Hate Speech Public Consultation

Eric Cartman · 29-10-2020 10:15am

WrenBoy wrote: »

Will they go easier on me if I turn myself in ?

Turning yourself in is white privilege you racist, you have to fill your pockets with guns, hang around on a street corner looking shady at night and when a cop stops you you reach for the gun , get shot and the internet screams “he didnt do nuffin” and thats how it has to go.

Sir Oxman · 29-10-2020 1:26pm

Ireland is up next.
Oh what joys will that bring I wonder.
Our 'betters' have a penchant lately for wanting to be seen to outdo t'other little nations in the game.

statesaver · 29-10-2020 3:55pm

Scotland, Jesus lads...

https://twitter.com/JTasioulas/status/1321409453489606660

ArrBee · 29-10-2020 5:39pm

statesaver wrote: »

Scotland, Jesus lads...

https://twitter.com/JTasioulas/status/1321409453489606660

Is he "stirring up hate" (towards whatever group he identifies with) by broadcasting such an opinion?

Could he become his own victim of this nonsense?

1800_Ladladlad · 29-10-2020 7:41pm

Yeah this clip says all we need to know about this bellend

https://twitter.com/MahyarTousi/status/1321747906978811906

osarusan · 30-10-2020 9:33am

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

TheValeyard · 30-10-2020 9:49am

statesaver wrote: »

Scotland, Jesus lads...

https://twitter.com/JTasioulas/status/1321409453489606660

Dangerous. Bringing the Woke viliganties right into your home.

Wibbs · 30-10-2020 10:06am

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Yeah this clip says all we need to know about this bellend

https://twitter.com/MahyarTousi/status/1321747906978811906

Mad that when you move to a nation that's 97% made up of pale Europeans it comes as a shock that those positions are taken up by same. Imagine having the hard neck to rock up to China and lecture and berate them over how all their governmental heads are *gasp* Asians. This is yet another insanity involved with this multicultural pipedream. Though under their new "hate speech" laws the above could sail close to the rocks of censure. Though that gobsh1te's opinions would be fine and see how slow they will be to move on "hate speech" from any minorities. These are crazy times indeed.

Eric Cartman · 30-10-2020 10:07am

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

The problem is , the bar hasn't been set at ‘murder all the gays” its a lot lower, any criticism of islam, trans ideology, any minority could be classed as such

osarusan · 30-10-2020 10:11am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem is , the bar hasn't been set at ‘murder all the gays” its a lot lower, any criticism of islam, trans ideology, any minority could be classed as such

If that's true, then surely that's an issue with the law itself, rather than it being applied for conversations at the dinner table as well as everywhere else.

If the bar is set too low, it's too low everywhere, and the dinner table should be no more or less protected than anywhere else.

As I said, I understand that people think the law goes too far, or sets the bar too low, but I don't see what the 'dinner table' issue really is at all, whereas it seems to be a separate issue for posters on here.

Maybe it's a symbol of the pervasiveness (or invasiveness) of the law I suppose.

Sir Oxman · 30-10-2020 10:12am

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

As always, it's who gatekeeps the gatekeepers.

WrenBoy · 30-10-2020 12:22pm

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

Its too pervasive it smacks of informing the gestapo. Plus the obvious question of what hate speech is, its an amorphous nebulous idea that no one seems to nail down. If my elderly aunt thinks the whole trans gender debate is mad and doesn't agree with it, is that a crime now ? If not, why not?

Maybe just to be safe we could have some uniformed civil servants going from house to house during the Christmas holidays just sitting off to the side making sure no one is breaking any hate speech laws, I don't see any reason not to, what have you got to hide ?

Kivaro · 30-10-2020 1:13pm

WrenBoy wrote: »

Its too pervasive it smacks of informing the gestapo. Plus the obvious question of what hate speech is, its an amorphous nebulous idea that no one seems to nail down. If my elderly aunt thinks the whole trans gender debate is mad and doesn't agree with it, is that a crime now ? If not, why not?

Maybe just to be safe we could have some uniformed civil servants going from house to house during the Christmas holidays just sitting off to the side making sure no one is breaking any hate speech laws, I don't see any reason not to, what have you got to hide ?

That's funny, as it was the mental image than I had when reading about this proposal/suggestion by the Scottish Justice Secretary. But instead of the Gestapo all in black, I envisioned Antifa thugs all in black banging on our doors in order to beat up our elderly aunts and uncles before bringing them to the ancient stocks to be publicly abused and humiliated. The likes of Antifa would be the Thought Police in this Justice Secretary's world.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 30-10-2020 1:59pm

statesaver wrote: »

Scotland, Jesus lads...

https://twitter.com/JTasioulas/status/1321409453489606660

Wow, Scotland is very white. My shock.

biko · 30-10-2020 3:17pm

His anti-white sentiments should be investigated by police.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 30-10-2020 3:24pm

biko wrote: »

His anti-white sentiments should be investigated by police.

You can't be racist if you've got dark skin.

Those are the rules.

Imagine going to Africa and moaning that it's too "black".

ArrBee · 30-10-2020 7:49pm

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 30-10-2020 7:52pm

ArrBee wrote: »

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

No, the whole thing needs scrapping.

What's the difference between telling a Paddy English man joke in private with your friends and telling the same joke on facebook? For one you're ok and the other is classed "hate speech".

We don't need this, it doesn't benefit anyone except those that want to abuse it and by god it will be abused by nutters.

osarusan · 30-10-2020 7:57pm

ArrBee wrote: »

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 30-10-2020 8:02pm

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

If you think that's the level you need to go to for it to be considered hate speech you've some rude awakening coming.

osarusan · 30-10-2020 8:10pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

If you think that's the level you need to go to for it to be considered hate speech you've some rude awakening coming.

Then it's an issue of the low bar that has been set, rather than the specific issue of it entering the home, as I've repeatedly said.

AllForIt · 30-10-2020 8:47pm

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

Because the reach is much further, obviously.

And maybe less obviously, one is going to the park with premeditation to say something to have influence over others where the other is just some casually made remake made just to express one's opinion.

...and the proposed law is just about speech. It's not about what you hope to happen as a result. It's just the fact you said it at all and your're done for. It's absurd is what it is.

Sand · 31-10-2020 3:08pm

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

There is already laws against conspiracy to murder. This law is to make it illegal to discuss in your own home views which the government doesn't approve of. To crush all dissent. When the price of multiculturalism is living in a state with the same freedom of speech as East Germany you have to ask if its worth it.

Wibbs · 31-10-2020 4:12pm

It isn't.

1800_Ladladlad · 14-11-2020 12:01pm

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.

Section 2 of the bill:

An offence is aggravated by hate crime against a relevant individual if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual, or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic,anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual.

Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

TomTomTim · 14-11-2020 12:10pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.

Section 2 of the bill:

Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.

This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

Never heard of her, so looked her up. Here's one of the first tweets I came across

https://twitter.com/lichamber/status/1325702098923659264

The fact that this nonsense has never been nipped in the bud is a testament to the fact that feminists ignore all information that doesn't suit them.

1800_Ladladlad · 14-11-2020 12:14pm

The penalties outlined in section 4:

“Every person guilty of committing a relevant offence, aggravated by hate crime pursuant to section 3(1) shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to the maximum penalty that can be imposed for the commission of said offence”

tbrve

TomTomTim · 14-11-2020 12:21pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The penalties outlined in section 4:

tbrve

If the law was applied fairly you could very quickly expose all the holes in it by using it against the people who support it. Sadly, this will likely only apply to people who oppose modern order.

Sand · 14-11-2020 12:34pm

TomTomTim wrote: »

If the law was applied fairly you just very quickly expose all the holes in it by using it against the people who support it. Sadly, this will likely only apply to people who oppose modern order.

A law like this is a necessary tool of totalitarian government. The advocates of laws like these can only justify it by claiming it will only be used against bad people. They can't even conceive that it will be used against them.

biko · 14-11-2020 1:05pm

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This makes it illegal to not be a baizuo.

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 2:59pm

Well we had the blasphemy law, this is just another version to the new faith and just as bloody ridiculous and like the previous generations of the religious we'll always have enough of the new breed of crawthumpers behind it and hoping to wield it to shut down any dissent.

Sir Oxman · 14-11-2020 3:17pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.

Section 2 of the bill:

Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.

This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

And I was told on this thread many months ago by someone who considers themselves intelligent - nah, won't happen.
Perception?? Nah.
Here we are.

This is a charter for the type of posters on here that revel in critical theory and for every malicious, narcissistic personality type to bump their delusions.
Basically, a charter for ass*oles to point a finger.

political analyst · 16-11-2020 3:42pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.

Section 2 of the bill:

Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.

This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

But that already happens in common law anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3207822.stm

But they found her guilty of an alternative charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

political analyst · 16-11-2020 3:43pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we had the blasphemy law, this is just another version to the new faith and just as bloody ridiculous and like the previous generations of the religious we'll always have enough of the new breed of crawthumpers behind it and hoping to wield it to shut down any dissent.

Unlike the blasphemy law, the new legislation can be challenged in the courts under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

TomTomTim · 16-11-2020 4:08pm

political analyst wrote: »

Unlike the blasphemy law, the new legislation can be challenged in the courts under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

God help us then, as they ruled that calling Muhammad a pedophile was not considered free speech. If that isn't freedom of expression, then we really don't have any. This essentially means that certain facts don't fall within freedom of expression if it doesn't suit our masters. You'll see no similar cases for people calling Catholics pedophiles.

political analyst · 16-11-2020 4:53pm

TomTomTim wrote: »

God help us then, as they ruled that calling Muhammad a pedophile was not considered free speech. If that isn't freedom of expression, then we really don't have any. This essentially means that certain facts don't fall within freedom of expression if it doesn't suit our masters. You'll see no similar cases for people calling Catholics pedophiles.

That ECHR case concerned Austrian law. The ECHR uses a margin of appreciation, meaning that a ruling on a particular case in one country won't necessarily be the same as a ruling on a similar case in another country.

Catholics themselves would be entitled to make a complaint under the new law.

16-11-2020 5:00pm

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This is really scary

seamus · 16-11-2020 5:02pm

bluewolf wrote: »

This is really scary

Why?

16-11-2020 5:07pm

seamus wrote: »

Why?

because absolutely EVERYTHING has the potential to offend if it is up to any individuals perception

16-11-2020 5:07pm

seamus wrote: »

Why?

As someone not familiar with legislation in general, it seems so wide open to interpretation.
Perceived as? by anyone?
So if everyone involved agrees something wasn't motivated by any of those items but someone else pops up and goes no i've decided it was... ? surely you could find anyone guilty of a hate crime for nearly anything if it's that loose.

Is this existing in law elsewhere already? is there a burden of evidence for perceived as?
i see it even specifies perceived age, so if someone is 17 and you knew they were 17 but someone argues you must have thought they were 16 and therefore a minor, you're guilty of a hate crime (thinking of some sort of sexual assault here) ? or 18/17 whatever

statesaver · 16-11-2020 5:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

because absolutely EVERYTHING has the potential to offend if it is up to any individuals perception

Comedy is finished.

Frankie Boyle saw it coming and become a woke unfunny political correct bore.

seamus · 16-11-2020 5:36pm

bluewolf wrote: »

As someone not familiar with legislation in general, it seems so wide open to interpretation.
Perceived as? by anyone?
So if everyone involved agrees something wasn't motivated by any of those items but someone else pops up and goes no i've decided it was... ? surely you could find anyone guilty of a hate crime for nearly anything if it's that loose.

Is this existing in law elsewhere already? is there a burden of evidence for perceived as?
i see it even specifies perceived age, so if someone is 17 and you knew they were 17 but someone argues you must have thought they were 16 and therefore a minor, you're guilty of a hate crime (thinking of some sort of sexual assault here) ? or 18/17 whatever

You might be overanalysing it.

First you need an offence to have been committed.

Someone merely being offended, doesn't make it a crime.

Once you have established that an offence has been committed, it is then an aggravating factor if that offence is additionally deemed to be a hate crime.

This will be established by presenting relevant evidence; witness statements, etc.

The "perceived as" part means that someone needs to believe that there was a specific prejudicial motivation - but that doesn't mean this belief requires no evidentiary support. "I believe he attacked me because I'm black and he's not", doesn't make it a hate crime. The prosecution would still need to provide evidence in the way of something the perp had said, or having been specifically targetted.

Assessing/applying aggravating factors to offences is widely used and well established, this isn't anything wild.

In your example above, one would first have to prove a sexual assault took place, before they could establish that it was additionally a hate crime.

This bill doesn't create any new offences. It allows for existing offences to be classified at "hate crime".

There is a big out within the bill though that could make it completely toothless;

“prejudice” includes a preconceived belief about an individual which belief is not based on reason or actual experience

If, for example, a shopkeeper were to assault a traveller in the course of ejecting them from his shop, it would be a defence (against the "hate crime" aggravation) to state that he has experienced large amount of theft from travellers and thus his prejudice was justified.

16-11-2020 5:41pm

seamus wrote: »

You might be overanalysing it.

First you need an offence to have been committed.

In your example above, one would first have to prove a sexual assault took place, before they could establish that it was additionally a hate crime

Oh yeah that's a given but you can then seem to ramp everything up. a perceived hate crime based on perceived age. it's very wishy washy sounding

Where can we learn more about what evidence is needed for perceived as? i was looking in that bill but didnt see anything

seamus wrote: »

If, for example, a shopkeeper were to assault a traveller in the course of ejecting them from his shop, it would be a defence (against the "hate crime" aggravation) to state that he has experienced large amount of theft from travellers and thus his prejudice was justified.

okay but why does he need a defence against it being a hate crime if he "just" assaulted the traveller for trying to eject them? where's the bar where the traveller goes i was only assaulted because i'm a traveller and everyone says yeah fair enough?

i can see it says

(1)Where is it proven or demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court, that a motivatingfactor for the commission of a relevant offence (as set out in the Schedule to this Act)was aggravated by hate crime

but that only leads us back to a hate crime which is defined as being about "perceived by anyone" so surely anyone could come in and make a statement saying they perceived it as being a hate crime and that's enough

sure look maybe this happens every day with existing bills but if that's the case maybe we should be worried about that too!

it's just such a big blanket of a list.

biko · 16-11-2020 5:49pm

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

Like:

I’m terribly sorry. What I’m about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.

— Shuhada’ Davitt (@MagdaDavitt77) 6 November 2018

Eric Cartman · 16-11-2020 5:52pm

the worst part about the perception clause is the people most likely to abuse this law for their own gains , already perceive almost all negativity towards them as an attack based on their minority characteristic.

seamus · 16-11-2020 5:57pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh yeah that's a given but you can then seem to ramp everything up. a perceived hate crime based on perceived age. it's very wishy washy sounding

Where can we learn more about what evidence is needed for perceived as? i was looking in that bill but didnt see anything

"Perceived as", is taken as plain english. The purpose of putting it there is so that "hate crime" can't just be tagged on to every offence that seems kind of racist. Someone has to believe there was a prejudicial motivation to the crime. If you can't find someone who believes there was, then it's not an aggravating factor.
The "any other person" bit is to avoid the situation where a victim is not willing to say they believe it was a hate crime. It allows the Gardai to push ahead with the classification without the victim's co-operation, once they have sufficient evidence.
I know the two cancel each other out a bit, it's annoying legalese.

The evidential standard is the same as any. In order to qualify as a "hate crime", it has to be proven (to a jury), or in a non-jury court the court has to be satisfied, that:

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual, or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual.

okay but why does he need a defence against it being a hate crime if he just assaulted the traveller for trying to eject them? where's the bar where the traveller goes i was only assaulted because i'm a traveller?

It is up to the prosecution to declare in court as part of their evidence, that the offence is additionally a hate crime.
The prosecution would decide whether this addition is necessary based on the evidence gathered, i.e. based on what they had been in told in interviewing the two parties, witnesses and reviewing the CCTV.
It's not a case that a witness could ask for it to be tagged on or that the court could add it on at the end. If the prosecution doesn't ask for it, it can't happen.

16-11-2020 6:04pm

seamus wrote: »

"Perceived as", is taken as plain english. The purpose of putting it there is so that "hate crime" can't just be tagged on to every offence that seems kind of racist. Someone has to believe there was a prejudicial motivation to the crime. If you can't find someone who believes there was, then it's not an aggravating factor.

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

The "any other person" bit is to avoid the situation where a victim is not willing to say they believe it was a hate crime. It allows the Gardai to push ahead with the classification without the victim's co-operation, once they have sufficient evidence.

ye i get the "positive" part of it or how things would work ideally (reviewing cctv). i'm really just keen to know what are the barriers to the "how could this be used negatively against people" part. just because things don't always work out to the ideal situation obviously so how is this controlled for.

it sounds like there is evidence required to satisfy the court that there is a hate crime but that takes a whole big step back because it just has to satisfy "hate crime" which is the "perceived as" bit.

Eric Cartman · 16-11-2020 6:23pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

ye i get the "positive" part of it or how things would work ideally (reviewing cctv). i'm really just keen to know what are the barriers to the "how could this be used negatively against people" part. just because things don't always work out to the ideal situation obviously so how is this controlled for.

it sounds like there is evidence required to satisfy the court that there is a hate crime but that takes a whole big step back because it just has to satisfy "hate crime" which is the "perceived as" bit.

even worse than that, say you have Barry down the road who is a known national party voter , has been out canvassing etc.. , fionnan (a neighbour two doors down is so died in the wool left that he believes Barry who he has never talked to properly is a nazi) , Barry assaults a burglar who happens to be black, and fionnan acts as a witness for the burglar, having the whole thing reversed from a simple burglary with a clear victim into some sort of big hate crime where Barry through no fault of his own is now liable to face prosecution.

seamus · 17-11-2020 11:23am

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

The next step is that the prosecution would have to gather evidence to support John Smith's claim. Simply perceiving the crime to be racially motivated is insufficient.

In this case, the defence could use John Smith's own credibility against him as an unreliable witness to have the aggravating factor dropped.

My feeling here is that this definition of "hate crime" has been overengineered by committee.

It probably started out as

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

But someone noted that the victim might get scared, so added

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

When in fact, this would be exactly the same;

Any criminal offence which is, in whole or in part, motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The "perceived as", in fact may add extra unnecessary overhead to the issue because if the victim isn't willing to complain that there was prejudicial motivation, they have to find someone who does.

Biker79 · 17-11-2020 4:55pm

And if ' hate ' is nothing more than polarisation orchestrated by social media companies aggressively competing in the attention economy...

Who is liable then?

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments