Hate Speech Public Consultation

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118425197#Comment_118425197

no, clearly those doing that are knuckle draggers, however that is already covered by existing legislation.

existing legislation deals with stuff like this perfectly fine and has the support of the majority.

end of the road

deleted.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426891#Comment_118426891

Can you be specific about examples of hate crime that are not punishable under existing legislation that are covered under this new legislation, that you support.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426959#Comment_118426959

You assume I support it.

And if you read the proposed legislation properly, you would see that it mostly makes amendments to the NFOATP act, the Public Order act, and Criminal damage acts. But of course you haven't read it all.

Chips Lovell

Current legislation only covers incitement. Proposed new legislation will cover that and add the following offences:

• Assault aggravated by prejudice 
• Assault causing harm, aggravated by prejudice
• Causing serious harm, aggravated by prejudice 
• Threats to kill or cause serious harm, aggravated by prejudice 
• Coercion aggravated by prejudice 
• Harassment aggravated by prejudice 
• Endangerment aggravated by prejudice 
• Damaging property, aggravated by prejudice 
• Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, aggravated by prejudice 
• Distribution or display in a public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene, aggravated by prejudice 
• Entering building, etc. with intent to commit an offence, aggravated by prejudice 
• Assault with intent to cause bodily harm or commit an indictable offence, aggravated by prejudice
• Denial or gross trivialisation of crimes of genocide

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426858#Comment_118426858

Shouldn't be racist any where,but racism is pretty easily identified ,but people reporting others to authorities for a general disagreement,under the guise of oh I feel a reply to me or someone is a perceived as a hate crime or some variety, which then leads to a full police investigation ,but when it's realised there was no hate crime but somehow the complainent is still a victim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427113#Comment_118427113

As I said, amendments to other acts.

Anyway, no guarantee it will get through, personally, as it is I don't see it being passed

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426904#Comment_118426904

Did you read my post to you Robbie, maybe 2 posts back. That will answer your question.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426922#Comment_118426922

There has been only 5 convictions under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 in the past 30 years.

BattleCorp1

These are the bits I have the most problems with.

Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, aggravated by prejudice 

Distribution or display in a public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene, aggravated by prejudice 

Threatening is easy to define. Abusive........not so easy to define. Insulting.........not practicable to define it as it's very subjective. What one person finds insulting, another person isn't bothered by it. It shouldn't be a crime to say something or distribute something that someone finds insulting. Way too subjective.

Sometimes it's simple and sometimes it's difficult to determine if someone acted 'with prejudice'? If I insult a woman or a black person or someone with one leg shorter than the other, does that mean I acted 'with prejudice because she is of a protected characteristic and I've committed an offence? If I send out a meme that makes fun of travellers, or people with one leg shorter than the other, how do you know I acted 'with prejudice'.

My fear here is that you won't be able to say anything negative (that could be perceived as being insulting or obscene) to anybody in a protected characteristic. This legislation, if passed, gives too much power to shut down opposing views.

Chips Lovell

It should be noted that "Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place" and "distribution or display in a public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene, aggravated by prejudice" are both already offences under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The new offences are simply both of the above with an aggravating factor.

In short, this has been on the statute book for 28 years and I'm unawawre of any case where someone was prosecuted for sharing their views because of subjective interpretations of what was abusive or insulting. Lot of scaremongering happening.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427637#Comment_118427637

And?

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427297#Comment_118427297

I don't know TQM did I read your post. It would probably be easier for us both if you just answered the question.

Was the Austrian woman we were discussing convicted under hate crimes in Austria and was she appealing a conviction under hate crime legislation to the ECHR under her article 10 rights?

Or was she convicted on what amounts to blasphemy laws in Austria?

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427787#Comment_118427787

"unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful. However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/planned-hate-speech-laws-will-contain-higher-bar-for-prosecution-1.4438867

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427986#Comment_118427986

"In a report published in December 2017 by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), Ireland ranked highest among the EU Member States in which respondents from a sub-Saharan background experienced 6 or more physical attacks due to their ethnic or immigrant background in the 5 years preceding the survey (21% of respondents compared to the EU group average of 9%). 8% of respondents in Ireland reported having experienced 6 or more physical attacks due to their ethnic or immigrant background in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared to an EU group average of 2%. In an earlier FRA study, published in 2014, Ireland recorded the second highest rate of hate-motivated violence against transgender people in Europe: In the 12 months prior to the survey, 13% of trans respondents in Ireland reported having been physically or sexually assaulted or threatened with violence, in attacks either wholly or partly motivated by transphobia, compared to the EU average of 8%." Clearly the existing legislation is not fit for purpose.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428023#Comment_118428023

This is a discussion Robbie. What would be easier is if you read peoples' posts. That way, you won't have to ask questions that have already been answered. It is post number 2244, a mere one page back from this one. I find it strange that you 'don't know' if you read it.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428225#Comment_118428225

I did read your post. I didn't remember it because it wasn't relevant to the discussion it was whataboutism from you, I can see that now having reread it and wasting my time.

The woman you are referring to was not convicted on hate crimes, she did not appeal a hate crime conviction under her article 10 rights to the ECHR. She was convicted under what amounts to blasphemy laws in Austria and she failed three times in courts to prove the validity of her statement.

I hold both the Austrian court system and the ECHR's opinion on this matter well above yours an anonymous poster on boards.ie.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428349#Comment_118428349

Great Robbie. The point made of course was that she was charged for saying what she did under the hate crime laws there, and this has the potential to create a climate of fear. The post was only made a few hours ago and you've already forgotten the contents. Maybe you should invest in some omega tablets. There's a good lad. Have a nice evening Robbie.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428468#Comment_118428468

Not being found guilty under a law will create a "climate of fear", please do explain this logic?

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428498#Comment_118428498

Sure it's all off topic according to you. As I said, have a nice evening Robbie.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428529#Comment_118428529

Well actually now we are discussing the relevant hate crime which she wasn't convicted under, so feel free to explain how this Austrian woman being found not guilty of a hate crime created a climate of fear.

Seeing as the case was back in 2011 I guess you will be able to support this climate of fear claim with actual events in Austria following the states failure to convict her on said hate crime legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427787#Comment_118427787

Section 6 of the public order act 1994, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place. In the books since 94, that's 28 years.

Literally thousands have been found guilty in the district courts all over the country.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426922#Comment_118426922

No. Thats not true. Am attempt to prosecute a person for doing just that failed because of the existing legislations inadequacy.

Man cleared of online hatred against Travellers (irishexaminer.com)

The Facebook Traveller Case-Implications for Social Media and Freedom of Speech - Terry Gorry & Co. Solicitors (businessandlegal.ie)

In fact The Law Reform Commission explains in detail why

Full Colour Cover Report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety.pdf (lawreform.ie)

The 1989 Act, which is the principal Act within this area, is ineffective, with only a limited number of convictions secured under it.329 This is because the offences under the Act are very difficult to prove, particularly the stirring up hatred offence under section 2.

So your assertion that the current law deals with the example given is untrue and your assertion the current law deals with stuff like this generally perfectly fine is untrue too.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118425793#Comment_118425793

Ok so you would support it being prosecuted?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427986#Comment_118427986

It proves the current legislation is unworkable

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428468#Comment_118428468

How could she be charged under hate crime laws if she was charged under blasphemy laws. Hate Crime and Blasphemy are not the same thing. Hate Crime and Hate Speech are not the same thing.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428782#Comment_118428782

But she was. And that's the problem. Insulting the prophet can be construed as being hateful.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429072#Comment_118429072

In Austrian law. So not really relevant.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429072#Comment_118429072

She wasn't charged under hate crime legislation. You have been told that about 3 times already. Perhaps you're just deliberately acting stupid.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429285#Comment_118429285

Haha well then why did you respond to post. It's relevant because it's possible the same can happen here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429285#Comment_118429285

It's quite conceivable, given the wording of the proposed legislation, that the same could easily happen here.

So whilst it might not be relevant today, it may be relevant at some point in the future after the legislation has passed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429072#Comment_118429072

Hating a murdering, raping, pillaging warlord is perfectly normal. But we are only allowed to criticise the failed warlord that took a newly united german nation and didnt manage to conquer an empire

Chips Lovell

It's unlikely to happen here because, unlike Austria, we voted to remove blasphemy laws. I'd be very surprised if we voted to reintroduce them.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429301#Comment_118429301

Clueless as always Bubbly. She was charged under hate crime legislation, aswell as what is a de-facto blasphemy law. Thankfully she was acquitted on the former. But the fact that charges can be laid for doing so is the problem.

'N, a journalist working at a weekly journal, clandestinely attended two of E.S.’s seminars on October 15 and November 12, 2009. As a result of what was said at these seminars the journal laid criminal complaints against E.S. and a formal preliminary investigation was instituted during which E.S. was questioned, on February 11, 2010, about the content of the seminars. The investigation focused on various derogatory statements about Muhammed and the religion of Islam that E.S. had made which included her linking paedophilia with the religion [para. 13]. She also said that Muhammed “was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children” and that Muslim men saw Muhammed as the “ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim” and that an attempt to emulate him means that “Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system.” [para. 13].

On August 12, 2010, the Vienna Public Prosecutor charged E.S. under article 283 of the Criminal Code for inciting hatred. This article states: “(1) Whoever, in a manner capable of endangering public order, publicly incites to commit a hostile act against a church or religious community established within the country or against a group defined by its belonging to such a church or religious community, a race, a nation, a tribe or a state, shall be liable to up to two years’ imprisonment; (2) Similarly, whoever publicly incites against a group defined in paragraph 1 or tries to insult or disparage them in a manner violating human dignity shall equally be held liable.”

On February 15, 2011, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court acquitted E.S. on the charges under article 283 but convicted her for “publicly disparaging an object of veneration of … Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation” under article 188 of the Criminal Code which criminalises “disparaging religious doctrines” [para. 12]. Article 188 states: “Whoever, in circumstances where his or her behaviour is likely to arouse justified indignation, publicly disparages or insults a person who, or an object which, is an object of veneration of a church or religious community established within the country, or a dogma, a lawful custom or a lawful institution of such a church or religious community, shall be liable to up to six months’ imprisonment or a day-fine for a period of up to 360 days.” The Court held that E.S. had “conveyed the message that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies” and that “Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship” but that E.S. had not intended to disparage all Muslims [para. 14]. The Court made a distinction between child marriage and paedophilia and said that while “criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies” [para. 14].

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/e-s-v-austria/

Blasphemy laws and modern hate speech legislation are two sides of the same coin.

Both seek to protect their own ideas at the expense of the majority.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429341#Comment_118429341

So charges against her under hate crime legislation were thrown out, so what's your issue? The courts did their job. She was convicted under a blasphemy law.

You do know we have the Incitement to Hatred act here since 1989?

Chips Lovell

It’s almost as if some people want this to be true in order to have something to be cross about.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429314#Comment_118429314

Can a person be tried and convicted for denigrating a religion in Ireland?

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429405#Comment_118429405

Under the new legislation it is very possible yes. The above quote made by the lady in this case could be construed as being reckless and inciting hatred (significant ill will) against a group of people due to them worshipping a paedophile.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427637#Comment_118427637

yes which shows that it does work, because only cases that fit such a definition get prosecuted and we have a high bar in terms of proving that such actually did take place.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429535#Comment_118429535

And do you think she could be prosecuted under present legislation in this country?

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428679#Comment_118428679

no, they aren't untrue.

if the prosecution are unable to provide sufficient proof then that is on them, not on the legislation which is fine.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429560#Comment_118429560

Aswell as many cases may have been prosecuted under section 6 of the criminal code due to less onerous proof being required.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429606#Comment_118429606

You know more than the Law Reform Comission. 🤣. Pull the other one. I proved your statements wrong. Your statements were untrue so stop embarassing yourself trying to pretend you are right when you are wrong.

y0ssar1an22

has anyone here tried to define their own version of hate speech?

its seems like something near on impossible to define without having unintended consequences

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430338#Comment_118430338

that is what you want to believe but you are incorrect on all counts.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430376#Comment_118430376

Just saying "nanana Im right" proves nothing. If you have some actual argument provide it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430606#Comment_118430606

I agree.

If you have some actual argument, provide it.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430648#Comment_118430648

Yes. The law reform commission has stated the 1989 law is ineffective and needs to be updated.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429389#Comment_118429389

Or they have a genuine concern. People should be involved in what legislation is being proposed by the government.