Rise in hate crime

A police spokesperson (scroll down) has confirmed that:

“…there had been a 20.5 per cent increase in the number of hate crimes reported or detected by police in 2005/06, with the running total for this year at 746.”A hate crime is “is defined as any incident which is perceived to have been committed against another person because of their race, religion, political opinion, disability or sexual orientation.”

  • Pete Baker

    Latest statistics available here

    “The next monthly updates will be available on the 28th July 2006.”

  • roddy

    Its interesting that here has been a distinct lack of comments on Slugger to these horrendous figures. Had this number of attacks been perpetrated against one or other of the main communities here, then the usual suspects would be waxing lyrical with claim and counter-claim.

    The silence is deafening…………

  • Prince Eoghan

    From the Belfast today link;

    http://www.belfasttoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=3425&ArticleID=1636405
    A police spokeswoman said: “If it is perceived that the attack is motivated by religious hatred, we would classify an arson attack on an Orange Hall as a hate crime.

    I for one would like to get this cleared up, just when did the OO get classified as a religion. And OO halls become churches?

    Again I commend you for your persistance FD, but what is the point of it all?

    The OO are not innocent victims here, they probably whip up more sectarian hatred than all other groups/organisation combined. Why does it then become a surprise that some idiots, attract the attention of other idiots.

  • Moochin photoman

    I posted these to my blog today!
    http://www.moochinphotoman.blogspot.com/

  • McGrath

    Roddy

    “Its interesting that here has been a distinct lack of comments on Slugger to these horrendous figures. Had this number of attacks been perpetrated against one or other of the main communities here, then the usual suspects would be waxing lyrical with claim and counter-claim.”

    Since you brought it up…..which sub set of spides is more active in this kind of activity? i.e. is it occuring more on loyalsit or republican areas?

  • Moochin photoman

    The 2 shots i posted one is on the Donegall Rd and the other in an alley parallel to the Woodstock link, i have an image of another which is on the hoardings around the new Obel Apartments opp the Royal Mail building….interestingly it looks as if they were interupted as the swastika was complete but they only got as far as BN.
    I assume BNP was the intended finished message

  • fair_deal

    PE

    “just when did the OO get classified as a religion. And OO halls become churches?”

    As is often pointed out it is a Protestant only organisation, so if targetting it is targetting people from one religious background. Simple really.

    PS Some OH are used for religious services, missions and sunday schools.

    “what is the point of it all?”

    1. If the rule on slugger was only one thread allowed on a theme it would have closed years ago.
    2. The thread intro is about hate crime not Orange Hall attacks.

    On the broader issue of why I return to the theme
    1. I think that ‘low-level’ sectarianism is an important issue that can be dismissed too easily with a shrug, “they’ll always be some of it”. Also I believe it undermined the last deal so improvement in the situation is important for a future deal to work (a scenario I wish to see).
    2. Nationalists often try to define sectarianism as a ‘Unionist’ problem. I wish to challenge such perceptions. It’s both our problems.

  • harpo

    ‘I for one would like to get this cleared up, just when did the OO get classified as a religion. And OO halls become churches?’

    Prince:

    Nice try, but she didn’t claim either of these things. What she did say was much simpler: ‘If it is perceived that the attack is motivated by religious hatred’.

    She is saying that if the motive for attacking anyone or anything is religious hatred, then that counts as a hate crime.

    If we took your narrow definition that attacks only on actual religions themselves or churches is what counts, then we couldn’t call what the Shankill Butchers did hate crime, could we?

    But that would be nonsense. The Shankill Butchers were obviously motivated by religious hatred, weren’t they? They hated Catholics. So they attacked people of that religion.

    It’s the same here. If people are attacking Orange halls because they hate Protestants, then they are motivated by religious hatred. The OO is a Protestant organization, so it is an obvious target if people are motivated by religious hatred against Protestants.

  • peter fallow

    Where do you start with people who won’t even regard the burning of orange halls as sectarian / hate crimes?!
    I’m not in the Orange and I don’t particularly like their parades. But for God’s sake, burning their halls down is clearly a sectarian attack!
    Prince Eoghan, your posts on this issue are sectarian to the core, you would give the most frothing Paisley-ite a run for his money. Depressing.

  • McGrath

    I agree with FD’s position that an attack on an Orange Hall is a hate crime. Likewise a GAA hall. But the nature of these hate crimes is sectarian. In looking a Petes link, the numbers relating to racial hate crimes are frightening.

    I refer readers to my first post in relation to racial hate crimes.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Harpo: “It’s the same here. If people are attacking Orange halls because they hate Protestants, then they are motivated by religious hatred. The OO is a Protestant organization, so it is an obvious target if people are motivated by religious hatred against Protestants. ”

    Here comes the slippery slope of thought-crime. What do you call it if the perpetrator hates the Orange Order and not Protestants / Protestantism?

    Seems to me we’re trying to black and white and area with no small amount of grey to it.

    Fallow: “Where do you start with people who won’t even regard the burning of orange halls as sectarian / hate crimes?! ”

    Are you suggesting that to hate the Orange Order is to hate the whole of Protestantism and that there is no possible way to simply hate the Orange Order for what it does, as opposed to its increasingly thin ties to the Protestant faith?

  • harpo

    ‘Where do you start with people who won’t even regard the burning of orange halls as sectarian / hate crimes?!’

    Peter:

    I have no idea where you start with them. It’s not only this attitude that makes dialogue impossible (never mind agreement). They also talk about IR terrorists being freedom fighters, and dead IR terrorists being ‘the honoured dead’.

    They complain about the evil within people who would burn GAA halls, or engage in loyalist terrorism, yet they excuse those who burn Orange halls or engage in IR terrorism. They complain about OO lodges honouring members who were loyalist terrorists, but defend GAA clubs who honour members (and non-members) who were IR terrorists.

    Double standards is the only explanation, based on their political bias. I have no idea how to correct this though.

  • Prince Eoghan

    “As is often pointed out it is a Protestant only organisation, so if targetting it is targetting people from one religious background. Simple really.”

    Not so simple really. There are other Protestant only organisations that do not deliberately go around antagonising their neighbours, Do we know if their buildings get attacked on a regular basis? Maybe it is the antagonistic nature rather than the exclusivety. Do you really believe that OO buildings get damaged because they are an Protestant only organisation?

    “1. If the rule on slugger was only one thread allowed on a theme it would have closed years ago.
    2. The thread intro is about hate crime not Orange Hall attacks.”

    That’s fine on both counts, though your first link from Belfast today pushed the OO attacks theme, a constant on your threads.

    “On the broader issue of why I return to the theme
    1. I think that ‘low-level’ sectarianism is an important issue that can be dismissed too easily with a shrug, “they’ll always be some of it”. Also I believe it undermined the last deal so improvement in the situation is important for a future deal to work (a scenario I wish to see).
    2. Nationalists often try to define sectarianism as a ‘Unionist’ problem. I wish to challenge such perceptions. It’s both our problems.”

    Granted there are some in both communities who have a problem. This problem does seem to manifest itself all too often in Unionist cultural celebrations however. Considering this, it is not too hard a stretch to wonder why many believe that Unionism has the larger problem. Nonetheless, a problem is still there and this is commendable to show that there are idiots around everywhere.

    I have also commended you on several threads for fighting your corner so well on what I would consider an un-winnable quest. Namely to have OO halls recognised as legitimate community halls, and to have attacks on the OO recognised as attacks on a recognised religion. To any normal society with democratic pretensions the OO in it’s present form is unnaceptable.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Peter.

    “Where do you start with people who won’t even regard the burning of orange halls as sectarian / hate crimes?!
    I’m not in the Orange and I don’t particularly like their parades. But for God’s sake, burning their halls down is clearly a sectarian attack!
    Prince Eoghan, your posts on this issue are sectarian to the core, you would give the most frothing Paisley-ite a run for his money. Depressing.

    Posted by peter fallow on Jul 20, 2006 @ 06:46 PM

    Firstly, why is it that those who defend the OO so valiantly always claim not to like them? puzzling.

    Peter. If a church going Presbyterian had burned down all of these OO halls, would you consider it sectarian? Considering that we can assume this person was doing it for reasons other than religion. Is it a far stretch to imagine that those who are not church-going Prods may do it for other reasons?

    I do not consider that the OO are the representatives of the Protestant community, no matter the spin put on it by fair-deal.

    Peter I would ask when throwing about the sectarian labels, that you look about yourself. I am one of the good guys, standing up against hatred and intolerance, hence my opposition to almost everything that the OO stand for. I would not ally, nor support any group or organisation that sacrificed my principles regarding equality. Can you say the same?

  • harpo

    ‘Here comes the slippery slope of thought-crime. What do you call it if the perpetrator hates the Orange Order and not Protestants / Protestantism?’

    Dread:

    I’d have thought the word ‘hate’ gives it away. It’s still hate crime. What do you call it if the perpetrator hates the GAA and not nationalists/nationalism?

    The point is that if you hate something that is perfectly legal – the OO or the GAA as examples – and you attack people or property based on that hatred it is still hate crime.

    And that’s the problem – some nationalists are at the point of condoning/excusing attacks on the OO on the basis that they don’t like the OO and it thus deserves anything that comes its way.

    But can’t we all do that? What if some unionists engage in condoning/excusing attacks on the GAA on the basis that they don’t like the GAA and it thus deserves anything that comes its way? Isn’t that just the same?

    Now nationalists will come back and say ‘but the GAA isn’t like the OO’ but that ignores the point. If it is decided that legal organizations can be attacked simply because someone doesn’t like what they do, then everyone is going to join in with whatever organizations they believe can be attacked.

    It’s called freedom of expression. Many nationalists may not like the OO but that doesn’t justify attacks on that legal organization. Part of freedom is tolerating organizations that have the right to exist but that you don’t agree with or like.

    So it simply comes down to a belief in free expression, and whether you agree with it or not.

  • joeCanuck

    Prince Eoghan

    You said “The OO are not innocent victims here, they probably whip up more sectarian hatred than all other groups/organisation combined. Why does it then become a surprise that some idiots, attract the attention of other idiots.”

    Your premise that some people are fair targets is disgusting.
    I come from a Catholic background although I am not religious myself. Over the years when I worked in N.I. I had many or most of my colleagues who were orangemen. To a man, they were decent people.
    I think you’re mixing up the orangemen with the rabble who, unfortunately, attach themselves to orange parades.
    Are there b_i_g_o_t_ed orangemen?; you betcha, just like yourself.
    Nothing excuses demonization nor attacks on people’s premises.

  • harpo

    ‘I am one of the good guys, standing up against hatred and intolerance’

    Prince:

    How are you standing up against intolerance by being intolerant yourself?

    ‘If a church going Presbyterian had burned down all of these OO halls, would you consider it sectarian?’

    Err…no, but why mention this? Do you really think that it is a/some church going Presbyterian(s) who are buring down Orange halls? This is as irrelevant as saying ‘If a church going Catholic had burned down all of these Catholic churches, would you consider it sectarian?’.

    In the real world it isn’t Presbyterians who burn down Orange halls, and it isn’t Catholics who burn down Catholic churches, is it?

    It may be all very open minded to say ‘well it could be anyone doing this’ when Orange halls are being attacked, but where is this open mindedness when it comes to GAA facilities or Catholic churches being attacked in a similar way? In those cases nationalists just go straight to the ‘loyalists did this and they are encouraged to do so by what unionists like Paisley, and the OO say’. There is never any mention of rogue members of the Catholic church as a possibility, is there?

    ‘hence my opposition to almost everything that the OO stand for’

    Good for you. And since the OO is a legal organization you have the right to express your opinion, but certainly not to attack OO members or their property. I oppose almost everything that the GAA stands for and that only entitles me to express my opinion about them, but nothing more. It certainly doesn’t entitle me to attack their members or property, or to encourage or excuse those who would do so.

    You see the difference between us is that I am truly tolerant, but you are not. That’s why you are all on for excusing attacks on Orange halls.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Joe glad you are not disputing my premise about the OO whipping up sectarian hatred. Surprising that you did not find that disgusting.

    “I come from a Catholic background although I am not religious myself. Over the years when I worked in N.I. I had many or most of my colleagues who were orangemen. To a man, they were decent people.”

    One of my pals is a Loyalist, decent but daft. So? Are you saying that because they were nice to you that the OO and what they stand for is decent? grow up.

    “I think you’re mixing up the orangemen with the rabble who, unfortunately, attach themselves to orange parades.
    Are there b_i_g_o_t_ed orangemen?; you betcha, just like yourself.
    Nothing excuses demonization nor attacks on people’s premises.”

    I’m not mixing anything up Joe, how do you know I am b1goted? Is it because I dislike the OO? Well if so the majority of any decent society must be b1goted, sad you feel the need to stand with those fermenting sectarian hatred. Your choice. Finally, I do not need to demonize the OO, they manage fine doing that all by themselves. Do you deny that idiots attract idiots, it’s the same the world over I’m afraid, go looking for trouble and you will invariably find it.

  • harpo

    ‘Your premise that some people are fair targets is disgusting…Nothing excuses demonization nor attacks on people’s premises.’

    joeCanuck:

    Well said. That’s true tolerance.

    I don’t like the GAA but I accept that it is a legal organization that has the right to exist. Unlike Prince I don’t let the actions of the minority of yobbos (who name GAA clubs etc after IR terrorists) turn me into someone who will excuse attacks on the GAA, on the basis that this makes them all yobbos and thus deserving of whatever comes their way.

    Prince seems to think that battling intolerance has to involve one being intolerant too.

  • harpo

    ‘sad you feel the need to stand with those fermenting sectarian hatred.’

    Prince:

    Yet you stand with the GAA. How sad.

    ‘Finally, I do not need to demonize the OO, they manage fine doing that all by themselves.’

    Just as I don’t need to demonize the GAA, they manage fine doing that all by themselves. By commemorating dead IR terrorists etc.

    ‘Do you deny that idiots attract idiots, it’s the same the world over I’m afraid, go looking for trouble and you will invariably find it.’

    Remember that the next time some GAA facilites are burnt down.

  • roddy

    McGrath, I think that you know the answer to your question.A primary reason for more race crime incidents in unionist/loyalist areas may be that political and community representatives in unionist/loyalist areas do not tackle the racism issue as pro-activley as their counterparts in ‘green’ areas. An example of this is the commendable way that the people of the Markets area have reacted to the arrival of the Sheltered Housing scheme for Chinese people in their area.However there is a side-argument that because of the dearth of available social and private rented housing in ‘green’ areas (which is a very important issue in itself) most ethnic groups tend to go to areas perceived as protestant. Therefore there are much lesser numbers of ethic groups in nationalist areas, meaning that tolerance levels there have yet to be tested in the same way as has happened in loyalist areas.

  • peter fallow

    ““The OO are not innocent victims here, they probably whip up more sectarian hatred than all other groups/organisation combined.”

    You don’t reckon that the IRA, which killed more than half of those to die in the Troubles, created more hatred than anyone else? Y’see, I think killing is probably the most effective way to generate hate. Ergo, the Provos are the leading creators of hate.

    Thank God those of your mindset have been so throughly defeated. Your views are nothing short of fascist.
    Why not just take the gloves / mask off for once and admit that it’s not the OO, UDA, RUC, UUP or DUP you hate, it’s ‘the other’. The Prods. You’d probably feel better. Then see a psychiatrist.
    Jesus wept.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Harpo.

    My auld grannie used to say “if you argue with an idiot, you become one yourself”

    The irony of you calling me intolerant is too much to bear on this occassion.

    I do not, repeat do not advocate or excuse attacks. That is your own and sadly some others inability to read my first post to FD. My beef is with giving the OO a status it does not deserve, or the respectibility it craves. I have said that the actions of idiots in whipping up sectarian hatred will attract other idiots, only too willing to take up the challenge.

    Your avoidance of my point about a Presbyterian doing any burning of OO halls is telling. This was to highlight that I believe that anyone doing this would IMHO not be doing it for religious reasons, who knows some may be, like I say all are idiots. I would not indulge, excuse or support any such attacks.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Peter.

    You have not deemed to answer my post, yet you throw epithts like fascist around. I can only conclude that you don’t understand my POV, if so don’t advertise your silliness by attempting to bring other organisations into the equation. Harpo is bringing in quite enough whataboutery, won’t change the substance and importance of my points though. This is a cracker;

    “Why not just take the gloves / mask off for once and admit that it’s not the OO, UDA, RUC, UUP or DUP you hate, it’s ‘the other’. The Prods. You’d probably feel better”

    This is idiotic, I live in Glasgow. Almost all the people I associate with are Prods, hell some of them are even my pals. Again why do so many readily equate a dislike for the OO to hating Prods? Puzzling.

  • harpo

    ‘My auld grannie used to say “if you argue with an idiot, you become one yourself” ‘

    Prince:

    I don’t think she was right. I’ve been arguing with you for a while and I’m still not an idiot.

    ‘I do not, repeat do not advocate or excuse attacks.’

    Yes you did.

    But let’s not argue the point. A simple condemnation of such attacks from yourself will clear up any misunderstanding. I condemn attacks on GAA facilities and Catholic churches. Let’s see you say the same about OO premises.

    ‘Your avoidance of my point about a Presbyterian doing any burning of OO halls is telling.’

    I didn’t avoid it – I answered it head on. It’s nonsense.

    ‘anyone doing this would IMHO not be doing it for religious reasons’

    No one claims that they are doing it for religious reasons. The claim is that they do it for reasons of hate. You don’t have to be religious yourself to attack the property of another religion, or symbols of another religion. All you have to do is hate some other group. Like neo-Nazi skinheads attacking Jewish property and symbols. They aren’t religious, yet they attack those of a certain religion because they blame them for something.

    ‘I would not indulge, excuse or support any such attacks.’

    Except that you haven’t condemned such attacks, and basically take the position that they deserve what they get since you think they are idiots.

  • harpo

    ‘Harpo is bringing in quite enough whataboutery’

    Prince:

    Not at all.

    The subject is hate crime, not attacks on the OO. I’m simply pointing out another example of hate crime from NI – one that is exactly the same as attacks on OO halls, yet one where you wouldn’t consider the victims to have deserved what they got.

    Can’t you handle comparisons to other examples of hate crimes?

    Why don’t you consider attacks on GAA facilities to be idiots attracting responses from other idiots? The GAA after all is a sectarian organization.

  • harpo

    ‘There are other Protestant only organisations that do not deliberately go around antagonising their neighbours, Do we know if their buildings get attacked on a regular basis?’

    prince:

    What are these Protestant only organizations you have in mind?

    I can only think of Prod churches, and yes, their buildings get attacked on a regular basis too.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Harpo.

    Sorry but I am bored now. Your trolling and whataboutery bellies your lack of argument. You even manage to contradict yourself badly in your 8.07pm post. (harpo’s voice) I’m not indulging in whataboutery, but whatabout the GAA?” this post from you earlier on is telling Harpo;

    “‘Do you deny that idiots attract idiots, it’s the same the world over I’m afraid, go looking for trouble and you will invariably find it.’

    Remember that the next time some GAA facilites are burnt down.”

    Eh, where do the GAA go looking for trouble? Croke park? LOL, I’m afraid that you may be showing yourself up, and I am all done for tonight.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Harpo,

    I think you will find that “hate-crime” legislation does not do what you appear to think it does. It is not a “blanket” condemnation of hate, but creates special “protected classes” whom, if attacked based wholly or in part due to hatred of that class of individual, embellishes the crime.

    For good or for ill, neither the OO or GAA, in and of themselves, fall into a protected class. The OO is sufficiently active outside of their thinning religious affiliation to engender hostility. Ergo, it is possible for an attack upon an OO hall to not qualify as a “hate-crime.”

  • Prince Eoghan

    Harpo 8.12

    There are churches attacked and desecrated all over the world, deplorable but sadly a sign of the times. The law should impose harsh sentences to instill some of the respect of the past.

    I was tempted to go into whataboutery myself there, and mention the Unionist prevalence at attacking churches in the past. I won’t though *gagged* goodnight.

  • McGrath

    Dread:

    “I think you will find that “hate-crime” legislation does not do what you appear to think it does.”

    So an attack on an OO hall would not be considered a hate crime, but an attack directly on a sash wearing orangeman would be considered a hate crime (because he was a protestant)?

  • harpo

    ‘Sorry but I am bored now.’

    Prince:

    No stamina eh?

    ‘Eh, where do the GAA go looking for trouble?’

    Any time they name a club or competition after an IR terrorist, and any time they fly the flag of the ROI and use the ROI anthem within NI. Or when their supporters go around unionist areas with the ROI flag.

  • joeCanuck

    Fair Deal

    In your earlier post on sectarian damage, you said that only 2% of crimes against Orange Halls were solved.
    Yet Pete’s link to statistics on Sectarian crime shows an overall successful rate of 14.4%,
    http://www.psni.police.uk/3._hate_incidents_and_crimes-4.pdf

    What gives? Aren’t these attacks not rated as sectarian or do you have any idea why the police are so spectacularly unsuccessful in investigating/solving these particular crimes?

  • Belfast Gonzo

    What would be interesting to know is how many successful prosecutions there have been under the Hate Crime legislation introduced a few short years ago.

    My bet is: close to zero.

  • GPJ

    “Why not just take the gloves / mask off for once and admit that it’s not the OO, UDA, RUC, UUP or DUP you hate, it’s ‘the other’. The Prods. You’d probably feel better. Then see a psychiatrist.”

    If I remember my history Peter, the struggle for national liberation which was fought by The Irish Republican Army was not a sectarian struggle.
    Peter I hear your arguement, criticise the N.Irish set up and therefore you’re sectarian. Support the IRA, can only come from bigots. Well I cannot agree with that logic as the entity which you are so fond of the six counties, was based on division and sectarianism. Opposition to sectarianism is not sectarian.

    To look at racial hatred in this part of ireland, you will see links with unionist paramilitaries and racist right organisations, going back since the 1920’s.

    Your use of the term fascist is also interesting, you obviously have little knowledge of the political and social connections between fascism and the one party mono religious state that was imposed on the irish people from 1921.

    A psychiatrist would call your condition displacement theory, as after you use fascist to describe your opponent, you then list some fascist like organisations; OO, UDR and DUP.

  • IIRC, paramilitary supplies have been found by the cops in a number of Orange Halls over the years. Now, I have to wonder if any of the Orange Halls providing such services to the death squads were among those attacked.

    Furthermore, I get the distinct impression that the cops have not been very active in looking into such services from the Halls. So, I also wonder just how many Halls that have been attacked were believed to be providing storage factilities for the death squads.

    If there are a number of such, that really does change the basis for discussion, doesm’t it?

  • joeCanuck

    No Bob; you’re totally out to lunch here.

    If some Orange Halls are being used to store paramilitary supplies, the correct solution is for to authorities to detect it (from your post, if it is to be believed, the police were successful), not for vigilantianism against random targets.

  • Hmmm,,,, assduming, of course, that the local PSNI didn’t know about it already from when they dropped off the supplies..

  • peter fallow

    “If I remember my history Peter, the struggle for national liberation which was fought by The Irish Republican Army was not a sectarian struggle.”
    I literally laughed out loud.
    The Provos were/are sectarian to the core. This pitiful attempt to revise history in the wake of (and as some sort of perverse consolation to) the certainty of your crushing defeat almost makes me feel sorry for you. The knowledge that they failed to achieve any of their core goals combined with the poisonous bile of Irish repubican sectarianism will be filling hospital wards with ulcer patients and message boards with hateful fascist nonsense like the above for decades.
    You should go easier on yourselves. Let go, it’s over. 🙂

  • fair_deal

    joe

    “What gives? Aren’t these attacks not rated as sectarian or do you have any idea why the police are so spectacularly unsuccessful in investigating/solving these particular crimes? ”

    Yes they are rated as sectarian. I was unaware of the general hate crime clear-up rate. This would include more than attacks on property so possibly on assualts they have a better results raising their overall percentage but their poor success rate on tackling sectarian property crime thread is why I highlighted the need for a new approach.

  • Occasional Commentator

    peter fallow,
    Nobody is revising history. Read the history books and you’ll see even Protestant clergy early in the 20th century confirming that it wasn’t a religious struggle. There may have been the odd farmer that thought he had an excuse to steal cattle from his Protestant neighbour but he would have been condemned and indeed disciplined by the vast majority.

    It seems to have become more religious later on, by the time of the Troubles, (and even then it’s debatable whose fault it was and who exactly was fighting for what) but it was you that brought up the Provos, not GPJ. It is you who is revising history by putting Troubles-era ideas onto the earlier struggle. You shouldn’t read history backwards.

    On the general whataboutery that seems to be going on – why do so many people assume that the two ‘sides’ in the conflict must be perfect mirror images of each other? The GAA and OO are mentioned as being perfect mirror images of each other, as are the IRA/PIRA and various loyalist paramilitaries. Everybody forgets that it’s more complicated than that (I thought I was an ignorant blow in, but the natives seem to be worse). I’m not even trying to argue about who’s worse, but just pointing out that these organizations are not mirror images of each other. A Protestant GAA member could easily be in the OO. One organisation is clearly defined by religion (the OO), the other is more political.

  • mook

    As usual we chose to focus on the same old tribal bull-plop instead of the vast majority of hate crimes which are not attacks on Orange halls. Perhaps it’s just symptomatic of how ignorant many locals are of the wider issues that really affect our ridiculously insular society.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    McGrath: “So an attack on an OO hall would not be considered a hate crime, but an attack directly on a sash wearing orangeman would be considered a hate crime (because he was a protestant)? ”

    Probably not even then.

    Now, if you they caught the guy on film, with anti-Protestant tracts in his pocket screaming “Fucking Prod” with every swing, then *maybe* they have him…

    Its a charge against a state of mind — its not easy to prove, except when it is.

  • Prince Eoghan

    “joe

    “What gives? Aren’t these attacks not rated as sectarian or do you have any idea why the police are so spectacularly unsuccessful in investigating/solving these particular crimes? “

    Fair_deal
    “Yes they are rated as sectarian.” @ 10:14 AM

    Who rates them as sectarian? if so why?

    Peter fallow.

    Even after throwing around epithets like sectarian b1got and fascist, you were still not able to deal with any of my points regarding the OO. On top of this you happen to be acting the hypocrite as regards the labelling of me. No mirrors about your way then?

    Occasional Commentator.

    Spot on. If you had not noticed there has been a campaign to equate the OO and GAA, Republican movement and Loyalism here for a while now.

    The whole thrust of my argument is to refute fair_deals on-going quest to have OO halls regarded as legitimate community halls, and any attacks on them to be regarded as religious attacks. Seems that instead of studied debate, the hard of thinking prefer to throw around labels rather than deal with the issue at hand.

    fair_deal is an advocate for the OO, I am simply trying to have an alternate view. I must admit that I am puzzled(again) by the amount of those professing not to like the OO, yet vigorously defending them for no apparent reason, other than the stated belief that I am a b1got. Amusing:¬)

  • joeCanuck

    PE

    “I must admit that I am puzzled(again) by the amount of those professing not to like the OO, yet vigorously defending them for no apparent reason”

    Perhaps this is part of the reason-
    “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Joe.

    Perhaps this is part of the reason-
    “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire.

    Posted by joeCanuck on Jul 21, 2006 @ 02:12 PM

    Funny Joe. You didn’t extend this courtesy to me yesterday. In fact you totally misunderstood my POV to attack me. I replied to your post in more measured tones, however still no reply. Not looking for a confrontation, but there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

  • joeCanuck

    PE

    Can you point out where i tried to prevent you expressing your point of view?
    In my quote i said “I may disagree with you” and, indeed, I did.
    The reason I didn’t respond to your last attempt to bait me was that I thought you were being smugly condescending. I didn’t think it deserved a response. I had much more important things to do so I went and looked out the window.

  • McGrath

    I fail to see how an attack on a OO Hall or GAA Hall is not sectarian, are such attacks not motivated out of hate?

    I also cant get my head around why attacking a member of an different faith is not a hate crime.

    Lets say for example I decide I dont like protestants and Chinese any more. I go out for a walk, the first Chinese I see, I knock the crap out of him. By the definitions presented in this thread so far, it is a hate crime, because I attacked someone from a different race. I continue on my walk, a see a guy wearing a sash, he must be a protestant, so I knock the crap out of him too, that’s not a hate crime? Surely both attacks were motivated by the same thing, hate. Wouldnt the same apply to attacking property?

  • Prince Eoghan

    Joe.

    You attacked me and alluded to me being a b1got. I take offence to this because it was obvious that either by intention or not, you did not understand my POV. I contended that the OO and all they stand for is wrong. It is also idiotic to go looking for trouble, and the world over idiots attract idiots. From this you believed that I was demonizing and axcusing attacks on the OO. In fact to save any nonsense here it is;

    Prince Eoghan

    You said “The OO are not innocent victims here, they probably whip up more sectarian hatred than all other groups/organisation combined. Why does it then become a surprise that some idiots, attract the attention of other idiots.”

    Your premise that some people are fair targets is disgusting.
    I come from a Catholic background although I am not religious myself. Over the years when I worked in N.I. I had many or most of my colleagues who were orangemen. To a man, they were decent people.
    I think you’re mixing up the orangemen with the rabble who, unfortunately, attach themselves to orange parades.
    Are there b_i_g_o_t_ed orangemen?; you betcha, just like yourself.
    Nothing excuses demonization nor attacks on people’s premises.

    Posted by joeCanuck on Jul 20, 2006 @ 07:23 PM

    Now where were you defending to the death my right to speak my view?

    I contend that those who are responsible for whipping up trouble will attract trouble. Not only did you level accusations at me, you also defended the OO because you knew some decent ones. Alluding to me as a b1got, mis-interpreting what I was saying and standing up for the OO.

    Not only does this deserve a response Joe, it would be disengenious not to.

    “Perhaps this is part of the reason-
    “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire.

    Posted by joeCanuck on Jul 21, 2006 @ 02:12 PM
    PE.
    Funny Joe. You didn’t extend this courtesy to me yesterday.”
    JOE.
    “Can you point out where i tried to prevent you expressing your point of view?”

    Doing it again Joe, I never said that you had prevented me. I wasn’t trying to bait you at all, you made points and I counterd. At least when you level false accusations at a fella have the decency to back them up.

  • How can anyone say that to dislike the orange order is to dislike Protestants.

    There are an estimated 590,000,000 protestants in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Number_of_Protestants4

    There are about 75,000 orangemen in ireland http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1422212.stm

    So there’s love and tolerance for about 589,999,925 folk in the world.

  • Occasional Commentator

    McGrath,
    ‘Sectarian’ is pretty much a useless word, which most people simply use to label any opinions they disagree with. Most people seem to use it much the same way as they use ‘evil’, i.e. as a label to be used after a decision has been made and not used as something useful to add facts to an ongoing discussion. So if somebody tells me ‘X is sectarian’ they are simply informing me that they have made a decision that they don’t like X. It just informs me of their opinion, but doesn’t include any justification for their opinion. It’s only after I’ve talked to that particular individual for a long time can I have any clue what they mean by ‘sectarian’ and/or have any idea what their justification is for holding that opinion.

    If we can say that ‘sectarian’ has any sort of useful definition, then whatever that definition is, it’s more than simply “hate” as you say. (I’d prefer never to use the word – if I can’t win an argument without wheeling out this particularly ambiguous and simplistic label then it means I probably don’t have a convincing reason to begin with).

    McGrath said: I also cant get my head around why attacking a member of an different faith is not a hate crime.

    It’s only a hate crime if you attacked them because of their faith. I’m stating the obvious here, but an equal opportunities burglar would steal from all faiths, but that doesn’t mean he/she is sectarian and/or hateful!

    Anyway, most dictionary definitions of sectarian are based on more than simply religion, so discriminating against somebody because of their political party is probably also sectarian.

    If being a Protestant-only organisation means the OO is sectarian, then so be it. I will continue to support their right to exist, and have a lot of sympathy for much of what they stand for. If the GAA continues to have a strong political and cultural bias, then it too is sectarian. I will also continue to have a lot of time for it. If a political party doesn’t allow it’s member to join other parties, then it too is probably sectarian. Most religious organisations (including most churches) are sectarian too, they have to be.

    There is a reason I want some crimes to be punished particularly strongly. (I’m reluctant to label them ‘hate’ or ‘sectarian’ because they distract from the main issue). The reason goes something like this: If I’m attacked and beaten up pretty much at random, perhaps by a mugger, then I’ll eventually get over it. I’ll probably continue to be happy enough to get on with my life as before and even walk down that same street again. But if I was beaten up because of who I am (whether it be religion or just because of my long hair!) then that fear will follow me everywhere forever. If we agree that this is a good argument, then we can come up with practical discussion on this sort of crime prevention.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    McGrath: “I fail to see how an attack on a OO Hall or GAA Hall is not sectarian, are such attacks not motivated out of hate?

    I also cant get my head around why attacking a member of an different faith is not a hate crime. ”

    For the latter, would you consider a mugging to be a hate crime? How about a bar brawl? Thrill kill?

    Likewise, the hatred has to be overt and not arising from some mental imbalance, broadly speaking.

    As some writer once describe it, the law is an ass. Personally, I think its a giraffe, defined as being an ass designed by a committee.

  • Reader

    I would have thought that the point about hate crime, that makes it seems so much worse than other crimes with a similar MO, are that:
    It’s pointless, from the point of view of an onlooker – there’s no actual gain to the perpetrator
    It’s open ended – that is – there’s never any reason to stop, its not like stealing ‘enough’ money, or getting rid of a business rival. Once you have beaten up one of themmuns, there’s still exactly as much reason to go out and beat up another.
    It’s also likely to contribute to a cycle of violence. The victim community will likely contain people of similar mentality with a crass notion of revenge or collective punishment.
    Between them, there’s probably enough reasons there to treat hate crime particularly seriously.

  • joeCanuck

    PE

    What you said: “The OO are not innocent victims here”.
    What I heard: “These people had it coming to them”

    That implied to me that you were at least condoning the attacks on their property. If so, then I think it can be fairly classed as b_i_g_o_t_r_y.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Joe.

    In several of my posts I have stated that I do not support or excuse these attacks. Pointing out that those who seek to stir tensions cannot claim to be innocent, is surely a relevant point. The fact that I don’t give your OO chums the respect that you wish me to give them is your problem. I have also alerted you to your hypocrisy and explained my POV repeatedly

    That you don’t get it after all of this can be fairly classed as i_d_i_o_c_y

  • joeCanuck

    Pe

    You indulge in the exact same word twisting that you accuse me of.
    I haver never tried to defend the OO. I defended their right as citizens to own property without fear of its destruction. There’s a big difference. There are many others around here who are capable of defending the OO. Not my job.
    You may indeed have condemned some attacks but always dragging in a bit of whataboutery along with it.
    Your contention that I’m standing up for the OO because “some of them were nice to me” was totally insulting to me.
    Go look and a mirror mate then have a Bush or Powers or whatever.

  • Prince Eoghan

    “I think you’re mixing up the orangemen with the rabble who, unfortunately, attach themselves to orange parades.”
    Posted by joeCanuck on Jul 20, 2006 @ 07:23 PM

    “I haver never tried to defend the OO.”
    Posted by joeCanuck on Jul 21, 2006 @ 06:45 PM

    “You may indeed have condemned some attacks but always dragging in a bit of whataboutery along with it.”

    Lies.

    “Your contention that I’m standing up for the OO because “some of them were nice to me” was totally insulting to me.”

    Possibly Joe. Though you have also insulted me and are still attempting to blacken my name with the lies above.

    “Go look and a mirror mate then have a Bush or Powers or whatever.”

    The missus reckons I do enough of all of the above due to me being a handsome drunken bastard. I get your sentiments though Joe. I’ll take a chill pill knowing that a hypocritical liar thinks I’m a bigot. Love to end it on a high note, it certainly wasn’t for a lack of trying on my behalf though. I’ll give you a hint about your sentiments though. Look at the calibre of those who had a pop at me yesterday using the same terminology as you. Is that who you wish to line up with?

  • McGrath

    Dread:

    “For the latter, would you consider a mugging to be a hate crime? How about a bar brawl? Thrill kill?”

    No.

    I think the most important factor here is motivation, if someone were to attack a person (or property) of different faith simply because of their faith, the motivation has to be hatred. What other motivation is there? If the reason for the attack was sympathy or pity, then that would truly be sick.

    This thread is indicative of some of the trouble in NI in that it makes simple things complicated. Not everything is complicated, the reason behind attacks on OO halls etc is very simple, hatred.

  • joeCanuck wrote:

    [i]”If some Orange Halls are being used to store paramilitary supplies, the correct solution is for to authorities to detect it (from your post, if it is to be believed, the police were successful), not for vigilantianism against random targets.”[/i]

    First of all, some Orange Halls have been used as bases for the death squads. Fact, not supposition, joe.

    Secondly, the RUC and the PSNI do not seem to have been or are particularly interested in pusuing the possibility that others may also be such bases even to this day. Seems that a lot of the material found in the Halls that were found out was copies of confidential intelligence information from the RUC/PSNI files.

    So, your generalization that the only reason for such attacks has to be hatred is, it seems to me, questionable.

    The OO, in addition to its glorification of loyalist paramilitaries — the death squads — in its annual celebrations has provided a home base for these thugs in some instances. And, since most of the intelligence material seems to have come from the cops, one might, not unreasonably, assume that the cops are not really all that determined to run a full-scale, no-holds-barred investigation.

    And, so far, I have not seen a breakdown in the 242 number by year or even by pre-GFA/post GFA or similar periods.

    Sorry, joeCanuck, but I suggest that it is you who seems out to lunch, not I.

  • joeCanuck

    So Bob

    What you are saying is that:
    1. Some orange halls were used by loyalist terrorists.
    2. You are dissatisfied with the level of police investigation into the possibility that other halls may today being used for nefarious reasons (BTW, try to get a judge to issue a warrant for “fishing” purposes in any democratic country – good luck).
    3. Therefore it’s okay for opponents of the OO to assume the worst, take it upon themselves to be Judge, Jury and Executioner and to firebomb theses premises.
    That’s not the sort of Ireland I aspire to.

  • [i]”3. Therefore it’s okay for opponents of the OO to assume the worst, take it upon themselves to be Judge, Jury and Executioner and to firebomb theses premises.”[/i]

    Like PE, I’m trying to get through to you that your generalization is not really quite as valid as you seem to think.

    If some really believe that a given Hall is being so used and the RUC’PSNI refused to investigate, the attack could well be a matter of self-defense instead of a matter of sectarian hatred.

    Seems to me, joe, that you have a faith in the integrity of the police in NI that is not shared by many who live there and which I share to some extent.

    Hard evidence of pervasive and long-standing collusion between the cops and the death squads seems to be coming to light just about every day. And, HMG seems very reluctant to let anyone take a godd, hard look at their records.

    Now, you might disagree but your generalization that hatred is the only cause is not quite as tenable, is it?

  • joeCanuck

    bob

    some people used to “believe” that certain women were witches and put them to death.
    You’re willing to accept a “belief” rather than proof and use that “belief” as a justification for vigilante justice?
    I think you just proved my earlier assertion about yourself being out to lunch.

  • joeCanuck

    I’m not sure why I’m being left to put this case by myself.
    Has this thread outlived it’s usefulness?

  • Pete Baker

    joe

    It may be the preponderance of trolls that prevents actual discussion taking place.

    Now, I’m not pointing the finger at anyone in particular..

  • joeCanuck

    thanks Pete

    I think I’m finished with this one.

  • roddy

    Depressingly predictable that the debate intended in response to hate crime statistics which are largely made up of escalating numbers of racist attacks, homophobic assaults etc. has again descended into the usual boring sectarian tit-for-tat tedium.
    change the(criminal) record anyone?

  • joeCanuck

    roddy

    I know I said that I was finished with this thread.
    But I can’t let your comment go unanswered.
    There was a lot of to-and-fro in this discussion, but it wasn’t all sectarian (although there was certainly a lot of whataboutery – hopefully not from me).

    Regards

  • Dread Cthulhu

    McGrath: “I think the most important factor here is motivation, if someone were to attack a person (or property) of different faith simply because of their faith, the motivation has to be hatred. What other motivation is there?”

    Now ou’re employing bootstrap levitation — to use an analogy, you’re using a term to define a term. Likewise, you’re changing the terms of conversation. Your original question was “I also cant get my head around why attacking a member of an different faith is not a hate crime.”

  • Occasional Commentator

    McGrath: if someone were to attack a person (or property) of different faith simply because of their faith, the motivation has to be hatred

    It could be love. Seriously. Someone might think that particular belief is a sin and the sooner they’re are killed the greater the sinner’s chance of getting to heaven because they haven’t had the opportunity to add further instances of sin to the list.

    You and I might well think that reasoning is absolute rubbish, but the fact is that’s their motivation (in this hypothetical situation). And misrepresenting their motivation is simply a lie.

    If I dislike somebody’s opinions or actions, it doesn’t mean that falsehoods suddenly become true about them.

    It could go something like this:

    “Your organisation must be wrong. You believe 2+2=5 and therefore must be wrong”

    “No. We do not believe that. We believe 2+2=4”

    “Na na na na na. I’m not listening. You believe 2+2=5, therefore you must also be wrong when you say you should be let do your thing (marching or remembering hunger strikers or whatever). Only an evil person could want to do that, and I know they are evil because they believe 2+2=5. You deny believing that 2+2=5? But I’ve already proved that you are evil, therefore you are wrong. Therefore you must surely believe 2+2=5. QED.”