Hate Speech Public Consultation

Sand

Sand wrote: »

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.

It'll also no doubt be impossible to be racist towards white people - which is the status quo in the US right now.
Like remember the group who trapped people in SPAR yelling "white bastards" - I don't see them getting hate speech charges, but there would be plenty screaming for hate speech arrests if the roles were reverse.

Student_111

Student_111 wrote: »

It'll also no doubt be impossible to be racist towards white people - which is the status quo in the US right now.
Like remember the group who trapped people in SPAR yelling "white bastards" - I don't see them getting hate speech charges, but there would be plenty screaming for hate speech arrests if the roles were reverse.

Yeah but...check your privilege.

Sand

Student_111 wrote: »

It'll also no doubt be impossible to be racist towards white people - which is the status quo in the US right now.
Like remember the group who trapped people in SPAR yelling "white bastards" - I don't see them getting hate speech charges, but there would be plenty screaming for hate speech arrests if the roles were reverse.

If I recall correctly, one of the most vocal advocates on this thread for hate speech legislation informed us this was not hate speech. It was merely emotive.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

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?

The line you quote:

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.

appears to come from the press release accompanying the report.

It also contradicts your assertion, because the categories listed in the 1989 Act include:

...race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sharing-hate-speech-on-social-media-to-become-criminal-offence-under-new-plan-1.4438898?mode=amp

"Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature. "

Chips - do you seriously not see an issue with giving the state this power over people's speech?

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The line you quote:



appears to come from the press release accompanying the report.

It comes from the link you provided but did not read. Page 40.

It also contradicts your assertion, because the categories listed in the 1989 Act include:

Perhaps, if the legislation specifically defines Irish people as an ethnic group. Given the mindset of advocates of this legislation is to deny the existence of an Irish ethnic group, you're asking for a lot of unearned trust that Irish people will be implicitly covered.

See page 41 where it is stated that travelers must be explicitly listed as a protected ethnic group. So why not add Irish to the list too - as called for by the public?

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

Perhaps, if the legislation specifically defines Irish people as an ethnic group. Given the mindset of advocates of this legislation is to deny the existence of an Irish ethnic group, you're asking for a lot of unearned trust that Irish people will be implicitly covered.

So how do you think they'll do this. Include nationality or ethnicity as a protected class but state that Irish is excluded? It's odd to assert that those pushing the bill seek to "deny the existence of an Irish ethnic group" when they specifically call it out.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

So how do you think they'll do this. Include nationality or ethnicity as a protected class but state that Irish is excluded? It's odd to assert that those pushing the bill seek to "deny the existence of an Irish ethnic group" when they specifically call it out.

Can you outline your reasons for why you think this legislation is needed and isn't going to be abused by those in power?

Chips Lovell

Student_111 wrote: »

Can you outline your reasons for why you think this legislation is needed and isn't going to be abused by those in power?

See page 17 of the report. I'd be broadly in agreement with that summary.

Why do I believe it's not going to be abused? For the same reason I wouldn't expect any new Act of the Oireachtas to be abused. Checks and balances exist, not least the power of the legislature to amend or repeal legislation if it isn't being used for its intended purpose, in addition legal challenges in Irish or European courts.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

See *link removed*. I'd be broadly in agreement with that summary.

Why do I believe it's not going to be abused? For the same reason I wouldn't expect any new Act of the Oireachtas to be abused. Checks and balances exist, not least the power of the legislature to amend or repeal legislation if it isn't being used for its intended purpose, in addition legal challenges in Irish or European courts.

European courts... you must be joking? The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld the prosecution in Austria of a woman who pointed out that since Muhammad had sex with a child (<10 years old) when he was in his 40s, he was in fact a pedophile. Note: This fact about Muhammad is indeed a historical fact, look it up.

The case is E.S. vs Austria 2018, if you want to Google it.

The European Court of "Human rights" (haha yeah right...) said that they, and this is a direct quote: "balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society". So Religious feelings are equal to the right to speak about historical facts... I'm not hopeful that our European overlords will protect us from tyrannical/fascist/theocratic governments, but thanks.

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

So how do you think they'll do this. Include nationality or ethnicity as a protected class but state that Irish is excluded? It's odd to assert that those pushing the bill seek to "deny the existence of an Irish ethnic group" when they specifically call it out.

No, they'll simple define ethnicity for the purposes of the legislation in such a way that it cant be interpreted by a court as protecting an Irish person. I believe this is why they require the insertion of Travelers as a named ethnic group in the legislation. If not explicitly listed in the legislation as a protected group, they might otherwise be excluded by a definition designed to exclude 'settled' Irish people.

It's perfectly reasonable to presume the worst about this legislation. Advocates for the legislation pretend it will be used responsibility: 'Thresholds for criminal incitement to hatred should be high, for example incitement to harm or unlawful discrimination.' Meanwhile we're also told 'Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature.'. These statements completely conflict. It seems as if the bar on 'hate speech' could be so low that for example presenting evidence that migrant groups or people of a particular ethnic group are heavily over represented in criminal activities would be an offence.

And we can presume the lower standard will apply. The whole purpose of the legislation in the eyes of its advocates is to secure convictions to further fuel the demands for NGO funding. And its certainly a warning bell that journalists, academics, artists, politicians and scientists all require a specific exemption so they are not charged with a crime.

Or maybe, just maybe, you should class someone stabbing you as a crime.

If you get stabbed/punched and while it happens someone references that you are gay, black, Asian, white, ginger, fat, bespectacled, short, tall, disabled, freckle faced, autistic, bipolar, Jewish, protestant etc, it's a crime.

It really really really shouldn't be a bigger crime because they did it because of their prejudice.

It's impossible to police and even more blatantly discriminatory to claim that a crime holds more water because of words uttered.

Kivaro

Sand wrote: »

If I recall correctly, one of the most vocal advocates on this thread for hate speech legislation informed us this was not hate speech. It was merely emotive.

Jesus wept.
So it's one law for them and one law for the rest of us i.e. the majority on this island. Where have we seen that before, and has that worked out well?

It reminds me of the huge migration into Europe as a result of Merkel's invitation and when there were sexual assaults by some of these migrants on local women, they were excused by some in those countries as "sexual emergencies".
It is indeed a weird world sometimes.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

No, they'll simple define ethnicity for the purposes of the legislation in such a way that it cant be interpreted by a court as protecting an Irish person. I believe this is why they require the insertion of Travelers as a named ethnic group in the legislation. If not explicitly listed in the legislation as a protected group, they might otherwise be excluded by a definition designed to exclude 'settled' Irish people.

It's perfectly reasonable to presume the worst about this legislation. Advocates for the legislation pretend it will be used responsibility: 'Thresholds for criminal incitement to hatred should be high, for example incitement to harm or unlawful discrimination.' Meanwhile we're also told 'Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature.'. These statements completely conflict. It seems as if the bar on 'hate speech' could be so low that for example presenting evidence that migrant groups or people of a particular ethnic group are heavily over represented in criminal activities would be an offence.

And we can presume the lower standard will apply. The whole purpose of the legislation in the eyes of its advocates is to secure convictions to further fuel the demands for NGO funding. And its certainly a warning bell that journalists, academics, artists, politicians and scientists all require a specific exemption so they are not charged with a crime.

At the end of the day, your objection seems to boil down to "they may say that now, but that's not what they're going to do in future".

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

At the end of the day, your objection seems to boil down to "they may say that now, but that's not what they're going to do in future".

No, my objection is that at best the law is unnecessary given there is already existing legislation which may be employed to deal with criminal acts. So the purpose of this law cannot be to protect anyone. This law is against the interests of Irish people.

Laws against something so loosely defined as 'hate' speech is open for abuse to attack dissent against establishment narratives. And it has been abused in other jurisdictions, not least the UK. Repeated reassurances from the usual suspects that we shouldn't worry, it wont be abused here in Ireland ring very hollow.

- It is repeatedly stated that the whole purpose of the new legislation is to secure more convictions than the 1989 legislation has provided. The aim is not deterrence, as you earlier claimed. It is convictions to fuel a narrative.

- If the definition of hate speech was going to be so robust and strong that only egregious cases of people hurling awful racist abuse at people on buses would be charged, then journalists, academics, politicians and scientists would not require specific exemptions. That exemption must be inserted very clearly indicates the definition of hate speech is going to be so loose that they would otherwise be liable.

- Again, when we hear that the speech not need actually incite anyone, or that it not necessarily be threatening or abusive then its very clear its not intended to protect anyone from threats or abuse as you pretend. It is intended to attack reasonable dissent.

- Ultimately this legislation creates a two tier criminal justice system, where crimes against non-Irish are paradoxically seen by the Irish government as worse than the same crimes committed against Irish people. This is deliberate and intended. Irish people are not intended to be protected under this legislation, they are to be attacked.

Now you might disagree with all of the above, but your analysis is completely unable to explain why journalists need protection from the proposed hate speech legislation. My analysis is able to explain it.

Chips Lovell

I think you're getting a bit fanciful at this stage. Why would an Irish government, elected by Irish people, want to enact legislation that to "attack" Irish people? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that most of the protected categories of people under the new legislation will, invariably be Irish. You seem to be solely focused on the non-Irish aspect of this.

Exemptions exists for journalists because you need to be able to report on hate crimes without running the risk of prosecution yourself.

BattleCorp

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you're getting a bit fanciful at this stage. Why would an Irish government, elected by Irish people, want to enact legislation that to "attack" Irish people? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that most of the protected categories of people under the new legislation will, invariably be Irish. You seem to be solely focused on the non-Irish aspect of this.

The Irish Government, elected by Irish people, do all manner of things that the people wouldn't want them to do. And many of the laws they bring in have unforseen consequences. The thing here though is that we can forsee the consequences.

We've seen these laws being misused across the water in the UK. I've no reason to believe the same would happen here.

Exemptions exists for journalists because you need to be able to report on hate crimes without running the risk of prosecution yourself.

Is there a proposed exemption for movie actors in the law? Don't think so.

And why do academics need an exemption?

Chips Lovell

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there a proposed exemption for movie actors in the law? Don't think so.

There is. Artistic expression is also covered.

BattleCorp

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There is. Artistic expression is also covered.

Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to be corrected. What about the academics though? I can't think why that might be needed.

Chips Lovell

BattleCorp wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to be corrected. What about the academics though? I can't think why that might be needed.

Same reason as journalists. Scholarly work that may include reporting of and commentary on hate crimes.

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you're getting a bit fanciful at this stage. Why would an Irish government, elected by Irish people, want to enact legislation that to "attack" Irish people? It makes no sense whatsoever.

You're assuming the government makes policy on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Irish people. Which is fanciful. Government policy is driven by donors and lobbyists, such as the NGO industial complex Ireland is blessed with.

Exemptions exists for journalists because you need to be able to report on hate crimes without running the risk of prosecution yourself.

No, that's not a good explanation. It's totally possible to report a 'hate' crime occurred without actually committing a hate crime. You just don't quote it verbatim, which is what media do already. An exemption for reporters is only necessary if the definition of hate crime is otherwise so loose that banal reporting of reality would otherwise fall victim to charges.

As it is, under the proposed legislation a reporter will be able to write any awful content, but should any reader repeat the story they would be charged. Which is bizarre.

BattleCorp

Here's my problem and I think you have helped me move further along the scale as to why these laws aren't needed and are actually dangerous.

The more I think about it, if news readers reporting something on the news need an exemption to report on something that someone might find offensive (hate speech), then I think the law has gone too far.

Same goes for an actor in a movie etc. The actor says something offensive (hate speech) and someone watching it gets offended, that would be a crime under the new law if there was no exemption???

Doesn't it sound wrong that you have to write protections into the law for those people?

When we make it a crime to say something offensive, then I think it's time to stop the planet and let me off.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have 100% free speech. It should always be illegal to threaten people, but come on, being offended is open to interpretation. And those kind of laws aren't good.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

As it is, under the proposed legislation a reporter will be able to write any awful content, but should any reader repeat the story they would be charged. Which is bizarre.

No, they can't. It has to be a good faith contribution.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Same reason as journalists. Scholarly work that may include reporting of and commentary on hate crimes.

Nonsense. The real reason is most likely that while academia is overwhelmingly left-wing and supportive of this hate speech law, they want to be able to continue their Critical Race Theory and denounce "Whitneess" and "white privilege". However, since the laws are so obviously open to interpretation, and these ideas can easily be interpreted as racist theories, they have given themselves a nice exemption so that the hate speech law doesn't apply to them

Ebun Joseph and others can be exempt from the hate speech laws, while simultaneously publishing "research" papers denouncing "whitness".

TomTomTim

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Irish Government, elected by Irish people, do all manner of things that the people wouldn't want them to do. And many of the laws they bring in have unforseen consequences. The thing here though is that we can forsee the consequences.

We've seen these laws being misused across the water in the UK. I've no reason to believe the same would happen here.



Is there a proposed exemption for movie actors in the law? Don't think so.

And why do academics need an exemption?

How do they define academics anyway? Is it only lecturers or students too? If students too, what happens if someone is done with college, and wants to write academic articles outside of college? Will this law protect them if they want to commit some hate speech under the guise of academic work? The same reason could be applied to journalism too. Does it protect journalists who aren't MSM? It sounds like an absolute mess, that will be nothing but a headache for judges.

BattleCorp

TomTomTim wrote: »

It sounds like an absolute mess, that will be nothing but a headache for judges.

And a weapon for the permanently offended.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

No, they can't. It has to be a good faith contribution.

And who makes this call? Who says if its in "good faith"? Do you not see an issue with the Government having the power to charge journalists with hate speech? Look at what is happening in Turkey and even Hungary now - you're so naive it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

After your statement that we can always appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if the Government goes too far - you never responded to the frankly laughable judgement made in the E.S. vs Austria 2018 case. What do you think of this court of "Human rights"?

Sir Oxman

Student_111 wrote: »

Nonsense. The real reason is most likely that while academia is overwhelmingly left-wing and supportive of this hate speech law, they want to be able to continue their Critical Race Theory and denounce "Whitneess" and "white privilege". However, since the laws are so obviously open to interpretation, and these ideas can easily be interpreted as racist theories, they have given themselves a nice exemption so that the hate speech law doesn't apply to them

Ebun Joseph and others can be exempt from the hate speech laws, while simultaneously publishing "research" papers denouncing "whitness".

Nail on head.

Sand

Chips Lovell wrote: »

No, they can't. It has to be a good faith contribution.

So why have the carve-out for specific classes (journalist, academic, scientist, politician, etc) at all? Why link the exemption to class/status? Why not simply state that if a contribution is made in good faith - i.e. on the basis of a genuinely held position - that it cannot be viewed as "hate speech"? Oh, I know why - because the aim is to secure convictions for dissent, not to deter hate of Irish people. If anything is deterred, it will be debate on establishment narratives around mass migration.

Genuinely, as a moderator of Boards - particularly Politics - you have to recognize that to protect Boards from legal action under these proposed laws you will be obliged to immediately close any threads which discuss any contentious issues regarding non-Irish groups right? Boards completely shutdown and banned all threads regarding a concert promoter not so long ago due to the threat of legal action. I'm not even sure if its okay for me to mention the promoter by name. You understand that will be your new volunteer activism will be censoring wrong-think, right?

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

So why have the carve-out for specific classes (journalist, academic, scientist, politician, etc) at all? Why link the exemption to class/status? Why not simply state that if a contribution is made in good faith - i.e. on the basis of a genuinely held position - that it cannot be viewed as "hate speech"? Oh, I know why - because the aim is to secure convictions for dissent, not to deter hate of Irish people. If anything is deterred, it will be debate on establishment narratives around mass migration.

Genuinely, as a moderator of Boards - particularly Politics - you have to recognize that to protect Boards from legal action under these proposed laws you will be obliged to immediately close any threads which discuss any contentious issues regarding non-Irish groups right? Boards completely shutdown and banned all threads regarding a concert promoter not so long ago due to the threat of legal action. I'm not even sure if its okay for me to mention the promoter by name. You understand that will be your new volunteer activism will be censoring wrong-think, right?

Eh no. Hate speech is already not permitted on Boards. If you've concerns about the legal implications you should contact the office. As a mod, I've zero concerns.