Hate crime? Really?

[Deleted User] · 24-05-2019 3:47pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What do you mean by 'bandy about'? That's such a broad and vague term. It could mean anything. You can't go calling things 'bandied about'.

It really isn't. It means to throw about recklessly.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

See how ridiculous it is?

No. It highlights the fact that when you misuse certain words that have an emotional attachment such as hate, it is dangerous and confusing.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Apology accepted.

For clarification, I was apologising for not being able to accept your accusation of dishonesty.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You should probably refer the matter to the Gardai, because everything is well covered by existing legislation, right?

Yes. It is.

I am asking if you consider yourself to be as guilty of a hate crime as the people who leapfrogged Sinead. Because according to your definition, both can be constituted as hate crimes.

gormdubhgorm · 24-05-2019 3:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What do you mean by 'bandy about'? That's such a broad and vague term. It could mean anything. You can't go calling things 'bandied about'.

See how ridiculous it is?

No it is not ridiculous.
This is yet another example of you deflecting and not answering questions when it suits you (which you have done with numerous posters - but I am not letting you get away with it)

1) What exactly is a hate crime to you, and why?

2) Is Sinead's case a hate crime, and why?

3) If it was a four foot tall, elderly woman with Osteoporosis instead of dwarfism would you still consider it a hate crime?
For what reasons?

4) If a person got verbally abused for speaking Irish, and having red hair would that be a hate crime in you view and why? (My Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh example)

5) Which groups would you include in your definition, and which groups would you not include in a 'protected group'?
And for what reasons?

Or are you going to be continually vague and leave it to other posters to try and figure out what a 'hate crime' means to you?

Going on about 'international law' and 'wikipedia' does not cut it for me.
Especailly when you do not want to discuss actual law and go through it in detail
I am simply asking you what are your views ?

The funny part is you ask others to present 'comprehensive analysis' but there is little from your side only common deflection tactics.

Those five questions are not that difficult are they?

I just want to understand your position on what 'hate crime' means to you and which groups are included in your definition and which are not. You have been very vocal on this thread, but many (including myself) are in the dark as to where exactly you stand on this issue.

You don't even have to use links from other sources, just tell me in your own words in your own opinion.

AndrewJRenko · 26-05-2019 7:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It really isn't. It means to throw about recklessly.

Are you sure? Bandy is an ice-hockey style of game played in Canada. Words don't change meaning when you put them together with other words (remember the whole 'positive discrimination' thing?) so it must be something to do with playing bandy. So what's the ice-hockey connection all about?

Deleted User wrote: »

No. It highlights the fact that when you misuse certain words that have an emotional attachment such as hate, it is dangerous and confusing.

Certainly, there is a danger in misuse, which is literally what you keep trying to do. You've seen the definitions of 'hate crime' used worldwide, all based around the same basic principles, but you keep trying to misuse it by tying hate into it, even though you well know it's not part of the definition. Why would you be trying to create such confusion?

Deleted User wrote: »

For clarification, I was apologising for not being able to accept your accusation of dishonesty.

That's even more confusing. Why would you not be able to accept something? I'd understand if you chose not to accept it, but 'not able'? You really shouldn't bandy about words like that if you don't really mean them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. It is.

I am asking if you consider yourself to be as guilty of a hate crime as the people who leapfrogged Sinead. Because according to your definition, both can be constituted as hate crimes.

So have you reported this to the Gardai yet? You're sure that all hate crimes are covered under current legislation, and you believe that a hate crime has taken place, but you haven't yet reported this to the Gardai? That's highly irresponsible - why would you not report a crime to the Gardai?

AndrewJRenko · 26-05-2019 8:41pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No it is not ridiculous.
This is yet another example of you deflecting and not answering questions when it suits you (which you have done with numerous posters - but I am not letting you get away with it)

You seem to be confusing me with an expert in hate crime. I'm not an expert in hate crime. I don't claim to have all the answers.

Here's what I do know.

Hate crimes everywhere. Some countries recognise them in law, some don't. Those that do recognise them in law seem to manage to work out decent definitions that all them to progress through the legal system. They don't seem to have huge problems over the tiny details of the definitions.

This assault on Sinead Burke was most certainly a hate crime. She was chosen as the victim because of her disability.

[Deleted User] · 26-05-2019 9:17pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Certainly, there is a danger in misuse, which is literally what you keep trying to do. You've seen the definitions of 'hate crime' used worldwide, all based around the same basic principles, but you keep trying to misuse it by tying hate into it, even though you well know it's not part of the definition. Why would you be trying to create such confusion?

**** me. You accuse me of misuse of words by trying to tie "hate" into "hate crime" and say I am the one trying to cause confusion?

Words matter.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That's even more confusing. Why would you not be able to accept something? I'd understand if you chose not to accept it, but 'not able'? You really shouldn't bandy about words like that if you don't really mean them.

That's just nonsense.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So have you reported this to the Gardai yet? You're sure that all hate crimes are covered under current legislation, and you believe that a hate crime has taken place, but you haven't yet reported this to the Gardai? That's highly irresponsible - why would you not report a crime to the Gardai?

No. Silly goose. I DONT believe a hate crime has taken place because they don't exist.

I'm sure ALL hate crimes are inexistent.

I won't report it to the gardai because it's not illegal to be wrong. That's all you are guilty of.

Bless

[Deleted User] · 26-05-2019 9:19pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Are you sure? Bandy is an ice-hockey style of game played in Canada. Words don't change meaning when you put them together with other words (remember the whole 'positive discrimination' thing?) so it must be something to do with playing bandy. So what's the ice-hockey connection all about?

verb

verb:Â bandy; 3rd person present:Â bandies; past tense:Â bandied; past participle:Â bandied; gerund or present participle:Â bandying

pass on or discuss (an idea or rumour) in a casual or uninformed way.

"Â£40,000 is the figure that has been bandied about"

synonyms:spread (about/around),Â put about,Â toss about,Â discuss,Â rumour;Â More

circulate,Â disseminate,Â communicate,Â purvey,Â diffuse,Â broadcast,Â publicize,Â make public,Â make known,Â pass on,Â propagate,Â promulgate,Â announce,Â give out,Â repeat;

literarybruit about/abroad

"Â£40,000 is the figure that has beenÂ bandied about"

Phrases

bandy wordsÂ â€”Â argue pointlessly or rudely.

"I'm not going toÂ bandy words withÂ you"

Origin

ï¿¼

late 16th century (in the sense â€˜pass a ball to and froâ€™): perhaps from FrenchÂ banderÂ â€˜take sides at tennisâ€™, fromÂ bandeÂ â€˜band, crowdâ€™ (seeÂ band2).

AndrewJRenko · 26-05-2019 9:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

**** me. You accuse me of misuse of words by trying to tie "hate" into "hate crime" and say I am the one trying to cause confusion?

Words matter.

They do indeed matter. And if every definition of hate crime in the world doesn't include hate, the fact that you misunderstood this is YOUR problem, not mine.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's just nonsense.

Fair point.

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Silly goose. I DONT believe a hate crime has taken place because they don't exist.

I'm sure ALL hate crimes are inexistent.

I won't report it to the gardai because it's not illegal to be wrong. That's all you are guilty of.

Bless

But if a crime has taken place, you should be reporting it. And all these hate crimes are crimes under other legislation already, you've explained. So shouldn't you be reporting the underlying crime to the Gardai?

Deleted User wrote: »

verb

verb:Â bandy; 3rd person present:Â bandies; past tense:Â bandied; past participle:Â bandied; gerund or present participle:Â bandying

Maybe I'm missing the point, but could you be suggesting that words can have different meanings depending on the context?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 1:16am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be confusing me with an expert in hate crime. I'm not an expert in hate crime. I don't claim to have all the answers.

Here's what I do know.

Hate crimes everywhere. Some countries recognise them in law, some don't. Those that do recognise them in law seem to manage to work out decent definitions that all them to progress through the legal system. They don't seem to have huge problems over the tiny details of the definitions.

This assault on Sinead Burke was most certainly a hate crime. She was chosen as the victim because of her disability.

I did not ask you to be an expert on hate crime.
(You should be running for election you are great at not answering questions)

I merely asked you for your opinion on those other scenarios to try and put into context your views on Sinead's case (which you are definite on).

At least you seem to agree that is difficult making a decision if the term 'hate crime' was applied broadly?

I have news for you, regarding your theory that those who do have hate crime legislation do not have problems over the tiniest of definitions -

It is incorrect, the basis of law is interpretation of definitions.
Plus as I have stated previously, even in America the definition of hate crime various from state to state and who to apply it to.

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. In all states, the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

Getting back to closer to home.
In Ireland the proposed Criminal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015 defines a person in a protected group as follows:

http://enarireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WG-Bill-2015-Criminal-Law-Hate-Crime-Bill.pdf

“protected group” includes individuals who are identified on the basis of their race,
colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any
other opinion, membership of a national minority, membership of the Traveller or Roma
communities, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity,
sexual orientation, residence status or health;

Looking at the examples I gave earlier including

1) Sinead's case

2) An old woman with osteoporosis who was leapfrogged,

3) Blaithnaid who was attacked for speaking Irish and having red hair - and called 'A Ginger Irish speaking bitch' - (would cover gender as well)

ALL three cases could arguably be hate crimes under that proposed Bill

1) Sinead on the grounds of disability as the perpetrators motivation

2) The old woman on the grounds of age as the perpetrators motivation

3) Blaithnaid the Irish speaker on the grounds of language as the perpetrators motivation, also Blaithnaids red/ginger hair is covered as part of the perpetrators motivation as this could be argued is a genetic feature of Blaithnaid. Also Gender is included if she was called a bitch by the male teenagers as well.

So when I look at it and think about it Irish proposed legislation can cover ANY two people both perpetrator and victim - who have at least one perceived difference between each other - which then is the motivation of the perpetrators bias.

This ends up being completely ridiculous as in what situation would a scenario
definitely not be a hate crime?

Answer =

Two identical people (one perpetrator - one victim) from the same race, same sexual-orientation, gender, and from exactly all the same protected groups as each other. Plus both have to view themselves and each other, as from these exactly the same groups

So really the whole idea of 'hate crime' loses its effectiveness as everyone is different in some way. And any attack that seems to have a motivation because someone is different to them becomes a 'hate crime' rather than just assault/harassment for example.

What the makes the whole thing even funnier is that the term 'hate crime' is not even required as current legislation covers all types of crime which come under that broad term. The lobby groups do not like that though as it gives thier 'cause' less relevance.

[Deleted User] · 27-05-2019 1:45am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

They do indeed matter. And if every definition of hate crime in the world doesn't include hate, the fact that you misunderstood this is YOUR problem, not mine.

No. Just no. Think about what you just said.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 7:11am

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So really the whole idea of 'hate crime' loses its effectiveness as everyone is different in some way. And any attack that seems to have a motivation because someone is different to them becomes a 'hate crime' rather than just assault/harassment for example.

Have you tried reading up on how other countries with hate crime legislation deal with these challenges? Because there's nothing unique to Ireland here.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 7:12am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Just no. Think about what you just said.

Have you worked out how come there is no ice hockey game involved when you bandy about?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 10:51am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you tried reading up on how other countries with hate crime legislation deal with these challenges? Because there's nothing unique to Ireland here.

Now you have given yet another vague answer and deflected, using a vague phrase 'challenges'
I have answered how other jurisdictions deal with hate crime in numerous posts! Which you do not seem to be reading/understanding. Or are simply ignoring them.

Other jurisdictions like America have created issues/challenges for themselves firstly by creating the term 'hate crime' in the 1980's. Then 're-criminalising' crimes that were already in regular criminal statute, then gradually having to include more and more people. The term was originally created for crimes against racial minority groups in America.

I also mentioned how some in the UK now wish to add ageism to thier definition of 'hate crime' - And how the police are worried about being made into quasi-social workers rather than being let do police work.
They have to ask 'how does that make you feel?' even after looking at the bias element of an alleged perpetrator.

Now we have the situation in Ireland, where if the Criminal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015 is passed here - it would even mean the following two scenarios are hate crimes.

If a pro-lifer attacked a pro-choicer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion.

If a pro-choicer attacked a pro-lifer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion.

Looking at the definition of Hate Crime again in the Bill -

protected group” includes individuals who are identified on the basis of their race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, membership of the Traveller or Roma communities, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or health;

The two scenarios above could be classed as a 'hate crime', as it comes under 'political or any other opinion'

Now can you understand the direction in which this ends up going, and unintentional divisiveness in society it creates?
It focuses on difference. It starts with good intentions calling the crime of harassment against Sinead a 'hate crime' in a story focusing on the woman's activism. Then in time it is legislated for. Then all 'groups' want in on the act as they feel left out (a hate crime in itself), so they lobby to be included. Thus groups end up trying to 'out victim' each other. And the whole meaning of 'hate crime' ends up in farce as it now covers every group conceivable.
It merely gives the lobby groups an opportunity to do a totting up exercise, and create data collection of reported crimes that they wish to brand for thier own 'cause'. Then it enables them to look for more funds from the general population, paid members of the group, and they can lobby the government for more soundbites on 'hate crimes' that effect thier grouping.

If you refuse to grasp it that, and see how silly, divisive, and unnecessary it is, that is your prerogative.
And you can continue your sidetracked debates about ducks, bandy, or whatever you like. If that brings you some sort joy.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 3:43pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now you have given yet another vague answer and deflected, using a vague phrase 'challenges'
I have answered how other jurisdictions deal with hate crime in numerous posts! Which you do not seem to be reading/understanding. Or are simply ignoring them.

Other jurisdictions like America have created issues/challenges for themselves firstly by creating the term 'hate crime' in the 1980's. Then 're-criminalising' crimes that were already in regular criminal statute, then gradually having to include more and more people. The term was originally created for crimes against racial minority groups in America.

I also mentioned how some in the UK now wish to add ageism to thier definition of 'hate crime' - And how the police are worried about being made into quasi-social workers rather than being let do police work.
They have to ask 'how does that make you feel?' even after looking at the bias element of an alleged perpetrator.

Now we have the situation in Ireland, where if the Criminal Law Hate Crime Bill 2015 is passed here - it would even mean the following two scenarios are hate crimes.
If a pro-lifer attacked a pro-choicer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion.

If a pro-choicer attacked a pro-lifer screaming abuse at them for thier opinion.

Looking at the definition of Hate Crime again in the Bill -

protected group” includes individuals who are identified on the basis of their race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, membership of the Traveller or Roma communities, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or health;

The two scenarios above could be classed as a 'hate crime', as it comes under 'political or any other opinion'

Now can you understand the direction in which this ends up going, and unintentional divisiveness in society it creates?
It focuses on difference. It starts with good intentions calling the crime of harassment against Sinead a 'hate crime' in a story focusing on the woman's activism. Then in time it is legislated for. Then all 'groups' want in on the act as they feel left out (a hate crime in itself), so they lobby to be included. Thus groups end up trying to 'out victim' each other. And the whole meaning of 'hate crime' ends up in farce as it now covers every group conceivable.
It merely gives the lobby groups an opportunity to do a totting up exercise, and create data collection of reported crimes that they wish to brand for thier own 'cause'. Then it enables them to look for more funds from the general population, paid members of the group, and they can lobby the government for more soundbites on 'hate crimes' that effect thier grouping.

If you refuse to grasp it that, and see how silly, divisive, and unnecessary it is, that is your prerogative.
And you can continue your sidetracked debates about ducks, bandy, or whatever you like. If that brings you some sort joy.

So in summary, many other countries manage to protect vulnerable people and navigate a course through these choppy waters. And there is no reason why Ireland cannot do the same.

[Deleted User] · 27-05-2019 3:51pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you worked out how come there is no ice hockey game involved when you bandy about?

Yes. Because some words in context mean different things.

For example; bark can be the outer layer of a tree or the noise a dog makes.

SOME words. Hate is not one of them.

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 5:20pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So in summary, many other countries manage to protect vulnerable people and navigate a course through these choppy waters. And there is no reason why Ireland cannot do the same.

No!! That is not in summary, that is what you have taken from my post?

Are you taking the mick?
Have you even listened to the you tube video?
Was it beyond your comprehension?
What bits did you not understand?

Where did I say that the vulnerable are given genuine protection by hate crime legislation?
It is just a re-branding and re-criminalising existing offences and leads to further difficulties down the line and a competition among so called 'protected groups.' I have made that clear in that post and others.

This is the summary -
Vulnerable people are already protected under current regular criminal legislation.
So it is needless and a waste of time basic window dressing
The lobbyists wish to get 'notice' for thier various causes, which is why they call for 'hate crime' legislation.

Jurisdictions who already have hate crime legislation have needlessly created these 'choppy waters' as you put it.
All in the name of unnecessary political correctness, by lobbyists and politicians looking for votes.
Remember Sinead hereself is a lobbyist/activist as a member of the 'Little people association of Ireland' and the journalist has played up the headline for her benefit.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 5:36pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hate is not one of them.

The dictionary disagrees with you.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 5:40pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No!! That is not in summary, that is what you have taken from my post?
Are you taking the mick?
Have you even listened to the you tube video?

Of course I haven't watched the video? Why would you consider the one oddball professor who published a couple of polemic papers in the 90s to be an authoritive source?

But it's great to hear that vulnerable people are protected. You should try sharing that news with the gay couples who got beaten up on the streets, and the people with disabilities who get bullied and exploited, and the women and girls who get abused and attacked - nothing to see here, eh?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 5:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Of course I haven't watched the video? Why would you consider the one oddball professor who published a couple of polemic papers in the 90s to be an authoritive source?

But it's great to hear that vulnerable people are protected. You should try sharing that news with the gay couples who got beaten up on the streets, and the people with disabilities who get bullied and exploited, and the women and girls who get abused and attacked - nothing to see here, eh?

Again deflection, gay people. the disabled, and women are covered under criminal law like everyone else.
This seems beyond your comprehension?
I am part of one of those 'vulnerable groups' you seem so concerned about. And here I am trying to tell you it does not make any difference to me. There is current legislation there that covers crimes you needlessly term 'hate crime'.
I have given you a chance to learn and debate, and educate yourself about the term. About it's origins, about the motives of lobbyists, about how hate crime legislation would not make any difference etc. But you have repeatedly ignored that chance.
You have the chance to ask one of those from your so called 'vulnerable group', questions on the issue the OP raises.
I am not lobbyist or activist interested in window dressing, or political correctness for the sake of it, I tell the truth.

Now a legal expert is suddenly an 'oddball professor' because he disagrees with your narrow viewpoint. Basically, he is not a legal expert when it suits you. On what basis is he an oddball?
This is particularly funny as you were going on about legal experts. law and international law, until I challenged you on it. Then all that stopped.
I went through the law (current/proposed/Irish/other jurisdictions) in detail and illustrated my points clearly again, and again, and again.
I have even given you a chance to define 'hate crime' in your own words. And who would apply your definition to.
Instead, you ran for cover, and deflected yet again.
I have given many scenarios where 'hate crime' proposed legislation could be applied to show the folly of the term - as it can apply in many cases, and could be applied it to a myriad of groups.
I tried to explain the folly of re-criminalising current crimes that already exist, very simply.
But I am not sure you understand the point?
You ask for evidence, 'comprehensive analysis' and debate. I have given you all those and more.
Yet you consistently scurry away, hide, and deflect from real debate.
Why?

Andrew open your eyes, listen and learn be willing to educate yourself on issues which you seem to have an interest in - But you lack the full narrative. Debating with you is a waste of time, if you not wish to even read or view any evidence put before you.
I am here to help you if you have any real questions on the subject, otherwise you are just engaging in 'pub-talk'.
Plus in the past I also have had some legal training, so I can see this issue from both sides of the fence.
I feel sorry for you that you are missing an opportunity to learn. And really debate a subject which you seem to have interest in.

Shemale · 27-05-2019 6:04pm

Candie wrote: »

I imagine it's called a hate crime since it only occurred because she is a dwarf. If she wasn't, it wouldn't have happened so she was targeted specifically because she was different. I don't think anyone is promoting it as the worse example of a hate crime but still, what it's called is very much a secondary consideration.

It could have happened to someone 4ft11 or 5ft, toerags are toerags.

[Deleted User] · 27-05-2019 6:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The dictionary disagrees with you.

It doesnt

[Deleted User] · 27-05-2019 6:36pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But it's great to hear that vulnerable people are protected. You should try sharing that news with the gay couples who got beaten up on the streets, and the people with disabilities who get bullied and exploited, and the women and girls who get abused and attacked - nothing to see here, eh?

What? There are laws in place to punish people who do that. Are you saying rebranding the laws as hate crimes would give them extra protection?

Delusional.

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 7:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What? There are laws in place to punish people who do that. Are you saying rebranding the laws as hate crimes would give them extra protection?

Delusional.

It would give that warm and fuzzy politically correct feeling, while adding nothing in reality.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 7:54pm

Shemale wrote: »

It could have happened to someone 4ft11 or 5ft, toerags are toerags.

Have you heard of it happening much?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 8:19pm

Shemale wrote: »

It could have happened to someone 4ft11 or 5ft, toerags are toerags.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you heard of it happening much?

Have you heard of it happening to anyone before in the newspapers (regardless of disability or otherwise) before Sinead told the story?
How many leapfrog-ees go to the papers?

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 8:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesnt

You'd better go argue with Mr Merriam and Mr Webster so, because their definition hate crime doesn't include hate.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20crime

But we discussed that days ago, didn't we?

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 8:26pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again deflection, gay people. the disabled, and women are covered under criminal law like everyone else.
This seems beyond your comprehension?

Though interestingly enough, we have some of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU;

https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

But that's probably just a big coincidence, right?

Why do you think your beloved professor hasn't manage to persuade his own country about the futility of hate crime in the 20 years he's been banging on about it?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 8:38pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Though interestingly enough, we have some of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU;

https://www.thejournal.ie/hate-crime-4105605-Jul2018/

But that's probably just a big coincidence, right?

Why do you think your beloved professor hasn't manage to persuade his own country about the futility of hate crime in the 20 years he's been banging on about it?

Is there supposed to be a point in thier somewhere?

You have chosen the journal as your source which, loves sensationalism.
It is not the most respected source is it?
Also they interviewed a known self-interested lobby group
Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL) !

:D:D:D

A lot of the quoted comments are purely agenda led and firmly rooted in 'identity politics'.

Example:

Hate Crime can cause people to withdraw from society and avoid expressing their identity.

But in reality it should read -

assault/harassment/insert crime of choice here
can cause people to withdraw from society and avoid expressing their identity.

Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL) are one of the scaremongering, self-interested lobby groups I was referring to in other posts.
If you ever researched for a legal paper you will find they are more interested in sensationalism, rather than facts.
They thrive on the need for victim-hood and how it is xyz against the world narrative. The more reports they create the more justification for funding they have.

It is clearly contradictory and misleading they say there is 'no laws to address it'. But really thier main gripe is that they are not refereed to as a 'hate crimes' - see below -

According to the authors, in Ireland, from the point at which a victim reports a crime to An Garda Síochána to the point at which a judge sentences an offender, the hate element of the crime is filtered out of the criminal justice process.

If it was referred to as a 'hate crime' this unnecessary term would mean lots more headlines for the ICCL - 'cha-ching' and more cash as well.
Politicians can jump on aboard anything they say because it sounds good, costs nothing and does nothing. But gets votes.
A win,win.

Make a donation to the ICCL today if you really care -

https://www.iccl.ie/donate/

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 9:05pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you ever researched for a legal paper you will find they are more interested in sensationalism, rather than facts.

So are there any factual errors in the ICCL paper showing that we have one of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 9:22pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So are there any factual errors in the ICCL paper showing that we have one of the highest rates of hate crime in the EU?

Do you understand the word sensationalism?
It is disingenuous.
All of those crimes can be prosecuted under current criminal law.

What the author is really concerned with is re-branding - effectively repeating the same laws with more legislation re-crimnalising current crimes for the appearance of progress.

From a pure numbers standpoint there are more Irish pasty white people, then people with other colour skin. So it stands to reason that there is more chance of a white on black crime. Then there black on black for example.
Ireland is not a homogeneous multicultural society compared to other countries.
Plus at the moment those black African's have not risen up the social ladder to a sufficient level to have them move out of more 'working class' areas like Lucan, Balbriggan etc. So there is even more chance of crime in disadvantaged areas on top of that regardless of what minority group you are from.

It is more of a societal problem rather than a racial one in truth.
Once black Africans in Ireland move up the social ladder the problem will decrease as they will be living in better areas.

That has nothing to do with what the cirme is named. That is a red herring.
It is a societal issue.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 9:26pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Do you understand the word sensationalism?
It is disingenuous.
All of those crimes can be prosecuted under current criminal law.

What the author is really concerned with is re-branding - effectively repeating the same laws with more legislation re-crimnalising current crimes for the appearance of progress.

From a pure numbers standpoint there are more Irish pasty white people, then people with other colour skin. So it stands to reason that there is more chance of a white on black crime. Then there black on black for example.
Ireland is not a homogeneous multicultural society compared to other countries.
Plus at the moment those black African's have not risen up the social ladder to a sufficient level to have them move out of more 'working class' areas like Lucan, Balbriggan etc. So there is even more chance of crime in disadvantaged areas on top of that regardless of what minority group you are from.

It is more of a societal problem rather than a racial one in truth.
Once black Africans in Ireland move up the social ladder the problem will decrease as they will be living in better areas.

That has nothing to do with what the cirme is named. That is a red herring.
It is a societal issue.

So no factual errors then, didn't think so, but thanks for confirming.

Hate crime? Really?

Comments