Sir, – Barry Walsh’s letter about the hate crime legislation (“Vagueness of hate crime Bill is dangerous”, Opinion & Analysis, June 16th) should have us all worried. Of course, advocating hate and violence is offensive, but many fear this legislation will be used against opinions that the establishment and favoured activists do not like. I’m surprised that left-wing free-speech advocates and NGOs are not showing more concern about the legislation. Perhaps they think it will apply only to those they perceive as ideological enemies. They may be in for a surprise – by the time it is used against them, it may be too late for regret. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN O’REGAN,
Arklow.
Sir, – The arguments advanced by Seamus Taylor to support specific “hate crime” legislation seem to me to raise more problems than they might ever solve (“Fears that hate crime Bill will lead to a flood of convictions are unfounded”, Opinion & Analysis, June 13th). The whole logic behind this approach to justice also will create inequality in victimhood and assumes scales of morality that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
Eating disorders in later life: Some of my peers have had teenage weight levels for decades
Eoin Burke-Kennedy: Is remote working bad for productivity?
David McWilliams: The potential threats to Ireland now come in four guises after Trump’s election
Presumably, the purpose of the legal system is to prevent crime. This is done by, in extreme cases, putting the perpetrators in custody so that such actions are impossible. That gives an opportunity to rehabilitate them, such as through education, or to persuade them of the error of their ways. And this all serves as an example to society, a demonstration of the consequences to others who would transgress the norms that the rest of us adhere to. Trying to discern those criminals motivated by hate for particular punishment requires some degree of policing of our thoughts, with all of the Orwellian connotations that requires. It also implies that one who commits a crime against someone they “hate” is worse than an individual who does the same thing to a victim they have no option about, or one they “love”.
I cannot see how that makes sense. As far as the potential for safe rehabilitation goes, if a person despises a subgroup in society it is possible to reason them out of that view, to introduce them to members of that community to break down barriers, or even compel them legally to avoid such people. Conversely, individuals who viciously attack random people would appear far harder to rationalise with, while avoiding random people isn’t feasible. Those who brutalise people they claim to love, in the domestic violence scenario or other familial forms of abuse, can hardly be deemed morally better. Their rates of recidivism seem very high and the potential for reintroducing them to likely victims is fraught with risk and stress for all. Compelling them to avoid people they are close is impractical, open to manipulation and emotional blackmail, and of course, new relationships will form.
More generally, giving some victims a special protected status seems to breach the ideal that everyone is equal before the law. But to my mind, someone viciously assaulting an individual they like, or have no opinion on, is not de facto committing less of a crime or less dangerous than if they had an antipathy toward their chosen victim. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.