Hate Speech Public Consultation

Hector Savage

Geuze wrote: »

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?

Sounds like hate speech to me - BIGOT!!!

osarusan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

I'm just pointing out that he did use the word 'scum'.

You are correct that he clarified that he was not talking about all migrants, although I don't think the piece I quoted painted him as saying 'all immigrants are scum'.

Getting back to the post that started this, it's a rant from a far-right MP from 14 months ago, about a pact that came into effect 8 days after he made the speech.

I wonder why it is surfacing, or resurfacing, now.

WrenBoy

Geuze wrote: »

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?

I'll send you a care package when you get to the Gulag.

alastair

Geuze wrote: »

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?

The first statement would have nothing to do with the legislation. It’s a pretty dumb statement all the same. Failed asylum seekers get no real economic benefit out of their claim, and successful asylum seekers have demonstrated they had a legitimate claim

The second statement is framed by ethnicity and presupposes that imprisonment rates are an accurate measure of criminality rates. There’s plenty of evidence that certain sectors of society face a higher likelihood of imprisonment for criminal activity that other sector’s don’t. But no - it wouldn’t qualify as hate speech.

Geuze

alastair wrote: »

There’s plenty of evidence that certain sectors of society face a higher likelihood of imprisonment for criminal activity that other sector’s don’t. But no - it wouldn’t qualify as hate speech.

Good.

I'm glad to hear that we aren't heading towards an Orwellian dystopia where making factual statements is an offence.

alastair

Geuze wrote: »

Good.

I'm glad to hear that we aren't heading towards an Orwellian dystopia where making factual statements is an offence.

Neither statement was particularly factual though. Just because they wouldn’t qualify as hate speech, doesn’t make them accurate.

wellwhynot

alastair wrote: »

Neither statement was particularly factual though. Just because they wouldn’t qualify as hate speech, doesn’t make them accurate.

I would say they are as they are backed up by government stats.Have you links to disprove please?

1800_Ladladlad

osarusan wrote: »

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



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

Well isn't this ironic:pac:

Annasopra

Geuze wrote: »

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?

Impossible to answer until there is a clear picture of the proposed legislation

1800_Ladladlad

alastair wrote: »

The first statement would have nothing to do with the legislation. It’s a pretty dumb statement all the same. Failed asylum-seekers get no real economic benefit out of their claim, and successful asylum seekers have demonstrated they had a legitimate claim

The asylum system is there to provide protection to those that are fleeing persecution. It is not an alternative to the working visa program. Many have failed to prove that they are in fact fleeing from prosecution and their life is under threat. Simply stating this would be considered hate speech under this is legislation. Maybe not by you, but most definitely by the government to take the reins of the state by strings. It was a genuine question and it does not deserve to be written off as being dumb.

wellwhynot

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The asylum system is there to provide protection to those that are fleeing persecution. It is not an alternative to the working visa program. Many have failed to prove that they are in fact fleeing from prosecution and their life is under threat. Simply stating this would be considered hate speech under this is legislation. Maybe not by you, but most definitely by the government to take the reins of the state by strings. It was a genuine question and it does not deserve to be written off as being dumb.

Absolutely agree. Those in direct provision long term are either:
a) economic migrants whose claims have been rejected and are pending appeal.
b) those that have destroyed their passports/documents

Also trans women are not real women.

^^^ Stating facts like the above in future will be hate speech which blows my mind. I won’t be voting FG again.

ghost of ireland past

It is not hateful to mock religions, or to criticise religions, in the same way as it's not hate speech to hate criminal gangs, or to hate criminals in general.

I am not saying that criminal gangs and religions are the same, I am just saying it should be ok to criticise both.

They should be no legal protections for religion in respect of hate speech.

I should be able to say I hate the spaghetti monster, without having to give a reason.

alastair

wellwhynot wrote: »

I would say they are as they are backed up by government stats.Have you links to disprove please?

You would? Care to produce these stats?

alastair

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The asylum system is there to provide protection to those that are fleeing persecution. It is not an alternative to the working visa program. Many have failed to prove that they are in fact fleeing from prosecution and their life is under threat. Simply stating this would be considered hate speech under this is legislation. Maybe not by you, but most definitely by the government to take the reins of the state by strings. It was a genuine question and it does not deserve to be written off as being dumb.

Nope - it’s dumb. And has nothing to do with the legislation, which has specific designated target groups in mind - none of which apply here.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

It is not hateful to mock religions, or to criticise religions, in the same way as it's not hate speech to hate criminal gangs, or to hate criminals in general.

I am not saying that criminal gangs and religions are the same, I am just saying it should be ok to criticise both.

They should be no legal protections for religion in respect of hate speech.

I should be able to say I hate the spaghetti monster, without having to give a reason.

Here is no hate speech legislation applicable to any religious belief. It only applies if you discriminate against adherents of those religions. You can hate the spaghetti monster belief all you like, but you can’t apply prejudice against believers of the spaghetti monster.

ghost of ireland past

You're not telling the truth Alastair. It's tedious now.

Here's the truth.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation

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.

If a group has horrible characteristics, then it is obvious that speaking about those horrible characteristics is likely to stir up hatred of that group, and that is unlawful.

So, you cannot speak the truth about groups with horrible characteristics, which could be criminal gangs, or it could be religions.

Hate speech is a terrible idea. It is appropriate to hate many things, and to hate many types of people and ideas.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

You're not telling the truth Alastair. It's tedious now.

Here's the truth.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation




If a group has horrible characteristics, then it is obvious that speaking about those horrible characteristics is likely to stir up hatred of that group, and that is unlawful.

So, you cannot speak the truth about groups with horrible characteristics, which could be criminal gangs, or it could be religions.

Hate speech is a terrible idea. It is appropriate to hate many things, and to hate many types of people and ideas.

I’m not lying at all. If you‘ve difficulty in understanding the difference between a religion and adherents of a religion, then I’m at a loss as to how to explain it to you. It’s pretty simple stuff.

And no - it’s definitely not okay to scapegoat people simply on the basis of their identity. What is okay is to hold people accountable for their own actions.

wellwhynot

alastair wrote: »

You would? Care to produce these stats?

I will get right on that as soon as you show me the links I asked for.

alastair

wellwhynot wrote: »

I will get right on that as soon as you show me the links I asked for.

You can’t have them, because nobody collates evidence of those claims. Simply making those clams on the back of zero evidence is kinda handy, but ultimately unconvincing.

You say you have stats, but all of a sudden are too shy to show them? Sounds like we both know you’ve no such stats.

ghost of ireland past

The law says you can hate criminal gangs, and individual gang members, as being a criminal gang is not a protected characteristic.

You cannot hate a religion, or individual religious members, even if they believe and do horrible things, as religion is a protected characteristic.


So you can hate MS-13 members, the criminal gang with the motto, 'Murder, Rape, Control', but you cannot criticise or hate the Inca religion, which sacrifices people to a Sun God. You cannot hate or criticise any religion, but nor can you start a new religion I don't think.


We need to stop pandering to religious people, and stop giving them protections in law.

Religions are often hateful and it should be fine to hate them in return, and their adherents.

The fact we're even talking about this is crazy. The world has gone mad.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The law says you can hate criminal gangs, and individual gang members, as being a criminal gang is not a protected characteristic.

You cannot hate a religion, or individual religious members, even if they believe and do horrible things, as religion is a protected characteristic.


So you can hate MS-13 members, the criminal gang with the motto, 'Murder, Rape, Control', but you cannot criticise or hate the Inca religion, which sacrifices people to a Sun God. You cannot hate or criticise any religion, but nor can you start a new religion I don't think.


We need to stop pandering to religious people, and stop giving them protections in law.

Religions are often hateful and it should be fine to hate them in return, and their adherents.

The fact we're even talking about this is crazy. The world has gone mad.

Hate speech has no bearing on any institutions or religions. It is solely about people being scapegoated on account of their identity. You can lambast a religion all you like - but you cannot make prejudicial statements about believers of that religion, simply because they subscribe to that faith. That’s entirely fair.

ghost of ireland past

You cannot lambast a religion if that offends it's adherents.

You cannot tell the truth about a religion if the truth offends the religion's adherents.


Our constitutional rights should prevent any successful prosecutions.
Section 40.

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

You cannot lambast a religion if that offends it's adherents.

You cannot tell the truth about a religion if the truth offends the religion's adherents.


Our constitutional rights should prevent any successful prosecutions.
Section 40.

You certainly can do precisely that. It’s not proscribed at all.

wellwhynot

alastair wrote: »

You can’t have them, because nobody collates evidence of those claims. Simply making those clams on the back of zero evidence is kinda handy, but ultimately unconvincing.

You say you have stats, but all of a sudden are too shy to show them? Sounds like we both know you’ve no such stats.

I have given you links before which you then ignore but how and ever:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/where-do-ireland-s-asylum-seekers-come-from-1.4088594?mode=amp

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/two-thirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-26855916.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/leo-varadkar-says-georgia-and-albania-driving-rise-in-asylum-seeker-numbers-961488.html


There are no direct flights from most of the countries listed in the articles. Africa for example is vast. If you are facing persecution from your neighbours you could just move instead of coming to a tiny island in Western Europe.

The Traveller stats. Traveller men make up 10% of the male prison population. Traveller women make up 22%. They are less than 1% of the population.

alastair

wellwhynot wrote: »

I have given you links before which you then ignore but how and ever:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/where-do-ireland-s-asylum-seekers-come-from-1.4088594?mode=amp

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/two-thirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-26855916.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/leo-varadkar-says-georgia-and-albania-driving-rise-in-asylum-seeker-numbers-961488.html


There are no direct flights from most of the countries listed in the articles. Africa for example is vast. If you are facing persecution from your neighbours you could just move instead of coming to a tiny island in Western Europe.

The Traveller stats. Traveller men make up 10% of the male prison population. Traveller women make up 22%. They are less than 1% of the population.

Direct flights mean nothing. Every recognised asylum seeker in this country came here via another safe country. Every single one of them. There’s absolutely no requirement on any asylum seeker to make a claim in a first, second, or third safe country.

And just because someone fails in an asylum claim, doesn’t mean you can assume they are an economic migrant. No reasons are made public for rejected claims.

No doubt that Travellers are over-represented in prisons, but that isn’t the same as over-represented in criminality. As already stated, there are plenty of indicators that certain sectors of society are more likely to be imprisoned for criminality, where other sectors are not, for the same criminal behaviour.

A study of sentencing in District Courts published in 1998 found that there were noteworthy differences in sentencing practices depending on the defendants’ backgrounds. It found that 29% of those from the most deprived areas received custodial sentences, compared to 19% of those from the least deprived area.

https://www.iprt.ie/site/assets/files/6264/position_paper_final.pdf

Manach

alastair wrote: »

Hate speech has no bearing on any institutions or religions. It is solely about people being scapegoated on account of their identity. You can lambast a religion all you like - but you cannot make prejudicial statements about believers of that religion, simply because they subscribe to that faith. That’s entirely fair.

No - the anti-Free speach law is at its core about a chilling effect on what a citizen is allowed is say on a political matter. It is not the states role to pick winners or losers in a political debate nor deem to rule certain topics as settled or beyond discssion within a functional democracy. I've read books that seek to support "Hate Speech" laws by claiming in essence that the higher freedom of societal cohesion is paramount (Speech Police by Kaye and Internet of Garbage by Jeong) but the case has not been made to justify the erosion of the fundamental foundation of liberty - that of political speech.

alastair

Manach wrote: »

No - the anti-Free speach law is at its core about a chilling effect on what a citizen is allowed is say on a political matter. It is not the states role to pick winners or losers in a political debate nor deem to rule certain topics as settled or beyond discssion within a functional democracy. I've read books that seek to support "Hate Speech" laws by claiming in essence that the higher freedom of societal cohesion is paramount (Speech Police by Kaye and Internet of Garbage by Jeong) but the case has not been made to justify the erosion of the fundamental foundation of liberty - that of political speech.

There’s nothing political referenced in hate speech legislation at all. If your politics comprise scapegoating vulnerable people then you’re not engaged in politics.

ghost of ireland past

Some religions are political in nature, and they receive legal protections. That's bizarre and wrong.

Irish people need to start asserting our culture, and our right to live in our own homeland without interference, or displacement. There is nothing wrong with Irish culture and we owe nothing to the world.

Boggles

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Some religions are political in nature, and they receive legal protections. That's bizarre and wrong.

Irish people need to start asserting our culture, and our right to live in our own homeland without interference, or displacement. There is nothing wrong with Irish culture and we owe nothing to the world.

Assert our culture, what do you mean by that?

I assume you are a fluent native Gaeilge speaker so?

Also who is trying to displace you?

alastair

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Some religions are political in nature, and they receive legal protections. That's bizarre and wrong.

Irish people need to start asserting our culture, and our right to live in our own homeland without interference, or displacement. There is nothing wrong with Irish culture and we owe nothing to the world.

No religion receives legal protection. The blasphemy law was repealed. You’re confusing the right of religious adherents not to be scapegoated purely on the basis of their being in that group, with a legal support for the tenets of that religion. Not. The. Same. Thing.