You are OK with it. You don't want to try to stop.
So someone in a car opening the window and shouting racist abuse at a stranger isn't racist. There is no racist intent there.
What else could they possibly be doing, what other possible intent could they have?
Canada has legislation without defining what hate speech is but you need me a lay person in regards to the law to define it on boards.
A whole page worth. Must be a record.
Hate crimes are signal crimes. They send a message to the victim, and to other people like them, that they are not safe, not wanted, or somehow not a real member of Irish society who is entitled to the same protections or the same freedoms as other people.
Victims of hate crime are made to feel afraid for the future, not just for themselves but for their friends, their loved ones and their children. This type of fear can lead to anger, and ultimately to a more divided society where whole communities can feel unsafe.
The DOJ has summed up exactly how incidents like in the OP make people feel about their safety and wellbeing.
Why would anyone be opposed to trying to protect innocent people like the OP's wife from being abused for the mere crime of leaving her house?
Such a nebulous and inefficient definition and completely open to interpretation of intent by the victim and the perpetrator.
Would you open that type of crime to cover people who suffer abuse because of their appearance (fat, ugly, scarred, height, weight)?
I'm not ok with it. I specifically said I wasn't.
Shouting abuse, racist or not, is wrong. I am unsure at how it could possibly be policed.
Should comedians be banned from telling jokes which contain racist elements?
Should films be banned for portraying stereotypes?
The canadian legislation is absolutely grandstanding and posturing and does nothing to protect people from "hate" because hate is pretty much unprovable.
Let's deal with op. No more deflection from you.
A stranger slowing their car opening their window and shouting racist obscenities at a stranger. Does that show racist intent to you?
Because it clear as day showd racist intent to me. And if ireland had legislation similar to Canada that would mean the Gardaí could form an investigation using the OP's wife's statement and the license number of the vehicle.
Would it necessarily lead to conviction. No I doubt it but it would at least provide an avenue for the victim of this crime to take. Right now there is no crime for the Gardaí to investigate as far as I am aware under existing Legislation.
So the ops wife is a victim but there is no crime. Does that not seem wrong?
You see this is why I won't engage with your defining hate speech. Because no matter what I say you will throw in something else.
Hence my funny walks reference yesterday. So a single piece of legislation won't cover everything so we shouldn't try and protect victims from any racist abuse. Is that your stance?
Where is the name of God did I "defend" hate speech?
Pointing out that your definition of hate speech is unworkable is not defending hate speech. It's purely showing up your inconsistencies.
What would hate speech be? I cant defend it or support something unless you tell me what it is.
Is shouting any abuse from a car hate speech or is it purely racist abuse? If racist abuse is shouted from a car does it only become hate speech if the victim is offended by it? Can someone else report hate speech on behalf of someone else?
Ireland has the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which covers hate crimes. “Gardai could form an investigation using the OPs wife’s statement and the license number of the vehicle” already.
Did she report it to the Gardai or get the reg plate? If she hasn’t, then following Robbie’s absolutely absurd and ridiculous “logic”, she must tacitly support racist abuse.
There we go again deflection avoidance and insults.
Did the incident in the op show racist intent to you?
Going from the little information in the OP (and the fact I have no cause to doubt him), then yes, I take it at face value that the OP's wife did receive racial abuse.
And where was the insult op? Are you offended? Would what I said to you constitute hate speech?
Deflection would be not answering questions. I have answered your questions. So far in this thread you have wrongly accused me of deflection, wrongly accused me of defending hate speech, wrongly suggested I said there was no racism in football and many many more misrepresentations in order to frame me as something I am not.
I had to ask the same question again despite you quoting the post. So eh yeah that is deflection.
So we agree that the racist incident described in the opening post showed racist intent. Should we not look to deal with incidents like that in legislation. And note neither I nor you know the racist language used but here we are in agreement that there was racist intent.
I'm asking what legislation you are proposing. What safeguards could we have in place in order to stop people like yourself misrepresenting others and potentially accusing others of racism or hatred?
It's virtually impossible to prove "hate" and I have not heard one convincing idea or argument that would make dealing with an incident like this slightly workable.
It just boils down to you declaring loud and proud that you want racism to stop and people be punished. Cool, I think most people feel the same. But you have no idea how to make it workable and the best I have heard from you is policing peoples speech and even at that, you want to make it based on contextual situations where you will punish someone for using a word and then the exact same word being absolutely fine in a different context.
I've answered your questions, now please answer this:
If two white people are standing at a bus stop and make a racist joke containing the N word and there is a black person in earshot who feels like the word was used as an insult to them, would you believe that would constitute hate speech and should be punishable?
I can’t speak for Robbie but in the hypothetical circumstances you’re describing, it wouldn’t constitute hate speech under the legislation that was proposed by Helen McEntee last year. In the circumstances the OP describes, the person’s actions could constitute either hate crime or under the proposed legislation could constitute hate speech.
It’s really not the impossibility you make out to prove something constitutes hate speech at all -
Speaking Thursday at the launch of a report recommending stronger hate speech and hate crime legislation, the Minister said the laws will target people who “intentionally or recklessly” incite hatred against individuals or groups.
The test for criminal hate speech will be the perpetrator’s intentions, not how the speech was perceived by the victim.
It is It is important that the intent of the law is communicated clearly to prevent thousands of people who may have taken offence at an internet post or comment “trying to press charges and going to the gardaí,” the Minister said.
I suppose it boils down to proving the intent to cause "hate" and what constitutes hate.
Surely a defense for the OP's situation could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended.
Again, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not looking to defend racial abuse, I just don't see how hate speech legislation can work
When you raise a defence to something, I can’t see how that is anything other than defending it. That’s an entirely separate issue from being unable to understand how hate speech legislation can work when I’ve already demonstrated how it was suggested it would work in the article I linked to.
According to that article, we already know what constitutes hate speech, and it’s easily proven that something constitutes hate speech if it meets those conditions. Other than trying to be obtuse, I can’t imagine how this is a difficult concept for anyone to grasp, especially by anyone who claims to have been the victim of racist abuse on as many occasions as you have.
Well that just proves my point Jack.
I didn't raise a defense, I simply pointed out that a person could lie and it would be almost impossible to prove him wrong. That is not defending hate speech even in the slightest and a response to the article you provided.
The article did not even come close to explaining what constitutes hate speech. Perhaps my reading comprehension is not the best this morning but can you point out a clear definition that is not ambiguous?
What conditions did it meet that can't be countered with a simple "I didn't intend any hate"?
And yes, as someone who has been on the receiving end of racial abuse, it is in my best interest to point out glaring inconsistencies in proposed legislation because as it stands, I can't see it making one iota of a difference.
You absolutely DID raise a defence -
You didn’t say anything in your post about the person lying, and in any case the same test would apply - whether or not they intentionally or recklessly incite hatred against individuals or groups. The person can counter it with whatever they like, that’s called a defence btw. It would still be up to the investigating officers to determine whether they intentionally or recklessly incited hatred against individuals or groups.
There’s no inconsistency in the proposed legislation and that’s why I suggested that in my view the circumstances you describe of the two people standing at the bus stop making racist jokes would be unlikely to constitute an offence under the proposed legislation. Nothing unlawful about being racist. It’s the behaviour which may be determined to constitute an offence, based upon determining the person’s intent.
Claiming it was only a joke constitutes a defence, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t commit an offence.
FFS jack, I said what I said because you need to prove intent to incite hatred, you can just say that you were joking and no hatred was intended. I was not defending any racist behaviour.
Can you clearly explain to me exactly what inciting hatred is, and how a singular case of calling someone a slur corresponds to it? That is a genuine question.
But you and I did agree something has racist intent. So it's not nearly as impossible as you make out. Given a single case study on this thread we have agreed intent.
Because I believe the OP.
That couldn't and shouldn't hold up when it comes to legality.
But isn't that exactly what a judge or Jury does when they hear testimony in a case.
Do they not decide if they believe the testimony presented to them?
Isn't that what the Gardaí do as part of their investigation.
Do the DPP not further judge the evidence on whether it is likely to be believed in court. Are these not all judgment based decisions?
"Surely a defense for the OP's situation could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended."
You didn’t say anything in your post about the person lying - so you would accept that they were joking as per above? Since you can't see anything in the post about the person lying?? You're tying yourself in knots.
We currently have laws against incitement to hatred. How would you expect an investigating officer to determine hatred in a "he said/she said" situation? Some form of Minority Report system?
I didn’t accuse you of defending racist behaviour, and I didn’t think you were defending racist behaviour by raising a possible defence for the behaviour of the person being referred to by the OP. Anyone can of course say they were just joking and no offence was intended. It doesn’t mean anyone has to believe them. That’s why what you’re looking for doesn’t exist - a lexicon of words that shall be verboten under any legislation.
Calling someone a slur with the intent to humiliate them or infringe upon their dignity, COULD constitute inciting hatred, whether the person is intentionally or recklessly doing so. Expecting anyone to define hatred for you is dancing on the head of a pin stuff. Nobody is going to do that. What I CAN do however, is suggest that a read of the Interpretation of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act which exists already, might give you some idea if you’re not deliberately trying to be obtuse -
Nobody’s tying themselves up in knots. The dunne only suggested they could be lying after already raising the defence that the same person could have been joking. They could also have had their granny in the boot poking them in the back of the head with a gun threatening to shoot them unless they shouted racist abuse at a random stranger for all anyone knows!
I expect investigating officers to be able to use their judgment in any circumstances. That seems to be an unreasonable expectation according to some posters here, and yet we rely on that same expectation every day without question. Perhaps it’s just not as difficult as posters here are trying to make out in defence of the indefensible.
No. Because there will always be stupid people.
A couple of comments on this:
(i) there is no such thing as race. its bull. This idea that 'black people are a different 'race' from white people'. We are here in Ireland. People in France are a little bit darker than us. People in Spain are a little bit darker than the French. The Moroccans are a little darker than the Spanish. The Malians are a little darker than the Moroccans. And so on. The whole notion of race, and that one race is different to another, is complete bull.
(ii) 'Racism' per se only came into play in the 1700s and 1800s with the onset of the slave trade, where Africans were dehumanised in the same way that Irish were dehumanised, so that the imperial powers of Europe could justify treating them like animals and sending them off on slave ships to America and elsewhere. Race and Racism is an invented concept.
Having said all that - Racism obviously does very much exist unfortunately, and will do for as it suits certain classes of people to sneer and look down on other classes of people.
To many ,that's both a philosophical and political question.
you wouldnt make a good doctor with that attitude if you were being totally literal
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer