Will racism ever end?

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.

What is Hate Crime?

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?

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?

There we go again deflection avoidance and insults.

Did the incident in the op show racist intent to you?

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 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.

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.

You absolutely DID raise a defence -

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, 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.

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.

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?

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 -

No. Because there will always be stupid people.