Comments on The Pensive Quill: Hate Fire

That sounds fair to me Anthony. Thanks for the exc...

2009-05-21T22:36:40.936+01:00

That sounds fair to me Anthony. Thanks for the exchange, in truth I'm glad its over, it was becoming repetitive and you've done more than enough and much much more than I ever expected.

It's unusual for me to have a problem with anything you write.

Thanks again,

chers.

Madge, it seems this is going nowhere. After whate...

2009-05-21T22:25:38.865+01:00

Madge, it seems this is going nowhere. After whatever amount of exchanges I am even less clear on the reasoning employed than I was at the start. And if clarity does not result from an exchange then the ping pong is played for its own sake.

The two views are basically irreconcilable. Those who may be reading it shall have to make up their own minds. What they may wish to deliberate on is if the initial article resembles your presentation of it. You would contend that what I wrote is accurately reflected in your depiction. I would contend that it bears no likeness.

Others may decide for themselves.

They may also wish to consider if the initial piece is strong in its own right or if it fails to withstand your critique.

It’s as much as I can do.

Differs from person to person I would imagine. It ...

2009-05-20T23:53:01.408+01:00

Differs from person to person I would imagine. It might be emotive; might be rational. It is so widespread that it cannot be specific to any one basis.Thats how I see it, but if it can't be pinned down and defined, then how can it be legislated about, and used as the basis for one type of crime as opposed to another, why should one type of hate be different, and treated differently to another?

Is ideology always thought driven? It is a moot pointNo its not moot. I don't think Althusser applies here, for the person who did this, if he was indeed ideologically driven he was not following the herd. A crowd outside his door, then Althusser could apply,for he could be following the herd, or if the dominant ideology here was of physical force republicanism,then that could have spurred him to act alone, but you already stated that those who oppose PSF condemned this action, and the dominant ideology is definitely not of any physical force variety,that can be seen from their level of support.

You cannot rule out that this was not an ideologically driven attack, even if hate was involved. It is much more likely in my view anyway that ideology rather than hate would be at the root of it.

There was some division of opinion within the journalistic community as to who were behind the spate of incidents, some suggesting local hoods. But with each passing attack the suspicion has grown that some of Sinn Fein’s republican critics bear responsibilityThat is my assumption to, and it is clearly the working assumption you have in writing this article.

So it could have been a simple thug, and we're all at the mercy of those, but your whole article is geared toward describing the attacks on SF and placing them as a group fairly and squarely as candidates for the protection of hate crime legislation. Your article makes the case and it fits perfectly.

but if you begin to link ideology/politics to hate crime as it stands then the logical outcome will be people will be prosecuted for what they think.’

What is the evidence for this?Well there isn't any evidence for it yet Anthony, because never before has anyone ever suggested that a political party should be given the protection of hate crime legislation. It's not the first time a party has had its homes of its members attacked, I think its happened to the SDLP and the very ugly BNP, but never before have I seen anyone suggest that any political party be given the protection of hate crime laws, and I will stand corrected if you prove me wrong.

hate crime is directed at special groups. Anthony wants to include in those groups PSF’
Where did I say this?This was my understanding here:

I am not bound by the stricture that ‘even though Provisional Sinn Fein's political stance is not designated for hate crime.’I have asked if there is a difference between trying to burn a man and his family (the family are not PSF as far as I know) and hate crime – nothing moreI understand that, and no one in their right mind condones it. But why should PSF get the protection of hate crime legislation, and not your average working class family living in a dodgy area and unconnected to any group. This family would be outside the legislation due to the fact that they belong to no group at all.

Why give the family of a PSF politician special protection/consideration afforded under these laws and not everyone else?

And that is the basis of my problem with what you have written here, it just doesn't seem fair thats all....

‘Hatred? What is that? A feeling, and the basis of...

2009-05-20T22:23:00.250+01:00

‘Hatred? What is that? A feeling, and the basis of that feeling is?’

Differs from person to person I would imagine. It might be emotive; might be rational. It is so widespread that it cannot be specific to any one basis.

We don’t know why the attack on Mitchel took place. Nobody has admitted it. We can’t definitively say it was hate. Instead we draw comparisons and then ask the question or invite the perpetrators to explain the difference between what they did and hate crime.

‘You clearly link it to ideology/politics that involves thought’

Or hate, ideologically driven or not lacking much in the way of thought. Is ideology always thought driven? It is a moot point. Althusser once made the point in relation to ideology that we do not fall down on our knees and pray because we believe in god; rather we believe in god because we fall down on our knees and pray. Hutu Power was a powerful ideology spawned by the leaders of the HP movement and acted out by masses of Hutu – how much thinking was involved as distinct from unthinking hate?

‘but if you begin to link ideology/politics to hate crime as it stands then the logical outcome will be people will be prosecuted for what they think.’

What is the evidence for this?

‘hate crime is directed at special groups. Anthony wants to include in those groups PSF’

Where did I say this? I expressed no view on the legislation pertaining to hate crime. I have asked if there is a difference between trying to burn a man and his family (the family are not PSF as far as I know) and hate crime – nothing more. The rest of it are inferences drawn by yourself.

Tain Bo, I don't think there should be such a thin...

2009-05-20T09:50:54.325+01:00

Tain Bo, I don't think there should be such a thing as hate crime, firstly because all should be equal under the law, and secondly those accused of it are treated harsher by the law for committing a hate crime. Even though the result of the crime is the same, justice becomes unequal in its treatment of those accused of hate crime, which means that the victims
of crime in general are also treated unequally.

As for hate. I agree with you.
Prisons are full of people who are full of hate but aren't accussed of hate crime, because hate crime is directed at special groups. Anthony wants to include in those groups PSF, because of the attacks upon Mitchel and the attacks on other SF representatives. I agree, as things stand, the attacks fit the definition of hate crime, but I'm appalled that a political party should be included in legislation designed for vulnerable in order to improve society.

I agree re the Nazi ideology that it is full of hate. But a modern law in a modern world should not be imposed upon history. The effect of including PSF in this legislation, or any other political party will result in thought crimes by the thought police.

Look at this part of the legislationverbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures,With the inclusion of a political party, which would include all political parties, as they'd all want equal treatment, would mean that giving two fingers to Gerry Adams, or throwing an egg, or calling him or any PSF politician a traitor would be classed as hate crime. As it now stands.

So yes, I broadly agree with Anthony, that the circumstances of the crime, fit the definition of hate crime. Where we part company is that it should be included in the first place, for as I see it, and until someone shows me differently, including political parties among these groupings will make it possible to not only prosecute a person for what he orshe does, but for what they think,and then treat them more harshly under the law, and thats dangerous territory in my book Tain Bo.

The reason for the protest for special category status, was for people who'd committed political crime. Tehy weren't mere ODC's but political prisoners. Under this legislation, to include these political parties in hate legislation, thats a huge step back in time.

Thought is not a crime, acting out the thought is, as in this incident the thought became the action regardless of who is behind it.Absolutely. A person should be prosecuted for what they do, but with including PSF in this legislation, then in addition to that a person can be prosecuted for what they think too.

Marge Sorry for the delay responding. The headli...

2009-05-20T04:29:44.765+01:00

Marge

Sorry for the delay responding.
The headline “Hate Fire” seemed appropriate enough in the broader sense of the term “hate.”
Anger fire may well be suitable too, as it sounds more like an attack motivated by anger which to some extent could involve hate?
It is highly unlikely that the person(s) involved give much thought to the matter.
Thought is not a crime, acting out the thought is, as in this incident the thought became the action regardless of who is behind it.
It is possible that recent statements from SinnFein could be seen as provacational and in turn fuel the anger and resentment within republican circles.
Though rather than attacking Sinn Fein phsyically, it would be wiser not to vote for Sinn Fein.
The actual thought process for physical force is a dead end, all that results from it is prison terms and a further splintering of republicanism.
Being politically incorrect I would argue that the ethics of hate are part of human nature, can the law prosicute a human emotion?
In this case I sympathize with the attacker(s) and the victims as it avoids the issue “what is a republican” and replaces it with who are the rightful republicans, which in turn just weakens the already fissured fabric of republicanism.
As for the issue of hate crimes is that not just a convient cover all law that has a predetermined guideline as to what “hate” is?

what is the difference between hate crime and any ...

2009-05-19T22:24:10.599+01:00

what is the difference between hate crime and any other type of crime?’

HatredHatred? What is that? A feeling, and the basis of that feeling is?

The attack on Mitchell wasn't motivated by prejudice, or even hate, but a difference in ideology.’

That might be true but how can we know?How do we know it was hate?

That he has views and policies that differ from many republicans may be galling to those opposed to him. That is no excuse for attacking his home with petrol bombs, endangering his life and the lives of his wife and sonYou clearly link it to ideology,/politics that involves thought.

The notion that ideology is not designated for hate crime is not one that I buy into. Nazi ideology is saturated in hateThats a fair point but if you begin to link ideology/politics to hate crime as it stands then the logical outcome will be people will be prosecuted for what they think.

Marge, the question I asked was exactly as you out...

2009-05-19T21:57:00.000+01:00

Marge, the question I asked was exactly as you outlined it – what is the difference between the attack on Mitchel McLaughlin’s home and hate crime? The question is predicated on the very real possibility that the crime was motivated by hatred. I am not bound by the stricture that ‘even though Provisional Sinn Fein's political stance is not designated for hate crime.’

You broadly agree with me that there was no difference between the attack and hate crime. Which leaves me somewhat unsure as to what the point is you are seeking to make.

‘what is the difference between hate crime and any other type of crime?’

Hatred

It may well be that the attack was not motivated by hatred. That the use of the term 'hate crime' was contained in a question and not in an assertion would allow for that. It invites a rebuttal of the assumption.

‘Anyhow I respect your decision to pass on it, but if you flag something up as being the same as hate crime, and ask specifically what the difference between this and hate crime is, and then not discuss hate crime, why link to it in the first place.’

Passing on it is not the same as evading it. I just did not find your post self explanatory. And I am still not certain about it after reading it a number of times.

The notion that ideology is not designated for hate crime is not one that I buy into. Nazi ideology is saturated in hate.

‘The attack on Mitchell wasn't motivated by prejudice, or even hate, but a difference in ideology.’

That might be true but how can we know? None that I have seen have sought to defend it in ideological terms. In fact all the ideological republicans opposed to SF, if I am not mistaken, have criticised the attack.

I never believe anyone should be prosecuted for what they think. Thoughtcrime is something of an anathema.

The wider issue is simple - the attack on the home...

2009-05-19T21:14:00.000+01:00

The wider issue is simple - the attack on the home of Mitchel McLaughlin is the wider issueBut you linked it to hate crime, even though Provisional Sinn Fein's political stance is not designated for hate crime. YOu asked specifically, what is the difference between this and hate crime. To a point I agree with you, theres not much difference.

So I'm asking you about hate crime, which is part of the wider issue you discussed.

The argument can be made as easily that those who carry out hate crime don't think about anything at all.If that is the case then what is the difference between hate crime and any other type of crime?

Anyhow I respect your decision to pass on it, but if you flag something up as being the same as hate crime, and ask specifically what the difference between this and hate crime is, and then not discuss hate crime, why link to it in the first place.

Anyhow the difference is that Mitchell's attack was motivated by ideology, (if it were other republicans) and ideology is not designted for hate crime. Only race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins,
religion,gender or gender identity,
sexual orientation or
disability. The attack on Mitchell wasn't motivated by prejudice, or even hate, but a difference in ideology.

So not only do you link Mitchells attack to hate crime, but broaden the definition of it, and then go on to say those who carry it out don't think at all.

Quite obviously if the motive for the attack was a difference in politics, somebody thought about what they were doing. So my point, that you say you don't understand was, should those who commit hate crime be punished not only for what they do, as in crime in general, but also for what they think?

But if you want to pass on it thats fine, but hate crime is designated differently for a reason, which is the reason you linked it surely?

Marge, spelt your name wrong last time. Madge and ...

2009-05-19T20:40:00.000+01:00

Marge, spelt your name wrong last time. Madge and Marge - the difference is too much for my frazzled state at this time of day! On hate crime I don't think we are obliged to restrict ourselves to the Tammy Bruce definition, interesting as she undoubtedly is in her work. The argument can be made as easily that those who carry out hate crime don't think about anything at all.

Madge, as I fail to understand what point you are ...

2009-05-19T20:34:00.000+01:00

Madge, as I fail to understand what point you are making I will pass on this. The wider issue is simple - the attack on the home of Mitchel McLaughlin is the wider issue. It is much more important than any sense of SF getting its comeuppance

It is the law that merits what a hate crime is.Who...

2009-05-18T19:45:00.000+01:00

It is the law that merits what a hate crime is.Who makes the law Tain Bo? Do you think special interest groups have an in put?

I think you answered your own question.Hi Tain, W...

2009-05-18T19:26:00.000+01:00

I think you answered your own question.Hi Tain,

What question?

These are the questions I asked.
This oneThats awfully PC from Anthony McIntyre.... Maybe a little bit of group think there that he was prepared to overlook because ...?? (he knows the guy, or wants to prove a point?)And this oneSo do you think the person who did this should be prosecuted for what he thought as well as what he did, and if yes, aren't you creating different categories of victim?You reply to meMarge.
I think you answered your own question.
"Same action, same result, but he is treated differently by the law."

It is the law that merits what a hate crime is.Can you point out to me which question you are answering for me?

Marge. I think you answered your own question. "Sa...

2009-05-18T15:29:00.000+01:00

Marge.
I think you answered your own question.
"Same action, same result, but he is treated differently by the law."

It is the law that merits what a hate crime is.

If this attack differs in any way from hate crime ...

2009-05-18T10:48:00.000+01:00

If this attack differs in any way from hate crime could somebody come forward and explain to the rest of us just what the difference is?Depends on what you mean by it.

According to the author Tammy Bruce 'hate crime is a euphemism for thought crime, which allows governments to prosecute people for what they 'think' in addition to what they 'do'.

So do you think the person who did this should be prosecuted for what he thought as well as what he did, and if yes, aren't you creating different categories of victim?

I don't happen to on the grounds that the wider is...

2009-05-18T10:39:00.000+01:00

I don't happen to on the grounds that the wider issues are more importantOh God I can't let that go. The association of this crime, 'Hate Fire' with 'Hate Crime' is a wider issue for me. What we have here is a criminal act against an individual, who happens to be part of a group, therefore the act of throwing the petrol bombs is somehow 'hate crime' against that particular group rather than an act against the householder in his own right.

It's like for example a drunk man coming out of a bar and striking out at the first woman he meets. So he punches her in the face. If the woman is black, or a lesbian, then because she is a member of that group it is classed as hate crime. The same guy goes home and commits the same action to his wife, and its simply a domestic, and the poor wife would be hard pushed to even get the peelers to respond.

Same action, same result, but he is treated differently by the law. He will be pursued more actively and treated much more harshly for the first offence rather than the second.

So it is with this particular crime, for what has been done here is associate the householder with a particular group within republicanism and labelled the action as much worse than if it was joe's blogs oul granny in Turf Lodge or the Murph.

The problem here for me is what is being analysed is not the crime, but the thought behind the crime. So the thug who hurt the granny is simply a moron, but the thug who hurts this particular householder is not simply a moron, but a moron with a cause.

Thats awfully PC from Anthony McIntyre.... Maybe a little bit of group think there that he was prepared to overlook because ...?? (he knows the guy, or wants to prove a point?)

Remember I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just pointing out what I see and inquiring...?

Ligoniel, Ligoneil, ‘I put it to you and the re...

2009-05-17T08:00:00.000+01:00

Ligoniel,

Ligoneil,

‘I put it to you and the readership that only those who engaged in physical force republicanism and birthed this "No Surrender" mindset can truly end it. I look to those republicans who know what needs to be done but shy away and stay silent refusing the hard choice. Speak out in clear terms as only your opinion carries the necessary resonance with the nationalist population. Sooner or later these bitter-enders must be made accountable for their unlawful actions and removed from our midst. I think the conundrum is referred to as "confronting one's personal De Valera moment’

This seems as open-ended as what you seem to level at others. You ‘look to those republicans who know what needs to be done but shy away and stay silent refusing the hard choice’ – but what is the hard choice? Kill them as De Valera did in his moment? Call for their put down in a night of the long knives? What does ‘removed from our midst’ mean? And who should remove them? The state within a framework of legality or former comrades with a mind to purge?

Ligoniel I can sympathize with your position and ...

2009-05-17T07:08:00.000+01:00

Ligoniel

I can sympathize with your position and fully understand the anger it can leave.
The intimidation still happens on both sides as sectarianism still thrives along side territorial mindsets. Unfortunately we are steeped in bitter traditions and the political leaders feed into these belief systems in order to secure their parties success. We don’t vote for the party that will do best for all, and without a doubt the political parties manipulate the paramilitaries who in turn persuade the people to keep the divisions alive.
The powers that be, the Church leaders, Politicians, Paramilitaries and to some extent community leaders all fall short when it comes to the working-class and the unemployed, we don’t need a fancy education to recognize their collective failures. Much like the trench warfare of World War 1 we have been dug in for forty years now.
The British government alongside the Irish government along with some foreign governments put together a very confusing peace accord, which left republicans and loyalists in a daze. Both respective governments breathed a sigh of relief as they had pacified Europe’s wild child. Now I might be wrong but it would seem that the only people gaining from the media peace accord would be our politicians, remember those blokes who would tell us “God save Ulster and God save Ireland?” Naturally the working class would and will still do their bidding.
“In a time of so called peace are the war walls to keep us in or out?” They are to keep us separate; the political leaders will keep us separate as it suits their purpose no matter how many phony handshakes and smiles they produce for the international media.
I think the ordinary people are the ones who need to in Northern Ireland terms “wise up!” It is us who give the politicians and the paramilitaries power and in doing so we remove the power of the people to change Northern Ireland for the better. They won’t save us and at the drop of a hat would take us back to the chaos we lived through. The question now being shall the people who lived through our time in hell, are we foolish enough to let it happen to our children?
The choice belongs to the people not the governments or the paramilitaries without the people they have no power.
Peace is a one way street and if we all don’t walk down it and forget the past then inevitably we shall end up in the past.
The governments have had 40 years to resolve the problems they have failed; we destroyed our country and created working class encampments. We can cry God Save the Queen and God save the Pope though we know they won’t save us.
Until the people change the way we look at the two communities then we shall always suffer from the attacks. I grew up in a Protestant estate and had no problems until the troubles broke out. So it is not impossible to go back in the sense that will benefit both communities.

Ligoniel: Excelent point and I will answer it in m...

2009-05-15T19:00:00.000+01:00

Ligoniel:
Excelent point and I will answer it in more detail. I would say its the coin is an issue we are or where forced to choose sides.
The Loyalist and Republican leaderships are happy to smile for the international media.
Though still leave the common people in the dark. I doubt sincerely if our politicians will save us.
I hope other readers take the chance to respond to your comment, I for one welcome it. Like I said I will answer in more detail as soon as I get the chance.

I'll totally concur with the opinion of each here ...

2009-05-15T17:03:00.000+01:00

I'll totally concur with the opinion of each here in that the violence over the last 40 years brought us much misery and little else. As Tain Bo has described, forced expulsion is a trauma, seeing the effect on members of my own family and friends who are Protestant driven from Moyard, Ardoyne and New Barnsley. Same coin, other side! It occurs to me reading the circumstances surrounding the baiting of the Sinn Fein representatives that the genie is refusing to be put back into the bottle. Who will do it and by what means? We can endlessly discuss and tiptoe around it but sooner or later our society must meet this threat head on or be dragged back to chaos. I put it to you and the readership that only those who engaged in physical force republicanism and birthed this "No Surrender" mindset can truly end it. I look to those republicans who know what needs to be done but shy away and stay silent refusing the hard choice. Speak out in clear terms as only your opinion carries the necessary resonance with the nationalist population. Sooner or later these bitter-enders must be made accountable for their unlawful actions and removed from our midst. I think the conundrum is referred to as "confronting one's personal De Valera moment"

Tain Bo I need support for the Sharedtroubles site...

2009-05-15T00:00:00.000+01:00

Tain Bo
I need support for the Sharedtroubles site. We have passed 100 individual stories since the launch in Jan 09 but I am still knocking on doors to get ordinary people to tell of their experiences. The stories are totally in the contributor's words.
Your article on petrol bombing and the long therm effect would be perfect for Sharedtroubles.net

Sharedtroubles.net has plenty of real stories from...

2009-05-14T23:53:00.000+01:00

Sharedtroubles.net has plenty of real stories from people who are still suffering from the effects of violence. Perhaps some of the younger generation could learn from our experiences. i am always dissapointed to read some of the vile comments sent into Sharedtroubles from young people baying for violence to return.
I think it is really encouraging the support society is giving those who are trying to bring us all together.

Robert, it is of course a view you could take. I d...

2009-05-14T21:05:00.000+01:00

Robert, it is of course a view you could take. I don't happen to on the grounds that the wider issues are more important

Having nurtured a generation on the virtues of vio...

2009-05-13T20:00:00.000+01:00

Having nurtured a generation on the virtues of violence against your political opponents, is it not ironic that Sinn Fein now finds itself hunted rather than hunter?

Cael, maybe I should have blamed securocrats. Re...

2009-05-13T19:39:00.000+01:00

Cael, maybe I should have blamed securocrats.

Representative democracy - no need to worry. Those who don't want represented won't vote.