Hate Speech Public Consultation

ILoveYourVibes

If you say you think Travellers should be sent to concentration camps in Pheonix park while running for president might it be suggested that you should pay a gowl tax?

what about not banning hate speech ..but taxing it!

I mean hate speech is a choice.

Its not like being GAA ...that's not a choice. Its not just a lifestyle.

You don't choose to be a traveller. You do choose to be a gowl though.

Wibbs

yoke wrote: »

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.

Agreed on all points Y.

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.

Oh there is much to that Y, however the alternative idea of all mankind under one vague society, while a laudable aim on the surface, has no legs to stand on outside the imaginary world of Star Trek. Humans are a very tribal species. It damn near defines us on a very visceral level and always has done and unless AI takes over always will define us.

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.

The singular problem with using America as an example(outside of its deep divisions along ethnicity and wealth) is that it's an ex colony. You touch on it yourself Y with your 99%. It was and is defined by and founded upon immigration. "American" itself equals Immigrant, or from an immigrant background, which Americans are only to happy to list if pressed. Unless you're of a native background and "America" rolled over them like a tank. So of course you can become American, becoming American defines the culture, history and belonging of that label. Even those who see themselves as coming across on the Mayflower arrived from somewhere else. And this all happened in the last few centuries with it. Nations and their self image and culture like Belgium or Sweden or Ireland are very different on that fundamental point.

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.”

Oh that's the definition alright Y, but it's more an again laudable aspiration and hope than a reality. Outside of such aspirations and statutes hoping to reflect them, there isn't one single working example of that definition today or in history. Forget history, pick any "multicultural" nation today anywhere in the world where the non local population don't cluster more around the lower end of society(and are all too often blamed for their lot and bringing down the tone). Pick any "multicultural" nation today anywhere in the world where there aren't flashpoints along ethnic lines. Cultures where it tended to work more can be found in history. Ancient Rome, the Caliphate, China. However they were all empires, which also had a concept like "America" where one could become Roman, Muslim, or Chinese. They were also with some irony by comparison to modern democratic societies authoritarian, extremely "Right wing" and rigid and didn't take too kindly at all to any pushback along ethnic lines. And even then the old prejudices and social problems were present and "new" Romans or whatever, were regarded sniffily by the "Old Romans", even many generations in.

ArrBee

Phoebas wrote: »

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

So the law needs reviewing because there hasn't been enough convictions...?

WrenBoy

seamus wrote: »

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.

ArrBee wrote: »

So the law needs reviewing because there hasn't been enough convictions...?

Seems to be the thinking alright. The suggestion is that the Irish are all bigots and racists but the laws aren't stringent enough to do anything about it, the idea that the numbers are low because we don't have a problem with hate crimes in this country is unthinkable.
So widen what could be considered a hate crime to cover any incidents that happen to involve people of different races/religions/etc. and get these numbers up to prove the need for such laws, rinse and repeat.

Phoebas

ArrBee wrote: »

So the law needs reviewing because there hasn't been enough convictions...?

Who said there wasn't enough convictions?

Every law needs reviewing from time to time.
When a law isn't been used, it's fair to ask if it's fit for purpose.

Maybe it needs to be scrapped .

alastair

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Can you provide a link for these figures?

https://benefacts.ie/?_ga=2.84814425.1328104267.1576527111-1760725388.1576527111

tjhook

Phoebas wrote: »

Every law needs reviewing from time to time.

Every law, or just the laws you want changed?

I heard similar during the abortion referendum - the constitutional articles that were in place had been put in place 16 years previously. Younger people had had no chance to have *their* say on it, so another plebiscite was needed. Funny enough, I haven't heard any of those people saying that we should plan on rerunning that particular referendum again in 10 years time. Presumably people too young to vote this time won't need to have their say in the future because we got the right result. (I voted "yes" by the way).

ArrBee

Phoebas wrote: »

Who said there wasn't enough convictions?

Every law needs reviewing from time to time.
When a law isn't been used, it's fair to ask if it's fit for purpose.

Maybe it needs to be scrapped .

You did.
You could argue that you were saying that the number is too low to warrant leaving the law as it is, which you seem to be saying above, but you did say "only 5 convictions"

Sorry, but I dont agree with the logic you are putting forward.

Take for example, if we managed to reduce murder to very low numbers.
That would not be an indication that the law needs reviewing and possibly scraping.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

So of course you can become American, becoming American defines the culture, history and belonging of that label. Even those who see themselves as coming across on the Mayflower arrived from somewhere else. And this all happened in the last few centuries with it. Nations and their self image and culture like Belgium or Sweden or Ireland are very different on that fundamental point.

Belgium is a far younger country that the USA. And nobody defined themselves as Belgian until the 19th century. It had no self image whatsoever before this point.

ILoveYourVibes

ArrBee wrote: »

You did.
You could argue that you were saying that the number is too low to warrant leaving the law as it is, which you seem to be saying above, but you did say "only 5 convictions"

Sorry, but I dont agree with the logic you are putting forward.

Take for example, if we managed to reduce murder to very low numbers.
That would not be an indication that the law needs reviewing and possibly scraping.

We are NOT suggesting the number of hate crimes is low.

If the number of murders was high ...yet the rate of convictions were low...then you might want to review the law right?

We are not managing to reduce hate crimes to low numbers.

alastair

WrenBoy wrote: »

Seems to be the thinking alright. The suggestion is that the Irish are all bigots and racists but the laws aren't stringent enough to do anything about it, the idea that the numbers are low because we don't have a problem with hate crimes in this country is unthinkable.
So widen what could be considered a hate crime to cover any incidents that happen to involve people of different races/religions/etc. and get these numbers up to prove the need for such laws, rinse and repeat.

Yeaaah; load of bollox.

You don’t need to pretend that everyone is accused of being a racist to acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot more hate speech which is discriminatory at play than is being sanctioned. If you think we don’t have a hate crime problem, above and beyond what you can count on your hand in thirty years, then you’ve got some blinkers on. The existing law is clearly not fit for purpose.

Hector Savage

Phoebas wrote: »

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

But hate speech laws are not needed to prosecute here ?
No one is denying that this cretin doesn't deserve to be charged here.

Violent threatening behaviour is Violent threatening behaviour !

No need for a definition of "hate".

The problem is the more gray areas.

Like calling a trans person (man->woman) "hey mister" ....

Drawing a cartoon (non offensive even) of Mohammed .... etc..

alastair

Hector Savage wrote: »

But hate speech laws are not needed to prosecute here ?
No one is denying that this cretin doesn't deserve to be charged here.

Violent threatening behaviour is Violent threatening behaviour !

No need for a definition of "hate".

The problem is the more gray areas.

Like calling a trans person (man->woman) "hey mister" ....

Drawing a cartoon (non offensive even) of Mohammed .... etc..

You can knock yourself out drawing Mohammed, it’s got precisely nothing to do with the legislation. And the bar for transphobic hate crimes is rather higher than idiotic mis-gendering. The UK, which has legislation, hasn’t prosecuted Harry Miller, who has made a hobby of trolling transgender people for years.

Gynoid

alastair wrote: »

Yeaaah; load of bollox.

You don’t need to pretend that everyone is accused of being a racist to acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot more hate speech which is discriminatory at play than is being sanctioned. If you think we don’t have a hate crime problem, above and beyond what you can count on your hand in thirty years, then you’ve got some blinkers on. The existing law is clearly not fit for purpose.

Gosh yes, all those filthy racists with their endless hate crimes, the country is inundated with it! I think statutes are ineffective against the over whelming tide actually, the proles would probably continue hate speaking over their dinners, the backstards. I have in mind devices planted in innocent looking ashtrays - damn, they are gone! - little drones that look like insects might be more 21st century. Children reporting their parents is another tried and tested method favoured by some. Loud speakers on the streets leading community choruses. Damn, stop me before I start designing the communal smocks...

CrankyHaus

Hector Savage wrote: »

But hate speech laws are not needed to prosecute here ?
No one is denying that this cretin doesn't deserve to be charged here.

Violent threatening behaviour is Violent threatening behaviour !

No need for a definition of "hate".

The problem is the more gray areas.

Like calling a trans person (man->woman) "hey mister" ....

Drawing a cartoon (non offensive even) of Mohammed .... etc..

Worth highlighting that in that case a very clear threat to kill was not prosecuted, despite this being a specific offence in statute.

This is sadly par for the course for career criminals in Ireland, their "minor" offences are ignored until they do some real damage.

In my work I often deal with people from places like Africa and India who work in the service industry and take the most heinous racist abuse from scumbags, typically accompanied by assault and threats, none of which of is prosecuted or meaningfully punished as the offenders are of this segment of career criminal viewed as immune by the courts.

I have no doubt whatsoever that any hate speech law will change nothing for these victims of racist abuse, as existing laws are already not enforced against the scumbags abusing them, but will be used to stifle freedom of expression, and ultimately democratic debate.

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

Yeaaah; load of bollox.

You don’t need to pretend that everyone is accused of being a racist to acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot more hate speech which is discriminatory at play than is being sanctioned. If you think we don’t have a hate crime problem, above and beyond what you can count on your hand in thirty years, then you’ve got some blinkers on. The existing law is clearly not fit for purpose.

Yyyeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, your continuing with your shiite talk. Show me the Irish gangs of white supremacists, the open bigotry on the streets or in our press, the people who target others purely because of their race or ethnicity in Ireland outside of the few scumbags who exist in every society.
And what is "sanctioned" hate speech as you mentioned above ? The only issue with Hate speech we've had really would be up North with the Catholic/Protestant divide which has improved greatly in recent years. Besides that I'd like to hear about this "hell of a lot" of hate speech your on about. The existing laws are fit for purpose but they're not shutting up the people you want them to so of course you'd love them widened, sadly you don't see your fashioning a rod for your own back.

alastair

Gynoid wrote: »

Gosh yes, all those filthy racists with their endless hate crimes, the country is inundated with it! I think statutes are ineffective against the over whelming tide actually, the proles would probably continue hate speaking over their dinners, the backstards. I have in mind devices planted in innocent looking ashtrays - damn, they are gone! - little drones that look like insects might be more 21st century. Children reporting their parents is another tried and tested method favoured by some. Loud speakers on the streets leading community choruses. Damn, stop me before I start designing the communal smocks...

🙄

alastair

WrenBoy wrote: »

Yyyeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, your continuing with your shiite talk. Show me the Irish gangs of white supremacists, the open bigotry on the streets or in our press, the people who target others purely because of their race or ethnicity in Ireland outside of the few scumbags who exist in every society.
And what is "sanctioned" hate speech as you mentioned above ? The only issue with Hate speech we've had really would be up North with the Catholic/Protestant divide which has improved greatly in recent years. Besides that I'd like to hear about this "hell of a lot" of hate speech your on about. The existing laws are fit for purpose but they're not shutting up the people you want them to so of course you'd love them widened, sadly you don't see your fashioning a rod for your own back.

None so blind...

Gynoid

alastair wrote: »

🙄

Aww shyte, I have been looking for that kind of emoji on boards for ages, well that and a puking one.
Look it. There can never be too much hyperbole if you ask me when it comes to the alt right takeover of Ireland that we are bearing witness to these days. Hate speech on every corner. Its a disgrace. Law and order is what is needed. More eyes and boots on the street! Are you with me, Alastair!!!

Phoebas

Hector Savage wrote: »

But hate speech laws are not needed to prosecute here ?
No one is denying that this cretin doesn't deserve to be charged here.

Violent threatening behaviour is Violent threatening behaviour !

No need for a definition of "hate".

I don't get it.
It seems that people are quite happy for this behaviour to be prosecutable but don't want the racist motivation to be taken into account.

Isn't that just trying to brush the racism under the carpet?

Jackman25

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Worth highlighting that in that case a very clear threat to kill was not prosecuted, despite this being a specific offence in statute.

This is sadly par for the course for career criminals in Ireland, their "minor" offences are ignored until they do some real damage.

In my work I often deal with people from places like Africa and India who work in the service industry and take the most heinous racist abuse from scumbags, typically accompanied by assault and threats, none of which of is prosecuted or meaningfully punished as the offenders are of this segment of career criminal viewed as immune by the courts.

I have no doubt whatsoever that any hate speech law will change nothing for these victims of racist abuse, as existing laws are already not enforced against the scumbags abusing them, but will be used to stifle freedom of expression, and ultimately democratic debate.

Ya spot on. Some of these scumbags make life a misery for people with racist abuse etc, but never suffer any consequences.
Any new hate speech law will be mostly used by loolahs on here and elsewhere on the Internet, posting links to the guards whenever they get offended.

Jackman25

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Must be some great jobs in that that allow employees to give the day posting rot on the Internet

alastair

Jackman25 wrote: »

Must be some great jobs in that that allow employees to give the day posting rot on the Internet

You work for an NGO!?

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

None so blind...

Its a game of two halves...

Jackman25

alastair wrote: »

You work for an NGO!?

no. do you?

alastair

Jackman25 wrote: »

no. do you?

I don't, but the 'posting rot' seemed completely on-brand for you.

alastair

WrenBoy wrote: »

Its a game of two halves...

Yeah - that means precisely nothing.

Clarence Boddiker

What ever happened to "Je Suis Charlie"

How times have changed.

ILoveYourVibes

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

What ever happened to "Je Suis Charlie"

How times have changed.

That was in solidarity with the journalists who lost their lives.

Clarence Boddiker

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That was in solidarity with the journalists who lost their lives.

That may be the way you choose to remember it but it was solidarity for freedom of speech. And for the right for journalists and ordinary people to express themselves freely.

Most of the worlds media and politicians said as much at the time.