Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Hate crime nonsense

Options
24567…16

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭Nermal


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Assault, coercion, harassment, criminal damage and threats to kill are already criminal offences but the Government said new and more severe sentences are to be introduced if these offences are found to be hate crimes.

    Why should the motivation of the perpetrator, or the 'feelings' of the victim, affect the sentence?


  • Options
    #33
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,908 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Jequ0n wrote: »
    Bizarrely the wording implies that hate crimes cannot exist if they are committed against someone who is not part of a minority group.

    So if I (foreigner) was to attack someone because I hate Irish people this would not classified as a hate crime?


    The bill doesn't mention the word "minority" at all. It does mention nationality as one of the protected characteristics.

    So your example could indeed be considered a hate crime under the proposed legislation.


  • Options
    #34
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.


  • Options
    #35
    Mara Plain Tutor
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Mara Plain Tutor


    Much ado about absolutely nothing.

    Benign news.


  • Options
    #36
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    On its own this might not be so dangerous , but in conjunction with the advocacy and litigiousness of our bloated immigrant/minority/traveller NGO sector , I can see them upping the ante on trying to use this.

    All it needs is one case of a landlord being in court for not issuing a form correctly and ‘illegally’ evicting a minority and they'll jump on it to have it bumped up.

    However the last true hate crime most of us have witnessed was the blm rioters shouting racist slurs and calling for the deaths of whites and trapping people in a shop in the wake of the blanchardstown knife attacker shooting. Theres nobody wanting to prosecute that blatant hate crime against those people in the shop


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    A defining feature of every thread about this topic is people claiming "this is crazy, you won't be able to do X, Y, or Z" when there is no suggestion that X, Y, or Z is going to be an offence.

    I was going to suggest that maybe people should go off and read up on what's being proposed, but I doubt they will because it may undermine some of the stuff they're saying.

    It's almost as if people want the legislation to be oppressive in order to have something to moan about. I think there's going to be a lot of folks disappointed when they don't get sent to jail for something they said on Twitter.


  • Options
    #38
    granturismo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,891 ✭✭✭granturismo


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    ...
    However the last true hate crime most of us have witnessed was the blm rioters shouting racist slurs and calling for the deaths of whites and trapping people in a shop in the wake of the blanchardstown knife attacker shooting. Theres nobody wanting to prosecute that blatant hate crime against those people in the shop

    Is that not what this legislation is for? 'criminal offences ... motivated by characteristics such as race'

    Race crimes and racial hatred are not a one way street.


  • Options
    #39
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    There was on older man in court in the UK recently for using the term "colored people". Before that a police officer was in court for a meme about George Floyd. Is this the road we're heading down? Wasting police and court time over trivial nonsense, just so we can have our woke equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition?

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #40
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


    "Brits Out"
    "Israel = Apartheid State"
    "American warmongers"
    "Hairy Japanese bastard"

    Hate crimes.


  • Options
    #41
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Normal One wrote: »
    "Brits Out"
    "Israel = Apartheid State"
    "American warmongers"
    "Hairy Japanese bastard"

    Hate crimes.

    The funny thing is, were this legislation given any teeth, the israel lobby would be the first to use it, all the drippy hippy free palestine crowd who supported this hate crime legislation would likely be the first ones to feel its wrath


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Jequ0n
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

    Maybe.
    Personally I think it’s wrong to have different rules for different people.


  • Options
    #43
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jequ0n wrote: »
    Maybe.
    Personally I think it’s wrong to have different rules for different people.
    It's the same rules for everyone, so that should put your mind at ease.


  • Options
    #44
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

    And I'm sure there will be a certain cohort of our population very happy that they will be getting even more protection from being prosecuted or brought to justice.

    Wouldn't want to be seen to be picking on them would we.


  • Options
    #45
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Nermal wrote: »
    Why should the motivation of the perpetrator, or the 'feelings' of the victim, affect the sentence?
    Victim impact statements are commonplace these days and can affect sentences. If it can be shown to be a factor in a crime then yes it should be considered.


  • Options
    #46
    Jequ0n
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    seamus wrote: »
    It's the same rules for everyone, so that should put your mind at ease.

    Not if the sentence can be increased if a perceived minority is involved.


  • Options
    #47
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I dunno, these things tend to snowball. I felt existing legislation covered this. Very wary of those behinds the scenes pushing for this.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Options
    #48
    blackbox
    Registered Users Posts: 4,101 ✭✭✭blackbox


    If someone is assaulted, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator hated them or was trying to rob them.

    The crime is the crime, irrespective of motivation.


    .


  • Options
    #49
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    malinheader wrote: »
    And I'm sure there will be a certain cohort of our population very happy that they will be getting even more protection from being prosecuted or brought to justice.

    Wouldn't want to be seen to be picking on them would we.

    Our legal system is so afraid of being seen as biased, we constantly under police and under sentence minorities and women anyway, this is just an additional stick to beat us with


  • Options
    #50
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    Jequ0n wrote: »
    Not if the sentence can be increased if a perceived minority is involved.

    isn't that the point , it creates a special class of "super" victim for the same crime
    We are all equal under the law, until we're not :(

    Helen McEntee is some dose.


  • Options
    #51
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    I Hate Man United and their fans , I have been known to fling some "banter" at my Man U mates, is this a hate crime now ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Our legal system is so afraid of being seen as biased, we constantly under police and under sentence minorities and women anyway, this is just an additional stick to beat us with

    Exactly. When we gave ethnic minority status to certain members of our citizens it was just a get out of jail card for crimes as it was seen as picking on or being racist to challenge them.


  • Options
    #53
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,908 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    I Hate Man United and their fans , I have been known to fling some "banter" at my Man U mates, is this a hate crime now ?

    Very clearly not. Maybe have a read of the Bill. It's here: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

    It doesn't mention protection based on which football, or indeed any sport, team one supports.


  • Options
    #54
    John Doe1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭John Doe1


    I'd be interested in the racial breakdown of who gets convicted of hate crime in this country. In a fair society it should follow the population demographics.

    A hate crime law is great in theory but the influence of the NGOs in this country who have a particular bias would make me feel less enthused.


  • Options
    #55
    Fandymo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, hand size, number of fingers.

    Number of fingers would come under disability presumably.


  • Options
    #56
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    The only people getting upset about this are those who would appear to condone what it's trying to prohibit.

    That old chestnut


  • Options
    #57
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jequ0n wrote: »
    Not if the sentence can be increased if a perceived minority is involved.
    The legislation doesn't use the word "minority".

    If a traveller assaults you and the prosecution can prove that your being a settled person was a factor in the assault, then the hate crime legislation can be used against them too.

    Drop the victim complex.

    Very easy for anyone to not fall foul of hate crime legislation - don't commit crimes against other people and stop being a bigot.

    Not rocket science.


  • Options
    #58
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Fandymo wrote: »
    Number of fingers would come under disability presumably.

    Depends on the number, you couldn't class all the 6 fingered folk from Drogheda as having a disability.


  • Options
    #59
    Mike Murdock
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    I Hate Man United and their fans, I have been known to fling some "banter" at my Man U mates, is this a hate crime now ?

    Anti-Man Utd?

    giphy.gif


  • Options
    #60
    Fandymo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Depends on the number, you couldn't class all the 6 fingered folk from Drogheda as having a disability.

    Careful, I was born in Drogheda. I'll have you charged with wrongthink!! ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    BrianBoru00
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭BrianBoru00


    Consider the situation where the same group of gougers congregate on a local street intent on causing trouble.
    Five parties pass by and all are assaulted by them.

    The first two chaps are also called "queers" or some other similar word while the assault is occurring.
    The next two a male-female couple - assaulted - male called a ******.
    Third group - young black lads - called monkeys
    fourth - Another male-female couple - called a scummy prick
    fifth group 5 college students - called ****.


    Now they're motivation is purely to be scumbags - intending to assault whoever passes with no distinction based on race or sexuality. The fact that the words they used in the above scenario is actually irrelevant. But why should there be a more severe sentence for the first three attacks as opposed to the fourth and fifth?


Advertisement