Hate Speech Public Consultation

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

She's not Irish - and never can be. Any sane person realises this.

And yet she is. Soz.

Dick_Swiveller

alastair wrote: »

And yet she is. Soz.

She is in the fairyland you inhabit. To any sane person she is an African woman.

Dick_Swiveller

Actually, I feel like becoming Japanese. I might pop over, stay a few years, gain citizenship and call myself Japanese. I'll be just as Japanese as those whose families have lived there for thousands of years. Forget about their rich cultural heritage, social cohesion, identity.

And if any Japanese person objects I'll call them a racist!

Sounds like a plan!

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Actually, I feel like becoming Japanese. I might pop over, stay a few years, gain citizenship and call myself Japanese. I'll be just as Japanese as those who have lived there for thousands of years. Forget about their rich cultural heritage, social cohesion, identity.

And if any Japanese person objects I'll call them a racist!

Sounds like a plan!

See ya! Say hello to those thousand year olds when you get there. 🙄

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

She is in the fairyland you inhabit. To any sane person she is an African woman.

That ‘fairyland’ is Ireland, which acknowledges her nationality as Irish. Despite your problems with that reality.

Dick_Swiveller

After that I'll head over to Canada and become Canadian. And then maybe to South America. I've always wanted to be a Brazilian.

Dick_Swiveller

alastair wrote: »

That ‘fairyland’ is Ireland, which acknowledges her nationality as Irish. Despite your problems with that reality.

Ireland could declare that sheep are cows in the morning. Wouldn't make it true, would it?

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Ireland could declare that sheep are cows in the morning. Wouldn't make it true, would it?

Nope, but it’s 100% true that woman is an Irish national. Again; soz for the hurty news for your delicate sensibilities.

Dick_Swiveller

alastair wrote: »

Nope, but it’s 100% true that woman is an Irish national. Again; soz for the hurty news for your delicate sensibilities.

soz? hurty? Have I been engaging with a teenager all this time? I'm off. Good luck; when I come back I'll probably be a Brazilian. I could do with a change.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - you’ve made it clear you hold the darkies most responsible for the crime of not letting you tell them what nationality they are. Clearly they don’t know their place in your personally-defined pecking order. Shouldn’t you have included your usual ‘magical’ reference in here too?

Nope, again with your hysterical mistruths. Oh I'm quite sure this works on a fair number who are in fear of being labelled whatever "ist" and "prejudice" you're happy to start throwing willy nilly at them as an alternative to reasoned argument. With most it comes from a genuine fear of being seen as prejudiced as that is indeed a bad thing, with others it's more about being discovered that they are. Insults only tend to truly hit home if the insulted believes a part, or more of the insult applies to them. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. I'm not actually racist and view schoolyard rhetoric for what it is. So you keep plugging away on behalf of your position.

Oh, and the science isn’t ‘American’. But keep digging.

Yup, again easier to ignore the subtleties.

Look, you can't argue a point to save your life, it would be easier for you to just scream Blasphemer!!! and be done with it. It amounts to the same thing. A credo delicate to any critique, even questioning, tends to rush to that defence in short order. With all your social construct stuff, you are positively mired in it, thinking labels are all that's required for reality to follow suit, though they rarely survive much contact with reality.

alastair wrote: »

Then why do you think NGO’s handling a budget are any different? NGO’s are contracted to undertake provision of services for the State, and handle the expenditure of funds on behalf of the State. It’s money for services that the taxpayer covers one way or another.

Well the lack of public service and governmental levels of transparency and accountability for a start. Never mind more avenues for cute hoorism chasing funds. Never mind that many operate in different states outside this one(though I'd more support them than the more entirely local ones). Duplication of services, with the attendant expense of that. Then again turkeys won't vote for the rapidly approaching holiday, so I can well imagine the gales of protest from vested interests, some legitimate, some not so much. But again, how can we tell? And we're back to transparency and accountability. Then again it is Ireland of the well filled trough for the hogs who know where to dip their snouts.

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

when I come back I'll probably be a Brazilian.

I know a lass with a salon that can do that for ya D. It will involve pain and being on all fours, but sure beauty has a price.

ThunbergsAreGo

alastair wrote: »

Nope, but it’s 100% true that woman is an Irish national. Again; soz for the hurty news for your delicate sensibilities.

Who is she?

Annasopra

alastair wrote: »

Jaysus. One more time: Do you think that the €17bn going into the Health budget is all going into nurses and doctor’s pockets? Then why do you think NGO’s handling a budget are any different? NGO’s are contracted to undertake provision of services for the State, and handle the expenditure of funds on behalf of the State. It’s money for services that the taxpayer covers one way or another.

Exacyly. This 5.5 billion covers a huge multitude of services; housing, healthcare, social care, education, sports, arts etc.

Not sure why people are jumping up and down about it really.

sabat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exacyly. This 5.5 billion covers a huge multitude of services; housing, healthcare, social care, education, sports, arts etc.

Not sure why people are jumping up and down about it really.

We already have government departments for all of those things. It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of these NGOs (or should I say "civil society groups" to use this week's doublespeak nomenclature) don't provide any tangible services to the public, but are de facto political groupings operating largely anonymously and without accountability.

Annasopra

sabat wrote: »

We already have government departments for all of those things. It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of these NGOs (or should I say "civil society groups" to use this week's doublespeak nomenclature) don't provide any tangible services to the public, but are de facto political groupings operating largely anonymously and without accountability.

How?

I mean it looks to me like you are surmising something out of nowhere.

The report that says 5.5bn a year is spent gives details on what kind of services and organisations are referred to so I dont know why you decide that its something completely different.

Government departments farm out a huge swathe of services. Its complete and utter nonsense to suggest 5.5 bn is spent a year on NGOs to lobby and no service provision. As for accountability. Again nonsense. We now have the chartities regulator, the lobbying register.

You dont seem to actually understand at all what is being discussed.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

We already have government departments for all of those things. It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of these NGOs (or should I say "civil society groups" to use this week's doublespeak nomenclature) don't provide any tangible services to the public, but are de facto political groupings operating largely anonymously and without accountability.

It seems that way to you, does it? 5,000 of those are housing boards, 5,500 are sports organisations and clubs, 5,500 are schools and training initiatives. There’s only 2,500, or less than 10% of non-profits in the country that get any state funding, and of those, 56 get 71% of state funding - because they are contracted providers of services, and that funding is primarily for social services, housing, health services and Irish Aid. About 1% of non-profits in Ireland are civil rights or advocacy groups.

sabat

alastair wrote: »

It seems that way to you, does it? 5,000 of those are housing boards, 5,500 are sports organisations and clubs, 5,500 are schools and training initiatives. There’s only 2,500, or less than 10% of non-profits in the country that get any state funding, and of those, 56 get 71% of state funding - because they are contracted providers of services, and that funding is primarily for social services, housing, health services and Irish Aid.

5000 housing boards? And you're trying to claim nothing is amiss?

alastair

sabat wrote: »

5000 housing boards? And you're trying to claim nothing is amiss?

Housing boards, local development boards, Co-operatives, large and small across the country. What do you suspect is amiss? Are they also part of your sinister political advocacy conspiracy?

yoke

Too many posts to reply to them all, but anyway:

Wibbs: regarding the nature vs nurture thing, I think obviously how genes express themselves will be a combination of nature and nurture. Put an Iranian guy in Iran and the sunlight makes him turn brown, put him in ireland for a few years and he can turn almost white. Put a “clever” guy or girl in a dumb environment with dumb peers and their behaviour and their thoughts can be quite dumb. Conversely, no matter how well you try to teach mathematics to a dog, it’s unlikely the dog will be able to do sums.

Dick swiveler: I think too many people have decided that these man-made gangs which we call “countries” are very important and they define life based on them.

Let me ask you - do you consider the Kardashians to be Iranians or Americans?

If you answered Americans, then at what point did they become American?

If you answered Iranian then probably 99% of people in America aren’t American.

Regarding the “Becoming Japanese” comment - the whole point of gaining citizenship should be that it is not “easy”, but requires many years of actually living in the country, with the expectation that by that time (6 or 11 years) you can be said to be part of the same society as the country.

Note that I’m not a proponent of what people here seem to be defining as multiculturalism - which isn’t actually multiculturalism at all but simply a division in society.
culture is a fluid thing and no country exists whose culture has remained the same even over 500 years.

For the record, the dictionary definition of multiculturalism is NOT “a division in society”.
It is:
“Multiculturalism is a situation in which all the different cultural or racial groups in a society have equal rights and opportunities, and none is ignored or regarded as unimportant.”

So it means “equal rights under the law regardless of your cultural or racial background” not “special treatment” or “the Muslims get to send their kids to a Muslim school to grow up to be suicide bombers while the Christians get to sing hymns and abuse small boys whenever they want and the Chinese work in takeaways and the Indians only marry other Indians and meanwhile the Star Wars people are all entitled to a free Lightsaber paid for by the state”.
That is just “a divided society”.

sabat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You dont seem to actually understand at all what is being discussed.

The thread is about hate speech legislation and it seems that I will be forced under threat of prosecution to pretend that that African woman (sorry I can't find her name) is Irish. I asked in my first post whether a poster here could at least see how infuriating the video would be for a lot of native Irish and the response is "well a piece of paper says she's Irish so that's that, PS youz are all racist spaz."
This is a really dangerous game being played and the people involved are so caught up in their bubble of mutual affirmation that they can't see the potential ramifications. Announcing to an ethnic group that their entire history and culture doesn't really exist or belong to them is a surefire way to make people turn to violence.

This is the real world, not the social studies department of some second rate university.

alastair

The Kardashians are definitely not Iranians, since Iranian-Americans seem to prefer ‘Persian’, and the Kardashians come from an Armenian background anyway. 😛

alastair

sabat wrote: »

The thread is about hate speech legislation and it seems that I will be forced under threat of prosecution to pretend that that African woman (sorry I can't find her name) is Irish. I asked in my first post whether a poster here could at least see how infuriating the video would be for a lot of native Irish and the response is "well a piece of paper says she's Irish so that's that, PS youz are all racist spaz."
This is a really dangerous game being played and the people involved are so caught up in their bubble of mutual affirmation that they can't see the potential ramifications. Announcing to an ethnic group that their entire history and culture doesn't really exist or belong to them is a surefire way to make people turn to violence.

This is the real world, not the social studies department of some second rate university.

In the real world accuracy counts, and again, you seem to be pulling notions out of the ether. She never said that the entire Irish history and culture didn’t exist. That’s in your head, not from her mouth.

yoke

My knowledge of the Kardashians is increasing by leaps and bounds here 🙂

We can replace Iranian with Armenian then - I should probably have said “American or non-American” to keep it simpler 🙂

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

Jaysus. One more time: Do you think that the €17bn going into the Health budget is all going into nurses and doctor’s pockets? Then why do you think NGO’s handling a budget are any different? NGO’s are contracted to undertake provision of services for the State, and handle the expenditure of funds on behalf of the State. It’s money for services that the taxpayer covers one way or another.

The health service provides a vital service. Some of the health budget is definitely wasted, no doubt about that.

But 19,500 NGOs? Someone is taking the piss. I assumed there would be a single organization for immigrants for instance. I hadn't really thought of its funding coming from the taxpayer, but it makes sense I suppose.

But there's not one organization for migrants.. there's dozens!

Immigrant Council of Ireland
Irish Refugee Council
NASC
International Organization for Migration Ireland
Spirasi
Crosscare Refugee Service
Jesuit Refugee Service
Migrant Rights Centre Ireland
New Communities Partnership

and so on and so on.

I'm sure the same could be found in relation to all the rest of the unaccountable sector.

They should be whittled down and merged. It's utterly ridiculous.

People who are employed within these non-profit companies getting fat off the tax payer, where their responsibilities are shared by dozens of other similar flabby organizations, would undoubtedly be hostile to this cash cow getting culled though.

ThunbergsAreGo

alastair wrote: »

It seems that way to you, does it? 5,000 of those are housing boards, 5,500 are sports organisations and clubs, 5,500 are schools and training initiatives. There’s only 2,500, or less than 10% of non-profits in the country that get any state funding, and of those, 56 get 71% of state funding - because they are contracted providers of services, and that funding is primarily for social services, housing, health services and Irish Aid. About 1% of non-profits in Ireland are civil rights or advocacy groups.

Can you provide a link for these figures?

ILoveYourVibes

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

This post is a bit rushed but anyway. The department for justice and equality is consulting with the public about how reviewing Ireland’s legislation on "hate speech", and how this area can be improved.


I wasn't aware of this until yesterday so I thought I would post it on here so that if there was people unaware of it and would like to have there say.

Deadline is December 13th

Please click Here

I think it's dangerous bringing in hate speech laws and that this could be used as a way of politicians removing their ideological opponents from the marketplace of ideas. Im worried this would create protected religious groups or ethnic minorities from any criticism. In a generation consisting of the hysterically outraged and progressives, both online and in public, the meaning of words is context-dependent. Offending someone is not a crime.

Im expecting the usual bolloxogy “you're confusing the right to free speech with the imagined 'right' to speech free of consequences."

The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.
The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.


The left is killing free speech.




Free Speech is not protected in the Irish constitution.

I find it funny people only want to protest about it now when it comes to protecting hate speech.

If the ONLY speech you want to protect is hate speech something is wrong.

Where were these people when the guards charged Stephen Fry with blasphemy? Why not such noise then?

Also its not banning Ideas.

If find it odd people who claim their ideas are not racist think the phrase hate speech applies to them.

'We want to stop immigration etc ' I don't think that is hate speech.

Maybe its just a dog whistle this whole thing?

To be honest I would rather see legislation on lies. Particularly lies about race and immigration. That would REALLY clobber the right. Some of their crimes amounts to epistemic injustice in my opinion.


Hitchens used to say ..people have the right to a platform and the right to be heard. But they must have some effort and truth to the opinion they have formed.

But it doesn't mean we listen to things that are proven to be untrue. Such as the denial of slavery. Or that certain races are less human etc.

Because the above is actually libelous and slander.

By the way have you heard ..

The left is killing free speech.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Also there is a difference between micro aggression's against free speech and laws. Some calling you a transphobe or a sexist pig ..is a micro aggression. Its something some people find it triggering.

ILoveYourVibes

Also if you want to complain about hate speech being censored yet you don't want to complain about how hate speech itself censors people do you really care about free speech and freedom?

Gynoid

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0

Hate Speech. A phenomenally fast computer was described as having "quantum supremacy".

Wanderer78

Gynoid wrote:

Hate Speech. A phenomenally fast computer was described as having "quantum supremacy".

'Transistor Power'!

Phoebas

Our current Incitement to Hatred legislation is hardly used (only 5 convictions since 1989), so its probably due a review.

There was another conviction this week, for anyone interested in the kind of situation it applies to.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/go-back-to-your-own-country-dole-queue-woman-in-racist-rant-at-shop-worker-court-hears-38787888.html

seamus

Charging999 wrote: »

Why ? we have a law. If it's not used that's not the issue.

Well, it is. We have to ask why it's not being used. Sometimes it's because the state doesn't really want to use the law. But often laws aren't applied because they're written in such a way that the standard of evidence required is rarely reachable.

Imagine, for example, if the law said that someone was only guilty of theft if they were caught in the act of stealing, by a Garda.

It would be nearly impossible to convict anyone of stealing.

The consultation has a question on this;

Issue 2: Use of the term “hatred” in the Act
Under the 1989 Act, in order to be an offence, the words or material must be intended or likely to stir up “hatred” against one of the protected list of groups. This is a high threshold. It is important to remember that the Act is designed to deal with hateful behaviour that is sufficiently severe to reach the threshold for criminal prosecution. The term “hatred” is not defined and has its ordinary meaning. Given that prosecutions under the Act have been relatively rare, the Department is considering whether the requirement to stir up hatred should be replaced by another term (hostility or prejudice, for example).