Hate Speech Public Consultation

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

The same people who decided that copyright infringement and slander and incitement to violence were to be outlawed forms of expression.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, there never was.

After you celebrated black on white violence as getting even I don't think you can be taken seriously on this.

KiKi III

GarIT wrote: »

After you celebrated black on white violence as getting even I don't think you can be taken seriously on this.

That didn’t happen.

It's a blank check for those who want to push woke attitudes. It's a piece of legislation that allows for just about anything to be included within it, while protecting those most likely to be intolerant.

I suspect it will go down in flames though. It's one thing to say we're going to stop people speaking these ways, it's another thing to actually enforce it. Still, i find it worrying because it means greater oversight into the personal communication of people, which can easily be taken out of context.. This bill simply feeds the trolls.

KiKi III

GarIT wrote: »

And that time you said a white women should lose her job and be jailed for pulling a gun when she was being attacked by a black woman and her daughter that weren't letting her drive away.

All I know is I have clear memories of you being a big promoter of discrimination against white people, straight people and men. And now you're pushing for this. Says it all imo.

Listen hun, if you want to make stuff up about something I said on a thread months ago that you’ve deliberately decided to distort that’s grand, but I wont be engaging with you any further.

I think it says a lot that I’m like “it’s awful how regularly women get rape threats” and you respond with this utter nonsense.

Have a nap and a cookie or something.

touts

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Will discrimination against settled people still be allowed?

That's not discrimination. It's cultural expression.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

Listen hun, if you want to make stuff up about something I said on a thread months ago that you’ve deliberately decided to distort that’s grand, but I wont be engaging with you any further.

I think it says a lot that I’m like “it’s awful how regularly women get rape threats” and you respond with this utter nonsense.

Have a nap and a cookie or something.

I agree with you on rape threats but surely that can be legistlated for without this. You're just setting up a strawman of the worst possible type of speach to advocate for restricting all speach.
I'd imagine rape threats already come under harassment legislation.

You'd use the rape example to get the law passed and then use the law to jail someone who assumed someone with an Adams apple and a beard should be called he.

There is already law in place to deal with rape threats.

Maybe her department should focus on processing and deporting the backlog of asylum seekers instead of pressing ahead with drivel like this.

Youd swear they had no work built up as it is.

KiKi III

Edz87 wrote: »

There is already law in place to deal with rape threats.

Really? Which law is that, and how effective is it?

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Really? Which law is that, and how effective is it?

It doesn't matter how effective it is, because nothing will ever be effective enough. As long as there is even a little freedom left to people.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Really? Which law is that, and how effective is it?

From the Irish Statute Book

3.—(1) In this Act “aggravated sexual assault” means a sexual assault that involves serious violence or the threat of serious violence or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It doesn't matter how effective it is, because nothing will ever be effective enough. As long as there is even a little freedom left to people.

Yes, I’d prefer if women and minorities faced less abuse online and obviously that means I want all your freedom.

That’s a totally sensible interpretation of what I said.

NaFirinne

We now have it confirmed that the Government are planning for new Hate speech laws.

Making it a criminal offence.

I personally think this is continuing the trend of oppressing free speech and in turn erroding the country as a democracy.

Basically designed to further silent people of different world views.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...plan-1.4438898

I presume many people now welcome this, but i don't see it as a good thing in the long run for the country and it's people.

MontgomeryClift

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Maybe her department should focus on processing and deporting the backlog of asylum seekers instead of pressing ahead with drivel like this.

Youd swear they had no work built up as it is.

Right, but what makes you think that they have any inclination to deport asylum tourists?

Our ruling class has stated that they plan for population growth of one million over the next 25 years.

As the sterility of liberal democracy destroys native birth rates, that growth must come from immigration, and they don't care whether it's legal or not. There will be amnesty after amnesty after amnesty for illegals in order to make them legal.

This is where thought crime, a.k.a. "hate speech", comes in. They know the natives will find this process increasingly unpleasant, so they have to devise laws to make them afraid to complain about it.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Yes, I’d prefer if women and minorities faced less abuse online and obviously that means I want all your freedom.

That’s a totally sensible interpretation of what I said.

As opposed to your reinterpretation of what I said?

That's the problem with this kind of legislation. If there's someone like yourself driving the laws, it won't matter what people actually say... it'll depend on what you can twist it to be.

jam_mac_jam

Who decides what is "hate speech", I don't like the sound of some of this. I am really of the opinion that you should be able to say what you like once its not a threat of violence or you are inciting violence. How far does this go and is it completely subjective.

One great thing about the US is their constitutional protection of free speech. I can't really see any argument in favour of this. Its also a waste of resources for the Garda to be investigating people on twitter.

GarIT

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Who decides what is "hate speech", I don't like the sound of some of this. I am really of the opinion that you should be able to say what you like once its not a threat of violence or you are inciting violence. How far does this go and is it completely subjective.

One great thing about the US is their constitutional protection of free speech. I can't really see any argument in favour of this. Its also a waste of resources for the Garda to be investigating people on twitter.

Minorities decide. As someone in the majority you couldn't understand their struggle and therefore don't get an opinion.

_Kaiser_

As I've said before, social media and smartphones has a lot to answer for here. Whereas previously a lot of the stuff we see debated on this very forum would have been confined to the likes of The Sun or National Enquirer and treated for what it was, now anyone with a €40 phone and a Twitter account can have whatever crazy opinion they have broadcast to the planet in minutes, and have it picked up and legitimised by formerly respected mainstream media that has too many virtual columns to fill and little quality review. Add to that a growing cadre of politicians such as Leo V who lives by social media and whatever populist notion will boost his profile, and this is the result.

It's funny really how The West, and in particular the USA used to be seen as the ideals of freedom, progress and prosperity.... yet increasingly those same countries are becoming as repressive and draconian as the Communist and 3rd World countries they previously railed against.

biko

Just judging by the posts so far things will depend extremely much on who gets to interpret comments as hate speech or not.

The law must be crystal clear on this, but of course it won't be.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As opposed to your reinterpretation of what I said?

That's the problem with this kind of legislation. If there's someone like yourself driving the laws, it won't matter what people actually say... it'll depend on what you can twist it to be.

Explain to me what I misunderstood. You were going on about people taking all your freedom, no?

As for people twisting what you say, I have GarIT blatantly making up stuff I never said on the last page and then crying when he gets reported for it.

jam_mac_jam

GarIT wrote: »

Minorities decide. As someone in the majority you couldn't understand their struggle and therefore don't get an opinion.

How dare you deny my lived experience, I am a woman do therefore completely oppressed every day by the vicious patriarchy in Ireland.

John Doe1

My god, the lunatics really are controlling the asylum now.

So is hate speech debating the dubious benefits of multiculturalism? Stating that there are biological differences between men and women? That maybe Islam is not a religion of peace?

We do love censorship in this country, its morally equivelant to the ban on discussion of birth control and abortion.

Seathrun66

Edz87 wrote: »

There is already law in place to deal with rape threats.

What's the legislation?

GarIT

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What's the legislation?

It was quoted a few posts back

jam_mac_jam

John Doe1 wrote: »

My god, the lunatics really are controlling the asylum now.

So is hate speech debating the dubious benefits of multiculturalism? Stating that there are biological differences between men and women? That maybe Islam is not a religion of peace?

We do love censorship in this country, its morally equivelant to the ban on discussion of birth control and abortion.

Yes, those statements would all be considered "hate speech" by some. Or you get the bull**** dogwhistle response.

It will be in your house next. Once its acceptable to be illegal online.

Slippery slope.

Seathrun66

GarIT wrote: »

It was quoted a few posts back

No legislation dealing with rape threats has been specified on this thread.

GarIT

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No legislation dealing with rape threats has been specified on this thread.

Yes there has. Unless you are trying to argue the threat of sexual assault doesn't cover threat of rape.

jam_mac_jam

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No legislation dealing with rape threats has been specified on this thread.

Do you need somebody to read it to you? its just above.

GT89

Wonder will the Gardai become more focused on hate speech than on actual crime now like the UK police

Eric Cartman

Kivaro wrote: »

So basically, those with an embedded, skewed and warped (unrealistic) opinion of our lives here in Ireland will be exempt from prosecution. Those from academia and arts are the ones, front and foremost, in pushing neo-liberal policies on our country. That doesn't seem fair now, does it?

I wonder will those of us who do not buy Dr. Ebun's books or hire her company to give diversity lessons to our kids will be prosecuted because she will "perceive" it as racism. This concept of "perceived" racism is a very dangerous concept, and we will see it as an excuse going forward in the courts as some sort of defense for abhorrent behaviour and criminality.

This is bad. Very bad.

I can actually picture Ebun Joseph wringing her hands together so hard they might catch fire.

So who wants to be my cell mate in the new gulags that will be required for wrong think.