Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

So what's the problem? The courts have always decided, and as of yet, no-one in Ireland has been sentenced for being offensive. Excellent, we all agree you can be as offensive as you like in Ireland, without actually breaking one of the pre-agreed rules on freedom of speech.

Why do we need hate laws? Why does the Gardais website currently have a hate law on their website?

We most certainly do not.

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We most certainly do not.

What law stops people from offending others in ireland?

super_furry

Kimsang wrote: »

So what's the problem? The courts have always decided, and as of yet, no-one in Ireland has been sentenced for being offensive.

No they haven't. You're both wrong and ill-informed here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

So what you argue is , correct me if I'm wrong, the more offense you take, the more of a hate crime it is?
How can you judge how much offense one person takes?

Do the experiment tomorrow and find out, call it research, you tell us which was the most offended group.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

What law stops people from offending others in ireland?

Again, see my previous post. Complete experiment/research and you will have your answer.

Kimsang

super_furry wrote: »

No they haven't. You're both wrong and ill-informed here.

Go on, prove i'm wrong.

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again, see my previous post. Complete experiment/research and you will have your answer.

If you can't answer the question maybe better to just stay silent. instead of double posting nonsense.

super_furry

Kimsang wrote: »

Go on, prove i'm wrong.

You're wrong.

Since 2000 there have been 44 prosecutions and five convictions under The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

You'd do well to educate yourself on the very basics of the issues you're trying to argue.

Kimsang

super_furry wrote: »

You're wrong.

Since 2000 there have been 44 prosecutions and five convictions under The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

.

Jesus, 44 people in the history of the Irish state, there clearly is such a need to police people's words! This act refers to broadcasting, and it is clearly about inciting hatred between others, and not just offending someone.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

If you can't answer the question maybe better to just stay silent. instead of double posting nonsense.

You want the right to use whatever words you want, im saying go out tomorrow and use them and let us know how you get on.

Or are you only tough online? Not got the guts to put your your words into practice?

super_furry

Kimsang wrote: »

Jesus, 44 people in the history of the Irish state, there clearly is such a need to police people's words! This act refers to broadcasting, and it is clearly about inciting hatred between others, and not just offending someone.

You were wrong. Have the grace to admit it or, in your own words; "maybe better to just stay silent".

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

Jesus, 44 people in the history of the Irish state, there clearly is such a need to police people's words! This act refers to broadcasting, and it is clearly about inciting hatred between others, and not just offending someone.

No, it would be from the time of legislation, which is 1989.

super_furry

Odhinn wrote: »

No, it would be from the time of legislation, which is 1989.

And records only started to be kept in 2000.

Nevertheless it is a low figure and perhaps points to the need of further strengthening of our hate-crime laws.

Stop moaning ffs

Wasn’t jon Bon jovi charged here for saying ‘f****t’ on stage during gig?

Thought I read that at some point

Kimsang

super_furry wrote: »

And records only started to be kept in 2000.

Nevertheless it is a low figure and perhaps points to the need of further strengthening of our hate-crime laws.

Why do we need to further strengthen hate crime laws?

Do you agree with the Gardai's definition:
‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

Stop moaning ffs

Kimsang wrote: »

Why do we need to further strengthen hate crime laws?

Why do you think?

Kimsang

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Why do you think?

No absolutely not. People should be free to risk offending others. Its called thinking.

What do you think?

Do you agree with the Gardai definition:

"‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ ."

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Why do we need to further strengthen hate crime laws?

Because racism and xenophobia in its own right is currently a growing problem where he have people actively targeting migrant groups. Case in point being Gemma who literally targeted children recently. I would happily see her pursued for hate crimes, particularly in that case.

Stop moaning ffs

Kimsang wrote: »

No absolutely not. People should be free to risk offending others. Its called thinking.

What do you think?

Do you agree with the Gardai definition:

"‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ ."

I’m gonna take it English isn’t your first language. Offend away. Doubt you have the balls away from your keyboard.
And yes I do agree with the gardai definition. It’s the law of the land by the way.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

Because racism and xenophobia in its own right is currently a growing problem where he have people actively targeting migrant groups. Case in point being Gemma who literally targeted children recently. I would happily see her pursued for hate crimes, particularly in that case.

So you would also be happy to pursue Kathy Griffin with hate crime laws in regards to the Maga kids?
This works both ways.

Racism and xenophobia describe the way people think. You can not force someone to think a certain way. What we can do is force people not to discriminate others, rightfully so. Language in and of itself is note hateful or racist or harmful etc.. it all depends on the context in which things are said. Do you trust the courts(The ministry of truth) to decide the context of what you say?

Kimsang

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’m gonna take it English isn’t your first language. Offend away. Doubt you have the balls away from your keyboard.
And yes I do agree with the gardai definition. It’s the law of the land by the way.

You have proven an inability to argue in good faith, hence I will stop responding to your pointlessly inflammatory remarks which are designed to obscure the conversation.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

So you would also be happy to pursue Kathy Griffin with hate crime laws in regards to the Maga kids?
This works both ways.

Racism and xenophobia describe the way people think. You can not force someone to think a certain way. What we can do is force people not to discriminate others, rightfully so. Language in and of itself is note hateful or racist or harmful etc.. it all depends on the context in which things are said. Do you trust the courts(The ministry of truth) to decide the context of what you say?

So will you be following through with my challenge? Or are you just someone who types this shìte out but hasn't the guts to put their words to action?

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So will you be following through with my challenge? Or are you just someone who types this shìte out but hasn't the guts to put their words to action?

Why don't you perform said challenge and see how you get on. It seems you're the only one interested in it.

We could instead discuss ideas with words using logic and reason;
I have no wish to insult people. For you to continue to infer that I do, is completely devoid from reality.

What is your definition of offense?

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

So you would also be happy to pursue Kathy Griffin with hate crime laws in regards to the Maga kids?
This works both ways.

Racism and xenophobia describe the way people think. You can not force someone to think a certain way. What we can do is force people not to discriminate others, rightfully so. Language in and of itself is note hateful or racist or harmful etc.. it all depends on the context in which things are said. Do you trust the courts(The ministry of truth) to decide the context of what you say?

If I recall correctly Griffin did not target the president's children. A president is not a protected category and one is perfectly free to offend him. So no, doesn't work the same way. You honestly think that's similar to targeting children because of their race as part of racist piece of propaganda?

Yes I'm happy for such cases to go before the courts btw. Do you think it's okay to target children in the way she did?

Do you think Hitler engaged in hate speech? Most would say unquestionably...

Stop moaning ffs

Kimsang wrote: »

You have proven an inability to argue in good faith, hence I will stop responding to your pointlessly inflammatory remarks which are designed to obscure the conversation.

The most gaslighting post of all time.
Accuse them of what you’re doing yourself.

Imreoir2

Stephen15 wrote: »

If racist means loving your family and by extension to that your country and wanting to defend both as well the western way of life then I'm a racist and proud. In order to do that I believe your borders should be shut as the saying goes you don't lock your door because you hate the people outside you do because you love the people inside.

Same concept here close the borders to defend our country it's culture, heritage and values.

Immigraton is part of our culture, being a welcoming nation is part of our herritage, openess is part of our values. Closing our borders would be to deny all three.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

Why don't you perform said challenge and see how you get on. It seems you're the only one interested in it.

Im not the one claiming words are not racist/offensive you are!

We could instead discuss ideas with words using logic and reason;
I have no wish to insult people. For you to continue to infer that I do, is completely devoid from reality.

What is your definition of offense?

So you agree that the words i listed would be considered offensive yet you said

Language in and of itself is note hateful or racist or harmful etc..

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Im not the one claiming words are not racist/offensive you are!
So you agree that the words i listed would be considered offensive yet you said

Could you please state your definitions for insult and offense, There is clearly a misunderstanding here.

Here's mine
Insult: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act.
Offense : annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself.

Perception: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

People misunderstand, misregard and misinterpret things all the time.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

Could you please state your definitions for insult and offense, There is clearly a misunderstanding here.

If i was black, in fact if i was with a black person and someone said the word N***er to them i would see it as both an insult and offensive.

Would you?

batgoat

batgoat wrote:

If I recall correctly Griffin did not target the president's children. A president is not a protected category and one is perfectly free to offend him.

Excuse me?

You are advocating that it is ok to offend some people but not others?

Who defines that criteria?