Hate crime nonsense

MFPM

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.

Facile argument! Not really sure why you'd be abusing anyoney but that said if you're abusing someone due to the colour of their skin then it constitutes racist abuse.

I can curse Paul Pogba and Harry Maguire for their often inept performances without mentioning or thinking about their respective skin colour but we do know that only one of those players will have monkey chants etc hurled at them...

Hector Savage

seamus wrote: »

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

Again nice strawman, but you make a good point, now even if you call a man u fan a bandwagon unireh scumbag and he happens to be black - it's racist.

Again, I don't go around saying this, but it happens, now take a particularly sensitive person wanting to make a deal of this - goes to the police , ****show ensues.

Hector Savage

MFPM wrote: »

Facile argument! Not really sure why you'd be abusing anyoney but that said if you're abusing someone due to the colour of their skin then it constitutes racist abuse.

I can curse Paul Pogba and Harry Maguire for their often inept performances without mentioning or thinking about their respective skin colour but we do know that only one of those players will have monkey chants etc hurled at them...

CAN you though ?
This is my point, we are heading for a world where people will be terrified to say anything .... even calling a player a donkey for missing a sitter.

and I'm not abusing anyone, I am using examples that will happen and do happen weekly during matches - normal fan banter.

Smee_Again

Hector Savage wrote: »

Again nice strawman, but you make a good point, now even if you call a man u fan a bandwagon unireh scumbag and he happens to be black - it's racist.

Again, I don't go around saying this, but it happens, now take a particularly sensitive person wanting to make a deal of this - goes to the police , ****show ensues.

Is calling someone "a bandwagon unireh scumbag" already a crime? Because if it isn't then it isn't a hate crime.

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Again nice strawman, but you make a good point, now even if you call a man u fan a bandwagon unireh scumbag and he happens to be black - it's racist.

No, that's not how it works.

Although I'm not exactly going to shed a tear for soccer scumbags who want to hurl abuse at eachother.

"Normal fan banter" is two mates slagging eachother about sport, not shouting abuse at strangers across a pub.

Hector Savage

Gas the way that a lot of people that would have been in favour of removing our previous blasphemy laws are delighted about these new blasphemy laws.

scottigael

Pretty much the same as if Crown forces 100 years ago decided to make "hate speech" towards them and their occupation of Ireland illegal to prevent people from speaking out. These laws are purely political theyve failed in every country thats applied them and the fact our politicians are trying to stifle our freedom of speech rather than allow for open debate and discussion is a truly sad state of affairs.

fryup

you know i've often wondered about the..

"Incitement to Hatred Act" that we have in this country

just thinking would a Wolfe Tones Concert (are similar) come under that?? i mean they're singing songs of hatred to inspire violence aren't they?

JimmyVik

Dublinandy3 wrote: »

I have nothing against this bill. My only question is, and maybe I'm just missing the point because I've just woken up, shouldn't every characteristic be protected? Maybe it is, my question is, is there a characteristic that isn't protected?

Yes. Middle aged white male.
I get the shivers anytime anyone calls me that.

Mad_maxx

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

may i interest you in some beans of the magic variety ?

TomTomTim

Hector Savage wrote: »

Gas the way that a lot of people that would have been in favour of removing our previous blasphemy laws are delighted about these new blasphemy laws.

The same people who wanted religion out of school, who now want to push gender ideology and "liberalized" sexual education in school. They never hated indoctrination, they simply hated that it was the "wrong" kind of indoctrination.

Smee_Again

Hector Savage wrote: »

Gas the way that a lot of people that would have been in favour of removing our previous blasphemy laws are delighted about these new blasphemy laws.

Whats gas is you getting upset because you think you can no longer do something that you don't do even though there's been no change in the law affecting the thing that you don't do.

Hector Savage

Smee_Again wrote: »

Whats gas is you getting upset because you think you can no longer do something that you don't do even though there's been no change in the law affecting the thing that you don't do.

I also don't draw stick figures of Mohammed, but I find it absolutely terrifying that one could be thrown in jail for doing this as some people will claim that is extremely offensive and distressing to them, and they will class it as "hate".


Again, you may think you are OK as it doesn't affect you, but one day they will come for you, you'll have the wrong opinion on something.

JimmyVik

Smee_Again wrote: »

Whats gas is you getting upset because you think you can no longer do something that you don't do even though there's been no change in the law affecting the thing that you don't do.

Please dont mention gas in the context of hate crime.
Some may find it offensive.

Mad_maxx

if a bunch of travellers show up at my widowed mothers house pressuring her to allow them to clean her gutters , if she utters the following

" get of my property you tinker scumbags "

is she guilty of " hate crime " under the proposed new legislation ?

Smee_Again

Hector Savage wrote: »

I also don't draw stick figures of Mohammed, but I find it absolutely terrifying that one could be thrown in jail for doing this as some people will claim that is extremely offensive and distressing to them, and they will class it as "hate".


Again, you may think you are OK as it doesn't affect you, but one day they will come for you, you'll have the wrong opinion on something.

OK, let me try one more time because you seem determined to miss the point.

Is drawing an image of Mohammed already a crime?

AFAIK it isn't, so it can't be a hate crime.

KyussB

These are all existing crimes that people are punished for anyway, this law literally does nothing useful and is dangerously vague.

It's blindingly obvious that the purpose of this law is to lay a precedent that will be expanded later. No new crimes today, but that's the very next thing that will be legislated for, with "we already have hate crimes" as the justification.

Remember that laws like the latter have been used to criminalize e.g. boycott's on Israeli settlement goods, in other countries.

TomTomTim

Smee_Again wrote: »

OK, let me try one more time because you seem determined to miss the point.

Is drawing an image of Mohammed already a crime?

AFAIK it isn't, so it can't be a hate crime.

No, but calling him a pedophile is.

E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile. [1]

The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna.

In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.

On 15 February 2011, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

Smee_Again

TomTomTim wrote: »

No, but calling him a pedophile is.

So what?

Vic_08

Smee_Again wrote: »

So what?

So what?

You think a law that makes it a criminal offence to say something that is true is no big deal?

cheezums

Seems like most people here are annoyed they cant be racist towards travellers anymore.

Your Face

cheezums wrote: »

Seems like most people here are annoyed they cant be racist towards travellers anymore.

Oh they still can.
All this does is push the overt discrimination underground and give it a more insidious nature.

Smee_Again

Vic_08 wrote: »

So what?

You think a law that makes it a criminal offence to say something that is true is no big deal?

What law does that?

eleventh

OMM 0000 wrote: »

...
I really cannot understand what's going on. It's like a sickness.

It's all part of the takeover of Ireland. (It's not overt so most won't see it until it's already done).
The few who do see it or start to wake up will be labelled 'hateful' by the likes of those making this legislation and their lackeys in RTE, Irish times etc.

osarusan

eleventh wrote: »

It's all part of the takeover of Ireland. (It's not overt so most won't see it until it's already done).

Who's doing the taking over?

eleventh

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

What a simple-minded view. It's very common, it is media and politician-led: If someone doesn't support something then they must be 100% to the other extreme. No in-between or anything outside - it has to be yes-no, love-hate, for-against.

BanditLuke

cheezums wrote: »

Seems like most people here are annoyed they cant be racist towards travellers anymore.

How can you be racist towards them as they are the same race as us?

seamus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

is she guilty of " hate crime " under the proposed new legislation ?

No.

eleventh wrote: »

It's all part of the takeover of Ireland. (It's not overt so most won't see it until it's already done).
The few who do see it or start to wake up will be labelled 'hateful' by the likes of those making this legislation and their lackeys in RTE, Irish times etc.

"Takeover". "The few who do see". Ah, a Gemma O'D lackey. Good luck to ye.

Hector Savage

cheezums wrote: »

Seems like most people here are annoyed they cant be racist towards travellers anymore.

racist he says ... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if a bunch of travellers show up at my widowed mothers house pressuring her to allow them to clean her gutters , if she utters the following

" get of my property you tinker scumbags "

is she guilty of " hate crime " under the proposed new legislation ?

No.

And not even remotely close.


Outside of the United States, Ireland has the most liberal hate speech laws in the world. It's exceptionally difficult to be convicted of hate related crime in Ireland.

A key proviso under the new legislature remains "the intent to stir up hatred."

This legislation is merely a minor tweak on our already very loose laws.