Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991290#Comment_121991290

If gender / gender expression is being included as a protected characteristic partly on the basis of real or perceived harm against the group, then that raises questions about what groups should be included.

It really doesn’t if the only reason you’re raising those “questions” isn’t to try and advocate for those additional characteristics, but rather to try and undermine the whole concept of protected characteristics altogether. Even if anyone were to take your suggestion of additional characteristics in good faith, you’re already aware that the existing characteristics are based upon evidence and data gathering as opposed to merely stating an opinion like this:

obese people and old people receive unbelievable amounts of abuse — both physical and mental abuse — on an enormous scale

You clearly don’t care about those people when all you’re doing is using them to undermine legislation which applies on the basis of characteristics. With regard to protected characteristics for obese and old people, the protected characteristics would be weight and age. It’s really not common at all that people are targeted on the basis of their age or weight, so that’s why it doesn’t show up in the data as much as the other existing characteristics, and the new characteristics that are being included.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991344#Comment_121991344

That’s hard to believe given the numbers of women who are murdered every year.

Or else there’s no link between threats and actual violence - in which case maybe policing should concentrate on the groups that are getting murdered, and other people should just learn to deal with their hurty feelings?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991353#Comment_121991353

The vast majority of women who are abused and murdered are at the hands of spouses or family, an altogether different class of violence to the one we are discussing here.

Maybe you should be advocating for controls on spouse's and male family members if that is your area of genuine concern.

And just set the record straight - Ireland has some of the worst figures for actual violence towards gay and gender diverse people in Europe. It a serious problem that should be top of any crime agenda.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991353#Comment_121991353

Both women as a group, and as individuals, and men as a group, and as individuals are included under the protected characteristic of gender, the single characteristic that concerned_tenant is having considerable difficulty with:

If it were actually the case that people should learn to have to deal with their hurty feelings, there’s a few compulsive complainers in Scotland are hoping to waste as much police time and resources as they can by making vexatious complaints, precisely because of their hurt feels that their freedom to abuse and incite violence against individuals and groups in society is being constrained in order to protect everyone in society from their behaviour.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991389#Comment_121991389

And yet a Scottish politician admitted that their new gender law would protect a trans woman being attacked for being trans, but that if the attacker had genuineky believed she was a woman, then she wouldn't be covered by the law.

His excuse was that a separate anti-misogyny law would be coming along shortly.

So what makes you think that Irish law will be different?

Even if it is, that begs the question of why one needs more categories in the first place, so that it's not ok to insult someone for being male, but it is ok to insult them for being red headed?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991424#Comment_121991424

This legislation has nothing to do with insulting someone and to suggest so is simply a tactic to belittle its purpose.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991386#Comment_121991386

Since I'm a woman, I think it's up to me to decide how to respond to violence against women, and the little attempt at trying to make out that I don't "genuinely" care about it is… well, odd, TBH. Are you female yourself??

On the law itself, are you saying that it cannot apply to acquaintances, only to unknown people in the street?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991386#Comment_121991386

I have no problem with objective incitement to violence legislation.

But on the hate speech aspects of the legislation, there I do have a problem.

When the Scottish equivalent of this law failed to prosecute JK Rowling, do you consider this to be a failing of the law?

In other words, do you believe that JK Rowling had been spreading hatred and so should, ideally, be convicted?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991435#Comment_121991435

I was assuming that the difference compared to the existing law was that it covered domains that were previously left out, ie that violence was already covered by the previous law. I admit it's not clear to me what other advantages it will have over the 1989 act, so maybe you can explain?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991450#Comment_121991450

JK Rowlings is been deeply offensive - but as far as I am aware nothing she has said has reached the bar of been hate speech. You cannot be prosecuted retrospectively. I suspect she will try to make herself a martyr as she is currently angling to do but she clever enough to know where to draw the line.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991466#Comment_121991466

Hate speech legislation allows for people to perceive hatred against them, hence why she was reported to the police.

You, like me, do not agree that those people who perceived hatred had legitimate grounds, but what you or I think doesn't matter in this case. Ultimately, the legislation gave them carte blanche to report Rowling (and presumably others) to the police — wasting police time.

That's why subjective perception is a terrible basis upon which to construct legislation.

It incentivizes people to weaponize the legislation against people whose opinions they disagree with — even if they're just feigning the idea (we cannot prove nor disprove their claim that they legitimately believe hatred has been exacted against them).

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991451#Comment_121991451

I don't know how this act is meant to work, so I don't know why you think that. But I suspect that's because the act itself is so unclear, so I don't expect you'll be able to explain it either.

As to my "genuine" concerns, that's an unwarranted slur and grossly offensive.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991473#Comment_121991473

Making a complaint doesn't make it legitimate, how many times does it need repeating. J K Rowling will carry on as before and unless she intentionally decides to indulge in hate speech nothing will happen to her, she will continue to spread her bile without consequences.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991457#Comment_121991457

It updates the law to reflect the internet didn't really exist in 1989, it updates the list of protected characteristics, it brings in incitement to violence as well as incitement to hatred, it also separately introduces hate crime law for the first time in Ireland.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991473#Comment_121991473

Indeed, and not only that, before Rowling made those comments, an SNP politician being interviewed on the BBC said that misgendering someone would be ahate crime, before rowing back on it somewhat and saying it would be up to the police to decide. Thus inciting people to make as many complaints as possible so as to clarify what the law actually covered. Which is exactly what happened.

I don't think it's reasonable to blame the public for wasting police time when the law was so badly written and unclear that even those who wrote it couldn't sure what it covered.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991473#Comment_121991473

Thats a bit silly actually. Anyone could go into a Garda station right now and start reporting what they want. The introduction of the law makes no difference.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991491#Comment_121991491

Misleading, perhaps a little clarification is warranted:

• It introduces subjective gender expression as a protected characteristic.
• It makes it illegal to minimize certain historical events, including war crimes.
• It encourages people to report others to the police on the basis of perceived "hate" against them.

It does include incitement to violence legislation, too — and, as long as that remains objective, I have no problem with it. Incitement to hatred already exists in this country.

But the triad of unacceptable add-ons listed above makes this legislation unfit for purpose.

It must be scrapped.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991491#Comment_121991491

That's a very vague and aspirational answer, not a practical one at all.

What is "hate crime law" which doesn't involve either violence or incitement? Why does it need to be introduced "separately"?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991488#Comment_121991488

Lots of people said it would be hate crime to misgender. Were they all wrong? If so, will Irish law be the same or different?

You said that insulting someone wouldn't be covered. You were wrong about that, because here's what the garda site says:

Examples of hate crime?  

Verbal abuse, obscene/offensive calls, text, mail or emails, assault, harassment, criminal damage, arson, manslaughter, murder

https://www.garda.ie/en/reportahatecrime/

Also, it specifies that it is enough for it to be perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice

If so, then Shoog has already been guilty of a hate crime towards me just now, when s/he accused me of not being "genuinely" interested in domestic violence, something I'm intimately aware of and concerned about, as a woman. Because I am deeply offended by that comment (genuinely so - I'm not joking about that).

y0ssar1an22

bit too subjective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx2cLl0pisQ&ab_channel=GozGeek

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991526#Comment_121991526

The problem with "hate incidents" is that they are collected on the basis of perception, even if no crime has been committed at all.

Hate Incidents – (Non Crime)

Any non-crime incident which is perceived by any person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

It's absurd.

Yet these perceived "incidents", which may not be legitimate at all, are collected as data as if it represents a reality in society on the whole.

If anything, the definition encourages more people to report non-crimes to artificially elevate the data that there is a (phantom) "problem" in society that needs to be addressed.

Do we really want even more legislation to worsen this already unnecessary problem?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991526#Comment_121991526

The law is designed to address threatening language and behaviour. A case will be made to the Gardai and they will decide if it constitutes hate crime just as they are the first arbitor of all reported crime. It then proceeds to the court for a decision on whether it constitutes hate crime.

As is the case in Scotland all trivial complaints are been filtered out at the level of the the Police.

As for your other point, the only thing I ever see you commenting on is transgender issues and you know full well what I feel about your position on that. Your contributions in this thread are a furtherance of your attacks on transgender groups.

People who share your views on this legislation are attempting to "crash" the Scottish legislation by flooding the police with vexatious complaints - exactly the behaviour you are complaing about.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991554#Comment_121991554

Why don't you direct me to the thread on VAWG then? I haven't seen it.

Oh wait, there isn't one. Except as a handy adjunct to comments on migrants, which is not quite the same thing.

And where did I complain about "vexatious" claims? How can you crash legislation? Anyway, as I recall it, just before the law came into effect, lots of TRAs were inciting people to complain about various supposedly "GC" twitter posters, or even threatening them with plans to do so themselves.

The fact is that Rowling defanged the law immediately - but in any case when a law is unclear, bringing it before the courts is how it becomes clear. That's not crashing it.

We were told for years that the abortion situation, ie no specific law, in Ireland was fine because any time there was any legal uncertainty we could just take it to court and the judges would clarify. Including on Christmas Eve, and who cares about the costs, right? Supposedly doing that was a good thing then. Positively a civic duty. Now it's a bad thing?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991424#Comment_121991424

Because the Irish legislation is written differently to the Scottish legislation. How is that even a question? You pointed it out yourself that the Scottish Government are introducing legislation which specifically would prohibit misogyny in order to protect women, because some people pointed out that sex was not included in the legislation as a protected characteristic. That too would have applied to both men and women. In Irish law gender is interpreted synonymously with sex, so the hypothetical scenario that was put to the Scottish police officer doesn’t arise here. If Government wished to introduce legislation to prohibit misogyny specifically, similar to the way they’re doing in Scotland, they could do that too.

It is different, and the reason more categories are needed is because they have been identified as the characteristics which are increasingly being reported in the data in all member states across the EU. That’s where this proposed legislation is coming from, because current Irish legislation is inadequate and doesn’t include the new characteristics.

The legislation doesn’t prohibit insults on the basis of being male, won’t you be glad to know? 😂 Ohh I’m kidding, that was unnecessary, but let’s leave red heads out of it, they’re unfortunate enough to be afflicted already, “no hair, just a red head”, as Gay Byrne used joke about Kathleen. Terrible 😒

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991581#Comment_121991581

There isn’t a thread on VAWG I would imagine for the same reason that we are told to accept males in our spaces; how we’re told to go into counseling to be used to being naked around males in changing rooms and the like and why we have to suffer so males can be “included” and “validated”.

Misogyny.

In the same way as the situation in Gaza has given antisemites a flimsy excuse to opine their vile views (where’s the arrests at the Palestine protests for that hatred??) then this has given those who hate women an “outlet” of sorts - just look at the threatening and hate filled language used at women’s rights marches!!

This law is not fit for purpose as “hate” is not only badly defined but not all “victims” are viewed as equally as others.

volchitsa

Because the Irish legislation is written differently to the Scottish legislation. How is that even a question?

Because the Scottish legislation already exists, and is already showing itself to work (or not) very differently from what was announced in advance. That's the point - not that they're identical, but that the same type of flaw is going to show up with the Irish law, which is arguably even less well written than the Scottish one.

You pointed it out yourself that the Scottish Government are introducing legislation which specifically would prohibit misogyny in order to protect women, because some people pointed out that sex was not included in the legislation as a protected characteristic. That too would have applied to both men and women. In Irish law gender is interpreted synonymously with sex, so the hypothetical scenario that was put to the Scottish police officer doesn’t arise here.

If Government wished to introduce legislation to prohibit misogyny specifically, similar to the way they’re doing in Scotland, they could do that too.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

It is different, and the reason more categories are needed is because they have been identified as the characteristics which are increasingly being reported in the data across the EU. That’s where this proposed legislation is coming from, because current Irish legislation is inadequate and doesn’t include the new characteristics.

I remember a TD saying that it was the current law wasn't leading to enough court cases. Which is very different to saying that Ireland isn't up to date with EU law. If that is so, have other EU countries already brought in similar laws?

The legislation doesn’t prohibit insults on the basis of being male, won’t you be glad to know? 😂 Ohh I’m kidding, that was unnecessary, but let’s leave red heads out of it, they’re unfortunate enough to be afflicted already, “no hair, just a red head”, as Gay Byrne used joke about Kathleen. Terrible

Well presumably it does though, since gender applies to men too?

Not sure about redheads though, and while I'm not redheaded myself, there are redheads in my extended family, and I think it's shocking how some people do talk to and about redheads in the UK (not so much in Ireland, TBF). It's frankly bizarre, and even more bizarre that it's deemed to be acceptable in England though.

THE_SHEEP

Just a thought about this proposed new hate bill / legislation ( let's leave aside genders / trans / LGBTQ spaghetti for a moment) .

What about Red heads / Ginger haired / Ginger pubes people ? Will they be covered under this new legislation ?

I recall said mentioned people receiving awful abuse in school / collage / work environs !!!

( P.s asking on behalf of a vengeful " Ginga Ninja " friend ...... ) .

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991657#Comment_121991657

The same type of flaw isn’t going to show up because the Scottish law doesn’t include the protected characteristics of gender, or sex, whereas Irish law includes gender.

Other EU countries are taking just as long as Ireland to update their hate speech laws in accordance with EU law, with some countries having their own particular issues. More recently France for example, given what happened there recently, France are still resistant to the idea of permitting Muslim women to wear traditional head dress. Germany already has laws which prohibit denial of the Holocaust. Each member state will have its own customisations depending upon their own interpretation and how it applies in their societies.

It doesn’t prohibit insults, the bar is much higher than just merely insulting or offensive speech or expression. Section 7 below:

Would you suggest that the way they talk about red heads in England could constitute a hate crime if hair colour were a protected characteristic? Tbh I’ve heard far, far more ‘dumb blonde’ jokes than I’ve ever heard jokes about fiery redheads. I dunno, could be a cultural thing between Ireland and the UK I guess, I don’t know. Would it constitute a hate crime if hair colour were a protected characteristic? Probably not 🤔

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121991821#Comment_121991821

The legislation states that if a person is in a public place and incites "hatred" based on protected characteristics, there is concern that if women's rights events were held (as they often are in public) and made certain statements that some trans activists deem "hateful", would those women be reported and found guilty of inciting hatred?

The legislation makes this outcome plausible.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121992120#Comment_121992120

And…? What’s your point? Because you’ve flip-flopped wildly from claiming it’s unnecessary to claiming current legislation needs to be changed to the proposed legislation is dead in the water and it’s not going to pass, to it’s going to be modified… seems anything is plausible by your standards, so you really have nothing to be concerned about at all if you actually believe the half of what you’re claiming so far.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121992169#Comment_121992169

My point is that the legislation will be weaponized to silence legitimate criticism.

It's an affront to free expression.