attacks/crimes by a certain ethnic group on another, where the victims ethnicity is a factor.

Or does your bias only apply to those you deem to be vulnerable?
As your avoidance of simple questions would suggest?

I'm not quite sure about the relevance of the motor tax and litter thing.


But just to be clear, it's not me who would deem people to be vulnerable or not - it would be part of legislation, just as it is in the many countries round the world that have implemented hate crime legislation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Give me an example of how it will help. What different ways of handling the enforcement do other countries use and has it eliminated people being victimised?

Sure - one example would be increased punishment levels as a deterrent. But maybe you'd like to do some further research yourself, before you decide whether there is value in hate crime legislation or not.


If you want me to do your research for you, we'll need to agree an hourly rate in advance. How does €100 an hour sound to you?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It isn't a hate crime because he hit a gay man. It's a hate crime when he hit him because he's a gay man.

Do you come across many cases of straight men being beaten up because they are straight?

Obese person gets a hiding after being verbally abused for being overweight. He's hit because he's a fat man. Is that a hate crime? Exact same wording as you've used. No games, no rat-trap... just asking a direct opinion.

Omackeral wrote: »

Obese person gets a hiding after being verbally abused for being overweight. He's hit because he's a fat man. Is that a hate crime? Exact same wording as you've used. No games, no rat-trap... just asking a direct opinion.

Did you really think it was going to be that easy?

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I can only share my opinion which is that if you treat others as different in the eyes of the law, it is no longer just and fair.

Giving opinions aren't that hard. You should try some time.

So you didn't really do the research, right?

Deleted User wrote: »

About as much as youbdid

That's true enough, though I didn't claim to have done any research.

Omackeral wrote: »

It would be for 99% of people. You're a very very special chap though seemingly.

Why, thank you - you're too kind.

And did you look for the report, or did you just decide that it's ridiculous before reading up? Or did you talk to many trans people about their experiences?

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to see the report that backs up that ridiculous claim. Total bullsh!t that the mainstream press will lap up in order to make Ireland look like it's over-run with trans bashing zealots.

Even judging from the numerous threads posted here by the vitriol to transgender people, it's no surprise that there is a general transphobic hostility and hate among some sections of the general wider public. Dunno why you are surprised, it's shocking that you are surprised at all.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Funnily enough Andrew, I did. I found a report called Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Country Report for Ireland which I found to spout awful ****e. I read it before I called it ridiculous and has no basis in reality.

Take this peach of a quote



Yet saying in the same breath that Ireland has the one of the highest amounts of hate crime....... based on what records if it can't be recorded?

So
I have spoken to a few trans people. Have you spoken to lots? Have they a hive mind?

Anyone can have a victim mentality Andrew. In fact, I feel like you are attacking me with your questioning. That's a hate crime you know.

So that's a No then - you haven't read the report that you somehow know is ridiculous before you read it. Didn't think so.

And no, I haven't spoken to lots of trans people - two that I can recall, in fact, one of which had pretty dreadful experiences with employers, landlords and family. How about you?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I say this as an ally.

Right up there with

I'm not racist but...

and

I'm a cyclist myself but....

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see an overwhelming amount of vitriol. I think there is righfully some pushback when it comes to insisting that a trans person has a right to be wholesale recognised as their preferred gender. This is and has been referred to as hate speech and a hate crime. It's not.

I say this as an ally.

Ally?! You're very funny. There has been many threads usually started by opposers of trans rights with vitriol aimed at that tiny community.

They are legally recognised as their gender, it's the law. You're welcome to contact your local TD/political party(there are none on your side unfortunately!) to protest that law or even mount a court challenge if you wish as you are deeply affected by this issue.