Hate crime? Really?

21-05-2019 3:21pm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Looking at his I do not think the boyâ€™s motivations were wholly because Ms Burke was a member of a protected group. But it looks to ne like it could have been part of their motivation. As their actions prior to jumping over her included pointing and laughing, they also took an unsolicited picture of her.

I would like to point out your honour that the taking of an unsolicited picture is moot as she was out in public and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. This should not be taken into account in your final ruling and I hereby ask the court to drop all charges.

weldoninhio · 21-05-2019 3:21pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The OP doesn't ask the question as to whether it is a hate crime or not, though you seem a little obsessed on this particular aspect.

“Presumably you also noticed that the OP was about whether you would call this a hate crime” -AndrewJRenko

Make up your mind buddy. You seem confused.

weldoninhio · 21-05-2019 3:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand so. My answer is "Yes, I would call this a hate crime".

So we're all happy now, right?

Under what Irish legislation??

21-05-2019 3:26pm

weldoninhio wrote:

Under what Irish legislation??

He already "explained".

Just because it isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't a thing apparently.

weldoninhio · 21-05-2019 3:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He already "explained".

Just because it isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't a thing apparently.

He also explained that the OP both did and did not ask if this was a hate crime. Tying himself in knots.

21-05-2019 3:29pm

weldoninhio wrote:

He also explained that the OP both did and did not ask if this was a hate crime. Tying himself in circles.

Yeah but a Bombay Duck is a fish so it's a hate crime.

weldoninhio · 21-05-2019 3:32pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah but a Bombay Duck is a fish so it's a hate crime.

But if the Bombay Duck is from India, does that make it a racist attack also??

21-05-2019 3:36pm

weldoninhio wrote:

But if the Bombay Duck is from India, does that make it a racist attack also??

That's still covered under hate crime so we are good. Leapfrogging, rape, murder and racism. All the same. Good to have a catch all phrase which doesn't differentiate between them and creates a prejudice regardless of the severity.

It's good for social media and media in general.

Also makes me shed my privilege and show how good I am because I care about people who I deem to be more disadvantaged than me.

Am I doing this right?

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 3:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to point out your honour that the taking of an unsolicited picture is moot as she was out in public and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. This should not be taken into account in your final ruling and I hereby ask the court to drop all charges.

But it shows the lads contempt for her especially when done in conjunction with the pointing and jumping over her
(Under proposed legislation it would be contempt I think. But the proposed legislation really pisses me off the more I think of it.
As I think there are ulterior motives for those who are looking for it.)

They would not have taken a picture of her unless it would increase the fun they were getting from thier actions.
It was thier 'trophy' of sorts.

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 3:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

id just like to point out that my post about schrodingers category was the highlight of this classic thread and thank you all for your service

did we ever find out btw if the lad jumped clear over here without touching her or whether there was an actual leapfrog

thats much more relevant imo than the many interpretations and opinions on whether a purported victim's identity makes a crime more serious

Reading the article yer man got a clear jump. They surprised her.

"whoosh, followed by a thud"

"One of the boys landed in front of me.
He had jumped over me, leap-frogged over my head from behind.
I couldn’t believe it"

Otherwise Sinead would have mentioned it

As said the victims identity should make no difference as it would be covered under harrasment in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

I also picked that 1997 act because I thought it was clear from the article no actual contact was made.

21-05-2019 4:02pm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

"whoosh, followed by a thud"

Subjective your honour. If she had been deaf, would this still be a hate crime?

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 4:06pm

Ivan Bacik (who I am no fan of anyway) is a proponent for Hate Crime legislation to be introduced in Ireland.

The article below (2014 Irish Times)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-is-outlier-without-legislation-on-hate-crime-1.1915240

Bacik explains how she wants:

“a new departure for our criminal law” because they would involve “criminalising motivation”,

But, personally I think it is an awful lot of b0llix, and the usual 'right on' soundbite nonsense.
What will it really achieve?

21-05-2019 4:06pm

For clarification (and I think I can speak for the people I'm talking to); I am in no way condoning the actions of the pricks that did this to Sinead, whom I respect. My flippancy is directed towards other posters who demand that this is regarded a hate crime rather than a ****ty thing to do. Hate crimes should be reserved for crimes of hatred.

(So bizarre I had to spell that out)

21-05-2019 4:09pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For clarification (and I think I can speak for the people I'm talking to); I am in no way condoning the actions of the pricks that did this to Sinead, whom I respect. My flippancy is directed towards other posters

this has been stated by all on this thread all along

id go so far as to state that we'd all probably agrees with a conviction under the existing legislation that exists as so ably set out by gorm

but making a special case or a special offence for it because of her condition is an argument that ive never seen the merit in

and the way in which it has been pushed in this thread demonstrates imo the lack of substance for any such move

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 4:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Subjective your honour. If she had been deaf, would this still be a hate crime?

The Deaf are mad altogether anyway.
If you look up disability terminology the 'Deaf community' are one of those who want to be refereed to as 'Deaf'. It is supposedly not the done thing for all other conditions. You are not supposed to call people 'The Disabled' for example.
As it refers to condition not the person. 'The Deaf' love it though.

But again, it is a load of b0illix in practical terms
I mean if I see a fella in a wheelchair, I will say 'see yer man in the wheelchair there, beside him go over there, yer pint is over there.'
Much like as if some one was wearing glasses. 'Yer man with the glasses robbed yer pint.'
'Or maybe it was That fat baldy fella, that robbed it?'

I would also do the same if someone was Black/Asian on occasion.

Example: 'Nah it was that Black, Deaf fella' he did not hear the barman, not his fault'.

I only recently learnt that the yanks say 'people of colour' now meaning non-white.
But isn't white a colour?

I'm a lost cause I think.

I might have committed a load of 'hate crimes' in this post alone.
I just find myself fortunate that it is not in-acted into legislation !

21-05-2019 4:24pm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

The Deaf are mad altogether anyway. If you look up disability terminology the 'Deaf community' are one of those who want to be refereed to as 'Deaf'. It is supposedly not the done thing for all other conditions. You are not supposed to call people 'The Disabled' for example. As it refers to condition not the person. 'The Deaf' love it though.

That's cos they don't have to listen to it.....

I'll get my coat.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:02pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh ok. We can just call stuff whatever we want as long as there is a precident anywhere in the world?

Well, yes. Yes, we can. Things don't suddenly come into existence on the day Irish legislation is passed. Hate crimes happen in Ireland every day, with or without Irish legislation.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:06pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

"

Firstly, this cannot be called a Hate Crime as the offence does not exist in Ireland.

This is factually untrue. It can be called a hate crime. I called it a hate crime. It is a hate crime.

You're right to say that the category of offence doesn't exist in Ireland. That doesn't change the nature of what actually happened.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:09pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

“Presumably you also noticed that the OP was about whether you would call this a hate crime” -AndrewJRenko

Make up your mind buddy. You seem confused.

Do you need help to understand the difference between

1) Is this a hate crime? and
2) Can I call this a hate crime?

They are literally two different questions. The difference is subtle, but it is a difference.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:12pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Under what Irish legislation??

There is no Irish legislation for hate crime. Please keep up.

Now if you want to ask a different question, you'll get a different answer. If you ask "would this be considered a hate crime in Irish law" then clearly the answer is "No, as there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland".

That doesn't change the facts around what happened.

21-05-2019 5:13pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

This is factually untrue. It can be called a hate crime. I called it a hate crime. It is a hate crime.

I can call you a paedophile. Therefore you are a paedophile.

Doesn't work does it?

21-05-2019 5:14pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do you need help to understand the difference between

AndrewJRenko wrote:

1) Is this a hate crime? and 2) Can I call this a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko wrote:

They are literally two different questions. The difference is subtle, but it is a difference.

Call it what you want sweetheart. But if I call a cow a sheep, it's still a cow.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:15pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For clarification (and I think I can speak for the people I'm talking to); I am in no way condoning the actions of the pricks that did this to Sinead, whom I respect. My flippancy is directed towards other posters who demand that this is regarded a hate crime rather than a ****ty thing to do. Hate crimes should be reserved for crimes of hatred.

(So bizarre I had to spell that out)

The bizarre thing is that you consider yourself to be an expert on hate crime legislation, after two days of bulletin board chat.

The definition of hate crime is well established in international law. You may not like the definition, but that's really your problem. The world doesn't revolve around you.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:17pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can call you a paedophile. Therefore you are a paedophile.

Doesn't work does it?

It depends whether I'm a pedophile, doesn't it?

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 5:17pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is factually untrue. It can be called a hate crime. I called it a hate crime. It is a hate crime.

You're right to say that the category of offence doesn't exist in Ireland. That doesn't change the nature of what actually happened.

I am sorry you are completely wrong, it is not factually untrue.
There is no crime that can legally be called a 'Hate Crime' in Ireland.

It can only be a crime - if it is a crime in Ireland, but it does not exist as a crime.

The easiest way I can explain to you in the USA has the crime J-walking, but it does not legally exist in the Republic of Ireland.

See this video from Naked Camera 2007 for reference on J-Walking for example.
It is not a crime in Ireland.

Personally I think that garda would love you AndrewJRenko - match made in heaven - patience of a saint she has.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 5:18pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Call it what you want sweetheart. But if I call a cow a sheep, it's still a cow.

That's true enough, and if you call a cow a sheep because we have no cow legislation in Ireland, a cow is still a cow.

21-05-2019 5:20pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The bizarre thing is that you consider yourself to be an expert on hate crime legislation, after two days of bulletin board chat.

If you lived in certain countries, homosexuality is illegal. Should homosexuality be a hate crime because you don't respect someone else's religion?

21-05-2019 5:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It depends whether I'm a pedophile, doesn't it?

Not by your definition. I could be guilty of a hate crime despite not hating anyone or being guilty of a crime.

That's my point. Words mean things.

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 5:26pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, yes. Yes, we can. Things don't suddenly come into existence on the day Irish legislation is passed. Hate crimes happen in Ireland every day, with or without Irish legislation.

Em
Same Sex marriage, and Irish Divorce all suddenly came into existence in Ireland once the relevant laws were passed.
Before, they did not legally exist in law in Ireland.

The terms were used but the laws did not exist in Ireland.
Legally they did not exist in Ireland.

I am starting to think you have having a bit of craic on here ironically, if so it is gas. If not, I feel kind of sorry for you.

21-05-2019 5:30pm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

I am starting to think you have having a bit of craic on here ironically, if so it is gas. If not I feel kind of sorry for you.

I feel that his "I'm inclusive-meter" is empty and now he feels foolish. I'm sure he will find a thread to show how much he cares about "things not meaning things #progressive"

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 8:26pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am sorry you are completely wrong, it is not factually untrue.
There is no crime that can legally be called a 'Hate Crime' in Ireland.

It's funny how you have to introduce an extra word into the sentence to 'prove me wrong'. You introduced the word 'legally', which wasn't in your sentence first time round. That changes the meaning. You know how words have meaning, right?

So if you said, first time round "Firstly, this cannot be legally called a Hate Crime as the offence does not exist in Ireland" I would have said you're absolutely right.

But that's not what you said first time round. You said "Firstly, this cannot be called a Hate Crime as the offence does not exist in Ireland". That was factually untrue then and is factually untrue now.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 8:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If you lived in certain countries, homosexuality is illegal. Should homosexuality be a hate crime because you don't respect someone else's religion?

And you said my Bombay Duck analogy was stretched and twisted?

I probably shouldn't bother, but here goes:

"Should homosexuality be a hate crime blah blah blah".

The answer is no, because it doesn't meet the definition of hate crime. Definitions are important.

Just to save time in the future, the answer to 'should xxxx be a hate crime' depends on whether xxxx meets the definition of hate crime.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 8:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Not by your definition. I could be guilty of a hate crime despite not hating anyone or being guilty of a crime.

That's my point. Words mean things.

You seem to have forgotten the bit about the definition of hate crime. Here's the Wikipedia definition;

a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 8:37pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Em
Same Sex marriage, and Irish Divorce all suddenly came into existence in Ireland once the relevant laws were passed.
Before, they did not legally exist in law in Ireland.

The terms were used but the laws did not exist in Ireland.
Legally they did not exist in Ireland.

That's a great example, thanks for putting it on the table.

Same sex marriage absolutely DID exist in Ireland before the relevant laws were passed. Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan lived here for years in their same sex marriage before the relevant laws were passed. They were married in Canada, and took a Supreme Court case for recognition, which they lost iirc.

Legally, you're absolutely right - their marriage did not exist in Ireland. But if you take the 'legally' word away (as you did at the outset), their marriage did exist in Ireland.

So if you asked me if Sinead was legally the victim of a hate crime in Ireland, the answer would of course be no, as there is no legal hate crime in Ireland.

But that wasn't the question the OP asked, or the question you asked, until I helped to take you through that important distinction.

You're welcome.

gormdubhgorm · 21-05-2019 10:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But that wasn't the question the OP asked, or the question you asked, until I helped to take you through that important distinction.

You're welcome.

The OP dd ask was it a hate crime - read the title of his thread
Hate Crime? Really? - there are two question marks there.
And the OP's opening comment.

The Highwayman wrote: »

There are a lot of things I'd call this behaviour but a hate crime? No, not everything you experience or dislike is a hate crime.

Did you look at the Jay Walking example at all?
I would have thought that would have made things clear for you.

I am not sure you are grasping it.
There is no such thing as an offence called 'Hate Crime' in Ireland.
What you are referring to is what things may be called in other jurisdictions.

The bit you are confusing, which is understandable as the phrase 'Hate Crime' was used by the OP and the journalist.
(When the OP asked the question is it a hate crime - and the journalist called it a hate crime)

If you look at the meaning of Crime itself -

Crime - a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.

It has none of the above as a 'Hate crime' distinction as it is not a crime in Ireland. So the phrase 'hate crime' itself is a complete misnomer.

The phrase also means different things in different jurisdictions that legislate for 'hate crime'. Which even muddies the water even more.

Even in America the definition varies from State to State -

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hate+crime

The precise definition of hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property.

But you seem to think it is this catch all definition, which is not the case at all.

So when you use the phrase 'hate crime' your definition could mean something completely different to someone else's. Also there is the added confusion of the word 'crime' in the phrase which implies that it can be punished by law accordingly. But in Ireland it cannot.

Sorry if it appears that I am singling you out. But I just feel you need to be educated on the issue. Plus the more I think about it, I have strong views on the subject matter. And I do not like the 'window dressing' attitude of those calling for 'hate crime' legislation. When current legislation suffices.

AndrewJRenko · 21-05-2019 11:19pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The OP dd ask was it a hate crime - read the title of his thread
Hate Crime? Really? - there are two question marks there.
And the OP's opening comment.

It would really help if we could stick to the facts. The threat title reads; Hate crime? Really?

It does not read; "Is this a hate crime?". You've chosen to interpret it that way, but that is not what it says. It could (for example) mean; "Would you call this a hate crime?" which is a different question to "Is this a hate crime?". There is no suggestion that the OP means; "Is this a legal hate crime in Ireland?" which is the interpretation that several people are trying to put on it.

But it is what it is - "Hate crime? Really?" - no more and no less than that.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not sure you are grasping it.

HOnestly, I've grasped every nuance of it right from the outset. Unlike others.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is no such thing as an offence called 'Hate Crime' in Ireland.

That is certainly no legal offence called 'hate crime' in Ireland.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What you are referring to is what things may be called in other jurisdictions.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to what I call things here in this jurisdiction. If they are things that generally meet the definition of hate crimes, I call them hate crimes, with or without Irish legislation. Many other people do the same. I don't need legislation in Ireland to be able to use a particular term. I'm able to understand the term, as it is generally used, and apply to that to situations that I see - regardless of where I see it.

So just like how I proved to you that there was same-sex marriage in Ireland before we had legislation for same sex marriage, I'm now showing you how we have hate crimes in Ireland before we have legislation for hate crimes. We don't need legislation to be able to put a name on things.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The bit you are confusing, which is understandable as the phrase 'Hate Crime' was used by the OP and the journalist.
(When the OP asked the question is it a hate crime - and the journalist called it a hate crime)

There is no confusion for me. The OP didn't ask the question 'Is it a hate crime?'. THat is a simple matter of fact.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you look at the meaning of Crime itself -

Crime - a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.

It has none of the above as a 'Hate crime' distinction as it is not a crime in Ireland. So the phrase 'hate crime' itself is a complete misnomer.

The phrase 'hate crime' is used in many different countries round the world. Hate crimes happen around the world every day. People are prosecuted for hate crimes around the world. You may not like the term or the approach, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The phrase also means different things in different jurisdictions that legislate for 'hate crime'. Which even muddies the water even more.

Even in America the definition varies from State to State -

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hate+crime

The precise definition of hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property.

But you seem to think it is this catch all definition, which is not the case at all.

Yes, I'm aware of the variations in definitions around the world, and I've previously referenced varying definitions in this thread. So none of this is news to me.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So when you use the phrase 'hate crime' your definition could mean something completely different to someone else's. Also there is the added confusion of the word 'crime' in the phrase which implies that it can be punished by law accordingly. But in Ireland it cannot.

No, my definition couldn't be 'something completely different' because the various definitions of hate crime aren't 'completely different'. They are largely similar, with subtle differences in scope and interpretation.

So when I use the phrase 'hate crime', there could indeed be subtle differences between what other mean when they say 'hate crime'. That's pretty much the same with any debate that looks across international borders, where language, terminology and definitions vary.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sorry if it appears that I am singling you out. But I just feel you need to be educated on the issue.

Let me know when the education will start. I'll keep a close eye out for it.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Plus the more I think about it, I have strong views on the subject matter. And I do not like the 'window dressing' attitude of those calling for 'hate crime' legislation. When current legislation suffices.

Yes, I've noticed your strong views, and how you've let them cloud your assessment of the facts here. The facts don't change. What happened to Sinead was a hate crime.

weldoninhio · 21-05-2019 11:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a great example, thanks for putting it on the table.

Same sex marriage absolutely DID exist in Ireland before the relevant laws were passed. Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan lived here for years in their same sex marriage before the relevant laws were passed. They were married in Canada, and took a Supreme Court case for recognition, which they lost iirc.

Legally, you're absolutely right - their marriage did not exist in Ireland. But if you take the 'legally' word away (as you did at the outset), their marriage did exist in Ireland.

So if you asked me if Sinead was legally the victim of a hate crime in Ireland, the answer would of course be no, as there is no legal hate crime in Ireland.

But that wasn't the question the OP asked, or the question you asked, until I helped to take you through that important distinction.

You're welcome.

You say their “marriage” existed?? So if one of them had died, would the living spouse have any spousal rights? Seeing as the marriage existed??

joeguevara · 22-05-2019 12:57am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten the bit about the definition of hate crime. Here's the Wikipedia definition;

Having a lot of experience in this area it is clear, that to commit a crime that would fall into the category of ‘Hate Crime’ (notwithstanding that the crime does not legally exist in statute here) the perpetrator in many cases does not hate the victim or the group that they belong to. In fact a high percentage of the time the perpetrator of the violence actually identifies with the victim and is ashamed of themselves and nothing to do with hate. For instance two years ago, a client of mine used to regularly beat up gay men because he himself was gay. He didn’t hate the people he assaulted so the requirement of ‘hate’ isn’t always required.

Also many hate crimes are often carried out in the heat of the moment and the perpetrator didn’t hate the erson. That doesn’t stop the victim being a victim of a hate crime. Also, the majority of hate crimes are not pre mediated and by their very nature, the perpetrators have no feelings of hate against the individual, but perhaps what they represent.

Gimme A Pound · 22-05-2019 1:21am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it great to be able to make up wild generalisations generalisations that have little or nothing to do with the topic under discussion and use them in some broad sweep to score a point or two?.

Oh give it a rest. How come people who preach tolerance can often be so utterly hostile?

I defended Sinead on nearly all of my posts on this thread, and I still do. I think people are engaging in all sorts of gymnastics to downplay the way she was humiliated and intimated because her stature made her a target.

But another topic was brought up and I gave a view in response to that - what points would I be trying to score?

joeguevara · 22-05-2019 1:53am

I was just thinking about the concept of a ‘hate crime’ and it’s actually a misnomer and people trying to attribute ‘hate’ to it are wrong. Most crimes of violence or intimidation (that are not considered hate crimes) are where the individuals know each other and the crime is committed because of hate or anger.

While crimes that do fall into the category (crimes because of race, gender, sexuality) the perpetrator doesn’t know the victim and doesn’t hate them per se but what they represent or stand for. Hate of the person usually doesn’t come into it.

stefanovich · 22-05-2019 5:28am

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The Dunne is correct by the way

Positive Discrimination -
the act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly because of their race, sex, etc.

The act of disadvantaging those who are not a member of a protected group even if they are often treated unfairly

Positive discrimination. A nice way to explain what an oxymoron is.

AndrewJRenko · 22-05-2019 7:05am

weldoninhio wrote: »

You say their “marriage” existed?? So if one of them had died, would the living spouse have any spousal rights? Seeing as the marriage existed??

Presumably no, no rights, no legal recognition.

But the absence of rights and recognition doesn't make their marriage go away as they fly in over the Irish coast. The marriage still exists, regardless of whether Irish law recognises it or not.

AndrewJRenko · 22-05-2019 7:06am

stefanovich wrote: »

The act of disadvantaging those who are not a member of a protected group even if they are often treated unfairly

Positive discrimination. A nice way to explain what an oxymoron is.

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

stefanovich · 22-05-2019 7:33am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

There is no interpretation needed. The phrase is nonsensical. Discrimination can never be positive.

22-05-2019 8:43am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Is this your own interpretation? It certainly doesn't match my understanding of positive discrimination.

Idiocy. You can not positively discriminate.

Hedgelayer · 22-05-2019 9:11am

I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance.

Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better.
Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity.

I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....

AndrewJRenko · 22-05-2019 10:37am

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I still maintain that there was no intended hate by the perpetrators of said act of ignorance.

Just a bunch of clowns acting the knob, they knew no better.
Akin to alpha male stupidly and immaturity.

I can't see how they hated their intended victim or muse for sick kicks....

You may have missed the several pages of discussion showing how hate is not part of the definition of hate crime.

AndrewJRenko · 22-05-2019 10:39am

stefanovich wrote: »

There is no interpretation needed. The phrase is nonsensical. Discrimination can never be positive.

Once again, you might want to check out the couple of decades of research and practice by experts in the field that show how wrong you are on this.

Hedgelayer · 22-05-2019 10:53am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You may have missed the several pages of discussion showing how hate is not part of the definition of hate crime.

Ok we're making progress here.

So is the definition of hate crime something which was concocted on a sociology course in America?

Deebles McBeebles · 22-05-2019 10:57am

This thread is a hate crime against threads.

Hate crime? Really?

Comments