Hate crime? Really?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly, I think one is much worse than the other and both shouldn't be hate crimes as it dilutes the seriousness of the horrendous slashing of your face.

Categorising both as hate crimes doesn't say anything about the seriousness of any crime. It refers to how and why the victim was selected.

You can have not so serious hate crimes AND very very serious hate crimes. They're still hate crimes.

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I think it would only be positive discrimination if only wheel chair users could use it and able bodied people couldn't.
Everybody benefits from a ramp


A better example would be disabled parking spaces

Yet again, you seem to have come up with your own personal interpretation. There is nothing in the definition of positive discrimination about excluding people.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/positive%20discrimination

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm assuming that word is the Voldemort Nword? Yeah no that's pretty much a cast iron hate crime. Jumping over a small ladies head is disrespectful, disgusting and insensitive. Do you think getting slashed with a Stanley knife while being called a racial slur is comparable to getting jumped over and recieving what was perceived as a threatening smile?

Honestly, I think one is much worse than the other and both shouldn't be hate crimes as it dilutes the seriousness of the horrendous slashing of your face.

Would be like me talking about how I felt terrible when my friend killed himself and you saying that you know how I feel because your guinea pig died.

Not the Vodermort N word no, it was f#ggot.
I went back and changed it.

Obviously with all crime there is a scale of seriousness, this would be the same for me for a hate crime I suppose.

Do I think she was targeted because of her being a little person, yes, so I would personally classify it as a hate crime. It must have been a really horrible experience. Something like that could really knock your confidence big time.

Hector Savage

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So yes, the journalist did not treat Sinead in the same way that they might treat any other person (though you conveniently ignore the fact that other people don't generally get leapfrogged over). And the journalist had very good reason for doing so.



I suppose we might speed things up if we confirm whether you see any kind of crime as 'hate crime' - are you saying that 'hate crime' doesn't exist?


For the record, I've never used the term 'differently abled', so you seem to have me confused with someone else.

Socialist free for all nonsense, why not have them pay for a ticket to see the game ?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So you think that not being able to access a building in a wheelchair is not discrimination?

Nobody said that. I've said that it isn't positive or negative discrimination to have wheelchair ramps. It's not discrimination in any way

AndrewJRenko wrote:

You can have not so serious hate crimes AND very very serious hate crimes. They're still hate crimes.

No. No they aren't. You can have bigotry and crime. If I beat up a black man, it wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime in the same way that if he beat me up, it also wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime.

Racism is racism, bigotry is bigotry. Hate crimes need to have a degree of hatred. Otherwise you look like a ****ing idiot describing it as such.

So apart from wheelchair ramps (which is not positive discrimination), can you give me any other example of what you feel should be implemented?

AndrewJRenko

Hector Savage wrote: »

Socialist free for all nonsense, why not have them pay for a ticket to see the game ?

There’s nothing in that image about payment at all. Are you really that desperate that you need to make up stuff so that you can argue with it?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody said that. I've said that it isn't positive or negative discrimination to have wheelchair ramps. It's not discrimination in any way

If an employer with a stepped entrance fits a wheelchair ramp, this perfectly fits the dictionary definition of positive discrimination quoted above.

Here's a legal view confirming this

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/Documents/e-bulletin/Employment/2013-06-21.html

It may not fit with your personal incorrect understanding of positive discrimination, but that's your problem, not mine.

In your hallowed Merriam Webster dictionary you can have literally to mean "virtually" which is the polar opposite of literally.

That is the danger of using words and phrases incorrectly. They lose meaning.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In your hallowed Merriam Webster dictionary you can have literally to mean "virtually" which is the polar opposite of literally.

That is the danger of using words and phrases incorrectly. They lose meaning.

They do indeed.

But none of that applies to the definition of positive discrimination.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

If an employer with a stepped entrance fits a wheelchair ramp, this perfectly fits the dictionary definition of positive discrimination quoted above.

Does it fit in with the word discrimination? If so, tell me who it discriminates against? Cos words have meanings you know.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But none of that applies to the definition of positive discrimination.

So words have no set meaning anymore? A word can literally (pun intended) mean the opposite of what it means through misuse?

Then there can be no hate speech surely?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. No they aren't.

Yes. Yes, they are.

By every reputable international definition of hate crimes, these relate to how and why the victim is chosen, not the severity of the crime or the degree of hate involved.

Clearly, you didn't know this, so this thread is a great learning opportunity for you.

Time to stop digging.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does it fit in with the word discrimination? If so, tell me who it discriminates against? Cos words have meanings you know.

It fits perfectly with the term 'positive discrimination' as confirmed by the legal expert above.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So words have no set meaning anymore? A word can literally (pun intended) mean the opposite of what it means through misuse?

Then there can be no hate speech surely?

Have any the words involved evolved to mean something else, in the way that 'literally' has evolved?

You're clutching at straws now.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Time to stop digging.

I stand by everything I have said.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It fits perfectly with the term 'positive discrimination' as confirmed by the legal expert above.

I refute that. Discrimination means something

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I stand by everything I have said.



I refute that. Discrimination means something

You can refute away. But you're on your own. Every international definition of hate crime supports my view and contradicts yours.

Blueshoe

I hate all of you

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, do you believe in hate crime?

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote:

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

gormdubhgorm wrote:

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

gormdubhgorm wrote:

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

**** that's such good wordage. Well spoken sir.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I don't, it is just another added unnecessary layer in terminology, and causes even more discord rather than harmony. Why not just call it a crime? It accentuates difference rather than helps inclusion in my opinion.

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

Check out the justifications for punishing hate crime more severely in chapter 3 of this paper and see if 'discord' and 'difference' are the actual outcomes.


https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

However notwithstanding that, even looking the commonly held interpretation of a hate crime in today's world - I think it's use is very liberally used on this occasion.

Why 'liberally'? The commonly held definition is that if the victim is selected because of their disability, then it is a hate crime. Leapfrogging isn't a big problem on Dublin streets, so she was clearly chosen because of her disability.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I feel it was used to attract attention by the writer. It achieved it's goal as we would not be talking about it otherwise.

Yes, it may have been used to attract attention, with the objective of stopping it from happening again to her or two others. What's the problem with that?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why 'liberally'? The commonly held definition is that if the victim is selected because of their disability, then it is a hate crime. Leapfrogging isn't a big problem on Dublin streets, so she was clearly chosen because of her disability.



Yes, it may have been used to attract attention, with the objective of stopping it from happening again to her or two others. What's the problem with that?

At this stage I think you either do not understand my point, or are deliberately ignoring my previous comments.
I have made myself very clear what it problem is -

1) Sensationalism - 'Hate Crime' (for the reasons I already stated)

2) Making disability as something that has to be treated differently to other crimes for the sake of it - its makes the focus on the persons disability rather then the person themselves.
Which is counter productive in my view.

I cannot make it much clearer than that for you, sorry.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Check out the justifications for punishing hate crime more severely in chapter 3 of this paper and see if 'discord' and 'difference' are the actual outcomes.


https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf






Why 'liberally'? The commonly held definition is that if the victim is selected because of their disability, then it is a hate crime. Leapfrogging isn't a big problem on Dublin streets, so she was clearly chosen because of her disability.



Yes, it may have been used to attract attention, with the objective of stopping it from happening again to her or two others. What's the problem with that?

That’s Scottish. Have you anything from Ireland? Where the incident in the OP happened??

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s Scottish. Have you anything from Ireland? Where the incident in the OP happened??

We don't have hate crime legislation in Ireland, so we're not going to have research on how well hate crime legislation works in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

At this stage I think you either do not understand my point, or are deliberately ignoring my previous comments.
I have made myself very clear what it problem is -

1) Sensationalism - 'Hate Crime' (for the reasons I already stated)

So you believe that Scotland, Australia, Canada, England/Wales, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and USA are all 'sensationalist?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

2) Making disability as something that has to be treated differently to other crimes for the sake of it - its makes the focus on the persons disability rather then the person themselves.
Which is counter productive in my view.

I cannot make it much clearer than that for you, sorry.

Hate crime isn't 'treated differently for the sake of it'. It is 'treated differently to reduce crime against protected groups'.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you found any legal definition of hate crime that matches your opinion, anywhere in the world?

Legal definitions do not always mean they are correct.
It is just different use of terminology at the end of the day.

http://www.open.ac.uk/health-and-social-care/research/shld/timeline-learning-disability-history

See for example the Idiots Act 1886 -

The Idiots Act 1886 made the legal distinction between "idiots" and "imbeciles".
It contained educational provisions for the needs of people deemed to be in these categories."

Or following that

The Mental Deficiency Act 1913

which introduced further layers -

Use of terms 'idiot', 'imbecile', 'feeble-minded' and 'moral imbecile'.
In particular this influential Act made it possible to institutionalise women with illegitimate children who were receiving poor relief.

I am sure those that wrote this act were well intentioned, but did it really benefit the people it was aimed at?

In my opinion there is the same problem with the distinction of crime/hate crime.
It adds another unnecessary layer of distinction in my view.
I think (in another 90 years or so) people will find this laughable.
And some will find that there was a definition of 'hate crime' as counterproductive in both it's wording and any act itself.

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you believe that Scotland, Australia, Canada, England/Wales, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and USA are all 'sensationalist?

Are you not reading my posts?
I said the reporter in this scenario was sensationalist

Hate crime isn't 'treated differently for the sake of it'. It is 'treated differently to reduce crime against protected groups'.

Hate crime - was invented as middle management type word which sounds good but means little in practice.
Regular legislation, would still protect those groups as it does for the rest of society.

For example - I think Section 10 of the non-fatal offences against the person act 1997 would do just fine in my view.

Non-fatal offences against the person act 1997

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html#sec10

Do you really think those individuals in this incident in question care if thier bullying/harassment is a 'hate crime' or not?

No, but the people who do care - are those who want to 'appear' more meaningful, or wish to use the phrase for the sake of a good headline.

The extra layers of legislation only add more invented phrases, the man on the street has to learn.
It has little to with protection, and more to do with not enforcing laws that are already there.

But politicians calling for Hate Crime legislation makes them seem caring and gets votes.
It's a game for them. It is not thier day to day life - like Sinead Burke's.
The labels change but life continues.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Legal definitions do not always mean they are correct.
It is just different use of terminology at the end of the day.

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.


Have you looked at the research showing the benefits arising?

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We don't have hate crime legislation in Ireland, so we're not going to have research on how well hate crime legislation works in Ireland.

So any legislation etc that you post here is irrelevant to the OP, which happened in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.

Do you think that there needs to be hate and a crime in a hate crime?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's not 'different use of terminology'. It is the law in many countries round the world. It's a bit silly to claim it is sensationalist just because you personally don't like it.


Have you looked at the research showing the benefits arising?

But there is no need for it.

There is legislation on the Irish Statue - that covers all the people of Ireland - not just certain groups.


The Non-Fatal Offences of the Person Act 1997 section 10


10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

It could easily be applied to the incident at issue!

Yet the reporter feels the need to re-brand it as a 'hate crime'.

There is was no need for the extra 'labeling' by the journalist who wrote the article. Disabled people get enough of labels already from the less well intentioned.

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

So any legislation etc that you post here is irrelevant to the OP, which happened in Ireland.

Have you been paying attention to the discussion? It has been mentioned repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think that there needs to be hate and a crime in a hate crime?

Do you think that there needs to be duck in a Bombay Duck dish?

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But there is no need for it.

There is legislation on the Irish Statue - that covers all the people of Ireland - not just certain groups.

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report

The harm which hate crime causes: it has a profound effect on the victim and the community group to which the victim belongs.
The symbolic function which legislation fulfils: it sends a clear message to the victim, the group of which the victim is a member, and wider society, that criminal behaviour based on bias and inequality will not be tolerated.
The practical benefits from having a clear set of rules and procedures within the criminal justice system to deal with hate crime. This should provide a structure for consistency in sentencing and rigorous recording, allowing statistics to be kept, and trends to be identified and monitored; the fact that the perpetrator has committed a hate crime should be reflected in his/her criminal record; it will increase awareness of hate crime, encouraging reporting of offences and ensuring that victims of hate crime will be supported throughout the criminal justice process.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/


Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you been paying attention to the discussion? It has been mentioned repeatedly that there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

So you agree that it wasn’t a hate crime. It’s impossible to be a hate crime here. Excellent. That’s that sorted. It was 100% not a hate crime. Can’t believe it took us so long to get here.

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/


Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

That’s Scotland again. We live in IRELAND

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Many experts disagree

https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/law-society-consolidating-hate-crime-legislation-would-bring-clarity

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0810/984313-anti-racism-transport/


Would you like to share details of your own comprehensive analysis of the issue?

I just have. I am not going around in circles about the issue.
And I would not describe your posts as 'comprehensive analysis' They are just links from websites

I have made my points clear on it. I am practical individual, who prefers to look at the practicalities of life.
Hate Crime legilsation will not make any real difference to lives of people (who happen to have a disability) like Sinead Burke or others from ethic backgrounds.

All it gives is an opportunity for people with agenda's to change words in legislation, self-congratulate and sensationalise.
It just puts a crime under another label and makes good soundbites.
As for the 'experts' it does not make them correct.
They could be pushing for such legislation for a myriad of issues and agendas (as above).
It is like saying that everything the Law Reform Commission of Ireland proposes is a good idea and should be implemented , or the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).


You use America as an example, but they are one of the most litigious countries in the world. Where fat people sue McDonald's for being fat. They have also had a fraught history with race relations. It was a vote getting exercise by Obama in the link you gave. Nothing more.

The RTE article you linked -
For me the immigrant council of Ireland campaign is purely agenda led, it just highlights difference more than promotes inclusiveness (it annoyed me - actually). As I already said it is needless the non-fatal offences against the person act already covers the issue perfectly adequately.
It is looking to create another label where none is really required.
How can people hope to be included in society where another label highlighting difference is attached?
Will it stop more perpetrators of crimes? No. It just changes the wording so lobby group can do more number crunching, in an attempt to further thier agenda.(Similar to your link to the Scottish Legal article you linked)
It just enables a number counting exercise.
It will not make a difference to people's daily lives.

Also there is no 'hate crime' legislation in Ireland so it makes this journalists article that the OP posted all the more ridiculous. How can it be a hate crime if there is no such thing in Ireland for a start? The journalist was both sensationalist and foolish in the same instance.

There is a proposed Criminal (Law Hate Crime) Bill 2015 (Bill means it is not enacted into law and made into an act - legislation)

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

But in my view it is unnecessary for example it seeks to amend the Non-Fatal Offences of the Person Act 1997.


1. The amendment of the Act by the insertion of section 2A as follows:

2A Bias aggravated assault
(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of bias aggravated assault who, without lawful
excuse, intentionally or recklessly –
(a) directly or indirectly causes force to or causes an impact on the body of
another, or
(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely
immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
without the consent of the other where the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by bias
against members of a protected group based on their membership, or their presumed
membership, of that group

To me, this is ridiculous as the Act as it stands functions perfectly against all groups.
Yet the proposed amendment puts some people in another 'protected group'
It is another different label/box where it unnecessary. People are just people. Why make it seem that protected groups are a 'different sort' of people?
It just accentuates difference and is counter productive.

When I hear 'protected group' it makes me think of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.
Where it was set up to protect different species of wildlife, flora and fauna.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/38/enacted/en/print.

Or the EU's Habitat Directive

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

The last time I checked there was no different species of human in Ireland. So there is no need treat PEOPLE as a subset in these scenarios. I think it is wrong.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do you think that there needs to be duck in a Bombay Duck dish?

Oh FFS.

Hahahahhahaha. I'm done with you now. You admit that you think a hate crime doesn't have to be a crime fuelled by hatred by using THAT as your example?

(Putting aside the fact you also admit there is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland)

You are embarrassing yourself at this stage

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you agree that it wasn’t a hate crime. It’s impossible to be a hate crime here. Excellent. That’s that sorted. It was 100% not a hate crime. Can’t believe it took us so long to get here.

Once again, there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. Did it really take you this long to work that out?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh FFS.

Hahahahhahaha. I'm done with you now. You admit that you think a hate crime doesn't have to be a crime fuelled by hatred by using THAT as your example?

(Putting aside the fact you also admit there is no such thing as a hate crime in Ireland)

You are embarrassing yourself at this stage

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. It’s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

AndrewJRenko

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s Scotland again. We live in IRELAND

Actually, it's from a few different places around the world. As Ireland doesn't currently have hate crime legislation, it's difficult to find research on non - existing legislation.

It's a fairly standard approach when developing public policy to look at how things work in other countries.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. It’s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

Give it up man.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

.

Do I need to explain a third time how positive discrimination discriminates FOR people and not against? Try reading the legal article posted above if you're still struggling. Really, highlighting your own lack of knowledge isn't a great tactic.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha. Come on.

This from the person who used comparisons of murder, rape and assault with a machete to the leapfrogging of Sinead and tried to explain their definition of hate crime to Bombay duck in order to show that hate crime doesn't need to have hate in it?

Also using wheelchair ramps as and example of positive discrimination, despite not being able to tell me how it discriminates against anyone?

Give it up man.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, there is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. Did it really take you this long to work that out?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The only embarrassment here is those who struggle to comprehend the one line definition of hate crime. It’s really not that difficult. Your own ignorance of the definition is not something to crow about.

But the OP creating this thread was asking is the scenario in question a 'hate crime' ?

Very simply the answer is no, because there is no such crime in Ireland.
That is before you even get into the debate of what would constitute one hypothetically, in the case at issue etc etc

Hedgelayer

A dog with a mallet up his lack of sunshine would realise that this wasn't a hate crime.

Its a bunch of knobs acting the bollix and they seen a target to take out their dickheadness on, probably a spur of the moment lack of insight or foresight.

I don't think they had any emotional connection to the fact that their act would upset the person who they were acting the maggot on.

They didn't hate the victim, they just took an opportunity to act the maggot.

Unfortunately the poor lass was at the other end of their stupidity.

I don't condone their behaviour.

But I don't think it was an act of hate, just simply two rogues with a lack of empathy....

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Do I need to explain a third time how positive discrimination discriminates FOR people and not against? Try reading the legal article posted above if you're still struggling. Really, highlighting your own lack of knowledge isn't a great tactic.

Positive discrimination is favouring people who have previously been discriminated against. Affirmative action etc

A ****ing wheelchair ramp isn't positive discrimination, neither is a lift, or braille on bus stops. It's just making life easier for those with mobility or visual difficulties.

Nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. But I suppose, there is no duck in a Bombay duck so you are right.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the OP creating this thread was asking is the scenario in question a 'hate crime' ?

Very simply the answer is no, because there is no such crime in Ireland.
That is before you even get into the debate of what would constitute one hypothetically, in the case at issue etc etc

Actually the OP was about what he would CALL the incident, rather than whether it was a crime in law. As we've seen on this thread, many people will use the term hate crime, regardless of Irish legislation.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A ****ing wheelchair ramp isn't positive discrimination,

So you know more about this topic than the legal expert quoted above who listed a wheelchair ramp as an example of positive discrimination?

gormdubhgorm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually the OP was about what he would CALL the incident, rather than whether it was a crime in law. As we've seen on this thread, many people will use the term hate crime, regardless of Irish legislation.

Well then they are incorrect in the use of the term 'Hate Crime' and so was the journalist.
Worst still the journalist was sensationalist and ill-informed.

AndrewJRenko

Hedgelayer wrote: »

A dog with a mallet up his lack of sunshine would realise that this wasn't a hate crime.

Its a bunch of knobs acting the bollix and they seen a target to take out their dickheadness on, probably a spur of the moment lack of insight or foresight.

I don't think they had any emotional connection to the fact that their act would upset the person who they were acting the maggot on.

They didn't hate the victim, they just took an opportunity to act the maggot.

Unfortunately the poor lass was at the other end of their stupidity.

I don't condone their behaviour.

But I don't think it was an act of hate, just simply two rogues with a lack of empathy....

Have you looked at any of the definitions of hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So you know more about this topic than the legal expert quoted above who listed a wheelchair ramp as an example of positive discrimination?

Yes. Yes I do. A wheelchair ramp is not an example of discrimination (positive or otherwise) unless able bodied people were not allowed use it and it was the only point of access to a building.

Even if you discriminate FOR someone, you defacto must be discriminating AGAINST others.

Otherwise it's not discrimination.

Jesus.