Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120766189#Comment_120766189

See, you're starting to get it now

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120766490#Comment_120766490

Stop conflating two different things, it's disingenuous and you're insulting your own intelligence

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120766330#Comment_120766330

It's creating a hierarchy of protected classes, that's the problem, that's legal discrimination a terrible, terrible proposal

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770517#Comment_120770517

How does the bill create a hierarchy of protected classes, when what it refers to are protected characteristics?

The protected characteristics under the Criminal Justice (Hate Crime) Bill 2021 are:

• race
• colour
• nationality
• religion
• ethnic or national origin
• sexual orientation
• gender
• disability

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/48cb5-tough-sentences-for-hate-crimes-under-new-bill-from-minister-mcentee/

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770564#Comment_120770564

Ye don't want to understand it eh

Because it's specifying particular characteristics ergo classes or categories et al of people

It is not legislation to protect these people from unfair outcomes because of a characteristic which shouldn't count and we should be blind to ergo equality legislation

It is to treat (punish) differentially based on a characteristic ergo a discriminatory practice

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770692#Comment_120770692

I think you’ve misunderstood it tbh.

It’s based on characteristics, not classes;

It protects everyone;

It’s based upon the idea of increasing the severity of an offence if it is motivated by prejudice or discrimination based upon any of the protected characteristics.

It doesn’t constitute discrimination against the perpetrator(s), nor does it constitute discrimination towards the victim(s).

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770718#Comment_120770718

You just proved our (my) point

based upon any of the protected characteristics

It's not universal, it's selective therefore discriminatory. This is a very simple legal concept.

If you are failing to understand it or accept it's understanding it's because you support legal discrimination, the removal of blind justice and differential punishment

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770751#Comment_120770751

It’s not discriminatory, and it’s not creating a hierarchy of protected classes. Everyone is protected from prejudice and discrimination on the grounds of the protected characteristics in the Bill. Basic stuff like, it’s not difficult to understand at all.

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770820#Comment_120770820

You keep contradicting yourself and proving the discriminatory hierarchy nature of the bill protected characteristics , said characteristics do not apply to everyone but selected people ergo a hierarchy and discriminatory practice over those who do not hold such characteristics

If everyone was protected equally nobody would receive special mention. That is a really intellectually simple concept you seem unable to understand

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770877#Comment_120770877

The characteristics do apply to everyone, that’s kinda the whole point. Who are you suggesting receives special mention in the Bill?

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770909#Comment_120770909

Then there's no need to detail any particular characteristic specifically if they were universal right

But that's not the case, distinct 'charactetistics' are listed, distinctions are being made, that's the problem, that's where it becomes dangerous

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770919#Comment_120770919

There is a need to detail the protected characteristics if the intent of the bill is to protect people in society from prejudice and discrimination on the grounds of those protected characteristics. Each characteristic is distinct, like say the protected characteristic of religion, or disability, or ethnicity.

There’s nothing dangerous about outlining the protected characteristics, it’s kinda a necessary component of the bill if the intent is to protect people from discrimination and prejudice against them on the grounds of those characteristics!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770751#Comment_120770751

You said "hierarchy" - hierarchy means ranked.

"Based upo any of the protected characteristics" does not illustrate rank.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770517#Comment_120770517

Who is protected more then, and who us protected less?

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770955#Comment_120770955

You seem to imply that discrimination on grounds other than protected characteristics is a lesser offence. Dicrimination based on anything which is not relevant should be the real issue and the "anything" is a pretty openended list.

(Whan I say not relevant I mean for example, excluding someone from a job because of race. Excluding them because of lack of relevant qualifications would be "discrimination" but would be OK)

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771428#Comment_120771428

But you can't discriminate on something other then a protected characteristic...

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770564#Comment_120770564

Well, if me, my gay Irish friend and my black Malawian friend all go out in 3 different pubs this weekend.

I get called all sorts of names, speccy, fat, your from a different village, get beaten up, get a broken nose and a black eye.

My gay friend gets called all sorts of names, gay, fat, your from a different village, gets beaten up, gets a broken nose and a black eye.

My Malawian friend gets called all sorts of names, dickhead, speccy, your from a different place, gets beaten up, gets a broken nose and a black eye.

My attacker will get a lesser sentence than my 2 friends attackers. Am I less of a person that them? Will my wounds heal faster? Will the trauma subside in my more quickly? Why is an attack on a straight white man, the demographic most likely to be attacked/assaulted/murdered in Ireland, deemed a lesser offence than on others?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771494#Comment_120771494

No, in that seanario you outlined, neither of your friends were assaulted due to the attackers hatred for gays or black people.

It doesn't just automatically give a bigger sentence if the victim has one of the protected characteristics. The motivation of the offender must be based on that characteristic.

In your example above, if you and your friends were attacked by people shouting that they hate 'n#####s and n####r lovers ' they would have been motivated by their racist hatred of black people. It doesn't matter that you and your gay friend are white.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771494#Comment_120771494

It's possible that your attacker might get a lesser sentence in this case yes but there would have to be evidence the crimes had a hate bias motive.

But the point is if the Malawian and Gay person got beaten up because of their identity then there is a difference in the actual crime.

Yes racist and homophobic hate crimes can be more traumatic to victims than victims of non hate crime. There's lots of available evidence backing that up.

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120772514#Comment_120772514

"Can be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Everyone is different. My black and gay friends may brush it off as as*h*les being as*h*les, but it could strike the fear of God into me.

Also, what if my attacker hated me because I was from a rival parish football team? Or had kissed his girlfriend? Or any other scenario where he had it in for me.

That hate is ok, because it's not a protected characteristic.

There's your hierarchy of victims, right there.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771462#Comment_120771462

Oh yes you can, even though the law might downgrade the severity of the offence.

Hateful, violent behaviour (or directly inciting people to such behaviour) is wrong, no matter who is the intended target. This is by virtue of their basic human rights and dignity, irrecpective of protected status.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120773177#Comment_120773177

Moreover, nobody physically attacks another person because they like them or are indifferent to them.

Almost all violent assaults are motivated by dislike / hate of the other person.

So separating some assaults out, saying the hate must only be considered for some protected characteristics, makes no sense.

Ultimately, people should be prosecuted for their actions, not what they think -- even if what they think is awful.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771494#Comment_120771494

Who, other than you, says your attacker will get a lesser sentence than your two friends attackers? Who, at all, considers an attack on a straight white man a lesser offence than an attack on anyone else? I don’t ask those questions meaning to be smart or anything, I’m pointing out the problem with hypothetical scenarios that I think would be obvious - they didn’t actually happen, so there is no way to determine the actual outcome one way or another.

It’s not creating any hierarchy of victims either, which I think is what you’re driving at. Separate categories of assault for example already exist in Irish legislation under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act:

• Assault (s2)
• Assault causing harm (s3)
• Assault causing serious harm (s4)

The proposed legislation would allow for the idea of any of the protected characteristics being a motivating factor in the commission of the offence, so the criteria you listed above wouldn’t actually matter; what matters is what motivated the attacker to commit assault. If one or more of the protected characteristics are found to be an aggravating factor in the assault, then that will be taken into consideration at sentencing.

There’s just no way of knowing what motivated the person who assaulted you unless there was evidence to suggest they assaulted you for a specific reason such as one of the characteristics covered by the proposed legislation, same with the other attackers of your two friends.

There’s no way of knowing the outcome of sentencing either, because the scenario is entirely hypothetical and in reality there may be other factors involved. It could turn out that your attacker attacked you because they perceived you to be a woman and let’s just say they have issues with white women (it could be that your attacker should’ve gone to specsavers, who knows?).

It may turn out that the persons who assaulted your friends perceived them to be foreigners and the attackers have issues with foreigners. The fact that your friends may be born and bred in Ireland is neither here nor there, the point is what motivated the person who assaulted them.

It may well turn out that the person who assaulted you receives a much more severe sentence than the persons who assaulted your two friends. There’s simply no way of knowing for certain what the outcome of any hypothetical scenario would be.

There’s no suggestion whatsoever that an assault on a straight white man, is deemed a lesser offence than an assault on anyone who isn’t a straight white man. That’s nothing more than an absurd misrepresentation of the intent of the legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120773269#Comment_120773269

Clearly you have not heard about the completely random assaults that happen in Dublin streets every week.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120773269#Comment_120773269

People are prosecuted for their actions. Nobody is being prosecuted for what they think.

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771011#Comment_120771011

Above those that do not possess any of the listed characteristics

You're welcome

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120770955#Comment_120770955

It's a bill to prosecute differently based and selected characteristics, this biases the response to a crime and is the demolition of blind justice undermining the fundamentals of a fair, meritocracy based society

Being A or B doesn't change the crime inflicted on A or B

The problem is the crime but there is a severe deficit in intellect in the authors and sponsors of this bill

TokenJogger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771077#Comment_120771077

Those who are referenced are obviously protected more and those who are not are being subjugated

Rules cannot apply differentially because if they do they cease to be rules and become measures to subjugate or privilege based on arbitrary opinion

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774258#Comment_120774258

Good Jesus that is nonsense!

Depending upon the circumstances in each and every case, the motivation for the assault may be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There, basic stuff.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774291#Comment_120774291

But nobody is referenced. Everybody is referenced. Its the most Animal Farm thing about the whole act.