Hate Speech Public Consultation

suicide_circus

what it comes down to is, should the following things be considered criminal;

*misgendering a trans person

*saying that an irishman can be a russian citizen but cannot become russian

*saying that diversity is not in and of itself a virtue

*off colour jokes about sensitive topics

these are things that can be considered rude, silly or just plain wrong but for them to actually constitute a CRIME....my god...what are we doing here? i dont say this lightly but anyone promoting the idea that these things should be crimes is not only sinister and pernicious but may actually be evil.

suicide_circus

a good watch if you have a spare 50 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak8v1LxdavY

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Try again.

Nah, you said - for you it’s all about the pride in not moving anywhere in a long time - “ the very thing that made humans great“ 😂

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

what it comes down to is, should the following things be considered criminal;

*misgendering a trans person

*saying that an irishman can be a russian citizen but cannot become russian

*saying that diversity is not in and of itself a virtue

*off colour jokes about sensitive topics

these are things that can be considered rude, silly or just plain wrong but for them to actually constitute a CRIME....my god...what are we doing here? i dont say this lightly but anyone promoting the idea that these things should be crimes is not only sinister and pernicious but may actually be evil.

How about making up **** and trying to pass it off as having anything to do with the proposed legislation? You missed that in your list’. 🙄

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

How about making up **** and trying to pass it off as having anything to do with the proposed legislation? You missed that in your list’. 🙄

do you consider the type of thing i have listed to be hate speech?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

No, she would be in possession of a Russian or Papuan passport. Fact. It does not magically make her Russian or Papuan.

an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like:

If I gained a Russian or Papuan passport it would not magically confer on me a shared common and distinctive culture, religion and language.

Neither is an ethno-State. And unless I’m mistaken, the Irish do not have a common religion, speak more than one language (there’s 851 in Papua!), and don’t apply exclusions on participation in culture. There’s nothing to stop anyone becoming Irish if they so wish - the only requirements are a desire to become Irish, and attaining nationality.

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

do you consider the type of thing i have listed to be hate speech?

Refer to the criteria already posted and see how that checklist goes, eh?

suicide_circus

you cannot attain a nationality. you can obtain citizenship. thats the point.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

Refer to the criteria already posted and see how that checklist goes, eh?

not being funny but i actually cant find the criteria in all the pages

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

you cannot attain a nationality. you can obtain citizenship. thats the point.

Except it’s not true.

What does being an Irish citizen mean?

You are formally recognised as a national of Ireland and a citizen of the European Union. You have certain rights. These include the right to:

carry an Irish passport
live and work in Ireland and the EU
receive consular help from Irish embassies and consulates abroad

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

not being funny but i actually cant find the criteria in all the pages

So, where are you pulling your examples from then?
I know the answer, just curious what your excuse is.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

So, where are you pulling your examples from then?
I know the answer, just curious what your excuse is.

the uk. where people have been interviewed by the police for those things

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

the uk. where people have been interviewed by the police for those things

Riiight. 🙄

jmayo

If one was allowed speculate about people's backgrounds one might surmise some folks around here were on serious overtime over the weekend what with the level of interaction they had with the site setting everyone straight. :rolleyes:

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Nah, you said - for you it’s all about the pride in not moving anywhere in a long time - “ the very thing that made humans great“ 😂

You really do appear to suffer from a lack of reading comprehension and no amount of smileys and megaphone deflections can cover that. Actual diversity is one of modern human's killer apps and a large part of that is the number of distinctive populations that have adapted to different local selective pressures, genetically, physically and even culturally. We do show local population differences and those differences are what makes us all human. The "blank slate" they're just arbitrary labels, sure it doesn't really matter, we're all the same, one big melting pot politic is both a scientific nonsense and smacks of a different sort of "racism" by denying all our heritages and distinctive humanities.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You really do appear to suffer from a lack of reading comprehension and no amount of smileys and megaphone deflections can cover that. Actual diversity is one of modern human's killer apps and a large part of that is the number of distinctive populations that have adapted to different local selective pressures, genetically, physically and even culturally. We do show local population differences and those differences are what makes us all human. The "blank slate" they're just arbitrary labels, sure it doesn't really matter, we're all the same, one big melting pot politic is both a scientific nonsense and smacks of a different sort of "racism" by denying all our heritages and distinctive humanities.

Just quoting your own musings. If it looks daft, not my doing.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Neither is an ethno-State.

Russia is the largest country on Earth and just over 80% are ethnically Russian. Of the rest the Ukrainians, Avars, Belarusians and a few others are also indo Europeans. While Papua New Guinea is one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet the majority of the population are Papuans and Melanesians and it's a country that has its fair share of invaders and colonial powers at play.

And unless I’m mistaken, the Irish do not have a common religion, speak more than one language (there’s 851 in Papua!), and don’t apply exclusions on participation in culture.

The dominant religion is Ireland is some flavour of Christianity, followed by agnosticism/atheism, with a tiny percentage of other faiths mixed in, the majority of which are recently arrived. English is the overwhelmingly used language, Irish is a minority language though ethnically local, the rest are again recent additions.

There’s nothing to stop anyone becoming Irish if they so wish - the only requirements are a desire to become Irish, and attaining nationality.

Well we clearly have a fundamental difference in what "becoming Irish" means and I contend it's more than just a passport getting stamped. If I were to move to Spain(and I'd be very tempted by north west Spain) and in time gained a Spanish passport, I would be grateful for that courtesy from my adopted land and would see myself as a citizen of Spain. However I certainly would not have the hard neck to claim that I was Spanish and I most certainly would not have the neck like a jockey's bollocks to represent Spain on the world stage and lecture them on how they ran their country or culture. That's bad bloody manners if nothing else. It's akin to being invited to dine with others and complaining about the menu.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Russia is the largest country on Earth and just over 80% are ethnically Russian. Of the rest the Ukrainians, Avars, Belarusians and a few others are also indo Europeans. While Papua New Guinea is one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet the majority of the population are Papuans and Melanesians and it's a country that has its fair share of invaders and colonial powers at play.

The dominant religion is Ireland is some flavour of Christianity, followed by agnosticism/atheism, with a tiny percentage of other faiths mixed in, the majority of which are recently arrived. English is the overwhelmingly used language, Irish is a minority language though ethnically local, the rest are again recent additions.

Well we clearly have a fundamental difference in what "becoming Irish" means and I contend it's more than just a passport getting stamped. If I were to move to Spain(and I'd be very tempted by north west Spain) and in time gained a Spanish passport, I would be grateful for that courtesy from my adopted land and would see myself as a citizen of Spain. However I certainly would not have the hard neck to claim that I was Spanish and I most certainly would not have the neck like a jockey's bollocks to represent Spain on the world stage and lecture them on how they ran their country or culture. That's bad bloody manners if nothing else. It's akin to being invited to dine with others and complaining about the menu.

Your personal blinkers don’t stop the reality of people opting to become Irish, or Spanish, every year. And fair play for citizens opting to stake a claim in civil society. Your bizarre demand for deference is rather telling.

ArrBee

This thread has been an interesting and sad read.
It would be funny if it wasn't so scary.

I am saddened and worrying by the fact that people rushing to push such a change are so reluctant to discuss and engage at a meaningful level.
Instead using the child like tactics that are often seen when a belief is held without it being 1st critically analysed. "it's true because it is!" or "I don't have to answer you because you should already know"
I'm almost waiting for "I'm right and you're wrong and my dad is better than your dad" to appear in here!

Unfortunately I dont see any common ground appearing. Not when there appears to be a vested interest involved.

Boggles

ArrBee wrote: »

I am saddened and worrying by the fact that people rushing to push such a change

What proposed change has your worried, sad and scared?

We all ready have Hate Speech Laws.

Do they currently bring out such negative reactions in you?

yoke

If she claimed she wasn’t Irish then she’d be accused of not wanting to integrate. If she accepts that she’s now Irish, she draws the ire of people like Wibbs who think she has a brass neck for claiming she’s Irish, and believe she should live as some sort of second class citizen for ever.

You are an authoritarian Wibbs, and I’m guessing that’s just the way you were brought up so I’m not going to be able to change that.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” - you quite often try to state that something is fact when it is far from it. You present the topic as if it’s something you know about when in fact you have no clue (in true authoritarian fashion), and usually rely on the fact that it’s rare someone would actually take the time to post something to show you up on your lack of knowledge. I’m guessing you actually know f*ck all about hair genetics since you made a factual mistake which no one very familiar with the topic would make about eumelanin and pheomelanin - even the article on Wikipedia clarifies that “A small amount of brown eumelanin in the absence of other pigments causes yellow (blond) hair”

Your quote “pheomelanin(blond/red) was already here(eumelanin is involved in dark hair), so blonds were likely enough without our Norse visitors” shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetics plays into this protein production and I can’t be arsed engaging with you further on this topic as you will likely just try to shout me down rather than considering what I’m saying and thinking about it objectively and studying the subject yourself for the sake of knowledge rather than confirmation bias for your already existing views on a topic. It shouldn’t be about “you vs me”, it should be about what’s correct and what’s not correct.

Good luck!

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

Your bizarre demand for deference is rather telling.

ah stop. deference? aren't you the one seeking for people to be criminalised for whatever you deem to be "hate"

Marcos

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Why do Wibbs and others bother trying to engage with these thought police types?? Their only debating tactic is to smear their opponents as "racist".

Well I can only speak for myself here, but without the likes of Wibbs and others posting on this thread, I wouldn't see so clearly that those types have no argument that they can stand over. I can see and infer that there are posters on here who are most likely representing vested interests, very vested interests in some cases. Now if they have a direct financial interest in this matter, say working as part of the immigration industry what way do you think they would argue? This thread has reminded me that so much taxpayers money goes directly to such a number of NGOs and has made me question exactly how this is spent. Also why should we pay such NGOs to dictate to us else exactly what we can and can't say?

Also the questions that they have deliberately avoided answering are important, and lead me to infer that they either have something to hide or are being willfully naive and show a lack of critical thinking. Neither of which persuades me. Now if they had better arguments let them show them here and put Wibbs in his place. God knows someone has to.

For me, this thread has shone light on both sides of the argument. One side seems to me to be putting forward considered arguments and one side just seems to engage in smear tactics, attempts to derail the discussion, take quotes out of context and make glib comments rather than countering arguments with better ones.

Yiz are wasting yer time.

I disagree. There are people who absolutely won't change their mind on both sides of this debate no matter how persuasive the arguments and counter arguments in this thread are. Now whether that is because they are just contrarians, genuine believers or represent vested interests I have no idea, but I can see that they are there.

But most importantly there are the people in the middle who are open to persuasion by either argument. In electoral terms, the Undecideds. Now if this was to go to a referendum say, it absolutely won't, but if it did, given the arguments put out by both sides in this thread which way do you think most of the Undecideds would vote?

ArrBee

Boggles wrote: »

What proposed change has your worried, sad and scared?

We all ready have Hate Speech Laws.

Do they currently bring out such negative reactions in you?

Yes.
there is an idea and then there is it's implementation.
The idea of being held accountable for what one says is good. That there are limits to what one can say is also agreeable to me.
But the implementation is where I take issue.
The definitions being posted here are VERY open to interpretation and therefore abuse.

what scares/saddens me is the attitudes on display rather than proposed change.

"we already have hate speech laws"
Great! for that comment to be relevant to what I have written then there would be no need for a public consultation as the the current laws are not being looked at for any possible change.



My own view is that there is a fine line between going to far with this type of law and not going far enough.
I have seen many times in discussion that people are very quick to rely on an anti-hate narrative to bolster their opinion when there is no hate in the debate at all.
Clearly it's already being used to shut down debate (not in this thread -much I note).
When you have a whishy washy definition this will continue.

Perhaps that's the answer.
Tighten the definition for what constitutes hate, and group to a point where it makes it very hard for people to claim "that person is doing a hate speech on me" unnecessarily while also making sure that any claim could not be handled by other law.

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

ah stop. deference? aren't you the one seeking for people to be criminalised for whatever you deem to be "hate"

No. I’m not. Anything else you need help with?

Boggles

ArrBee wrote: »

what scares/saddens me is the attitudes on display rather than proposed change.

Specifically?

ArrBee wrote: »

"we already have hate speech laws"
Great! for that comment to be relevant to what I have written then there would be no need for a public consultation as the the current laws are not being looked at for any possible change.

I don't understand you TBH.

Legislation is fluid, it has to be reviewed, changed and updated to stay relevant.

I imagine though any "public consultation" via that link will be stored in some sort of virtual e-bin.

ArrBee

Boggles wrote: »

Specifically?



I don't understand you TBH.

Legislation is fluid, it has to be reviewed, changed and updated to stay relevant.

I imagine though any "public consultation" via that link will be stored in some sort of virtual e-bin.

Specifically what I wrote in the post you replied to.

...reluctant to discuss and engage at a meaningful level.
Instead using the child like tactics that are often seen when a belief is held without it being 1st critically analysed. "it's true because it is!" or "I don't have to answer you because you should already know"

Yes, I don't hold hope for any outcome to this "public consultation" either, but its the process of opening up the law to consultation that has me thinking some change is imminent. Hence why I refer to "change"
Is that wrong of me?

I mention it because you seemed to be suggesting that I shouldn't be concerned about any change as we already have the law.
I merely replied that for that to be true (the no need to worry part), then there would be no public consultation happening as there would be no change coming. You could almost say this whole discussion is redundant in that case... except that's not the case, is it?

Boggles

ArrBee wrote: »

Specifically what I wrote in the post you replied to.

When I say specifically I mean what actual other users posted.

Not you making up quotes. Which is what you have done.

alastair

yoke wrote: »

If she accepts that she’s now Irish, she draws the ire of people like Wibbs who think she has a brass neck for claiming she’s Irish, and believe she should live as some sort of second class citizen for ever.

There's the nub of it.

peddlelies

Race = Social Construct
Gender = Social Construct
Culture = Doesn't Exist
Multi-culturism = Great Success, presumably since culture doesn't exist

Am I keeping up with the oh so woke doctrine?

Meanwhile, in actual reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily "side by side" did not work.

"This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed," Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Sweden seems to be benefiting greatly too, lovely stuff all round.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977

Swedish police are dealing with unprecedented levels of attacks, targeting city centre locations too. The bomb squad was called to deal with 97 explosions in the first nine months of this year.

"I grew up here and you feel like that environment gets violated," says Joel, 22.

"It's very new in Sweden, and we are looking for knowledge around the world," says Mats Lovning, head of the National Operations Department.

For criminologist Amir Rostami, who has researched the use of hand grenades in Sweden, the only relevant comparison is Mexico, plagued by gang violence.

"This is unique in countries that pretty much don't have a war or don't have a long history of terrorism," he says.