Hate Speech Public Consultation

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Take it whatever way you want, you're going to anyway.

haha. And again.. thank you for proving my point. :rolleyes:

Sure, I'm done... but you really should consider what your post "suggested". It wasn't nice to reinterpret his post that way.

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

Politicians are elected at least every 5 years. They are there because we put them there. If you have a better suggestion for developing legislation, I'd be interested in hearing it.
L

My suggestion is to abandon the hate speech legislation and just enforce the legislation that is already there. As was mentioned already, we already have laws regarding threatening people, assaulting people etc. Just enforce them.

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

Every day there's a different report of someone being targeted with abuse.

You mightn't do so, you'd hardly admit it here if you did, but why should that fact be avoided just so some people can have a little circle jerk saying that 'everyone thinks this is crazy'.

This is not a black and white situation, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be attempted to prevent people doing it with impunity.

I was forced to resign from a job ( not in this country)many year's ago due to relentless sectarian bullying, despite that, I still would not like to see the proposed "hate speech" law's enacted

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

My suggestion is to abandon the hate speech legislation and just enforce the legislation that is already there. As was mentioned already, we already have laws regarding threatening people, assaulting people etc. Just enforce them.

Which of the existing laws should be used with respect to this situation?

https://twitter.com/FAIreland/status/1361405442698715137

Kivaro

BattleCorp wrote: »

My suggestion is to abandon the hate speech legislation and just enforce the legislation that is already there. As was mentioned already, we already have laws regarding threatening people, assaulting people etc. Just enforce them.

There are specific reasons why they are trying to force this new legislation on us. If you noticed the text of what is proposed, people in academia would not be subject to this legislation, so the likes of Ebun Joseph will be able to continue to propagate her hateful views of the Irish people to the Irish people. This legislation would provide her with immunity for her hate speech.

Mad_maxx

Kivaro wrote: »

There are specific reasons why they are trying to force this new legislation on us. If you noticed the text of what is proposed, people in academia would not be subject to this legislation, so the likes of Ebun Joseph will be able to continue to propagate her hateful views of the Irish people to the Irish people. This legislation would provide her with immunity for her hate speech.

it wont just be exclusive to academia , anyone from an official minority group will not be subject to these proposed new laws

so say a traveller gang were to try and flog dodgy merchandise to an elderly person and act in an intimidating fashion , were that elderly person to say " fcuk off you bunch of thieving tinkers "

the pensioner would be the one in trouble

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

There are specific reasons why they are trying to force this new legislation on us. If you noticed the text of what is proposed, people in academia would not be subject to this legislation, so the likes of Ebun Joseph will be able to continue to propagate her hateful views of the Irish people to the Irish people. This legislation would provide her with immunity for her hate speech.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it wont just be exclusive to academia , anyone from an official minority group will not be subject to these proposed new laws

so say a traveller gang were to try and flog dodgy merchandise to an elderly person and act in an intimidating fashion , were that elderly person to say " fcuk off you bunch of thieving tinkers "

the pensioner would be the one in trouble

Can either of you give any evidence that these types of scenarios are likely to happen?

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

Can either of you give any evidence that these types of scenarios are likely to happen?

travellers prey on elderly people all of the time , Pavee Point have on more than one occasion implied that the guards hold travellers to a higher standard in terms of arrest , hate crime legislation would allow this card to be played , i.e " racial policing " Pavee Point are very in favour of the new proposed hate crime laws

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

Which of the existing laws should be used with respect to this situation?

https://twitter.com/FAIreland/status/1361405442698715137

Seeing as he personally was threatened and there was a threat to burn down his house, my thinking is that charges could be brought under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997.

Here's an extract from it.

5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence,

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

Here's the full act if you have nothing to do for the next day or so.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

Can either of you give any evidence that these types of scenarios are likely to happen?

Yes, yes I can.

Hate speech legislation has gone down this road in the UK. Who is to say it won't happen here.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/the-only-good-brit-soldier-is-a-dead-one-scottish-man-arrested-and-charged-after-posting-offensive-tweet-about-late-captain-tom-203380

I actually envy the US on this point.. their 1st amendment to the constitution is invaluable for maintaining freedom of speech. Everyone should read "Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom" by Aryeh Neier.

Also - watch Christopher hitchens speech on hate speech in Canada (search on YouTube)

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, yes I can.

Hate speech legislation has gone down this road in the UK. Who is to say it won't happen here.

*Link removed, I can't post links...

That's disgraceful, and the streets of Scotland and the rest of the UK should be awash with protesters. They're giving away what's most precious in a free society and they're giving it away without a fight, and even praising those who are taking it away. Shame on them.
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means freedom for those who think differently, and very often have "offensive" views. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

With respect to this case, what was the point of that soilder fighting WW2 war for freedom, if you're not free to express yourself in the UK in 2021.

Sand

Student_111 wrote: »

I actually envy the US on this point.. their 1st amendment to the constitution is invaluable for maintaining freedom of speech. Everyone should read "Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom" by Aryeh Neier.

Also - watch Christopher hitchens speech on hate speech in Canada (search on YouTube)

Freedom of speech is under just as much threat in the US. The 1st amendment is an obstacle, but it is circumvented by utilizing the private sector instead of the state. And even then, the state is hard at work looking for every opportunity to get involved. Currently an internet troll is facing 10 years in jail because back in 2016 he told a joke about texting in votes. That is now - 5 years later - being spun up as interference in the electoral process.

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

Can either of you give any evidence that these types of scenarios are likely to happen?

Can you explain why journalists and academics need exemptions from the proposed hate speech law?

donaghs

Tell me how wrote: »

Which of the existing laws should be used with respect to this situation?

https://twitter.com/FAIreland/status/1361405442698715137

Why not start with the 1989 incitement to hatred act?
I'm no legal expert but its seems to cover the racial slurs and actual threats of violence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

BattleCorp

donaghs wrote: »

Why not start with the 1989 incitement to hatred act?
I'm no legal expert but its seems to cover the racial slurs and actual threats of violence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

Ah yeah, I know there are lots of laws that could deal with it.

I just used that piece of legislation as an example of legislation that could be used to answer Tell Me How's question. There's a pile of legislation that can be used when it comes to threats etc. My point was that TMH's example could be dealt with under current legislation without the need for new hate speech laws.

Chips Lovell

donaghs wrote: »

Why not start with the 1989 incitement to hatred act?
I'm no legal expert but its seems to cover the racial slurs and actual threats of violence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

It doesn't. As the report recommending the new legislation stated:

The Act does not deal with any forms of hate speech other than incitement. It does not prohibit, for example, hate speech which is a direct attack on a person, or hate speech where there is no-one present who might be incited by the perpetrator (so where everyone else present is sympathetic to the victim, for example). It does not prohibit actions stirring up hatred against an individual, only a group.

In addition to this, someone cannot really be prosecuted for hate-based aggravating factors. It may be considered at sentencing, but there's no way of ensuring that happens or even knowing that it has.

Ireland does not currently have any specific legislation to deal with hate crime. While at present, in sentencing for any offence, a judge may consider a hate motive to be an aggravating factor and may reflect this in the sentence handed down, even where this occurs (and there are few records available) it will not be reflected anywhere in the formal record of the conviction or sentence.

This means, for example, that a hate element will not be reflected in the charge against the accused, meaning that it may never be raised in front of the jury, and cannot be defended in the way that other parts of the offence can be, i.e. challenged by the defence in court. It also means that a pattern of such offences may not be apparent, even to those responsible for an offender’s sentence management or probation.

So, for example, you stab someone with a broken bottle shouting racial epithets at your victim, you can only be prosecuted for the stabbing itself, not the hate element.

1800_Ladladlad

I can see this Diversity and integration unit being influenced and guided by NGOs more and more as they'll see it as a money maker. They use the word "hate" like the definition of a hate crime has already been established :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/TurloughOReilly/status/1361799487291871237

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It doesn't. As the report recommending the new legislation stated:

If no one can be incited by the statements made what is the criminal issue?

In addition to this, someone cannot really be prosecuted for hate-based aggravating factors. It may be considered at sentencing, but there's no way of ensuring that happens or even knowing that it has.

So, for example, you stab someone with a broken bottle shouting racial epithets at your victim, you can only be prosecuted for the stabbing itself, not the hate element.

When you're being stabbed to death with a broken bottle, why is it significantly worse for that to be accompanied by racial epithets as opposed to being accompanied by vulgar insults?

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

If no one can be incited by the statements made what is the criminal issue?

Because it means, for example, that you could potentially hurl racial abuse at someone on a bus and, if it can't be proved anybody was incited by it, you can't be prosecuted.

Sand wrote: »

When you're being stabbed to death with a broken bottle, why is it significantly worse for that to be accompanied by racial epithets as opposed to being accompanied by vulgar insults?

Why are any of the pre-existing dozen odd aggravating factors there? If you're being stabbed to death, why is it worse if the defendant stabbed you as part of an organised criminal enterprise rather than off their own bat? Why is it an aggravating factor when an offender exploits the position of a weak or defenceless victim? It's because some circumstances are seen as particularly abhorrent in the eyes of the law and a greater punishment is attached to them in order to increase the deterrence.

biko

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

They use the word "hate" like the definition of a hate crime has already been established

It's mad how they record 'non-crime' hate incidents on Pulse.
Someone accuses you of something. It's not a crime but now you're in the system.

More than 120,000 ‘hate incidents’ have been recorded by police in England and Wales.

When the police are diverted to protecting people's feelings then the police have lees time protecting people's lives.

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Because it means, for example, that you could potentially hurl racial abuse at someone on a bus and, if it can't be proved anybody was incited by it, you can't be prosecuted.

And if you hurled abuse at someone on a bus, you cant be prosecuted at all right?

It's because some circumstances are seen as particularly abhorrent in the eyes of the law and a greater punishment is attached to them in order to increase the deterrence.

The use of a weapon is an aggravating factor, as is the violent nature of the crime. But you've not established why this circumstance (racial abuse against the victim) should be an aggravating factor whereas more general abuse against the victim is not.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

But you've not established why this circumstance (racial abuse against the victim) should be an aggravating factor whereas more general abuse against the victim is not.

Because the victim is being singled out for what they are (something inalterable such as race or gender). By making it an aggravating factor, you're creating a deterrent.

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Because the victim is being singled out for what they are (something inalterable such as race or gender). By making it an aggravating factor, you're creating a deterrent.

The victim is being stabbed - of course they have been singled out and none of the reasons are going to be good or pleasant. If we recall the Carrigaline stabbing last year the Irish victim was stabbed either for 2 euros or simply for the 'prestige' of videoing it and putting it online. Why shouldn't these be aggravating factors? Why shouldn't that be deterred? As it was, the attacker got only 18 months. Some deterrent.

In that case, it wouldn't even have mattered if the attacker was calling the victim an Irish this and that because Irish people aren't a protected group under the proposed legislation. They were deliberately excluded, despite calls for them to be included in the public consultation. So why shouldn't there be additional deterrence to attacks on Irish people?

And would you mind clarifying that there is no legislation that can be used where someone starts hurling abuse at other passengers on a bus? None at all?

biko

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Because the victim is being singled out for what they are (something inalterable such as race or gender). By making it an aggravating factor, you're creating a deterrent.

Possibly under the new hate law saying that gender is inalterable is enough to record a non-crime hate incident in Pulse.
Even race isn't static but an identifier.
If you are half Chinese and half Nigerian, are you really either race?

Sand

biko wrote: »

Possibly under the new hate law saying that gender is inalterable is enough to record a non-crime hate incident in Pulse.
Even race isn't static but an identifier.
If you are half Chinese and half Nigerian, are you really either race?

True. Religion certainly isnt inalterable. You can convert. And these days transracialists argue that race is alterable as well. So the argument made isnt all that strong.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

...because Irish people aren't a protected group under the proposed legislation. They were deliberately excluded, despite calls for them to be included in the public consultation.

This is incorrect. Native Irish people are one of the protected groups listed.

biko

From Chips' link above

1. Who does the new legislation really need to protect?
• Ethnicity/ race colour
• Travellers
• Immigrants/ non-Irish
• Native, white Irish
• Refugees/ Asylum seekers

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

This is incorrect. Native Irish people are one of the protected groups listed.

No, and I think its the second time I've corrected you on that. You place too much reliance on that document. It doesn't contain any list of protected groups. It says: 'The characteristics protected by the new legislation should include all of those listed in the 1989 Act, and also gender, gender expression or identity, and disability'. Ethnic Irish isnt listed as a protected characteristic. Travelers are though.

Any you able to come up with an adequate response to the earlier points while you are at it?

Sand

biko wrote: »

From Chris' link above

That is the feedback from the public consultation. Irish was raised as needing protection by the public. It was excluded from the final proposal for legislation.