Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Annasopra · 21-08-2019 05:20PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

That would be difficult to prove surely. A person of colour could easily play the race card make up that they were racially without any evidence or proof to back up their claims. To me calling someone a derogatory name for their race to me that would constitute a form of verbal which may be a public order offence but again that's something which is hard to prove.

If a bald man is muggged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

Oh look its more whataboutery.

recedite · 21-08-2019 05:20PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

If a bald man is mugged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Stephen15 · 21-08-2019 05:35PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh look its more whataboutery.

Honestly is whataboutery the excuse you use when you don't have an answer to the questions I put in front of you?

Blueshoe · 21-08-2019 05:36PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh look its more whataboutery.

Let's just expel all white men from this island. Problem solved

Are you a white man Joey?

Crock Rock · 21-08-2019 05:38PM

In fairness, the woman didn't get a fair chance that other candidates got. She was silenced by the Vintners Association and the British Royal Family. She would have been a fine candidate.

21-08-2019 05:42PM

Crock Rock wrote: »

In fairness, the woman didn't get a fair chance that other candidates got. She was silenced by the Vintners Association and the British Royal Family. She would have been a fine candidate.

Conspiracy theory forum is two doors down

batgoat · 21-08-2019 05:46PM

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Are you so ill informed that you're oblivious to the fact that people have faced harassment and violent attacks because of their race, religion, orientation etc? Meanwhile culchies and red haired people do not. No shocker that you choose to be oblivious to the obvious though.

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2019 05:51PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Come back to me when Straight white men get beaten up because they are straight white men.

Lots of african countries white people are robbed, mugged and tortured for being white, south africans being kicked off their farms etc... does happen, just not here , well except anecdotal evidence of the roaming african gangs in some estates targeting white lads

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2019 05:52PM

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

To be fair I used to work with a ginger lad who got a payout off transdev because a luas ticket inspector called him 'ginger pubes' or some crap.

recedite · 21-08-2019 05:53PM

Loads of culchies have been attacked because they opened their mouths and were identified as culchies.
But the point is, what difference does it make why they were attacked? Maybe the attacker is just in the mood for attacking somebody.
If its a serious assault, treat it like one.
If not serious, less punishment is needed.

Joey thinks more punishment is needed if the victim is from one of his preferred groups.

Stephen15 · 21-08-2019 05:54PM

batgoat wrote: »

Are you so ill informed that you're oblivious to the fact that people have faced harassment and violent attacks because of their race, religion, orientation etc? Meanwhile culchies and red haired people do not. No shocker that you choose to be oblivious to the obvious though.

Joey used the example of a Pakistani man being mugged then getting called a "paki bastard" during the mugging. That's not a hate crime that's assault and robbery many attacks have an element of verbal abuse whether that be based on race, appearance, hair colour, clothing etc.

I do not believe that racial abuse or so called hate crimes are a major issue in this country and when in the vent they do occur I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences

recedite · 21-08-2019 05:57PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair I used to work with a ginger lad who got a payout off transdev because a luas ticket inspector called him 'ginger pubes' or some crap.

Well there ya go. We don't need Joey's law.
If somebody gets abused in some way, there are ways of getting payback already.

pinkyeye · 21-08-2019 05:57PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

I've never heard of it until now so I can't speak of the all lives matter movement.

Well the left regularly go on about equality but then celebrate diversity don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to say we're all equal then celebrate diversity. Why does diversity matter if we're all equal?

Do you know what diverse means? It means different, not lesser or superior.

batgoat · 21-08-2019 05:59PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Lots of african countries white people are robbed, mugged and tortured for being white, south africans being kicked off their farms etc... does happen, just not here , well except anecdotal evidence of the roaming african gangs in some estates targeting white lads

And what country are you in Eric?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Joey used the example of a Pakistani man being mugged then getting called a "paki bastard" duringbthe mugging. That's not a hate crime that's assault and robbery many attacks have an element of verbal abuse whether that be based on race, appearance, hair colour, clothing etc.

I do not believe that racial abuse or so called hate crimes are a major issue in this country and when in the vent they do occur I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences

Yes, it would be classified as a hate crime as there would be an indication that race was the motivating factor.... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2019 06:10PM

batgoat wrote: »

And what country are you in Eric?

Luckily Ireland where we still have time to act before areas become like parts of east london or malmo where people are targeted for being white by immigrant gangs.

Although as somebody who has heard of white women being abused on the bus near adamstown im surprised that the new 'racism has no place on public transport' posters have none of white people, seems a bit......racist....

Kimsang · 21-08-2019 06:11PM

Careful talking about gingers, Mike.ie has expressed a dislike to conversations of this nature in another thread

Kimsang · 21-08-2019 06:21PM

batgoat wrote: »

... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

So you admit hate crime ideology requires a belief structure similar to that of a religion?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.-Steven Weinberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4WVvlWCs9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOwNtYbU02U

batgoat · 21-08-2019 06:30PM

Kimsang wrote: »

So you admit hate crime ideology requires a belief structure similar to that of a religion?

Not at all, I'd just say that he tends to be a bit deluded.

21-08-2019 06:31PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

Do you know what diverse means? It means different, not lesser or superior.

Agreed. So all laws should be applied equally to everyone, for everyone and against everyone IMO.

21-08-2019 06:33PM

batgoat wrote: »

Yes, it would be classified as a hate crime as there would be an indication that race was the motivating factor.... In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

Joey thinks gender should be included too if a man is doing it to a woman. Wonder if he thinks a woman abusing a man is in the same boat too? North vs South of the border? Urban vs rural? Where do we draw the line?

batgoat · 21-08-2019 06:36PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Joey thinks gender should be included too if a man is doing it to a woman. Wonder if he thinks a woman abusing a man is in the same boat too? North vs South of the border? Urban vs rural? Where do we draw the line?

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

recedite · 21-08-2019 06:42PM

batgoat wrote: »

.. In fairness, you don't even believe in hate crimes.

batgoat wrote: »

Not at all, I'd just say that he tends to be a bit deluded.

In fairness, you just jumped the shark. You are now telling people what they believe, even when they tell you something else.
He said "I do not see why our current laws cannot combat these incidences" not that they don't exist.

It would be very rare for some attacker to run up to somebody and break their arm, just because of that person's skin colour. But if that happened, how is it any worse for the victim than if they had been randomly selected by an equal opportunity psychopath?

21-08-2019 06:47PM

batgoat wrote: »

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

Not denying that. What if the shoe is on the other foot though? Or if it's woman hating other women? That's where it gets muddied. If someone has an innate hatred of all women, there's probably mental issues at play too. What I'm saying is, it's hard to legislate for this type of thing. Tough to define. Just prosecute people for the crimes and if the mens rea is present, apply the necessary laws that are there.

Stephen15 · 21-08-2019 06:50PM

batgoat wrote: »

Joey thinks it should be pursued if one is targeted because they are a woman. We have unfortunately had people target women for misogynistic and warped reasons.

And those people are generally charged with crimes such as rape and sexual assault

pinkyeye · 21-08-2019 06:51PM

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Whatever about redheads, culchies are certainly not a minority.

If someone deliberately went looking for a redhead to attack then yes that's a hate crime.

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 06:54PM

Some pathetic stawman arguments in here.

We have an equal stays act, this would be a reasonable basis for defining what categories of people could be subjected to hate crimes.

Gender is one of them so worry not lads, if men are attacked by women because they are men I would say there’s a reasonable argument that that is a hate crime.

Lobby your local TD if you feel culchies, gingers or baldies should also be protected under the act - as I meet 2 of those 3 categories and am rapidly approaching all 3 I would welcome such a development.

Kimsang · 21-08-2019 06:55PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

Some pathetic stawman arguments in here.

We have an equal stays act, this would be a reasonable basis for defining what categories of people could be subjected to hate crimes.

Gender is one of them so worry not lads, if men are attacked by women because they are men I would say there’s a reasonable argument that that is a hate crime.

Lobby your local TD if you feel culchies, gingers or baldies should also be protected under the act - as I meet 2 of those 3 categories and am rapidly approaching all 3 I would welcome such a development.

Might just be easier if we upgrade all crimes to hate crime status, then we can have justice again.

pinkyeye · 21-08-2019 06:56PM

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 06:59PM

Kimsang wrote: »

Might just be easier if we upgrade all crimes to hate crime status, then we can have justice again.

Excellent point, that’s me told

21-08-2019 06:59PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more. There are existing laws there that can be used to punish people for transgressions. Who decides what constitutes hate-speech/hate-crimes. Things like that.

jackboy · 21-08-2019 07:00PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

Crimes are currently dealt with based on actions. Hate crimes are dealt with based on actions in conjunction with the thoughts of the accused. Massive potential for errors.

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2019 07:00PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

because it seems like everything is escalating to be 'motivated by hate' these days. The last thing we need is you drunkenly end up in a minor fight with some random lad and are going down for 2 years because you didn't know he was a gay jew , or some woman shouting her mouth off at another woman over a disagreement on the street and all of a sudden its a conviction because one of them was black.

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 07:01PM

Omackeral wrote: »

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more.

Presumably the DPP will relegate ‘hate crimes’ to ‘regular crime’ status if the appropriate evidence threshold can’t be met in the case of an alleged hate crime

Edit: I accept it is harder to prove and thus an unsatisfactory level of actual hate crimes would be charged as such - however I don’t accept this as reason enough to reject the concept

21-08-2019 07:04PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

Presumably the DPP will relegate ‘hate crimes’ to ‘regular crime’ status if the appropriate evidence threshold can’t be met in the case of an alleged hate crime

Who decides what constitutes a hate-crime? Is it black and white, excuse the pun, or is it on a sliding spectrum. Would jurors, if required, by asked to judge for themselves? Would there have to be people of various colours, belief systems and ability on duty?

TaurenDruid · 21-08-2019 07:07PM

Omackeral wrote: »

It's hard to prove. It's muddled at best. It's essentially necessitates two trials and ties everything up more. There are existing laws there that can be used to punish people for transgressions. Who decides what constitutes hate-speech/hate-crimes. Things like that.

When someone attacks someone because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion - it's a hate crime.

When someone daubs swastikas or other graffiti on a place of worship - it's a hate crime.

When someone urges violence against people or places because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion or there are asylum seekers living there - it's a hate crime.

When someone burns down a direct provision centre - it's a hate crime.

It's not hard.

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 07:09PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes a hate-crime? Is it black and white, excuse the pun, or is it on a sliding spectrum. Would jurors, if required, by asked to judge for themselves? Would there have to be people of various colours, belief systems and ability on duty?

Well the legislature, then the DPP interpretation of legislation in combination with evidence provided by AGS and then ultimately a judge after hearing the car presented by the DPP and defended by the defendant.

As pointed out already, the equal stays act defines 9 categories of discrimination- this would be a reasonable starting point for defining categories of hate motivated crimes

Kimsang · 21-08-2019 07:10PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

Markus Meechan was convicted under hate laws in Scotland for making a joke. He was in fact making a joke at the expense of nazis, but he was told by the court that context doesn't matter.

Chelsea Russell was arrested for paying tribute to her dead friend by posting rap lyrics on a facebook page.

What good does hate crime legislation do? It makes people feel better.

Stephen15 · 21-08-2019 07:10PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

For all those who have a problem with hate crime legislation can I ask exactly why?

By that I mean I presume no-one on here is going to attack anyone anyway so we'll never have to worry about it.

How will it affect our lives?

Because I support justice being served. As a white person if I become a victim of crime I would like to see the perpetrator brought to justice. I would not like to see a situation where an <insert minority here> who gets attacked perpetrator gets a harsher sentence becuase of their race.

21-08-2019 07:11PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

When someone attacks someone because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion - it's a hate crime.

When someone daubs swastikas or other graffiti on a place of worship - it's a hate crime.

When someone urges violence against people or places because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion or there are asylum seekers living there - it's a hate crime.

When someone burns down a direct provision centre - it's a hate crime.

It's not hard.

Yeah and that's not always easy to prove. For example, daubing swastikas could be teenage vandalism designed to get a rise. People can simply be kunts. I've seen it. Eejits that just do it. Anyone burning down a synagogue or church should be done for arson. Anyone doing it with occupants inside should be done attempted murder. There are laws in place already. Prosecute to them to the full extent of it.

Also, should we have jurors from every ethnic and cultural background to ensure diversity? Or specific jurors from the background of the alleged victim?

21-08-2019 07:13PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

Well the legislature, then the DPP interpretation of legislation in combination with evidence provided by AGS and then ultimately a judge after hearing the car presented by the DPP and defended by the defendant.

As pointed out already, the equal stays act defines 9 categories of discrimination- this would be a reasonable starting point for defining categories of hate motivated crimes

We have scumbags getting off with suspended sentences for far more serious crimes than saying offensive words or adding insult to injury. I'd much rather that was dealt with to be honest.

cookie1977 · 21-08-2019 07:16PM

Kimsang wrote: »

Markus Meechan was convicted under hate laws in Scotland for making a joke. He was in fact making a joke at the expense of nazis, but he was told by the court that context doesn't matter.

Chelsea Russell was arrested for paying tribute to her dead friend by posting rap lyrics on a facebook page.

What good does hate crime legislation do? It makes people feel better.

You're concerned and worried about Meechan??? That says it all.

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 07:19PM

Omackeral wrote: »

We have scumbags getting off with suspended sentences for far more serious crimes than saying offensive words or adding insult to injury. I'd much rather that was dealt with to be honest.

I wasn’t advocating an offensive word being a crime in its own right, not sure where the reasoning for your response came from.

I also don’t see why wanting serious crimes not to get suspended sentences has to be mutually exclusive with crimes being motivated by hate (in a defined manner) being recognized as such.

Stephen15 · 21-08-2019 07:21PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

I wasn’t advocating an offensive word being a crime in its own right, not sure where the reasoning for your response came from.

I also don’t see why wanting serious crimes not to get suspended sentences has to be mutually exclusive with crimes being motivated by hate (in a defined manner) being recognized as such.

I've said it before and will stand by it that nearly all crimes are motivated by a certain degree of hate

TaurenDruid · 21-08-2019 07:22PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

Because I support justice being served. As a white person if I become a victim of crime I would like to see the perpetrator brought to justice. I would not like to see a situation where an <insert minority here> who gets attacked perpetrator gets a harsher sentence becuase of their race.

You're a self-confessed racist. Of course you don't want fellow racists to get harsher sentences.

jackboy · 21-08-2019 07:22PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

When someone attacks someone because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion - it's a hate crime.

When someone daubs swastikas or other graffiti on a place of worship - it's a hate crime.

When someone urges violence against people or places because of their nationality, sexuality, race or religion or there are asylum seekers living there - it's a hate crime.

When someone burns down a direct provision centre - it's a hate crime.

It's not hard.

It’s not hard now because they are all crimes that can be dealt with. With hate crime a judge has to try to determine the thoughts of the accused on top of the actions.

bobmalooka · 21-08-2019 07:31PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

I've said it before and will stand by it that nearly all crimes are motivated by a certain degree of hate

Good man - see the protected categories under the equal stays act as a rough guide to the sort of categories recognised as at risk of discrimination

Overheal · 21-08-2019 08:00PM

recedite wrote: »

Blood and soil.
These are the two main ways people get their citizenship.
Jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
Its correct that we cut back on jus soli (birthright or "law of the soil" citizenship) because it was being abused. That was done in a democratic referendum of the Irish people.

That leaves Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) as the main one.

We also have citizenship by naturalisation, when foreign people have been living here legally for 5 or more years.

Oh then kiss me I’m Irish after all

recedite · 21-08-2019 08:04PM

Overheal wrote: »

Oh then kiss me I’m Irish after all

Only if you're (a) female and (b) hot.

pinkyeye · 21-08-2019 08:11PM

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're concerned and worried about Meechan??? That says it all.

In 2018 Meechan joined UKIP and we're supposed to pretend the Nazi salute was a joke? :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2019 08:16PM

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're concerned and worried about Meechan??? That says it all.

do you think its acceptable that a man ended up in front of a judge for teaching a dog to do a hitler salute for humour. It is not a sane or just world where that commands a court appearance.

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Comments