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; } } }

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Stephen15

batgoat wrote: »

Are you so ill informed that you're oblivious to the fact that people have faced harassment and violent attacks because of their race, religion, orientation etc? Meanwhile culchies and red haired people do not. No shocker that you choose to be oblivious to the obvious though.

Joey used the example of a Pakistani man being mugged then getting called a "paki bastard" during the mugging. That's not a hate crime that's assault and robbery many attacks have an element of verbal abuse whether that be based on race, appearance, hair colour, clothing etc.

I do not believe that racial abuse or so called hate crimes are a major issue in this country and when in the vent they do occur I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences

recedite

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair I used to work with a ginger lad who got a payout off transdev because a luas ticket inspector called him 'ginger pubes' or some crap.

Well there ya go. We don't need Joey's law.
If somebody gets abused in some way, there are ways of getting payback already.

pinkyeye

Stephen15 wrote: »

I've never heard of it until now so I can't speak of the all lives matter movement.

Well the left regularly go on about equality but then celebrate diversity don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to say we're all equal then celebrate diversity. Why does diversity matter if we're all equal?

Do you know what diverse means? It means different, not lesser or superior.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Lots of african countries white people are robbed, mugged and tortured for being white, south africans being kicked off their farms etc... does happen, just not here , well except anecdotal evidence of the roaming african gangs in some estates targeting white lads

And what country are you in Eric?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Joey used the example of a Pakistani man being mugged then getting called a "paki bastard" duringbthe mugging. That's not a hate crime that's assault and robbery many attacks have an element of verbal abuse whether that be based on race, appearance, hair colour, clothing etc.

I do not believe that racial abuse or so called hate crimes are a major issue in this country and when in the vent they do occur I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences

Yes, it would be classified as a hate crime as there would be an indication that race was the motivating factor.... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

And what country are you in Eric?

Luckily Ireland where we still have time to act before areas become like parts of east london or malmo where people are targeted for being white by immigrant gangs.

Although as somebody who has heard of white women being abused on the bus near adamstown im surprised that the new 'racism has no place on public transport' posters have none of white people, seems a bit......racist....

Kimsang

Careful talking about gingers, Mike.ie has expressed a dislike to conversations of this nature in another thread

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

So you admit hate crime ideology requires a belief structure similar to that of a religion?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.-Steven Weinberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4WVvlWCs9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOwNtYbU02U

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

So you admit hate crime ideology requires a belief structure similar to that of a religion?

Not at all, I'd just say that he tends to be a bit deluded.

[Deleted User]

pinkyeye wrote: »

Do you know what diverse means? It means different, not lesser or superior.

Agreed. So all laws should be applied equally to everyone, for everyone and against everyone IMO.

[Deleted User]

batgoat wrote: »

Yes, it would be classified as a hate crime as there would be an indication that race was the motivating factor.... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

Joey thinks gender should be included too if a man is doing it to a woman. Wonder if he thinks a woman abusing a man is in the same boat too? North vs South of the border? Urban vs rural? Where do we draw the line?

batgoat

Omackeral wrote: »

Joey thinks gender should be included too if a man is doing it to a woman. Wonder if he thinks a woman abusing a man is in the same boat too? North vs South of the border? Urban vs rural? Where do we draw the line?

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

.. In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

batgoat wrote: »

Not at all, I'd just say that he tends to be a bit deluded.

In fairness, you just jumped the shark. You are now telling people what they believe, even when they tell you something else.
He said "I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences" not that they don't exist.

It would be very rare for some attacker to run up to somebody and break their arm, just because of that person's skin colour. But if that happened, how is it any worse for the victim than if they had been randomly selected by an equal opportunity psychopath?

[Deleted User]

batgoat wrote: »

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

Not denying that. What if the shoe is on the other foot though? Or if it's woman hating other women? That's where it gets muddied. If someone has an innate hatred of all women, there's probably mental issues at play too. What I'm saying is, it's hard to legislate for this type of thing. Tough to define. Just prosecute people for the crimes and if the mens rea is present, apply the necessary laws that are there.

Stephen15

batgoat wrote: »

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

And those people are generally charged with crimes such as rape and sexual assault

pinkyeye

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Whatever about redheads, culchies are certainly not a minority.

If someone deliberately went looking for a redhead to attack then yes that's a hate crime.

bobmalooka

Some pathetic stawman arguments in here.

We have an equal stays act, this would be a reasonable basis for defining what categories of people could be subjected to hate crimes.

Gender is one of them so worry not lads, if men are attacked by women because they are men I would say there’s a reasonable argument that that is a hate crime.

Lobby your local TD if you feel culchies, gingers or baldies should also be protected under the act - as I meet 2 of those 3 categories and am rapidly approaching all 3 I would welcome such a development.

Kimsang

bobmalooka wrote: »

Some pathetic stawman arguments in here.

We have an equal stays act, this would be a reasonable basis for defining what categories of people could be subjected to hate crimes.

Gender is one of them so worry not lads, if men are attacked by women because they are men I would say there’s a reasonable argument that that is a hate crime.

Lobby your local TD if you feel culchies, gingers or baldies should also be protected under the act - as I meet 2 of those 3 categories and am rapidly approaching all 3 I would welcome such a development.

Might just be easier if we upgrade all crimes to hate crime status, then we can have justice again.

pinkyeye

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

bobmalooka

Kimsang wrote: »

Might just be easier if we upgrade all crimes to hate crime status, then we can have justice again.

Excellent point, that’s me told

[Deleted User]

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more. There are existing laws there that can be used to punish people for transgressions. Who decides what constitutes hate-speech/hate-crimes. Things like that.

jackboy

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

Crimes are currently dealt with based on actions. Hate crimes are dealt with based on actions in conjunction with the thoughts of the accused. Massive potential for errors.

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

because it seems like everything is escalating to be 'motivated by hate' these days. The last thing we need is you drunkenly end up in a minor fight with some random lad and are going down for 2 years because you didn't know he was a gay jew , or some woman shouting her mouth off at another woman over a disagreement on the street and all of a sudden its a conviction because one of them was black.

bobmalooka

Omackeral wrote: »

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more.

Presumably the DPP will relegate ‘hate crimes’ to ‘regular crime’ status if the appropriate evidence threshold can’t be met in the case of an alleged hate crime

Edit: I accept it is harder to prove and thus an unsatisfactory level of actual hate crimes would be charged as such - however I don’t accept this as reason enough to reject the concept

[Deleted User]

bobmalooka wrote: »

Presumably the DPP will relegate ‘hate crimes’ to ‘regular crime’ status if the appropriate evidence threshold can’t be met in the case of an alleged hate crime

Who decides what constitutes a hate-crime? Is it black and white, excuse the pun, or is it on a sliding spectrum. Would jurors, if required, by asked to judge for themselves? Would there have to be people of various colours, belief systems and ability on duty?

TaurenDruid

Omackeral wrote: »

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more. There are existing laws there that can be used to punish people for transgressions. Who decides what constitutes hate-speech/hate-crimes. Things like that.

When someone attacks someone because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion - it's a hate crime.

When someone daubs swastikas or other graffiti on a place of worship - it's a hate crime.

When someone urges violence against people or places because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion or there are asylum seekers living there - it's a hate crime.

When someone burns down a direct provision centre - it's a hate crime.

It's not hard.

bobmalooka

Omackeral wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes a hate-crime? Is it black and white, excuse the pun, or is it on a sliding spectrum. Would jurors, if required, by asked to judge for themselves? Would there have to be people of various colours, belief systems and ability on duty?

Well the legislature, then the DPP interpretation of legislation in combination with evidence provided by AGS and then ultimately a judge after hearing the car presented by the DPP and defended by the defendant.

As pointed out already, the equal stays act defines 9 categories of discrimination- this would be a reasonable starting point for defining categories of hate motivated crimes

Kimsang

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

Markus Meechan was convicted under hate laws in Scotland for making a joke. He was in fact making a joke at the expense of nazis, but he was told by the court that context doesn't matter.

Chelsea Russell was arrested for paying tribute to her dead friend by posting rap lyrics on a facebook page.

What good does hate crime legislation do? It makes people feel better.

Stephen15

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

Because I support justice being served. As a white person if I become a victim of crime I would like to see the perpetrator brought to justice. I would not like to see a situation where an <insert minority here> who gets attacked perpetrator gets a harsher sentence becuase of their race.

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

When someone attacks someone because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion - it's a hate crime.

When someone daubs swastikas or other graffiti on a place of worship - it's a hate crime.

When someone urges violence against people or places because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion or there are asylum seekers living there - it's a hate crime.

When someone burns down a direct provision centre - it's a hate crime.

It's not hard.

Yeah and that's not always easy to prove. For example, daubing swastikas could be teenage vandalism designed to get a rise. People can simply be kunts. I've seen it. Eejits that just do it. Anyone burning down a synagogue or church should be done for arson. Anyone doing it with occupants inside should be done attempted murder. There are laws in place already. Prosecute to them to the full extent of it.

Also, should we have jurors from every ethnic and cultural background to ensure diversity? Or specific jurors from the background of the alleged victim?

[Deleted User]

bobmalooka wrote: »

Well the legislature, then the DPP interpretation of legislation in combination with evidence provided by AGS and then ultimately a judge after hearing the car presented by the DPP and defended by the defendant.

As pointed out already, the equal stays act defines 9 categories of discrimination- this would be a reasonable starting point for defining categories of hate motivated crimes

We have scumbags getting off with suspended sentences for far more serious crimes than saying offensive words or adding insult to injury. I'd much rather that was dealt with to be honest.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of