Hate crime? Really?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

27-05-2019 6:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The dictionary disagrees with you.

It doesnt

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.

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 9:30pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

I have not time to go checking them to see if the figures are correct.
I do not know if they are statistically massaged or accurate.
Plus since you have not done me the courtesy to read anything I put up, or look at links is that really going to encourage me?

I could do a trawl to the CSO go through stats etc break down different variants of crime, between all the different races, and same races. And cross reference them to the article.
But I have learnt (to my cost) that is a waste of time with you as you would not read them so why put the effort in?
Maybe you could do it for me?
Thanks in advance.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf

What I do know from what I read is the authors main gripes are there are no crimes named as hate crime in Irish case law. Despite successful prosecutions in the cases the authors picked

"
Given the absence of any legislation on the issue, it is unsurprising that there is extremely limited case law on hate crime in Ireland. Indeed, used in this context the
terms ‘hate’, ‘hatred’ or ‘hate crime’ do not appear in any written judgment delivered
in the history of the State. As we showed in a previous study, a major difficulty
hindering any material factor of racism or other bias motivation from being considered
by a court is that, at each stage of the criminal justice process, the hate element of a
crime has been unlikely to be identified and recorded.Hence, there is a paucity of
reported judgments to consider"

In criminal law the most crucial aspect to look for is intent for any crime.
The authors basically wants another unnecessary layer added to include bias to this intent.
So not only does intent have to be proven, but if there is any biased motivation towards another which leads to the intent.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 9:54pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What I do know from what I read is the authors main gripes are there are no crimes named as hate crime in Irish case law.

So you just ignored the bit about Ireland having amongst the highest hate crime levels in the EU?

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 10:06pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you just ignored the bit about Ireland having amongst the highest hate crime levels in the EU?

I did not ignore it I gave an answer if you read the post again. The bit you are quoting is sensationalist headline part (which the journal and the ICCL thrive on). I was actually reading part of the report the article is based on. It is about 240 pages long.
I suggest you should read it all. because I am not going to do the donkey work for you anymore.
And give me a summary of what you think?
Fair play to ya, thanks.
Would you get it done in a week?
Then I will answer any further questions you have on it at a later date, I promise.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf

But remember they are extremely biased in their agenda, so I hope you take that into account when you have read the full report.

AndrewJRenko · 27-05-2019 10:57pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not ignore it I gave an answer if you read the post again. The bit you are quoting is sensationalist headline part (which the journal and the ICCL thrive on). I was actually reading part of the report the article is based on. It is about 240 pages long.
I suggest you should read it all. because I am not going to do the donkey work for you anymore.
And give me a summary of what you think?
Fair play to ya, thanks.
Would you get it done in a week?
Then I will answer any further questions you have on it at a later date, I promise.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf

But remember they are extremely biased in their agenda, so I hope you take that into account when you have read the full report.

Yeah, I was fairly happy with the Journal's summary, tbh - the headline that shows that, as a matter of fact, we have very high rates of hate crime compared to our European peers, particularly in the race and trans categories. And you've confirmed that you've no quibble with the stats presented.

If you prefer the Irish Times summary, you could go for that either. It mentions about the under-reporting that is prevalent in the Irish system;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tackling-hate-crime-report-calls-for-specific-legislation-1.3552773

But I guess, like the Irish Mammy watching her not-so-gifted son at the army passing out parade, everyone else is out of step except you.

gormdubhgorm · 27-05-2019 11:27pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I was fairly happy with the Journal's summary, tbh - the headline that shows that, as a matter of fact, we have very high rates of hate crime compared to our European peers, particularly in the race and trans categories. And you've confirmed that you've no quibble with the stats presented.

If you prefer the Irish Times summary, you could go for that either. It mentions about the under-reporting that is prevalent in the Irish system;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tackling-hate-crime-report-calls-for-specific-legislation-1.3552773

But I guess, like the Irish Mammy watching her not-so-gifted son at the army passing out parade, everyone else is out of step except you.

I don't have access to that Times article - but that is what the lobby groups do they lobby! It is extremely agenda led and identity politics based.
It actually proves my point that the lobby groups are more interested in self publicity rather then the people they claim to want to help.

Is there actual figures you can get me from that report you referenced from the journal? Because I did not see any definitive ones.

I did look up all crime in Ireland in the CSO

https://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cja01

And from the figures that I did manage to see in the ICCL report did seem minute in comparison to overall crime figures.
Also they are only focusing on Racism and Transgender in the ICCL report headline it seems?

What about all the other groups that could be included if the hate crime bill 2015 passes?
No mention of them in the headline it focuses on people of African race and transgender people - ONLY.
Why is that I wonder?

Cherry-picking for a sensational headline.
It also proves how divisive those flag wavers of the ICCL are when pushing thier divisive 'identity politics' agenda.
It serves none but themselves,

I actually found an EU fact sheet it made me laugh because those with the highest rating of 'racist motive' are predominately white EU countries with little mixing of cultures. Which shows it is a societal issue not a legislative one.

In Ireland most mixing is currently at the lower socio-economic level lucan/balbriggan etc. But somehow we still managed to get a gay and mixed race Taoiseach. Meanwhile the UK PM's in London were all white, none gay, and only two were women.
But the way you look at it London has hate crime legislation so the world is great there or something?

Anyway here are the racial motive crime figures for Ireland compared to the other EU countries.

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-factsheet_hatecrime_en_final_0.pdf

(I looked up the codes below - would you have been @rsed?)

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Country_codes

Czech Republic v Roma 32%
Finland v Somali 32%
Denmark v Somali 31%
Malta v Africa 29%
Greece v Roma 26%
Poland v Roma 26%
Ireland v Sub Saharan African 26%

So Ireland despite being full of mostly pasty white feckers is only 7th on the list in the EU - a far cry from the 'highest levels' headline.

Cleverly done though from a sensationalists point of view by the ICCL.

I don't get the out of step reference by the way as I am obviously far more clued in than you.
Both from a legal standpoint and as a person whom 'hate crimes' are supposedly aimed at.
I am more qualified to talk about the issues from both standpoints than you, that is plainly obvious.
It was funny though. Bless your cotton socks. You really get taken in by propaganda from lobby groups.

Shemale · 28-05-2019 12:43am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you heard of it happening much?

I know a few shorter girls that have been leapfrogged or picked up on nights out.

They dont call themselves activists or didnt go to the press about it.

I wonder how much of an "activist" Sinead would be if she didnt have dwarfism and if it didnt further her career.

There is a lot of that going on lately people championing a cause but only as it directly affects them.

weldoninhio · 28-05-2019 6:24am

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?

Considering that we don’t have “hate” crime legislation here, all the ICCL paper can show is someone’s opinion, rather than fact

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:23am

Shemale wrote: »

I know a few shorter girls that have been leapfrogged

https://giphy.com/gifs/1AIeYgwnqeBUxh6juu

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:25am

Shemale wrote: »

I wonder how much of an "activist" Sinead would be if she didnt have dwarfism and if it didnt further her career.

There is a lot of that going on lately people championing a cause but only as it directly affects them.

This says so much more about you than it does about Sinead

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:25am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Considering that we don’t have “hate” crime legislation here, all the ICCL paper can show is someone’s opinion, rather than fact

You might want to try reading the paper to see how wrong you are.

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:41am

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I by the way as I am obviously far more clued in than you.
Both from a legal standpoint and as a person whom 'hate crimes' are supposedly aimed at.
I am more qualified to talk about the issues from both standpoints than you, that is plainly obvious. .

You may well be "far more clued in" than me" (though your personal experience does not give you a monopoly of expertise) but that's not really the issue.

The issue is whether you're "far more clued in" than the entire legislature, policy making bodies, criminologists and enforcement authorities of the very many countries around the world that have brought in and maintained hate crime legislation.

Gwan, tell us how you're smarter than all of them.

28-05-2019 7:45am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

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

I was talking about the word hate.

Anyway, if a hate crime doesn't include hate, why use that term?

Why can't we call it a "lovely crime"? I'm not saying it is lovely but sure, it's only a word.

It's because you want to use emotive language out of context to show how progressive you are and how you want everyone to know you are looking after people who you think need protecting

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:48am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was talking about the word hate.

Anyway, if a hate crime doesn't include hate, why use that term?

Why can't we call it a "lovely crime"? I'm not saying it is lovely but sure, it's only a word.

It's because you want to use emotive language out of context to show how progressive you are and how you want everyone to know you are looking after people who you think need

Good to see that you've moved past the 'denial' stage to the 'questioning' stage - great to see personal growth happening right before our eyes.

28-05-2019 7:51am

Good to see you again completely miss the point and refuse to answer questions put to you.

There is no hate crime in Ireland.

Also good to see you are committed to being condescending and bringing very little to the discussion.

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 7:54am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good to see you again completely miss the point and refuse to answer questions put to you.

There is no hate crime in Ireland.

Also good to see you are committed to being condescending and bringing very little to the discussion apart.

Oh no, you've slipped back to denial. And you were doing so well.

Any was, I'm sure that the victims of our high rates of hate crime will be delighted to hear that they're only imagining getting beaten up and abused because of the colour of their skin or their gender.

28-05-2019 7:56am

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Any was, I'm sure that the victims of our high rates of hate crime will be delighted to hear that they're only imagining getting beaten up and abused because of the colour of their skin or their gender.

Again, wilfully misrepresenting what I said.

All crimes. Not hate crimes.

batgoat · 28-05-2019 7:56am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good to see you again completely miss the point and refuse to answer questions put to you.

There is no hate crime in Ireland.

Also good to see you are committed to being condescending and bringing very little to the discussion.

Yes there is and our own CSO has said the number is severely underestimated. That's a pretty ridiculous claim.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda%C3%AD-underestimating-level-of-hate-crime-by-at-least-27-1.3728081?mode=amp

weldoninhio · 28-05-2019 8:04am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to try reading the paper to see how wrong you are.

Are the ICCL a legislative body now? We do not have "hate" crime legislation in Ireland. Therefore it is ICCL's opinion that these are hate crimes. There are no official figures, only some vested interest groups take on official crime numbers.

Der Stier · 28-05-2019 8:22am

I walked by a tiny bloke the other day, couldn't believe how small he was - maybe 5 ft ?
But he wasn't a dwarf, if I jumped him would that be a hate crime ? honest question.

AndrewJRenko · 28-05-2019 9:17am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Are the ICCL a legislative body now? We do not have "hate" crime legislation in Ireland. Therefore it is ICCL's opinion that these are hate crimes. There are no official figures, only some vested interest groups take on official crime numbers.

Your bolded statement is absolutely correct.

But amazingly enough, that doesn't stop hate crimes from happening every day in Ireland to vulnerable people.

Hate crime? Really?

Comments