Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate crime? Really?

Options
1…3031323436

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Why would I need to answer this question? If you have a point to make about whether calling someone fat is a hate crime, you don't need my permission or my position to argue with. Is your own opinion that feeble and week that you're unable to put it out there on your own?

    Because you've been asked. Nobody will force you. It's patently clear WHY you won't answer though as no matter what answer you give, it will undermine your stance.

    My opinion is clearly stated. Jumping over someone is not a hate crime. Insulting someone because of their weight is not a hate crime. There is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland and crimes that you describe as hate crimes are already covered under legislation and don't need additional protection.

    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    It's clear that you have no good faith on this matter. You're not out for a sensible, mature, adult discussion about hate crime legislation. If there was any chance of a sensible discussion on this, I'd have engaged further weeks ago. But clearly there isn't - just people who are more interested in scoring points against me than actually making any point.

    I have nothing but good faith, in arguments and in people. I couldn't care less about you Andrew. You, to me, are a faceless argumentative entity that exists in my life only when I give you the opportunity to do so.

    I have made my points. You made yours. I answered any question that was asked. You have not. It's not point scoring, it's having the courage of your conviction to answer questions or admit you are wrong.

    I've been wrong on many times. This isn't one of them.


  • Options
    #993
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I

    It's clear that you have no good faith on this matter. You're not out for a sensible, mature, adult discussion about hate crime legislation. If there was any chance of a sensible discussion on this, I'd have engaged further weeks ago. But clearly there isn't - just people who are more interested in scoring points against me than actually making any point.

    So no, I'm not going to play your game.

    Ah catch yourself on AJ.
    You've been ducking and diving for days.
    You could have nipped this in the bud

    Not only to the calling someone fat question, but also to a few more "edge cases" as you call them. You claim you want a mature discussion, and cite foreign legislation, yet repeatedly avoid questions to tease out the intricacies of "hate crime". In a discussion board.
    "But Australia" doesnt really butter the parsnips

    I call a gay chap a fággõt, and he punches me in the face*. Which is the hate crime? Are both hate crimes?

    (Not that i would, and irrespective of whether I deserve it)

    Going on form, it seems pretty clear you've no interest in discussion/hearing of any view other than your own, where playing the victim card on behalf of minorities is paramount.


  • Options
    #994
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    What’s your opinion on general crime though? As I recall you were rather soft on it.
    Thanks for proving my point nicely about the lack of good faith.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because you've been asked. Nobody will force you. It's patently clear WHY you won't answer though as no matter what answer you give, it will undermine your stance.
    I'm going to need a bit more than 'because you've been asked'. Why have I been asked about these particular edge cases? Have these edge cases been a barrier to implementation of hate crime in other countries? What value would arise from further exploration of these particular edge cases?


  • Options
    #995
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Not only to the calling someone fat question, but also to a few more "edge cases" as you call them. You claim you want a mature discussion, and cite foreign legislation, yet repeatedly avoid questions to tease out the intricacies of "hate crime". In a discussion board.
    What value arises from a bunch of amateurs who know (myself included) SFA about the intricacies of these issues? Should we try and tease out the intricacies of cardiac surgery? Or motorway bridge design? Or safety of dishwasher tablets?


    Let's not kid ourselves that any of us here really has any expertise in these issues. Some of us have serious interests in the issue and some of us don't.



    The 'intricacies' are teased out every day in the legal systems of the many, many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation to protect vulnerable minorities.


  • Options
    #996
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What value arises from a bunch of amateurs who know (myself included) SFA about the intricacies of these issues? Should we try and tease out the intricacies of cardiac surgery? Or motorway bridge design? Or safety of dishwasher tablets?


    Let's not kid ourselves that any of us here really has any expertise in these issues. Some of us have serious interests in the issue and some of us don't.


    The 'intricacies' are teased out every day in the legal systems of the many, many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation to protect vulnerable minorities.

    *checks boards home page.

    "Boards.ie is a discussion forum, and Ireland's largest online community. Founded in 2000, we have grown to be the biggest site of our kind in the country. We have over 36 million posts in our database on a huge variety of topics; our members post almost 17,000 times per day."


    Should you be here at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    I'm going to need a bit more than 'because you've been asked'. Why have I been asked about these particular edge cases? Have these edge cases been a barrier to implementation of hate crime in other countries? What value would arise from further exploration of these particular edge cases?

    I'll do you the courtesy of answering your three questions even though you refuse to answer my very simple one.

    1) because your answer will be very telling in how you view incidents and how they are deemed hate crimes.

    2) not that I am aware. Again, it's not legislation I'm looking to clarify (as there is none in Ireland). It is purely your opinion that I am interested in.

    3) there is no further explanation. There is no actual case. It's a hypothetical and just want to see how you would see it.

    So, for the last time...

    In your opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime?


  • Options
    #998
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,828 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland and crimes that you describe as hate crimes are already covered under legislation and don't need additional protection.

    Sorry to correct you, but there is hate crime legislation, it's call the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.


  • Options
    #999
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Potential-Monke wrote:
    Sorry to correct you, but there is hate crime legislation, it's call the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

    Really? Does that give the definition of a hate crime? Genuine question. Can't look it up at the moment.


  • Options
    #1000
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    *checks boards home page.

    "Boards.ie is a discussion forum, and Ireland's largest online community. Founded in 2000, we have grown to be the biggest site of our kind in the country. We have over 36 million posts in our database on a huge variety of topics; our members post almost 17,000 times per day."


    Should you be here at all?


    Funnily enough, I don't need to answer to you or Dunner for my presence here. I'm quite capable of making sensible decisions myself about what discussions, or what aspects of what discussions I engage in.

    At a bare minimum, discussion of 'general crime' here is going to drag the thread way off topic, right?

    Deleted User wrote: »
    1) because your answer will be very telling in how you view incidents and how they are deemed hate crimes.

    2) not that I am aware. Again, it's not legislation I'm looking to clarify (as there is none in Ireland). It is purely your opinion that I am interested in.


    3) there is no further explanation. There is no actual case. It's a hypothetical and just want to see how you would see it.
    My opinion is that we need hate crime legislation to protect vulnerable groups. How many times do I need to repeat it?

    My opinion on particular cases is that police, prosecutors and Courts will have no difficulties dealing with particular cases here, just like they do in many other countries. Your opinion or my opinion on individual edge cases is fairly meaningless.


    I just wanna doesn't quite cut it. I'm not here for your entertainment or amusement.


  • Options
    #1001
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,828 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Really? Does that give the definition of a hate crime? Genuine question. Can't look it up at the moment.

    Yup, Section 1(1):

    “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

    Not that I agree with one of them, but it's law so can't be ignored. And while it doesn't specifically say 'Hate Crime', it outlines that anything that could be considered 'hatred' is against the act, so technically this is the legislation for 'hate crimes'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Potential-Monke wrote:
    Not that I agree with one of them, but it's law so can't be ignored. And while it doesn't specifically say 'Hate Crime', it outlines that anything that could be considered 'hatred' is against the act, so technically this is the legislation for 'hate crimes'.

    Good stuff. Thanks for that. So leapfrogging isn't regarded a hate crime.


  • Options
    #1003
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,828 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Good stuff. Thanks for that. So leapfrogging isn't regarded a hate crime.

    I agree, but I also can see how it could be construed as one. Like, if it was a child would they have done it, or why don't they regularly do it. But it wasn't a child, it was a dwarf, and they only did it because it was an adult, not a child. So it could be construed that way.


  • Options
    #1004
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Good stuff. Thanks for that. So leapfrogging isn't regarded a hate crime.
    Just ICYMI, it's not a definition of hate crime, it is a definition of hatred, in the context of incitement to hatred - the speech or words that might incite a person to hate.


  • Options
    #1005
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Just ICYMI, it's not a definition of hate crime, it is a definition of hatred, in the context of incitement to hatred - the speech or words that might incite a person to hate.

    Sorry Andrew, as you've stated previously, your opinion means nothing and are unwilling to give your opinion when asked for it so I'll just talk with the people who engage in grown up talk if that's ok with you.

    Talk soon buddy.


  • Options
    #1006
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Potential-Monke wrote:
    I agree, but I also can see how it could be construed as one. Like, if it was a child would they have done it, or why don't they regularly do it. But it wasn't a child, it was a dwarf, and they only did it because it was an adult, not a child. So it could be construed that way.

    Careful chief. That "d" word can be misconstrued as hate speech these days.

    I disagree. I think it would need to show a hatred of the person rather than being an opportunistic bad taste prank.

    If a gay guy hit me unprovoked would that be a hate crime?

    It's too murky to have extra protection for a crime depending on the victim. Laws should protect everyone equally otherwise you will get a lot of falsified testimony in order to get the verdict they want.

    But I get your point.


  • Options
    #1007
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sorry Andrew, as you've stated previously, your opinion means nothing and are unwilling to give your opinion when asked for it so I'll just talk with the people who engage in grown up talk if that's ok with you.

    Talk soon buddy.
    You're of course welcome to ignore whatever you like - but that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Feel free to continue to bury your head in the sand though, if that's your thing.


  • Options
    #1008
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    You're of course welcome to ignore whatever you like - but that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Feel free to continue to bury your head in the sand though, if that's your thing.

    It's ok buddy. I, of course, won't ignore you. That would be just rude. You do you and chip in whenever you think you have some nugget of wisdom.


  • Options
    #1009
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's too murky to have extra protection for a crime depending on the victim. Laws should protect everyone equally otherwise you will get a lot of falsified testimony in order to get the verdict they want.

    Though it's worth noting that this generally isn't a significant problem in the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation around the world.


  • Options
    #1010
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Though it's worth noting that this generally isn't a significant problem in the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation around the world.

    It's really not worth noting but again, thanks for the input.


  • Options
    #1011
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's really not worth noting but again, thanks for the input.

    Sorry, but do you own this thread or something?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Sorry, but do you own this thread or something?

    Not even a little bit. I was just responding to a post that was aimed at me and I thanked you for it.


  • Options
    #1013
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'm not going to play your game.

    Would you play this one?

    giphy.gif


  • Options
    #1014
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not even a little bit. I was just responding to a post that was aimed at me and I thanked you for it.

    No, it wasn't aimed at you, but thanks for the thanks all the same.


  • Options
    #1015
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    No, it wasn't aimed at you, but thanks for the thanks all the same.

    You quoted me.


  • Options
    #1016
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Would you play this one?

    Probably not, though there is a photo of my leapfrogging an old style parking meter in my younger years. I'm not sure I could manage one of the pay and display machines these days.


  • Options
    #1017
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Funny how you've no problem answering my question above first time around but refuse to answer another simple one after being asked umpteen times. Very cowardly.


  • Options
    #1018
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You quoted me.


    I did indeed. And my point stands - the response wasn't directed at you. It was in response to the point you made, though it wasn't directed at you.

    Omackeral wrote: »
    Funny how you've no problem answering my question above first time around but refuse to answer another simple one after being asked umpteen times. Very cowardly.


    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?


  • Options
    #1019
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    O
    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?

    Funny (not ha ha funny) how you're so extravagant* in your posts on a discussion site to reject attempts to discuss said discussion topic, repeating your unwillingness ho engage.
    Mantras and slogans is your forte i reckon.


    (*On mobile, cant actually check if you're top poster, but I'd wager truppence...)


  • Options
    #1020
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Funny (not ha ha funny) how you're so extravagant* in your posts on a discussion site to reject attempts to discuss said discussion topic, repeating your unwillingness ho engage.
    Mantras and slogans is your forte i reckon.


    (*On mobile, cant actually check if you're top poster, but I'd wager truppence...)
    Top poster on boards? I'll safely see your truppence and raise you to shilling on that one.



    I haven't rejected discussion. People are welcome to discuss to their hearts content. It's funny how people really don't seem that interested in discussion their own views, but are more interested in setting themselves up to score points against me. So no, I'm not going to play your/their game, but if you/they want to kid yourselves that you know your ars3 from your elbow on these issues, by all means, be my guest.


    I'll stick to the point about the need for hate crime legislation in Ireland to protect vulnerable groups.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    I'll stick to the point about the need for hate crime legislation in Ireland to protect vulnerable groups.

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

    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?


Advertisement