Hate Speech Public Consultation

Tell me how

Mike Murdock wrote: »

Again, you go with Objectivity v Subjectivity

You can't ignore the realities of such cases, either in future instances, or in the practice of existing laws and legislation just because they are not black and white determinations.

Mike Murdock wrote: »

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

Which case?

Broadly speaking, I expect that such discussions in future will largely go the route of someone saying that they feel they are being targeted. Someone will investigate but quite possibly be able to point out that it was not such. From this point onward can it not be assumed that the persons investigating are objective given that they will likely be Gardai and or legal professionals?

If the investigator feels it is worth exploring, then they will indeed do so and part of which will likely involve speaking with the person who made such an expression. This will be an opportunity for that person to clarify that it wasn't intended to be hateful and possibly for them to remove the posts if they acknowledge they hurt someone, or, they can stick by their posts, refuse to edit, remove, clarify etc and then the investigation will advance to determination by people appointed to do so (DPP staff) if there is a case to answer.

Leaving aside that in cases relating to discrimination there are often internal procedures for investigating appropriately once a claim has been made (again trying to ensure objectivity) how is this expected to be different?

Who here believes that the brother of George should be charged with hate crime? If not why not?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Who here believes that the brother of George should be charged with hate crime? If not why not?

George who?
What did he say to warrant being charged? In your view?
What do you think?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

George who?
What did he say to warrant being charged? In your view?
What do you think?

You know who I am talking about. The poor chap that got shot.

You know what he said, it's been all over the site and on social media.

Be honest.

My view, is that it could be incitement to violence as is a lot clearer than some examples of "hate speech" that have been bandied about since this thread began.

I am wondering what you and people who clamour for hate speech laws stand on this particular incident.

What, if any, punishment should this carry?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

You know who I am talking about. The poor chap that got shot.

You know what he said, it's been all over the site and on social media.

Be honest.

My view, is that it could be incitement to violence as is a lot clearer than some examples of "hate speech" that have been bandied about since this thread began.

I am wondering what you and people who clamour for hate speech laws stand on this particular incident.

What, if any, punishment should this carry?

Still dont know what he said, if you want my thoughts on a specific comment, go ahead and post it.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Still dont know what he said, if you want my thoughts on a specific comment, go ahead and post it.

It's grand. I'll leave it open to the room. It's easily found.

Chips Lovell

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

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.

The report on the proposed legislation states that "jokes, insults and cartoons" shouldn't be considered a crime. That means that satire like Waterford Whispers or Charlie Hebdo type stuff won't be prosecutable.

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

Government has already said it's taking a different approach to the UK:

The Government’s planned hate speech laws will contain a significantly higher bar for prosecution compared to similar laws that have led to controversial court cases in the UK.

[...]

Furthermore, 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.

Biker79

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.

Rational criticism of woke-ism does not work. You're dealing with a person's metaphysical beliefs, after all.

People like TMH will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics - including obfuscation, word twisting, language re-defining, goalpost moving - to avoid confronting their mistakes.

It's about as close to a cult mentality that we have seen in a long time.

Tell me how

Biker79 wrote: »

Rational criticism of woke-ism does not work. You're dealing with a person's metaphysical beliefs, after all.

People like TMH will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics - including obfuscation, word twisting, language re-defining, goalpost moving - to avoid confronting their mistakes.

It's about as close to a cult mentality that we have seen in a long time.

And people like Biker79 will seek to find a way to ensure people can deliberately target others to the point of damaging their mental health so that they may contemplate or in some cases actually take their own lives.

You should recognize cultish behaviour, you were a strong advocate for Mr Trump up until the morning of the 4th of November or thereabouts until you disappeared from those threads.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Deleted User wrote: »

You know who I am talking about. The poor chap that got shot.

You know what he said, it's been all over the site and on social media.

Be honest.

My view, is that it could be incitement to violence as is a lot clearer than some examples of "hate speech" that have been bandied about since this thread began.

I am wondering what you and people who clamour for hate speech laws stand on this particular incident.

What, if any, punishment should this carry?

Yeah nobody's going to answer you. I can just see them staring at your post with an open mouth.

He said "I want that garda dead, I wan't him terminated, I wan't him finished".

Guess what, not a peep from the media, not a peep. Imagine for a second if a white person said this. Do you see the difference now? Hate speech only serves to silence you and me, and benefits people not from here. It's an unequal law.

CtevenSrowder

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Yeah nobody's going to answer you. I can just see them staring at your post with an open mouth.

He said "I want that garda dead, I wan't him terminated, I wan't him finished".

Guess what, not a peep from the media, not a peep. Imagine for a second if a white person said this. Do you see the difference now? Hate speech only serves to silence you and me, and benefits people not from here. It's an unequal law.

So, for the the people in favour of these new hate speech laws, should he be prosecuted, now we know what he said?

This is the first time I have heard that he said that by the way.

Tell me how

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Yeah nobody's going to answer you. I can just see them staring at your post with an open mouth.

He said "I want that garda dead, I wan't him terminated, I wan't him finished".

Guess what, not a peep from the media, not a peep. Imagine for a second if a white person said this. Do you see the difference now? Hate speech only serves to silence you and me, and benefits people not from here. It's an unequal law.

Is this what he said, or some of the stuff that has been put out there which I understand has been proven to be false?

Now, let's go with him actually saying these words, in the context of the discussion on this thread, should legislation be such that he could be charged for these statements?

Absolutely not. His statements, I understand (I'm sure you guys know exactly what happened) were made in the immediate aftermath of someone losing their brother at the hands of the police. Irrespective of the circumstances around that event, I don't think anyone can deny but that he would have been in an emotionally charged frame of mind at that time. If in future, someone shouts across a courtroom at a drunk driver who killed that persons child that they should be shot or hanged, I wouldn't expect for a second that person would be charged either.

I don't think anyone can compare this with someone making a sustained and deliberate effort to attack someone with no provocation.

If the guy who made these comments continues to do so, (I understand family members have met with Gardai who explained what happened and why) then that is a different story. And I expect the series of events would be no different to that for anyone else where he would be informed his messages were inappropriate and then if he continued further action in terms of prosecution would be taken.

You guys can continue with the 'Imagine if' scenario all you want but if you cannot differentiate between someone who had just had their brother shot and killed by police making such a comment and others who are not in such an emotive state and are expressing hatred then I don't know what to say to you.
This nonsense of 'Hate speech only serves to silence you and me, and benefits people not from here. It's an unequal law.' about something which isn't even a law yet is just losing the run of yourself.

batman_oh

Tell me how wrote: »

Is this what he said, or some of the stuff that has been put out there which I understand has been proven to be false?

Now, let's go with him actually saying these words, in the context of the discussion on this thread, should legislation be such that he could be charged for these statements?

Absolutely not. His statements, I understand (I'm sure you guys know exactly what happened) were made in the immediate aftermath of someone losing their brother at the hands of the police. Irrespective of the circumstances around that event, I don't think anyone can deny but that he would have been in an emotionally charged frame of mind at that time. If in future, someone shouts across a courtroom at a drunk driver who killed that persons child that they should be shot or hanged, I wouldn't expect for a second that person would be charged either.

I don't think anyone can compare this with someone making a sustained and deliberate effort to attack someone with no provocation.

If the guy who made these comments continues to do so, (I understand family members have met with Gardai who explained what happened and why) then that is a different story. And I expect the series of events would be no different to that for anyone else where he would be informed his messages were inappropriate and then if he continued further action in terms of prosecution would be taken.

You guys can continue with the 'Imagine if' scenario all you want but if you cannot differentiate between someone who had just had their brother shot and killed by police making such a comment and others who are not in such an emotive state and are expressing hatred then I don't know what to say to you.
This nonsense of 'Hate speech only serves to silence you and me, and benefits people not from here. It's an unequal law.' about something which isn't even a law yet is just losing the run of yourself.

What about the gang that were abusing the people locked in the shop with lovely lines like 'Die you white bas***ds'.
Assume this is grand because they were angry at the evil KKK Garda constantly killing them?

Tell me how

batman_oh wrote: »

What about the gang that were abusing the people locked in the shop with lovely lines like 'Die you white bas***ds'.
Assume this is grand because they were angry at the evil KKK Garda constantly killing them?

What do you expect me to say to this?
That I think such a think would be grand? No. Of course not.
But as before, I don't think we are going to see people charged for hate speech when making comments in emotive circumstances.

Quantum Erasure

How about someone responding to that incident saying they should be rounded up and put on the first flight out of here?

carq

I think the latest events over the last week show that this legislation is a terrible , terrible idea.
it will become a tit for tat war of offence.

Tell me how

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

How about someone responding to that incident saying they should be rounded up and put on the first flight out of here?

Personally I wouldn't see the need for prosecutions for such comments given the reasons already mentioned.

In fact, even without the emotion around this event I wouldn't think we'll see, or should see, legal conversations in relation to such comments unless they start being issued very publicly or accompanied with comments referring to 'WHY' people shouldn't be here.

Mike Murdock

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you expect me to say to this?
That I think such a think would be grand? No. Of course not.
But as before, I don't think we are going to see people charged for hate speech when making comments in emotive circumstances.

So that would apply to people that start saying "Deport them all" or "Ban Religion X" the next time there is a terrorist bombing then, I assume?

After all, it's just "emotive circumstances".

Tell me how

carq wrote: »

I think the latest events over the last week show that this legislation is a terrible , terrible idea.
it will become a tit for tat war of offence.

How have the events of the last week shown this?

We have had several people on both sides of the discussion acknowledge that people do suffer as a consequence of hateful speech being expressed towards them. Sometimes to the point of taking their own lives.

Do you think such a situation should be allowed to continue without consideration of people who suffer in this way?

Tell me how

Mike Murdock wrote: »

So that would apply to people that start saying "Deport them all" or "Ban Religion X" the next time there is a terrorist bombing then, I assume?

After all, it's just "emotive circumstances".

Think most people would see a pretty weak link in using a terrorist attack abroad as an acceptable reason to target people of that religion in Ireland.

If there is another conservative who attacks a church in America, do you think that it would be reasonable for people in Ireland to say that Christians in Ireland are a problem?

Ted_YNWA

Mod

Multiple posts deleted. Bring it to Feedback Forum if you have issues or suggestions with the reporting process.

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

Think most people would see a pretty weak link in using a terrorist attack abroad as an acceptable reason to target people of that religion in Ireland.

If there is another conservative who attacks a church in America, do you think that it would be reasonable for people in Ireland to say that Christians in Ireland are a problem?

Why would the victims be blamed?

What do you expect me to say to this?
That I think such a think would be grand? No. Of course not.
But as before, I don't think we are going to see people charged for hate speech when making comments in emotive circumstances.

The key factor in determining who gets charged and who does not will be if the person was Irish/white or non-Irish/non-white. An open ended law like this is intended to be wielded to attack indigenous Irish people. There will always be some excuse found for 'hate' against Irish people (emotion, just a joke, fragility) regardless of how egregious it is, whereas no remark by an Irish person will be too small or petty to not warrant investigation and charges. If only to intimidate others.

The repression of the indigenous people is just part and parcel of a multicultural society.

conorhal

carq wrote: »

I think the latest events over the last week show that this legislation is a terrible , terrible idea.
it will become a tit for tat war of offence.

Doubtful, if anything it will encourage the powers that be to redouble their efforts to ensure that they never lose control of the narrative in such a manner again.
After all of this weeks 'hate speech and hate-facts', it is now, more than ever, extremely clear to these autocrats that tools to silence the unwashed masses need to be put in place.

You're also wrong in your assumption that the legislation will result in a tit for that war of offence, since only the tits are allowed to complain under this legislation and the tats only option is to go to jail or stay silent, which is kind of the point of the legislation in the first place.

Marcos

conorhal wrote: »

Doubtful, if anything it will encourage the powers that be to redouble their efforts to ensure that they never lose control of the narrative in such a manner again.
After all of this weeks 'hate speech and hate-facts', it is now, more than ever, extremely clear to these autocrats that tools to silence the unwashed masses need to be put in place.

You're also wrong in your assumption that the legislation will result in a tit for that war of offence, since only the tits are allowed to complain under this legislation and the tats only option is to go to jail or stay silent, which is kind of the point of the legislation in the first place.

I think you're right, all you have to do is look at the people who are pushing this in the first place. If you think that this will be used in a fair way, well I've got a bridge to sell you.

All complaints from what they judge as the wrong side will be ignored, or long fingered while all complaints about Irish people being racist etc will be fast tracked. IMO This is aimed at stopping any debate and just pushing one agenda. This is not a good thing for society and will have unintended negative consequences IMO.

Why do you think the likes of Joe Duffy has been getting €416,000 a year? It's because he acts as a pressure valve guides the narrative and lets people rant on about inconsequential things. Debate also acts as a pressure valve, allowing people to air their grievances, taking that away will be a bad thing and could come back to bite the very people who brought it in, and I don't think anybody wants that.

Tell me how

conorhal wrote: »

You're also wrong in your assumption that the legislation will result in a tit for that war of offence, since only the tits are allowed to complain under this legislation and the tats only option is to go to jail or stay silent, which is kind of the point of the legislation in the first place.

This is just a dramatic statement with no suggestion that it is what is being proposed or how new legislation will be implemented. See below for more information.

Sand wrote: »

The key factor in determining who gets charged and who does not will be if the person was Irish/white or non-Irish/non-white. An open ended law like this is intended to be wielded to attack indigenous Irish people. There will always be some excuse found for 'hate' against Irish people (emotion, just a joke, fragility) regardless of how egregious it is, whereas no remark by an Irish person will be too small or petty to not warrant investigation and charges. If only to intimidate others.

The repression of the indigenous people is just part and parcel of a multicultural society.

This is complete and utter nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. This type of fear mongering doesn't help anyone. It's like the BS rhetoric we saw from Trump leading up to the election in the US talking about how it was going to be stolen and there would be electoral fraud. It wasn't and there wasn't until he himself has showed the full range of his competency in allowing himself to be recorded begging state officials to find just enough votes to allow him to win saying he doesn't care about the rest.

We have loads here saying that this is going to be a big problem and also someone saying that they are going to go out of their way to constantly report an immigrant in Ireland for hate speech because of this proposed legislation. Lets suppose they do actually do that. Are they genuinely feeling that hate speech has been committed or that they just want to try to feel that they are still able to have their way?

Your last sentence is laughable in how idiotic it is.

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

Apart from how similar laws are used in every other jurisdiction which has introduced them. The laws which inspired this law. Lets not forget, a primary complaint was not enough convictions were secured under the existing 1989 legislation so from the very start the aim is to lower the bar to secure more convictions.

We're talking about a law so loose and open to abuse that 'fair and accurate reporting' needs a specific exemption to protect media from being convicted under it.

Lets face it - you had a group of Africans attacking a shop, using ethnic slurs and you're trying to excuse that it was just emotive. If the law isnt intended to deal with cases such as that, what is it's intention?

This type of fear mongering doesn't help anyone.

The fear mongering is that ethnic minorities in Ireland are day to day living in fear, barely able to get to the shops and back without being threatened, spat at and abused. That this law is desperately needed to protect them from evil thugs (aka the Irish).

That is the fear mongering.

The reality is that in the public consultations, it was recommended that Irish people be added as a protected group under the legislation. They were not added. Because this law is intended to attack them, not protect them.

We have loads here saying that this is going to be a big problem and also someone saying that they are going to go out of their way to constantly report an immigrant in Ireland for hate speech because of this proposed legislation. Lets suppose they do actually do that. Are they genuinely feeling that hate speech has been committed or that they just want to try to feel that they are still able to have their way?

They're wasting their time if they do. The law is not intended to be used against people who aren't Irish, or at least white.

raher1

I think a person has a right to clear there name. No matter who you are and where you come from.

1800_Ladladlad

Gardai have launched a poster campaign urging the public to report "hate crimes". Where in Irish Law does it state "hate crime" is an offence? There is no such offence.


njb

This is a breach of responsibilities and an overreach by Gardai. The Gardai are there to enforce law, not create it. They are to remain nuetral. This campaign is urging people to report a "Htecrime" when no such crime even exists in Irish law. It's an abdication of responsibility by the justice minister HM and serves to influence a political debate, regarding the proposed "Hate Speach" legislation they'll be attempting to put through.

The campaign only serving to support the gathering of figures and collecting of data to support their excuse behind "the need" for anti free speech laws. What happens if someone falsely accuses someone of racism or homophobia, someone who simply thinks it's racism when it is in fact not? Will these figures be shown. How will they police this campaign?

https://www.garda.ie/en/crime/hate-crime/

Chips Lovell

I'm assuming that "hate crime" is simply short hand for a range of offenses that could be prosecuted under various legislation. I doubt the poster would have quite the degree of legibility if they listed all the Acts and SIs.

Tell me how

It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful.

There were zero laws about anything until society evolved to recognize what was necessary to protect its members.