Hate Speech Public Consultation

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

This is happening over there.
The College of Policing guidelines (in line with Stonewall, a big influence) calls for it.
Miller exhausted his options with the area constabulary via their different levels up to the top and all said he had definitely committed a non-crime hate crime/incident and no matter what, it would still be recorded in a database - him as a suspect and the complainant as the victim!

Again the UK. An entirely different political system. A more draconian state apparatus. A legal system that shares some elements of common law with us but is not bound to a constitution nor soon to the ECHR.

Perspective please. Focus instead on our impending legislation.

Gatling

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The Politburo did that to suppress dissent and retain power. Attaching an element of hate speech prohibition to their actions makes zilch sense.

Start with hate speech then expand it to include criticising governments and political parties and non elected NGOs ,

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

Start with hate speech then expand it to include criticising governments and political parties and non elected NGOs ,

Is that your plan?

Tell me how

Gatling wrote: »

Start with hate speech then expand it to include criticising governments and political parties and non elected NGOs ,

This is just GOP type fear mongering.

If you have paid close attention to the conversation around this legislation, the invitations for submissions, the public discussion, and the draft report on these, you can see how aware the Minister is of many of the concerns in relation to silencing debate or unfairly removing someone's right to free expression.

Sir Oxman

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Again the UK. An entirely different political system. A more draconian state apparatus. A legal system that shares some elements of common law with us but is not bound to a constitution nor soon to the ECHR.

Perspective please. Focus instead on our impending legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115682638&postcount=1863
The parallels are there.

Sir Oxman

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The Politburo did that to suppress dissent and retain power. Attaching an element of hate speech prohibition to their actions makes zilch sense.

It is very revealing who fought for these inclusions - who better than totalitarian systems.

The point being they are extremely powerful state tools now, internationally accepted.

Gatling

Tell me how wrote: »

, you can see how aware the Minister is of many of the concerns in relation to silencing debate or.

Tra's and NGOs will get the most say for whatever self identified minorities they claim to speak for

Pa ElGrande

Article 40 section 6 of the Irish constitution.

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –


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


The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.


The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

source

Legislating for Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Ireland

The term hate speech where used in this report includes both incitement (promoting or encouraging harm or unlawful discrimination against a person or group due to their real or perceived association with a protected characteristic), and direct verbal attacks intended to cause serious distress or alarm, due to a person’s association with a protected characteristic in the mind of the perpetrator.


In legal terms the second form of hate speech described above is closer to hate crime, since the act in itself, even without the hate element, is already likely to be a criminal offence under existing law.


In this report, a hate crime means any criminal offence which is carried out by the perpetrator with a hate motive, due to the victim’s real or perceived association with a protected characteristic.


source

From my reading it looks like they have the constitution backing in principle to create their hate speech legislation, however when looking at the report the term "protected characteristic" is a rather vague term to me and it comes across as instituting a modern caste system. i.e. a group with shared political and social interests that are legally protected.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

From my reading it looks like they have the constitution backing in principle to create their hate speech legislation, however when looking at the report the term "protected characteristic" is a rather vague term to me and it comes across as instituting a modern caste system. i.e. a group with shared political and social interests that are legally protected.

Protected characteristic is defined on page 25 of the report. There doesn't look to be anything too unexpected in there.

Not sure exactly what you mean by or determined the bit in bold.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Protected characteristic is defined on page 25 of the report. There doesn't look to be anything too unexpected in there.

Not sure exactly what you mean by or determined the bit in bold.

They have not defined it there (unintentionally humourous: atheists a religious group??). They will copy the UK and use the 9 protected groups ffrom the equal status act 2000, they have signalled they want to ad more groups, if they do for consistency they will have to update the act.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the ‘‘gender ground’’),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the ‘‘marital status ground’’),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the ‘‘family status ground’’),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the ‘‘sexual orientation ground’’),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, orthat one has a religious belief and the other has not (the‘‘religion ground’’),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the‘‘age ground’’),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either isnot or is a person with a different disability (the ‘‘disability ground’’),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnicor national origins (the ‘‘ground of race’’),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the ‘‘Traveller community ground’’),

source

The Irish government are not quite at levels of North Korean cenorship, the Irish constitution allows you the priviledge to keep your thoughts to yourself.

I was taught never to express my opinion, never to question anything. I was taught simply to follow what the government told me to do or say or think. I actually believed that our Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il, could read my mind, and I would be punished for my bad thoughts. And if he didn’t hear me, spies were everywhere, listening at the windows and watching in the school yard.

We were ordered to inform on anyone who said the wrong thing. We lived in fear. In most countries, a mother encourages her children to ask about everything, but not in North Korea. As soon as I was old enough to understand, my mother warned me to be careful about what I was saying. ‘Remember, Yeonmi-ya,’ she said gently, ‘even when you think you’re alone, the birds and mice can hear you whisper.’


source

However, I noticed this comment attributed to the minister that associates anyone who objects to hate speech legislation as far right bogeymen. It also contains another inaccuracy, we do not have free speech in Ireland this is clear in article 40, Irish people free speech is limited and the Irish government has a track record of censorship when they perceive their own power is under threat. It is likely in my opinion that the Irish government does today ask Google and Facebook to remove content that it finds objectionable and that these organisations do comply. This first came to my attention during the Ibrahim Halawa detention where Irish people who posted their support for him on youtube had their videos removed, the argument at the time was the Irish government did not want the country to be associated with supporting Muslim radicals and in parallel focused intelligence services and the Gardai to deal with this threat when some useed Ireland as a base to stage attacks on Britain. Irish government internet censorship is low key, I do not know how far the givernment have progressed since their first inquiries to ISPs about filtering content came to light.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee is aware she has a tightrope to walk between protecting minorities and protecting free speech.

She is also aware the Bill will be used as a rallying cry for far-right and racist groups worried the law will stifle their activities. Such groups have already starting protesting the issue. It will be the Government’s challenge to ensure they do not hijack the debate entirely.

source

Let's assume there are no ulterior motives piggy-backing on perceived victim groups to impose censorship of their own, what is the likely outcome of the Irish governments hate speech legislation? Will it be like the UK where one side in particular in the ongoing culture war uses agents of the state to further itself? or is this another aspect of the culture war that codifies a caste system where one group by classification of skin colour and genetalia become the untouchables i.e. the deplorables and another group moves into a higher caste by claiming victim status. The logic of the legislation could be to exclude political opposition from public discourse, and anyone else who falls foul of the legislation no matter how slight or unintentional will find themslves cast into the low ranking caste known as the deplorables.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Let's assume there are no ulterior motives piggy-backing on perceived victim groups to impose censorship of their own, what is the likely outcome of the Irish governments hate speech legislation? Will it be like the UK where one side in particular in the ongoing culture war uses agents of the state to further itself? or is this another aspect of the culture war that codifies a caste system where one group by classification of skin colour and genetalia become the untouchables i.e. the deplorables and another group moves into a higher caste by claiming victim status. The logic of the legislation could be to exclude political opposition from public discourse, and anyone else who falls foul of the legislation no matter how slight or unintentional will find themslves cast into the low ranking caste known as the deplorables.

Honestly it reads more like you are developing a screen play or a script for a new book rather than commenting on real world or likely outcomes from this process.

You clearly do not associate with anyone who might be categorized as belonging to a group who the legislation is intended to protect from being targeted because of such a categorization.

Your view that there is a culture war by which some have become untouchable. A counter view is that those who previously have specifically targeted people with the intent of attacking their identity or undermining them because of an identifiable characteristic or simply to cause them pain will likely be breaking the law.

As with other laws in relation to assault, they have been developed and evolved to protect all members of society from feeling that they are likely to be attacked or threatened.

This conversation, at this time, is happening largely because of the emergence and explosion of the internet and how it has evolved over the last 20 years. It is a timely consideration of the media, and how it is now being used.
It was similar reasoning that saw the development of GDPR.

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115682638&postcount=1863
The parallels are there.

We have a constitution. Free speech Article 40.6.

The European Convention of Human Rights is enshrined in our legal system. Article 10 applies to free speech.

The UK has no constitution and is dropping the ECHR. The parallels are not significant. Look instead to EU countries.

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It is very revealing who fought for these inclusions - who better than totalitarian systems.

The point being they are extremely powerful state tools now, internationally accepted.

You made a daft reference to the Soviet regime and hate speech. And you're puzzlingly continuing with your analogy.

Sir Oxman

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You made a daft reference to the Soviet regime and hate speech. And you're puzzlingly continuing with your analogy.

Historical fact isn't daft.

Sir Oxman

Seathrun66 wrote: »

We have a constitution. Free speech Article 40.6.

The European Convention of Human Rights is enshrined in our legal system. Article 10 applies to free speech.

The UK has no constitution and is dropping the ECHR. The parallels are not significant. Look instead to EU countries.

We also have a duty to keep state powers in check.

You appear to have no doubts at all and full trust in government when expanding state powers, is that correct?

Biker79

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Historical fact isn't daft.

You shouldn't prioritise facts over feelings.

Sir Oxman

Tell me how wrote: »

Honestly it reads more like you are developing a screen play or a script for a new book rather than commenting on real world or likely outcomes from this process.

You clearly do not associate with anyone who might be categorized as belonging to a group who the legislation is intended to protect from being targeted because of such a categorization.

Your view that there is a culture war by which some have become untouchable. A counter view is that those who previously have specifically targeted people with the intent of attacking their identity or undermining them because of an identifiable characteristic or simply to cause them pain will likely be breaking the law.

As with other laws in relation to assault, they have been developed and evolved to protect all members of society from feeling that they are likely to be attacked or threatened.

This conversation, at this time, is happening largely because of the emergence and explosion of the internet and how it has evolved over the last 20 years. It is a timely consideration of the media, and how it is now being used.
It was similar reasoning that saw the development of GDPR.

BiB, well according to the fashion of labelling human beings and shoving them into boxes I am a 'member' of one of those categories yet I can raise questions and urge people to be vigilant about any state expansion of law into free speech.
I know it will be passed, I only hope it's not vague and has the narrowest of application and a high bar.

Tell me how

Sir Oxman wrote: »

BiB, well according to the fashion of labelling human beings and shoving them into boxes I am a 'member' of one of those categories yet I can raise questions and urge people to be vigilant about any state expansion of law into free speech.
I know it will be passed, I only hope it's not vague and has the narrowest of application and a high bar.

If you read the report, which I think you did, you will see that many right up to the Minister are acutely aware of the desire to not infringe on 'necessary' free speech.

The 'necessary' is my word here and relates to that which is explorative, inquisitive, analytical of society and those in it but not that which is purely intended to target some of those people or being expressed while aware that it is demonstrably hurtful to some.

Sir Oxman

Tell me how wrote: »

If you read the report, which I think you did, you will see that many right up to the Minister are acutely aware of the desire to not infringe on 'necessary' free speech.

The 'necessary' is my word here and relates to that which is explorative, inquisitive, analytical of society and those in it but not that which is purely intended to target some of those people or being expressed while aware that it is demonstrably hurtful to some.

I did and I noted what she intimated.
I mean, 'hurtful' mentioned above needs to be nailed down or preferrably dumped, who decides who is hurt? - that's an open vast space for a start.
This has several stages to go through and many closed door establishment players at play so a close eye is required.

Pa ElGrande

Seathrun66 wrote: »

We have a constitution. Free speech Article 40.6.

The article is double-think on one line you have free speech and on the other you don't, the State can in theory punish you for absolutely anything its agents regard as immoral and as far as I know the article has never been tested in court. Here is what the last commitee to review it said about it back in 2008.

The Committee was of the view that the Article 40.6.1i appears to give undue priority of consideration to the limitations on freedom of speech rather than on the entitlement itself.

source

Also there is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. You can be punished with up to two years in prison and a maximum of a €10,000 fine if found guilty of saying or presenting something in which hatred would be likely to be stirred up against the prescribed groups in the act.

When the broundaries of what what we can say are defined in the constitution then we don't really have free speech and the wording opens the way for hate speech laws that give legal weight to the political correctness of the day as well as a phole plethora of micro-agressions that can be punished.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The article is double-think on one line you have free speech and on the other you don't, the State can in theory punish you for absolutely anything its agents regard as immoral and as far as I know the article has never been tested in court. Here is what the last commitee to review it said about it back in 2008.

Also there is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. You can be punished with up to two years in prison and a maximum of a €10,000 fine if found guilty of saying or presenting something in which hatred would be likely to be stirred up against the prescribed groups in the act.

When the broundaries of what what we can say are defined in the constitution then we don't really have free speech and the wording opens the way for hate speech laws that give legal weight to the political correctness of the day as well as a phole plethora of micro-agressions that can be punished.

It seems to me, but maybe I am misinterpreting things that people are saying both that the suggestion of this new legislation is evidence of creeping state over reach, or that people are likely to be prosecuted for expressing valid views and that laws have already been in place since at least 1989 and there is no need for new ones to be brought in.

Is this the case?

If the laws have been in place for 31 years, how many instances are there of people ending up being charged or prosecuted unreasonably? Would that time frame without significant examples of such cases not suggest that it will not happen in future?

Annasopra

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems to me, but maybe I am misinterpreting things that people are saying both that the suggestion of this new legislation is evidence of creeping state over reach, or that people are likely to be prosecuted for expressing valid views and that laws have already been in place since at least 1989 and there is no need for new ones to be brought in.

Is this the case?

If the laws have been in place for 31 years, how many instances are there of people ending up being charged or prosecuted unreasonably? Would that time frame without significant examples of such cases not suggest that it will not happen in future?

The current law has had almost no prosecutions and is unworkable.

Annasopra

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The article is double-think on one line you have free speech and on the other you don't, the State can in theory punish you for absolutely anything its agents regard as immoral and as far as I know the article has never been tested in court. Here is what the last commitee to review it said about it back in 2008.



Also there is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. You can be punished with up to two years in prison and a maximum of a €10,000 fine if found guilty of saying or presenting something in which hatred would be likely to be stirred up against the prescribed groups in the act.

When the broundaries of what what we can say are defined in the constitution then we don't really have free speech and the wording opens the way for hate speech laws that give legal weight to the political correctness of the day as well as a phole plethora of micro-agressions that can be punished.

Free speech isnt an absolute and has never been an absolute anywhere. It is a human right. It should be a human right. But there must be limitations to it when speech threatens or endagers the human rights of others. Human rights such as the right to be free from torture, the right to life, the right to safety and security, the right to equality can often be threatened by others speech. There must be a limitation on speech in cases like this where human rights to be free from torture, to life, to be safe and secure, to equality are threatened and particularly where they are strongly threatened.

V8 Interceptor

We should have something akin to the First Amendment in this Country, instead our Gombeen politicians are going the opposite way to silence dissent. Unbelievable they have the cheek to try and ram this crap through.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Free speech isnt an absolute and has never been an absolute anywhere. It is a human right. It should be a human right. But there must be limitations to it when speech threatens or endagers the human rights of others. Human rights such as the right to be free from torture, the right to life, the right to safety and security, the right to equality can often be threatened by others speech. There must be a limitation on speech in cases like this where human rights to be free from torture, to life, to be safe and secure, to equality are threatened and particularly where they are strongly threatened.

To be safe and secure? That's a little vague to be fair. We have a lot of people who are afraid of their shadows. I do t think that ****e should have protection under hate speech.

Sand

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The current law has had almost no prosecutions and is unworkable.

Isn't the more likely conclusion that the current law has been successful? It has either prevented the offence (which is the purpose of good law) or the offence simply isnt being committed (even better). Can you point to any case where the 1989 legislation was clearly ineffective?

This attempt at criminalizing "hate speech" is just a hammer in search of nails. The idea that 'fair and accurate reporting' needs a specific exemption from prosecution betrays just how low the bar is being set in the attempt to persecute people committing the age old crime of blasphemy. The implication is the Irish Times can freely publish a story that is hate speech as defined by the advocates of this law, but were I to repeat the facts of the story as a private citizen I could be prosecuted. It's bad law, poorly executed.

V8 Interceptor

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The current law has had almost no prosecutions and is unworkable.

My first reaction to that would be there's no offences being committed.

And what on earth kind of Press do we have when they're fully behind the curbing of the sacred right of freedom of speech?

Pa ElGrande

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Free speech isnt an absolute and has never been an absolute anywhere. It is a human right. It should be a human right. But there must be limitations to it when speech threatens or endagers the human rights of others. . . .

As you describe it freedom of speech cannot be a human right, by your definition it is a privilege that can only be excercised with the consent and conditions set by agents of the state. The right to life on the otherhand is inherent to us as humans, some of us regard that right it as a gift from God, others as natural, it is an absolute.

Free speech in Ireland is not a right, as a privilege it opens the door for the legislature to allow bureaucrats and judges to add nuances and exceptions such as perceptions of hate speech to the myriad of rules we have to follow and in so doing elevating some groups to favoured status while downgrading others to a lower caste.

If you threaten to commit a crime against another by threatening their property (i.e . their life or posessions) or libel them the existing laws already cover that ranging from a caution, fines or jail and I don't think anyone is disputing that.


The problem hate is an emotional response that belies reason. When the state prohibits some speech that is based on emotions then by implication emotions should be regulated by the state and in the case of hate speech that is not going to work because . . .

Tell me how

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

We should have something akin to the First Amendment in this Country, instead our Gombeen politicians are going the opposite way to silence dissent. Unbelievable they have the cheek to try and ram this crap through.

What crap is that? Trying to limit people being targeted in such a way to cause them stress, anxiety, fear for their lives in cases or, unfortunately in some cases, cause them to harm themselves.

What evidence is there that this is in a way to silence dissent or reasonable critical judgement?

If you can't critique those in power without resorting to hateful or inciteful language, do you really have any business judging anyone?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

To be safe and secure? That's a little vague to be fair. We have a lot of people who are afraid of their shadows. I do t think that ****e should have protection under hate speech.

Your post is a little vague. Can you give examples of people who are afraid of their own shadows and how you think it is being suggested that they will have protection as a consequence of this legislation?