Hate Crime

I suppose my own issue with it is the subjectivity part. It's just too vague.

In theory it's a great idea, making targeting someone for who they are a certain type of crime is a good thing.

However, how do we set the parameters for it? Does it apply to everyone or just protected groups? How do we prove it was a 'hate' motivated attack and not just an opportunistic attack on a person who happens to be from a minority group?

I do love the idea of hearing of loads of scrotes suddenly in court for 'hate crime' charges, but at the same time, is it something that might lose the run of itself with the current climate surrounding gender identity for example? (ie - not referring to someone using their preferred pronoun being considered a hate crime?)

Lots to think about really.

It isn't a crime at all and the government has not stated any intention to make it so.

As much as I agree, I suppose the issue really here is that I don't think any waiters or jewelry shop owners wake up in the morning, afraid to express themselves for fear of being attacked.

Being afraid to do the things most other people do and don't think twice about for fear of being attacked is a specific experience unique to anyone who looks different in this country.

I think you are missing the point somewhat.

Yes, violent crimes are up across the country and I don't think anyone is saying any groups are being targeted in particular over others. I don't disagree with you at all there.

The point is that the reason some people are being targeted is potentially because of who they are/what they look like. This as a statistic in itself seems to be on the up.

Now the contentious issue for me is 'well, how do you prove people are being attacked for what they look like, as opposed to a gay person for example just being attacked in general as crime is on the up?'

I think a good test of this is to ask the people who are in minority groups how they feel day to day walking about towns. I have a a lot of immigrant friends (plus side to having an immigrant partner!) and there definitely is a general feel of unease for a lot of them.

Sad to say, verbal racial abuse is actually at the lower end of the scale too.

Nobody is claiming that it is automatic, you are right. Either am I. But cases are not always necessarily so clear cut.

If someone is mugging someone else clearly for their wallet/phone and says 'effing ****' half way through when they realise they are gay, is that suddenly now a hate crime or is it still just a 'normal' mugging?

Is actually calling someone an 'effing ****' in a moment of road rage for example itself going to be considered a hate crime?

The person having the crime committed against them could interpret it as a hate crime whereas that was not the actual intention of the criminal.

Yes, there are cases where intent is very clear and simple to work out (ie; a gay couple getting beaten up for holding hands), however I can only imagine there are plenty of cases like the above where it is not.

I suppose what I am trying to basically say that I am loathe to agree with adding another law that is potentially open to a lot of speculation re its interpretation.

And this is all before you factor in that religion is seen as a protected characteristic under this proposed new bill.

Surely the scumbags would quickly adjust their behaviour. If they are assaulting someone they would do so silently or use alternative language to suggest it is not a hate crime. Or, am I overestimating the scumbags intelligence.

Lots of other countries have hate crime legislation working successfully for decades now. It's not that difficult.

This is disgraceful, that poor kid.

Is this the only post on Boards about it?

I feel it deserves and official thread.

^^ I've read three Irish news articles including the IT on that awful incident and not one of them state that the Dublin man assumed the victim was transgender. Off his tits and I don't personally believe his excuse anyway.

Since when is that your definition of transgender? If there is any truth to his story it would be a classic case of drug induced paranoia i.e. he imagined someone to be in disguise in an attempt to fool him. It is well beyond a stretch to link what he said to either transgender people or the ongoing trans debates.

Despite the fact that extremists have been consistently falsely linking trans people with paedophilia for years now?

Like what?

Specifically in relation to the Sligo murders -

You were quick off the mark with the Rogue's Gallery that is Donald Trump, Orban, Putin, Gemma O'Doherty et al.

But bearing in mind your willingness to go down this road...

'Sounds to me like you care more about the perpetrators skin colour and religion than the victim.'

I think it's fair to say, knowing what we know about Sligo and the extreme unlikelihood that this scumbag was motivated by any of your roll-call - that you care more about your political playbook than the victims.

It is cowardice, not having the moral fibre to say out straight that this 'hate crime' was carried out by an immigrant with a name and complexion that suggests, whatever his specific psychiatric history, that he is more informed by a Koran than by an Orban.

That is the truth of that particular 'hate crime' and it has SFA to do with the curriculum or any other workaround.