Hate Speech Public Consultation

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

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

One can hope.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

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

You can hate whoever you fancy - as already stated. I don’t think anyone is going to change their religious beliefs or criminality off the back of it though.

Assetbacked

Hate is such a strong word, I prefer to express a strong dislike for things, ideas and people.

ghost of ireland past

The law says
(from http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation#Make_a_submission)
The 1989 Act prohibits certain forms of threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons on account of certain characteristics. These characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation.



So, you cannot hate people based on their race for example, or their nationality.

You could continue to hate criminal gangs for example, but not religions.

Why is there protection for religions when it is a choice and it is something that can be changed?



Insulting conduct (in the law above) simply means speaking about certain things, or stating facts about certain things, that would be described as insulting conduct. But we should be free to discuss ideas without censorship.

Hate laws are a terrible idea when they are applied to things people have a choice about, like religion.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The law says
(from http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation#Make_a_submission)
The 1989 Act prohibits certain forms of threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons on account of certain characteristics. These characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation.



So, you cannot hate people based on their race for example, or their nationality.

You could continue to hate criminal gangs for example, but not religions.

Why is there protection for religions when it is a choice and it is something that can be changed?



Insulting conduct (in the law above) simply means speaking about certain things, or stating facts about certain things, that would be described as insulting conduct. But we should be free to discuss ideas without censorship.

Hate laws are a terrible idea when they are applied to things people have a choice about, like religion.

They are not hate laws. They are hate speech and hate crime laws. You are free to hate whatever or whoever you like. What you’re not allowed do is scapegoat people on the basis of that hatred.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

They are not hate laws. They are hate speech and hate crime laws. You are free to hate whatever or whoever you like. What you’re not allowed do is scapegoat people on the basis of that hatred.

Don't feed the creature. It emerged from the lagoon yesterday.

ghost of ireland past

In a hate speech world, you would not be entitled to express certain opinions or facts even if true, if those opinions or facts were offensive to somebody.

A poet for example would be constrained in what he or she could write in his or her poems.

The mere preparation of written material could be an offence if what was written was considered offensive to one of the protected groups.


If members of protected groups engage in despicable or shameful behaviour we should be entitled to talk about it, even if our discussions offend those protected groups.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

In a hate speech world, you would not be entitled to express certain opinions or facts even if true, if those opinions or facts were offensive to somebody.

A poet for example would be constrained in what he or she could write in his or her poems.

The mere preparation of written material could be an offence if what was written was considered offensive to one of the protected groups.


If members of protected groups engage in despicable or shameful behaviour we should be entitled to talk about it, even if our discussions offend those protected groups.

Yeaaah - not remotely convincing.

seamus

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Why is there protection for religions when it is a choice and it is something that can be changed?

Because for many people, religion is a characteristic others assign to them whether they like it or not.

See Northern Ireland from 1950 to 2010 and Myanmar 2005 - present for two examples.

Annasopra

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.

Irrelevant nonsense. Donald Trump wasnt prosecuted under hate speech laws and if you truly support freedom of speech then you should be fine with speech being open to criticism.

Annasopra

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

In a hate speech world, you would not be entitled to express certain opinions or facts even if true, if those opinions or facts were offensive to somebody.

A poet for example would be constrained in what he or she could write in his or her poems.

The mere preparation of written material could be an offence if what was written was considered offensive to one of the protected groups.


If members of protected groups engage in despicable or shameful behaviour we should be entitled to talk about it, even if our discussions offend those protected groups.

Ah jaysus. Try better at the fake news propaganda.

waynerooney

Boggles wrote: »

No it won't, nor should it.



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

Yes.

I imagine you need more tinfoil.

That wasn't helpful. Why be a dick.

1800_Ladladlad

This poster was spotted in a Garda Station recently. They must be testing the waters. :rolleyes:

Boggles

waynerooney wrote: »

That wasn't helpful. Why be a dick.

If answering your silly question with a link is being a dick, then I guess call me Richard.

Lonesomerhodes

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

This poster was spotted in a Garda Station recently. They must be testing the waters. :rolleyes:

Report Antifa so.

They refer to anyone who is for free speech as Nazi's indeed attack many of them on the street including children!.

Not surprising from dole scum led by a career pedophile.



All this hate crime balls is another stepping stone toward 'thought crime' can't say it people won't think it and certainly won't print it!.


People must remember free speech is very important what freedoms can you have without opening your mouth?.


Another rally for free speech on 1st Febuary.

SaintLeibowitz

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Report Antifa so.

They refer to anyone who is for free speech as Nazi's indeed attack many of them on the street including children!.

Not surprising from dole scum led by a career pedophile.



All this hate crime balls is another stepping stone toward 'thought crime' can't say it people won't think it and certainly won't print it!.


People must remember free speech is very important what freedoms can you have without opening your mouth?.


Another rally for free speech on 1st Febuary.

Aren't you free speech headbangers not 'dole scum' yourselfs?.

sabat

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Aren't you free speech headbangers not 'dole scum' yourselfs?.

So you're calling basically every single person who's posted in this thread or thanked those posts against this legislation-ie everybody except the usual 3 or 4 antagonists who have absolutely no vested interest whatsoever-dole scum headbangers?

SaintLeibowitz

sabat wrote: »

So you're calling basically every single person who's posted in this thread or thanked those posts against this legislation-ie everybody except the usual 3 or 4 antagonists who have absolutely no vested interest whatsoever-dole scum headbangers?

If you didn't read the post I was replying to..go have a read.

WrenBoy

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Aren't you free speech headbangers not 'dole scum' yourselfs?.

Being in favour of freedom of speech is an extreme position now ?

SaintLeibowitz

WrenBoy wrote: »

Being in favour of freedom of speech is an extreme position now ?

Yes.

WrenBoy

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Yes.

So shut up.

SaintLeibowitz

WrenBoy wrote: »

So shut up.

The irony

WrenBoy

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

The irony

Sure, why not lead by example.

1800_Ladladlad

“critism of migration will become a criminal offence, and journalistic platforms/ publications that give space to criticism of mass migration will be shut down”.

https://twitter.com/social_always/status/1220308114702061569


They are really adamant in pushing forward with b*llox. How do they not see this back firing.

TwoMonthsOff

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

“critism of migration will become a criminal offence, and journalistic platforms/ publications that give space to criticism of mass migration will be shut down”.

https://twitter.com/social_always/status/1220308114702061569


They are really adamant in pushing forward with b*llox. How do they not see this back firing.

Is this actually happening ?

osarusan

That's a clip from a 14-month-old speech by Marcel De Graaff, an MEP from Holland's Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/674527496/a-u-n-migration-pact-is-dividing-europe-and-has-become-fodder-for-nationalists?t=1580457507172

Last week, Marcel de Graaff, a far-right politician who believes migrants are invading Europe, claimed falsely that the U.N. migration pact would make criticism of migration a "criminal offense." De Graaff is a Dutch member of the European Parliament from the Party for Freedom, which cooperates with Geert Wilders, the Netherlands' best-known nationalist, who has called migrants "scum."

The U.N. pact is "declaring migration as a human right," de Graaff told reporters. "So it will be impossible to criticize 'welcome migrants' politics without being at risk to be jailed for hate speech."

Knaus calls that statement "completely delusional."

"This is a non-binding pact!" he exclaims. "It's a campaign of lies, and the people who do it know it. But the fact that they are effective shows us that the mythology of a great conspiracy, which is spread in social media by far-right organizations very effectively, is becoming increasingly important in European politics."

Some people will swallow any bullsh!t that suits what they want to believe. Genuine victimhood complex.

inforfun

which cooperates with Geert Wilders, the Netherlands' best-known nationalist, who has called migrants "scum."

Yeah.. he didnt.
He is however involved in a court case, pushed by the minister of justice Opstelten, accused for spreading hate after asking at a party congres "Do you want more or less Moroccans".

Pre filled in forms were available at police station to file complaints against this, the usual "celebrities" were pushing people to get involved while wearing t-shirts "I am Moroccan"
Case has been thrown out 2 or 3 times now but department of justice keeps appealing.

Mr Wilders is now 16 years under 24\7 security because he has the opinion that islam isnt exaclty compatible to the way we live in The Netherlands\Western- Europe.
In those years various lovely people from the left have called for stopping this surveillance to be paid from tax payers money. Which is basically his death sentence if that would happen.
It worked for them with Fortuin after all.

osarusan

Wilders:

“If a Dutch person driving in a car drives five miles too fast he will be fined within a minute, whereas the Moroccan scum in Holland – once again, not all are scum, but there is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe, mostly young people and they are not taken seriously”

Eric Cartman

osarusan wrote: »

Wilders:

He clearly specified his definition if scum, a far cry from the ‘all imigrants are scum’ painted above

Geuze

How would the following statements fare under any proposed / planned legislation:

(1) the majority of asylum-seekers in Ireland are bogus, they are actually economic migrants

(2) imprisonment rates of travellers are higher than non-travellers because travellers have a higher rate of committing crime than non-travellers

Is there a definitive answer to my question?

Or would it be up to a Judge to make a decision?