Hate crime nonsense

seamus

blackbox wrote: »

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.

Motivation & intent are incredibly important. They tell us a lot about the nature of the crime and the nature of the defendant.

Some who commits a crime out of malice poses a much greater risk to society than someone who commits a crime out of need. One needs to be isolated from society, the other needs to be assisted and brought back into society.

In Australia, there is a particular type of assualt known as a "king hit". We tend to know it as a sucker punch, but in general over there it refers to a hard punch to the side of the head while the victim is distracted. This will usually knock them out in one go and often result in severe brain damage or even death.

It typically occurs in the context of a drunken fight.

It was such a problem, they introduced legislation against it. A "king hit" now gets you at least 8 years in jail, regardless of the outcome. It can still be upgraded to murder or attempted murder if necessary.

Sounds harsh, right? After all, it's just a thrown punch that lands in the wrong place, there's no intent to actually do any serious harm.

Except that after they introduced this law, the number of these incidents fell to nearly zero. It turns out that they weren't just punches that landed badly, they were intentional attacks; motivated by a desire to do extreme damage.

That's intent. They're all just punches, at the end of the day. But the difference is intent. So they are treated differently to other punches.

This is exactly the same thing. An assault because you're trying to rob someone's wallet is treated differently to an assault because you hate their nationality.

BloodBath

Good on them. Sucker punching is 1 of the scummiest things anyone could do. I'd have it straight up as attempted murder.

I've been the victim of it myself. Luckily he didn't knock me out and I managed to regain my senses quickly enough to grab a hold of him and restrain him in a headlock until a bouncer assisted by punching me in the face thinking I was the aggressor. Fun night.

Smee_Again

Fandymo wrote: »

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

I'm sorry.

Not for the jab, for being born in Drogheda that's a tough cross to bear.

Dufflecoat Fanny

More divisive nonsense. I swear the world is boiling for all out war.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

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

In theory yes, in practice hate crime law is framed around minorities being affected by them. It's pretty much the very reason for their existence; to protect vulnerable minorities. This is clearly a good thing on first examination, but by definition leads to a slant in how the law is likely to be applied and we have seen this in other jurisdictions. Add in the current oppressed/oppressor narrative(and only a fool would suggest this isn't in play for many vested interests*) and this becomes a bigger issue. Again: Gang of White thugs beat up a Black person. Gang of Black thugs beat up a White person. Which is more likely to be pitched and tried as a hate crime? It would be beyond disingenuous/naive/daft[delete as applicable] to suggest the latter or even equal weight being applied.

Now it's easy to look to our neighbour the UK as an example and for examples of Daily Mail readers having a fit hate crime stuff, but of all those often frivolous examples can we point to one where a majority victim of a minority perpetrator has had it framed as a hate crime?




*these vested interests are rarely enough from the minorities involved.

BanditLuke

seamus wrote: »

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

It isn't the same.

sugar coat it any way you want but we are not all equal in the eyes of the law now.

Jequ0n

seamus wrote: »

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.

Victim complex, yawn.

jmayo

seamus wrote: »

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.

Fecking hell I could sell tickets for that trial.

So by the very definition of this legislation is not everytime a traveller robs a settled person not a hate crime, since they are specifically targeting said settled person simply because they are settled i.e. a different ethnic group?

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Motivation & intent are incredibly important. They tell us a lot about the nature of the crime and the nature of the defendant.

Some who commits a crime out of malice poses a much greater risk to society than someone who commits a crime out of need. One needs to be isolated from society, the other needs to be assisted and brought back into society.

I'd 100% agree with this. My issue with hate crime legislation is how it is applied and how it inevitably leads to a bias that goes in one direction. In wider societal discourse of late we hear that Whites can be racist towards POC, but POC can't be racist towards Whites. Men can be sexist towards women, but vice versa doesn't fit and so forth.

This again is the current oppressor/oppressed narrative in full view. If you're in one group you can't be in the other and your group affiliation locks you into a generalised prejudicial dynamic. You're no longer as much an individual as much as you are part of a group. You're Black, or White, Man, Woman, Straight, Gay and so on. It's incredibly divisive and ironically just as racist/sexist/whateverist only from a different angle that we have tried as societies to stamp out.

Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

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.

As far as I'm aware that bill is a private members bill. I think McEntee's one will be along the same lines but not that exact that. The text of the Governments bill has yet to be published

BanditLuke

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

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?

There shouldn't be. What the law is now doing is discriminating against people because they aren't in a particular grouping.

Take the case of those scumbags who pushed the Asian lady into the canal a while back. They could push her in and call her a race loaded insult and because she is Asian they would be seeing a harsher sentence than if she was let's say white and had a thick Dublin accent and they called that particular person a cnut. So one person is being discriminated against because of their heritage/culture and pushing her into the canal is seen as a lesser crime.

I haven’t read the legislation. Are attacks on non protected groups by protected groups ie blacks on whites not covered by this legislation. Or is a general racial attack considered a hate crime.

TheBoyConor

BanditLuke wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0415/1210181-hate-crime-bill/

This part really stood out for me.

"Hate crimes will be defined in law as those motivated by prejudice against a protected characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability and national or ethnic origin including Traveller ethnicity"

So make sure you don't say something mean to members of the travelling community when they are engaged in crimes against you or your property.

Also this little doozie is laughable

"The maximum penalties for threatening or abusive behaviour, displaying obscene or offensive material in public as hate crimes will double from three to six months"

Who decides what's offensive material in public? Will questioning of government policy be deemed offensive maybe. We all know where this leads, the Gardai grabbing people from protest matches who are holding placards that display statements that don't fit the narrative.

This country is becoming more like the UK with every passing day unfortunately

Most worryingly, I think this could be used by the 26 county faux "republic" to muzzle those who advocate a 32 county Irish Republic.

Hector Savage

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

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.

What about if I abuse a black man u fan, and a white one ?
Which is worse ?


You see what happens here, the subjectivity and whole grey area comes in, black lad could claim I was abusing him due to his race and we go down a rabbit hole.


btw, I'm not going around abusing random man u fans, i just am pointing out the legal headaches all this will bring.

TomTomTim

The futility of a thread like this, as we've seen many times before, is that when/if the people who are down playing this legislation get proven wrong, they won't admit that they were wrong. The same types will be in a thread that proves the cautious right, all but justify the worst manifestation of said legislation, even though they initially said that it won't used in such a manner.

Of course, this may never happen, they may be correct, but considering all the other times that they were wrong, I won't be one bit surprised if they are wrong again. All the same, I'm not sure if you even need to wait and see how it manifests itself, as you can see how similar legislation was used elsewhere. It's nearly always used against the natives, and rarely the minority.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Most worryingly, I think this could be used by the 26 county faux "republic" to muzzle those who advocate a 32 county Irish Republic.

How so?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven’t read the legislation. Are attacks on non protected groups by protected groups ie blacks on whites not covered by this legislation. Or is a general racial attack considered a hate crime.

Race is covered in the general sense. There is no distinction between black or white or latino or asian or whatever.

There are some protected groups, without a reciprocal protection, but that's because it's not necessary.

For example, it's a hate crime if it's motivated by the victim being disabled. Do we need a reciprocal protection? Do we need a hate crime for disabled people assaulting abled people? I don't think so.

The only "protected groups" are disabled people & refugees/asylum seekers.

Everything else is protected in the general sense.

As mentioned above, what we currently have is a private members' bill. This won't be enacted, but what the Minister produces will be nearly a carbon copy of this. #politics

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

Smee_Again

Hector Savage wrote: »

What about if I abuse a black man u fan, and a white one ?
Which is worse ?


You see what happens here, the subjectivity and whole grey area comes in, black lad could claim I was abusing him due to his race and we go down a rabbit hole.


btw, I'm not going around abusing random man u fans, i just am pointing out the legal headaches all this will bring.

What did you say in this made up scenario?

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

What about if I abuse a black man u fan, and a white one ?
Which is worse ?


You see what happens here, the subjectivity and whole grey area comes in, black lad could claim I was abusing him due to his race and we go down a rabbit hole.


btw, I'm not going around abusing random man u fans, i just am pointing out the legal headaches all this will bring.

Won't somebody please think of the criminals! They just want to abuse people without being called a racist!

Nermal

is_that_so wrote: »

Victim impact statements are commonplace these days and can affect sentences.

They were and are a mistake. Why should an offence attract a greater or lesser sentence dependent on the mental state of the victim? Or how articulate they are in describing how a crime affected them?

Just a sop to soft heads who value feeling over fact.

Nermal

seamus wrote: »

That's intent. They're all just punches, at the end of the day. But the difference is intent.

Plainly, the difference is that the receipient of the punch is unaware it's coming.

Not intent.

Smee_Again

Everyone getting their knickers in a twist over this probably needs to understand that Hate Crime only applies in the commission of an existing offence and results in a harsher penalty, it doesn't create new offences.

It only applies when a person is committing an offence under the below acts and the offence is aggravated by reference to the protected status.

1. An offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991.
2. An offence under section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011.
3. An offence under sections 6, 7, 17, 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order)
Act 1994.
4. Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences)
Act 2001.
5. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.
6. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993.
7. Sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006.
8. Sections 2 to 6, sections 9 to 13 and section 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the
Person Act 1997

seamus

seamus wrote: »

As mentioned above, what we currently have is a private members' bill. This won't be enacted, but what the Minister produces will be nearly a carbon copy of this. #politics

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;""

“transgender identity” includes transvestite, transsexual, intersexual or having
changed gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2015;""

If I refuse to accept Transgendered people as being the same as biologically born gender, and that person is offended by that refusal, then, I could be charged under the hate crime bill. If that Transgendered person feels that they have been harmed (emotionally) by my lack of acceptance... Am I wrong?


I dunno.. I just think there's so much scope for legislation like this to be abused, and as a stick to force acceptance of social change.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

If I refuse to accept Transgendered people as being the same as biologically born gender, and that person is offended by that refusal, then, I could be charged under the hate crime bill.

Nope. Not correct.

If you beat them up because they're transgender, then this bill can be used against you. And rightly so.

The bill does not create any new crimes. It merely allows for crimes with a more malicious intent to be properly recognised.

You can continue to be transphobic online all you like, that's not going to be a new crime.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Nope. Not correct.

If you beat them up because they're transgender, then this bill can be used against you. And rightly so.

The bill does not create any new crimes. It merely allows for crimes with a more malicious intent to be properly recognised.

You can continue to be transphobic online all you like, that's not going to be a new crime.

Isn''t hate speech covered under this, so by refusing the accept a Transgendered claims (pronouns and expressions of identity), you're engaging in hate?

I think its going to be really interesting to see how this is written, from what they were talking about when they were consulting about the hate crime legislation, they seemed to be favouring a subjective test e.g if you had no intent but I perceived you did then thats what matters. I'm really not sure how that would stand up in court, surely intent should be the benchmark.

This is a hypothetical not intended to make any comment on the criminality of any group:
If a (non settled) traveller were to go on a burgulary spree of settled houses and it could be said "he only targeted the homes of settled people", is that a hate crime, you've targeted people based on their ethnicity of being settled aka living in houses?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn''t hate speech covered under this, so by refusing the accept a Transgendered claims (pronouns and expressions of identity), you're engaging in hate?

No, that wouldn't be hate speech. Hate speech in law is more than just "engaging in hate".

We don't know what it actually contains, but the minister has already indicated that a prosecution for hate speech will require a lot more than in other jurisidiction. It likely won't be very different from the hate speech law we already have, it'll just be updated to include new categories of protected individual.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a hypothetical not intended to make any comment on the criminality of any group:
If a (non settled) traveller were to go on a burgulary spree of settled houses and it could be said "he only targeted the homes of settled people", is that a hate crime, you've targeted people based on their ethnicity of being settled aka living in houses?

Not in that hypothetical, and specifically because "settled" doesn't just mean "lives in houses". There are "settled travellers" who live in houses and are considered (legally and socially) be ethnic travellers.

In that case you have to prove that the burglar specifically avoided burglarising the homes of other travellers, or show other evidence that they targetted non-travellers specifically.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

No, that wouldn't be hate speech. Hate speech in law is more than just "engaging in hate".

We don't know what it actually contains, but the minister has already indicated that a prosecution for hate speech will require a lot more than in other jurisidiction. It likely won't be very different from the hate speech law we already have, it'll just be updated to include new categories of protected individual.

thanks. good to know

MFPM

BanditLuke wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0415/1210181-hate-crime-bill/

This part really stood out for me.

"Hate crimes will be defined in law as those motivated by prejudice against a protected characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability and national or ethnic origin including Traveller ethnicity"

So make sure you don't say something mean to members of the travelling community when they are engaged in crimes against you or your property.

Also this little doozie is laughable

"The maximum penalties for threatening or abusive behaviour, displaying obscene or offensive material in public as hate crimes will double from three to six months"

Who decides what's offensive material in public? Will questioning of government policy be deemed offensive maybe. We all know where this leads, the Gardai grabbing people from protest matches who are holding placards that display statements that don't fit the narrative.

This country is becoming more like the UK with every passing day unfortunately

Not surprising that you would have an issue given the content of your post.

If a person enters a property illegally of course you've the right to be angry but you're anger surely is about their act against you and not their ethnicity, skin colour etc?

The other question of course why would anyone have a problem with stopping hate against people based on skin colour etc....