Hate Speech Public Consultation

Boggles

waynerooney wrote: »

Hate speech legislation, whether it should be tightened or loosened, ought to be among all citizens' Top 5 issues for concern if a change is to be made.

No it won't, nor should it.

waynerooney wrote: »

Yet there is no publicity in main stream media (e.g. RTE News) about it.
Does anybody know if I am wrong here?

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1024/1085465-hate-speech/

Yes.

I imagine you need more tinfoil.

1800_Ladladlad

Here are the political parties who are in favor of Hate Speech Legislation ie compelled speech. "Anti-Racism election Protocol".

Sir Oxman

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Here are the political parties who are in favor of Hate Speech Legislation ie compelled speech. "Anti-Racism election Protocol".

I don't think that graphic lists endorsers of whatever comes out of the commission to be honest.
there's a list of 90 endorsers of 'love not hate' and not one party is on that list.


"
What is AREP?

The Anti-Racism Election Protocol (AREP) was originally developed in 2001 by the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI) in partnership with all political parties. Since then AREP has played an important role in ensuring that elections have been conducted in such a way that they do not incite hatred or prejudice on the grounds of:

• ‘race’ (skin colour, nationality, ethnicity),
• religious belief
• membership of the Traveller Community."

Hector Savage

Eirigi !
That's a laugh!

TwoMonthsOff

Hector Savage wrote: »

Eirigi !
That's a laugh!

These hate speech laws will mean they wont be able to give out about "de brits" anymore.

alastair

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

These hate speech laws will mean they wont be able to give out about "de brits" anymore.

Except it won’t, because that’s nothing covered by the proposed legislation.

sabat

alastair wrote: »

Except it won’t, because that’s nothing covered by the proposed legislation.

Except it will. Because the law as it's being framed will cover whatever anyone wants it to in any situation. Someone need only claim that they find the word 'Brit' offensive and anyone using it will be open to possible imprisonment.

This is all moot now anyway-Flanagan has zero chance of getting this through after the commemoration sh1tshow.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

Except it will. Because the law as it's being framed will cover whatever anyone wants it to in any situation. Someone need only claim that they find the word 'Brit' offensive and anyone using it will be open to possible imprisonment.

This is all moot now anyway-Flanagan has zero chance of getting this through after the commemoration sh1tshow.

Nope. It’s not. No they can’t and won’t. You’re simply talking nonsense.

And the RIC thing has no bearing on the hate speech legislation - which has broad party support.

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

Nope. It’s not. No they can’t and won’t. You’re simply talking nonsense.

If a British person feels abused or harassed while being called a Brit why wouldn't that be covered under this legislation ??

alastair

WrenBoy wrote: »

If a British person feels abused or harassed while being called a Brit why wouldn't that be covered under this legislation ??

Anyone is entitled to give off about the brits, it’s only considered a crime if there’s some actual crime involved. Expressing hostility towards Brits is not a crime, and wouldn’t be under the legislation. The same is true for any other designated groups. Nobody is forcing you to suppress your own biases.

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

Anyone is entitled to give off about the brits, it’s only considered a crime if there’s some actual crime involved. Expressing hostility towards Brits is not a crime, and wouldn’t be under the legislation. The same is true for any other designated groups. Nobody is forcing you to suppress your own biases.

So it would be ok to express any level of hostility against gays, blacks, Muslims and trans people too?

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

So it would be ok to express any level of hostility against gays, blacks, Muslims and trans people too?

Sure - unless you’re accusing them of some wrongdoing to the extent of incitement, or denying them something they would otherwise be entitled to access to. Bigotry, homophobia, or racism aren’t crimes in and of themselves, and wouldn’t be under the proposed legislation.

If someone felt they were being targeted as a consequence of their being part of any of the designated groups, they can report a hate incident, but that’s not sufficient for a prosecution - a crime needs to be identified.

ghost of ireland past

The whole point is that you can say things like 'I hate Manchester football club and the players and supporters' but you cannot say the same thing about protected groups.

You can say 'I hate Fine Gael and other politicians too' (I presume) but you can't say 'I hate all Catholics'.


The courts won't be fair and this law won't be applied fairly. The law will only by applied in some easy to predict ways.

Is the word Brit or Paddy an insult?
Is it in the ear of the beholder?
Does body language or gestures count?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

If someone felt they were being targeted as a consequence of their being part of any of the designated groups, they can report a hate incident.

what are the consequences of a reported hate incident

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

what are the consequences of a reported hate incident

Nothing, unless a crime is prosecuted.

sabat

alastair wrote: »

Nope. It’s not. No they can’t and won’t. You’re simply talking nonsense.

And the RIC thing has no bearing on the hate speech legislation - which has broad party support.

So will stating that people who think they were born in the wrong body are delusional or that Salome Mbugua (the African woman in the above video) is not Irish be illegal? You can bet that the protection of this type of forced alternative reality is exactly what the law will be used for.
The 'RIC thing' has every bearing now because this is (or is very easily spinnable as) "Charlie Flanagan's Hate Speech Law" making it a companion piece to "Charlie Flanagan's Black and Tan commemoration."
The next protest against the law will see a huge increase in numbers out to have a pop at the government-to the extent that it will no longer be possible for the NGO pimps, bourgeois cosplayers of Antifa or protest-fetishising pseudo-Marxist left to characterise attendees as fringe far-right extremists without causing a deeper backlash.
This government is a busted flush. End of story.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Nothing, unless a crime is prosecuted.

no record?

no follow up?

no inclusion in statistics justifying the next legislative move?

alastair

sabat wrote: »

So will stating that people who think they were born in the wrong body are delusional or that Salome Mbugua (the African woman in the above video) is not Irish be illegal? You can bet that the protection of this type of forced alternative reality is exactly what the law will be used for.
The 'RIC thing' has every bearing now because this is (or is very easily spinnable as) "Charlie Flanagan's Hate Speech Law" making it a companion piece to "Charlie Flanagan's Black and Tan commemoration."
The next protest against the law will see a huge increase in numbers out to have a pop at the government-to the extent that it will no longer be possible for the NGO pimps, bourgeois cosplayers of Antifa or protest-fetishising pseudo-Marxist left to characterise attendees as fringe far-right extremists without causing a deeper backlash.
This government is a busted flush. End of story.

This legislation will happen, regardless of what shape of government we have - it has broad party support.

And no - the only possibility for criminalisation is where there is a crime undertaken. Simply being an ignorant blowhard with inane opinions isn’t a crime, and isn’t going to be a crime. You would need to delve into incitement or harassment territory before any prosecution would arise. What exactly do you think the crime is in not accepting someone’s nationality? Point to anything in the legislation that suggests it would become a crime. If you’re going to bet on it, then you’ll be losing that money.

Salome Mbugua IS Irish btw - whether you care to admit it or not. Kenyan born, but she’s lived here for 25 years, has citizenship through naturalisation, and married an Irish lad.

And no - there won’t be any huge increase on the wingnuts and racists attending their protests. People see them for who they are.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

no record?

no follow up?

no inclusion in statistics justifying the next legislative move?

Incidents will go on file, just as any reports to Gardai are currently recorded. So?
You understand that this is already the case? The proposed legislation wouldn’t be likely to change anything in that regard.

10000maniacs

Ireland is gradually going extreme left by a thousand cuts. Hoping the pendulum does not eventually swing the other way in equal measure.

for every wrong...there is the right! :rolleyes:

ghost of ireland past

The entire west is going left, but this century is for the Chinese. We are failing to make progress by fighting amongst ourselves while the Chinese are simply getting things done.

China are using a very different approach to the US and it'll be much more successful.

We shouldn't need hate speech laws. The Irish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression in any event, except in very limited circumstances.

10000maniacs

rusty cole wrote: »

for every wrong...there is the right! :rolleyes:

Or the middle ground, where we should always be striving towards.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

We shouldn't need hate speech laws. The Irish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression in any event, except in very limited circumstances.

‘Subject to public order and morality’
I wouldn’t consider those very limited circumstances. It certainly allows for legislation with regard to the sort of scapegoating outlined in the hate speech review. And sure - we shouldn’t need hate speech laws, we shouldn’t need all sorts of laws; but actions have consequences.

ghost of ireland past

Public order is quite a strong ground as it is very wide in scope but morality could be endlessly argued. It is not immoral to hate things. It seems appropriate to hate criminal gangs for example, even though they are made up of people.

I see Donald Trump was criticised when he called two convicted members of the notorious MS13 gang, 'animals'. The gang's motto is 'Murder, Rape, Control'.
Why can't they be called animals?
So as not to offend them?


Public order is strong but does it mean that any group that threatens violence must be pandered to?

That is appeasement and often goes wrong. We need to have confidence in our laws and in our culture and we need not pander to grievence merchants.

It is not wrong or immoral to hate things.
Marmite for example.
or Manchester United Football Club.

If the law comes in it will not be enforced against Catholic criticisms and abuse but it will be enforced against other religions. It amounts to censorship.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Public order is quite a strong ground as it is very wide in scope but morality could be endlessly argued. It is not immoral to hate things. It seems appropriate to hate criminal gangs for example, even though they are made up of people.

I see Donald Trump was criticised when he called two convicted members of the notorious MS13 gang, 'animals'. The gang's motto is 'Murder, Rape, Control'.
Why can't they be called animals?
So as not to offend them?


Public order is strong but does it mean that any group that threatens violence must be pandered to?

That is appeasement and often goes wrong. We need to have confidence in our laws and in our culture and we need not pander to grievence merchants.

It is not wrong or immoral to hate things.
Marmite for example.
or Manchester United Football Club.

If the law comes in it will not be enforced against Catholic criticisms and abuse but it will be enforced against other religions. It amounts to censorship.

Who’s appeasing anyone? Who is threatening violence? Who is suggesting that there’s any attempt to ban hate? The legislation is quite clear in that it doesn’t undermine the right to criticise (or hate - if you’re inclined) institutions, or condiments, it is about groupings of people.

ghost of ireland past

Criminal gangs are groupings of people, as are football clubs, yet we are allowed to hate them.

Donald Trump of course was criticised for hating MS13 members and describing them as animals.


These laws are widely considered to be for one purpose only; to prevent discussion of religion and culture, and how our societies are changing.

Gatling

I'd imagine boards could loose posters if the right legislation goes though.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Criminal gangs are groupings of people, as are football clubs, yet we are allowed to hate them.

Donald Trump of course was criticised for hating MS13 members and describing them as animals.


These laws are widely considered to be for one purpose only; to prevent discussion of religion and culture, and how our societies are changing.

Neither criminal gangs, nor sports clubs are designated groups in the legislation. Nor is marmite. Glad to help.

ghost of ireland past

People are free to leave religions just as they are free to leave criminal gangs. Therefore, we should be permitted to hate both.