Hate Speech Public Consultation

Sir Oxman

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

As always, it's who gatekeeps the gatekeepers.

WrenBoy

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

Its too pervasive it smacks of informing the gestapo. Plus the obvious question of what hate speech is, its an amorphous nebulous idea that no one seems to nail down. If my elderly aunt thinks the whole trans gender debate is mad and doesn't agree with it, is that a crime now ? If not, why not?

Maybe just to be safe we could have some uniformed civil servants going from house to house during the Christmas holidays just sitting off to the side making sure no one is breaking any hate speech laws, I don't see any reason not to, what have you got to hide ?

Kivaro

WrenBoy wrote: »

Its too pervasive it smacks of informing the gestapo. Plus the obvious question of what hate speech is, its an amorphous nebulous idea that no one seems to nail down. If my elderly aunt thinks the whole trans gender debate is mad and doesn't agree with it, is that a crime now ? If not, why not?

Maybe just to be safe we could have some uniformed civil servants going from house to house during the Christmas holidays just sitting off to the side making sure no one is breaking any hate speech laws, I don't see any reason not to, what have you got to hide ?

That's funny, as it was the mental image than I had when reading about this proposal/suggestion by the Scottish Justice Secretary. But instead of the Gestapo all in black, I envisioned Antifa thugs all in black banging on our doors in order to beat up our elderly aunts and uncles before bringing them to the ancient stocks to be publicly abused and humiliated. The likes of Antifa would be the Thought Police in this Justice Secretary's world.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

statesaver wrote: »

Scotland, Jesus lads...

https://twitter.com/JTasioulas/status/1321409453489606660

Wow, Scotland is very white. My shock.

biko

His anti-white sentiments should be investigated by police.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

biko wrote: »

His anti-white sentiments should be investigated by police.

You can't be racist if you've got dark skin.

Those are the rules.

Imagine going to Africa and moaning that it's too "black".

ArrBee

osarusan wrote: »

I get that people are unhappy with the legislation itself and feel it goes too far or is fundamentally flawed, but I don't understand the outrage over the comments about what happens over the dinner table Being prosecuted.

If somebody is inciting another to (for example) murder gay people over the dinner table (or on the theatre stage) I don't see any reason to exempt that. I don't see any reason to exempt it anywhere.

Surely the issue is with the law itself, rather than the fact that it will be applied everywhere.

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

ArrBee wrote: »

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

No, the whole thing needs scrapping.

What's the difference between telling a Paddy English man joke in private with your friends and telling the same joke on facebook? For one you're ok and the other is classed "hate speech".

We don't need this, it doesn't benefit anyone except those that want to abuse it and by god it will be abused by nutters.

osarusan

ArrBee wrote: »

I, for one, think that there should be a difference between what is said in private vs public in the eyes of the law.

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

If you think that's the level you need to go to for it to be considered hate speech you've some rude awakening coming.

osarusan

Hunky Monster wrote: »

If you think that's the level you need to go to for it to be considered hate speech you've some rude awakening coming.

Then it's an issue of the low bar that has been set, rather than the specific issue of it entering the home, as I've repeatedly said.

AllForIt

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

Because the reach is much further, obviously.

And maybe less obviously, one is going to the park with premeditation to say something to have influence over others where the other is just some casually made remake made just to express one's opinion.


...and the proposed law is just about speech. It's not about what you hope to happen as a result. It's just the fact you said it at all and your're done for. It's absurd is what it is.

Sand

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why a person inciting a family member to kill the gays over dinner should be treated differently to the same person doing the same thing to an audience in the park, say.

There is already laws against conspiracy to murder. This law is to make it illegal to discuss in your own home views which the government doesn't approve of. To crush all dissent. When the price of multiculturalism is living in a state with the same freedom of speech as East Germany you have to ask if its worth it.

Wibbs

It isn't.

1800_Ladladlad

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.


Section 2 of the bill:

An offence is aggravated by hate crime against a relevant individual if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual, or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic,anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual.

Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

TomTomTim

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.


Section 2 of the bill:



Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.




This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

Never heard of her, so looked her up. Here's one of the first tweets I came across

https://twitter.com/lichamber/status/1325702098923659264

The fact that this nonsense has never been nipped in the bud is a testament to the fact that feminists ignore all information that doesn't suit them.

1800_Ladladlad

The penalties outlined in section 4:

“Every person guilty of committing a relevant offence, aggravated by hate crime pursuant to section 3(1) shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to the maximum penalty that can be imposed for the commission of said offence”

tbrve

TomTomTim

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The penalties outlined in section 4:





tbrve

If the law was applied fairly you could very quickly expose all the holes in it by using it against the people who support it. Sadly, this will likely only apply to people who oppose modern order.

Sand

TomTomTim wrote: »

If the law was applied fairly you just very quickly expose all the holes in it by using it against the people who support it. Sadly, this will likely only apply to people who oppose modern order.

A law like this is a necessary tool of totalitarian government. The advocates of laws like these can only justify it by claiming it will only be used against bad people. They can't even conceive that it will be used against them.

biko

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This makes it illegal to not be a baizuo.

Wibbs

Well we had the blasphemy law, this is just another version to the new faith and just as bloody ridiculous and like the previous generations of the religious we'll always have enough of the new breed of crawthumpers behind it and hoping to wield it to shut down any dissent.

Sir Oxman

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.


Section 2 of the bill:



Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.




This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

And I was told on this thread many months ago by someone who considers themselves intelligent - nah, won't happen.
Perception?? Nah.
Here we are.

This is a charter for the type of posters on here that revel in critical theory and for every malicious, narcissistic personality type to bump their delusions.
Basically, a charter for ass*oles to point a finger.

political analyst

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The other day, Finna Fail introduced their Hate Crime Bill a remarkably poor piece of legislation.


Section 2 of the bill:



Section 2 (b) for example, what evidence will be used to determine the motivation of an attack in court? Is a judge going to read the mind of individuals? Bonkers. Under the terms of this proposed law, a persons perception of a crime , which they feel (not think) has been motivated by hate is all that is required for a hate incident. They are trying to apply motive to existing crimes as an aggravating factor for the prosecution.




This is the micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishment, all under the guise of progressivism. The Government will seek to utilize "hate" to remove dissent, manipulate and control any comments deemed detrimental to their vile ideology. Seeing the perceptions and beliefs of others as crimes while choosing their own ideology as the only way and the truth.

What an illogical and incoherent load sh*te from Senators Lisa Chambers, Fiona O’Loughlin, and Robbie Gallagher

But that already happens in common law anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3207822.stm

But they found her guilty of an alternative charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

political analyst

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we had the blasphemy law, this is just another version to the new faith and just as bloody ridiculous and like the previous generations of the religious we'll always have enough of the new breed of crawthumpers behind it and hoping to wield it to shut down any dissent.

Unlike the blasphemy law, the new legislation can be challenged in the courts under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

TomTomTim

political analyst wrote: »

Unlike the blasphemy law, the new legislation can be challenged in the courts under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

God help us then, as they ruled that calling Muhammad a pedophile was not considered free speech. If that isn't freedom of expression, then we really don't have any. This essentially means that certain facts don't fall within freedom of expression if it doesn't suit our masters. You'll see no similar cases for people calling Catholics pedophiles.

political analyst

TomTomTim wrote: »

God help us then, as they ruled that calling Muhammad a pedophile was not considered free speech. If that isn't freedom of expression, then we really don't have any. This essentially means that certain facts don't fall within freedom of expression if it doesn't suit our masters. You'll see no similar cases for people calling Catholics pedophiles.

That ECHR case concerned Austrian law. The ECHR uses a margin of appreciation, meaning that a ruling on a particular case in one country won't necessarily be the same as a ruling on a similar case in another country.

Catholics themselves would be entitled to make a complaint under the new law.

coffee_cake

“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

This is really scary

seamus

bluewolf wrote: »

This is really scary

Why?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Why?

because absolutely EVERYTHING has the potential to offend if it is up to any individuals perception

coffee_cake

seamus wrote: »

Why?

As someone not familiar with legislation in general, it seems so wide open to interpretation.
Perceived as? by anyone?
So if everyone involved agrees something wasn't motivated by any of those items but someone else pops up and goes no i've decided it was... ? surely you could find anyone guilty of a hate crime for nearly anything if it's that loose.

Is this existing in law elsewhere already? is there a burden of evidence for perceived as?
i see it even specifies perceived age, so if someone is 17 and you knew they were 17 but someone argues you must have thought they were 16 and therefore a minor, you're guilty of a hate crime (thinking of some sort of sexual assault here) ? or 18/17 whatever