Hate Speech Public Consultation

Annasopra

[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.

You dont believe that people have the right to safety?

DeadHand

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You dont believe that people have the right to safety?

Ah, the Cathy Newman riposte.

TomTomTim

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You dont believe that people have the right to safety?

The problem here is that posters like yourself view dissenting opinions that surround any minority group or diversity as harm. Taking that to the extreme could mean that no one should be able to discuss any such topic, because in your mind it could harm the people being discussed. You, yourself, are a text book example of this extremist mindset, which can be seen on any similar topic you engage in. As bad as these laws may end up being, I don't think they'll be extreme enough for you, Joey.

DeadHand

Tell me how wrote: »

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

The point you are continually, deliberately missing is that this proposed legislation is nebulous enough to be used as a tool by those in power to criminalise those critiques. They can define what “hate” is because the legislation does not do so clearly.

Once on the books, bad law such as this can be used by anyone against anyone.

For now, you cheerlead for authoritarianism because you assume only people who disagree with you will be made to suffer by it. Ironically, it is your own thinly concealed hatred for those who have the gall to hold differing opinions to your own that lets you ignore the potential long term consequences of this approach.

Emotive arguments make bad laws, and are deployed to defend bad laws.

Annasopra

TomTomTim wrote: »

The problem here is that posters like yourself view dissenting opinions that surround any minority group or diversity as harm. Taking that to the extreme could mean that no one should be able to discuss any such topic, because in your mind it could harm the people being discussed. You, yourself, are a text book example of this extremist mindset, which can be seen on any similar topic you engage in. As bad as these laws may end up being, I don't think they'll be extreme enough for you, Joey.

Thats hilarious really. I support a balanced human rights based approach which advocates freedom of expression as a human right but of course recognises there are necessary limitations when other human rights are threatened.

BattleCorp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats hilarious really. I support a balanced human rights based approach which advocates freedom of expression as a human right but of course recognises there are necessary limitations when other human rights are threatened.

If I say I don't think transgender people are right in the head, does that mean that I'm threatening them?

If I say a high proportion of travellers are involved in crime, does that mean that I'm threatening them.

If I say most serial killers are white, does that mean I'm threatening them?

If I say all politicians are backstabbing baztards, does that mean I'm threatening them?

Do any of the above statements threaten someone's human rights?

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Historical fact isn't daft.

There are no historical facts about the Soviet Union Politburo enacting hate speech legislation.

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

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?

I simply understand the difference between our legal system and that of the UK. Before posting again regarding Ireland copying the UK I urge you to research the two jurisdictions.

Seathrun66

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.

You do realise that our constitution is underpinned by ECHR Article 10, don't you?

Seathrun66

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.

And yet here you are sowing dissent. With no ramifications.

V8 Interceptor

Tell me how wrote: »

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?

Having something akin to the US First Ammendment is not crap my friend.

The problem is clear. Anyone can claim someone else caused them stress or anxiety, even by looking at them crooked. All you have to do is look at the semi Police state the UK is turning into where the Police are monitoring thought crime.

This is a bill to protect the Ebun Joseph's and all the other pro mass immigration quangos and nutters and to silence the native Irish by smashing them into line with the "racist/xenophobic" bludgeon.

You really think a native will have any recourse under these new laws?

We already have laws and the freedoms we've always had should not be up on offer for anyone.

V8 Interceptor

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And yet here you are sowing dissent. With no ramifications.

Yet. That's the point isn't it?

Seathrun66

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Yet. That's the point isn't it?

And without being curtailed by Irish and European law. So continue doing so without inciting violence and you'll be fine.

V8 Interceptor

So these new laws are about inciting violence? The chap above said they're about making someone feel uneasy.

The current laws cover insightment to violence don't they?

Tell me how

DeadHand wrote: »

The point you are continually, deliberately missing is that this proposed legislation is nebulous enough to be used as a tool by those in power to criminalise those critiques. They can define what “hate” is because the legislation does not do so clearly.

Once on the books, bad law such as this can be used by anyone against anyone.

For now, you cheerlead for authoritarianism because you assume only people who disagree with you will be made to suffer by it. Ironically, it is your own thinly concealed hatred for those who have the gall to hold differing opinions to your own that lets you ignore the potential long term consequences of this approach.

Emotive arguments make bad laws, and are deployed to defend bad laws.

This is just the GOP type fearmongering I referred to yesterday.

You can go ahead and be consumed by what you think my motivations are in relation to this, it's more your imagination again than anything I have written.

All of your fears in relation to this seem to be either purely speculation (for whatever reason) or because you genuinely think that your views are likely to come under scrutiny.

You should read your final sentence a few times and apply some retrospective analysis.

Tell me how

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Having something akin to the US First Ammendment is not crap my friend.

The problem is clear. Anyone can claim someone else caused them stress or anxiety, even by looking at them crooked. All you have to do is look at the semi Police state the UK is turning into where the Police are monitoring thought crime.

This is a bill to protect the Ebun Joseph's and all the other pro mass immigration quangos and nutters and to silence the native Irish by smashing them into line with the "racist/xenophobic" bludgeon.

You really think a native will have any recourse under these new laws?

We already have laws and the freedoms we've always had should not be up on offer for anyone.

Yeah, the first amendment was written with specific consideration as to the medium of the internet and how the cloak of anonymity would be used to mask so much hatred or poor motivations.

The rest of your post has even less basis in reality than the likelihood of the above.

But hey, the fearmongering worked for he who must not be named in the US (until they eventually saw sense), it worked in the UK for Brexit, thankfully, so far, it is limited to a couple dozen people waving copies of the constitution at lockdown protests.

What the Minister/Dept has done thus far in relation could not be seen as anything but a reasonable approach. Suggest an analysis of laws covering specific harmful behaviours, asking for submissions, have a public consultation, produce a draft report and set out what the legislation will aim to achieve while acknowledging the concerns also flagged during the above process.

This is far from a head of Government writing executive orders to circumvent branches of Government which ironically, many arguing about the devious supposed motivations here, had no problem with someone else doing. All because it satisfied their most basic needs of 'upsetting the libs'.

Seathrun66

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

So these new laws are about inciting violence? The chap above said they're about making someone feel uneasy.

The current laws cover insightment to violence don't they?

They're out of date in terms of the internet and demographics. Hence they're being updated.

V8 Interceptor

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, the first amendment was written with specific consideration as to the medium of the internet and how the cloak of anonymity would be used to mask so much hatred or poor motivations.
The rest of your post has even less basis in reality than the likelihood of the above.

So your argument that the laws need changing is because society has changed since the advent of the internet?

Tell me how wrote: »

But hey, the fearmongering worked for he who must not be named in the US (until they eventually saw sense), it worked in the UK for Brexit, thankfully, so far, it is limited to a couple dozen people waving copies of the constitution at lockdown protests.

What fearmongering?

Tell me how wrote: »

What the Minister/Dept has done thus far in relation could not be seen as anything but a reasonable approach. Suggest an analysis of laws covering specific harmful behaviours, asking for submissions, have a public consultation, produce a draft report and set out what the legislation will aim to achieve while acknowledging the concerns also flagged during the above process.This is far from a head of Government writing executive orders to circumvent branches of Government which ironically, many arguing about the devious supposed motivations here, had no problem with someone else doing. All because it satisfied their most basic needs of 'upsetting the libs'.

But why are they doing this? Because of social media?

Seathrun66 wrote: »

They're out of date in terms of the internet and demographics. Hence they're being updated.

Demographics. So you think laws need to be brought in to protect immigrants from racist Irish?

Sand

Seathrun66 wrote: »

They're out of date in terms of the internet and demographics. Hence they're being updated.

Is there any examples that demonstrate that? My understanding is that the 1989 legislation is completely applicable to online communications and already covers incitement to hatred on racial/ethnic grounds.

My belief is that the real complaint is the often repeated statement that not enough people are convicted of crimes that are not happening, and this reform is an attempt to reduce the required proof for a conviction to a ridiculously low level. To the extent that 'fair and accurate reporting' requires a specific exemption so as not to fall foul of it. None of the advocates for this change in the law have been able to address that.

Deshawn

Hi guys. Let's leave the hate out in the cold.

Happy Christmas from myself and the lord mayor

https://twitter.com/LordMayorDublin/status/1342201331528970241?s=20

V8 Interceptor

:rolleyes:

Marcos

The Edmund Burke Institute has issued a submission on the proposed legislation.

I thought this extract from the introduction might be of some interest to some on here.

The EBI has asked two independent experts in the field to contribute pieces to this document, and so this document consists primarily of pieces from Professor Gerard Casey, emeritus of UCD, and Dr Conor Hanly, currently lecturing in law at N.U.I. Galway. These pieces together offer a comprehensive and cohesive overview of the area and present a compelling argument against the adoption of broader hate crime and hate speech legislation. Whilst those pieces make a compelling argument on their own we would like to add five short points to this document that we believe are the primary arguments against an expansion of the 1989 Act.

1. Hate speech laws are fundamentally undemocratic as they undermine the ideal that citizens are equal before the law.
   
2. Removing the requirement to prove intent or likelihood from the 1989 Act would create a scenario in which the law could be used, by mischievous or malevolent parties, as a weapon against those they dislike, those they wish to hurt, or those expressing political opinions which, whilst legitimately not racist or otherwise unacceptable, are offensive to a member of a particular group.*
   
3. Hate speech laws are fundamentally racist as they ‘other’ and infantilise the groups they aim to Hate speech laws are fundamentally racist as they ‘other’ and infantilise the groups they aim to protect.
   
4. Accepting the idea that the state should be capable of controlling public, and therefore political, speech will cause the state to gain an unconscionable degree of control over the lives of its citizens and that power will be open to misuse and corruption.**
   
5. The organisations currently collecting statistics on hate crimes in Ireland are mostly activists on hate crimes in Ireland are mostly activist organisations who support the adoption of stricter laws on speech and, as such, the statistics that organisations who support the adoption of stricter laws on speech and, as such, the statistics that they produce should not be seen as a proof of the level of hate crimes in Ireland. they produce should not be seen as a proof of the level of hate crimes in Ireland.** The state has been
   negligent in not collecting exhaustive information on this subject itself before considering movement on the Act and, as such, a broadening of the Act now cannot claim to be based upon evidence of a sufficient quality to justify the potential harm to what is nearly universally recognised as a fundamental right of the human person.

. . . . the proposed expansion of the 1989 Act would give lie to the idea that all men are equal aside, but the proposed expansion of the 1989 Act would give lie to the idea that all men are equal before the courts and instead tell us that all men are equal, but some men are more equal than others.

*Does anyone think that this won't be used as a way of shutting down any debate they don't want to see articulated in public? I'm sure people can see many examples in threads on CA.

** To me this is a very valid point. The bodies that appointed themselves the arbiters of what hate speech is and collectors of statistics have a vested interest in exaggerating the statistics. It's simple, create a problem, state that it's such a huge problem that requires identification, education, legal powers etc to deal with the problem but it just needs taxpayers money to pay those same bodies for dealing with the problem. If the problem suddenly went away overnight, then they'd have no reason to exist, or claim grants from Ireland or the EU. Follow the money.

Tell me how

Marcos wrote: »

The Edmund Burke Institute has issued a submission on the proposed legislation.

I thought this extract from the introduction might be of some interest to some on here.



*Does anyone think that this won't be used as a way of shutting down any debate they don't want to see articulated in public? I'm sure people can see many examples in threads on CA.

** To me this is a very valid point. The bodies that appointed themselves the arbiters of what hate speech is and collectors of statistics have a vested interest in exaggerating the statistics. It's simple, create a problem, state that it's such a huge problem that requires identification, education, legal powers etc to deal with the problem but it just needs taxpayers money to pay those same bodies for dealing with the problem. If the problem suddenly went away overnight, then they'd have no reason to exist, or claim grants from Ireland or the EU. Follow the money.

I think the content you quoted, like many of the arguments on this thread, ignore the damage which is done as a consequence of people expressing hate directly to or about others. It is focused in a 'what if' future while turning a blind eye on the reality of what is often going on.

That damage can be real and harmful and much the same as we rely on governments to introduce legislation in relation to food, road, machinery standards as to not do so would be detrimental to peoples safety, why shouldn't the damage affected through speech be mitigated in a similar fashion?

Instead of asking the persistent point of 'Does anyone think this won't be used etc', why not ask; why should people knowingly, or intentionally, express hatred towards or about others which can lead to them experiencing prejudice as a consequence of this?

1800_Ladladlad

https://twitter.com/paulie_lufc/status/1344792634129346560


It is beyond me how RTE found it acceptable or appropriate that this Waterford Whisper News skit was appropriate and broadcasted on the RTE NYE Countdown last night. "God became implicated in ongoing sexual harassment" portraying the Christian God as a pedophile, sexual predator & rapist! Implying my God has been incarcerated for raping and impregnating a 24 y/o migrant. This vicious sectarian bigotry. Apparently, Ireland is deeply in need of new hate speech laws for people who say offensive things about a race, religion, or identity. I find this "skit" to be highly inappropriate, and neither satirical nor amusing. Do I find this offensive? Yes, of course, I do! Should this form of expression be restricted in order to prevent offense? No!! What I find to be offensive, won't be to others and that is fine. But when a particular religion is openly and consistently mocked while another is protected out of fear of retribution

As a Catholic, I am well aware of the blatant privilege afforded to the likes of RTE to mock my faith in such a crass way, it's accepted but should the new hate speech laws be implemented, skits like this will continue and not be seen as hate speech and ignored while any criticism or mocking of the likes of islam will be seen as hate. Fear will override logic. Not fearing Catholics that is.

Tell me how

^^^

Yeah, I'm sure people who have a problem with Catholics being afforded the time on the national airwaves for the Angeles to be played would agree that RTE is focused on mocking your religion (and mine).

Your post comes across as manufactured outrage and whether it be you, or anyone else, of any religion, will likely fail the first up assessment of someone investigating whether or not something was indeed intentionally or knowingly hateful.

It's like the other lad who was here saying he is going to dedicate his time to making claims against someone that their speech is hateful while simultaneously giving out about snowflakes who get offended too easily.

Mike Murdock

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the content you quoted, like many of the arguments on this thread, ignore the damage which is done as a consequence of people expressing hate directly to or about others. It is focused in a 'what if' future while turning a blind eye on the reality of what is often going on.

That damage can be real and harmful and much the same as we rely on governments to introduce legislation in relation to food, road, machinery standards as to not do so would be detrimental to peoples safety, why shouldn't the damage affected through speech be mitigated in a similar fashion?

Instead of asking the persistent point of 'Does anyone think this won't be used etc', why not ask; why should people knowingly, or intentionally, express hatred towards or about others which can lead to them experiencing prejudice as a consequence of this?

The problem with the proposed law is that it is predicated on a Subjective view of what was said and not an Objective one.

Do you really want the Gardai to spend their time doing what police forces across the UK are doing? Trawling Social Media for people that use harsh and colourful language? And then end up with cases like this clogging up the courts? Turning up at guys workplace for a few Tweets.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

TomTomTim

Mike Murdock wrote: »

The problem with the proposed law is that it is predicated on a Subjective view of what was said and not an Objective one.

Do you really want the Gardai to spend their time doing what police forces across the UK are doing? Trawling Social Media for people that use harsh and colourful language? And then end up with cases like this clogging up the courts? Turning up at guys workplace for a few Tweets.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

You might as well bang your head off a wall. TMH has shown time and time again that there's nothing in the world that will even make him consider that he's wrong. No amount of evidence, no amount of reason, will work. Even if he's completely wrong about how the law manifests itself, he still won't admit to being wrong. As a progressive, admitting defeat is a dangerous game, as it may lead him to question all the the other times he's been wrong, and that could lead to him realizing that nearly everything he believes is wrong.

Tell me how

Mike Murdock wrote: »

The problem with the proposed law is that it is predicated on a Subjective view of what was said and not an Objective one.

Do you really want the Gardai to spend their time doing what police forces across the UK are doing? Trawling Social Media for people that use harsh and colourful language? And then end up with cases like this clogging up the courts? Turning up at guys workplace for a few Tweets.

You could say the same about many claims in relation to discrimination and we correctly have laws in that respect.

This isn't really any different. We don't know what exactly the law will be, and we can only guess how it will be applied. But, say there is a case where someone is investigated and it is determined that they had to case to answer, but someone else is prosecuted for expressing hatred about someone in a harmful way which there is no confusion about?

Is it better to allow the latter to continue just to avoid an instance of the former?

Tell me how

TomTomTim wrote: »

You might as well bang your head off a wall. TMH has shown time and time again that there's nothing in the world that will even make him consider that he's wrong. No amount of evidence, no amount of reason, will work. Even if he's completely wrong about how the law manifests itself, he still won't admit to being wrong. As a progressive, admitting defeat is a dangerous game, as it may lead him to question all the the other times he's been wrong, and that could lead to him realizing that nearly everything he believes is wrong.

I'm sorry for having a consistent approach and opinion which so happens to be different to yours and expressing it on a private page.

Here was I thinking it was a discussion forum. My bad. Go ahead and PM me something you would like me to post and I'll consider it and if I post it, you can thank it and convince yourself everyone thinks the same as you.

Mike Murdock

Tell me how wrote: »

You could say the same about many claims in relation to discrimination and we correctly have laws in that respect.

This isn't really any different. We don't know what exactly the law will be, and we can only guess how it will be applied. But, say there is a case where someone is investigated and it is determined that they had to case to answer, but someone else is prosecuted for expressing hatred about someone in a harmful way which there is no confusion about?

Is it better to allow the latter to continue just to avoid an instance of the former?

Again, you go with Objectivity v Subjectivity

A modified Clapham Omnibus test - what would a reasonable, respectful person consider to be hateful given the facts of the case.