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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120616429#Comment_120616429

Someway always does seem to have a video, a tweet, or a podcast, or a YouTube about things around here.

But no one ever actually seems know or be able to express what's in them or what they're actually about....

Marcos

Someway always does seem to have a video, a tweet, or a podcast, or a YouTube about things around here.

Oh Heaven forfend, a politician who has examined the proposed legislation in detail and raises concerns about it's scope decides to lay out her concerns for anyone to see.

But no one ever actually seems know or be able to express what's in them or what they're actually about....

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me.

For those slow on the uptake . . . . In that short video she outlines how similar laws have been used in other countries against a lot of people who seem to be representative of groups currently cheerleading for the same kind of legislation here. So it's not going to be limited to the far right bogeyman du jour. It will also be used against the useful idiots who are cheerleading the introduction of this legislation. In the video she has show how similar legislation has been used against feminists, climate activists, people who have offended politicians and pro Palestinian activists. Paul Murphy has recognised the dangers of this which is why he has been speaking out against it, and fair play to him for that.

https://twitter.com/SenatorKeogan/status/1659231555082940416

Now you may not agree, but at least watch the video and then make your counter arguments . . . . if you can.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120619374#Comment_120619374

I think it's possibly the only time I agree with something Paul Murphy has said (and very possibly the last time).

This legislation is dangerous. It will be weaponised by one side of the political spectrum as a battering ram against their political opponents, stifling legitimate and reasonable opinions whilst at the same time creating a longer lasting chilling effect.

And if you need any evidence of that, look which side of the political spectrum almost exclusively supports its introduction. Look at what's happened in the UK and other European countries where this regressive and draconian legislation has already been introduced.

Look, they support its introduction into law with glee.

They cannot wait to go around reporting tweets to the Gardai - wasting police resources when law enforcement should be spending time dealing with actual and legitimate crimes, not the hurt feelings of some basement dweller who goes out of their way on Twitter to find something to be "offended" by.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618534#Comment_120618534

It’s not my onus to prove someone else’s unbased, uncited legal claims. It’s theirs. They’ve suggested a twist in the law about memes and not explained how that would go exactly. I can’t see how the legislation supports their claim except in the most overly broad/useless sense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120619374#Comment_120619374

Why?

If the poster isn't able to make a point, mye watching the video isn't going to help understand, is it?

What'.ate they trying to say?

It's a bit like conducting an experiment without introducing what it's designed to prove or disprove and then deciding whatever the outcome was proves something....

Hodger

This video footage is from the streets of Dublin earlier today a man had a sign " children cannot consent to puberty blockers "

To quote the Guard at 1.44

" where you could fall short there is realistically is displaying material in a public place that may be offensive to others ok that be contrary to section 7 of the criminal justice act " .

https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/status/1659927650175991808

And this is before the new law is passed in full .

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621430#Comment_120621430

How utterly sad to watch a member of law enforcement have such a stupid conversation with someone because they are expressing an opinion.

This is exactly what I meant when I said waste of police resources / time.

It's embarrassing.

This is what happens when infantile opinions on "causing offense" become, or threaten to become, part of the law.

And by the way, that officer had no right to say to that man to stay away from the store because he should first have checked the CCTV to verify the claim. Then, he could make a formal decision. To make a decision off the back of not seeing the footage (guilt until proven innocent) was wrong. That officer looked stupid in that video.

Nice to see at the end of the video that absolutely everyone agrees with the Canadian guy, supporting his right to freedom of speech.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120620301#Comment_120620301

If you are talking about me, I didn't make any claims. I asked a question. And I don't think I'm being alarmist when you have people in the UK getting arrested for a meme mocking the transgender flag.

https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/

The Brits have their heads up their arses over this type of legislation. It leads them to come out with incorrect sh1te like the pic below.

Hodger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621448#Comment_120621448

Indeed, all the guard had to do was to check the CCTV footage before approaching him.

Here is a photo of the campaigner with his sign someone took in Dublin today, the sign the guard approached him over.

https://twitter.com/ServeOnlyGod/status/1659954364625068039

Potential-Monke

I didn't watch the video, I can't put myself through 9+ minutes of listening to it. I just don't understand why he would have approached in the first place, aside from maybe a direction to. If all he was doing was standing there, then no issue as far as I can see. If he was roaring and shouting, or "forcing" his opinion on passerbys, then maybe a word could be had. Still, I see no actual reason to approach that man at all. Most likely someone complained, or the Garda was a dope.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621562#Comment_120621562

Most likely someone complained, or the Garda was a dope.

Having watched the entire footage, I can confirm it was both.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621430#Comment_120621430

I’ve watched the video, and the follow up video where the Garda comes back around and has changed his mind, about 5 times.

Based on a report that someone had gone into the Disney store and said something offensive, the Garda had decided before he approached the Canadian that the Canadian had been in the Disney shop and had said something offensive. He’d decided that he was going to warn the Canadian that it was against the law to offend anyone but as he had no witnesses he would just admonish him and tell him to move along.

He’d made no attempt to go into the Disney shop ( where the complaint emanated from) before he approached the Canadian and establish what, if anything had happened.

He is very quickly telling the Canadian that saying something someone else might find offensive is breaking the law.

Its an extraordinary piece of film and needs to go totally viral so everyone can see what the state of play is regarding freedom of expression.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621562#Comment_120621562

Yeah someone complained cause hate speech wasting the police officers time when he could be doing something more useful a bit further north.

Hodger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621925#Comment_120621925

He has another follow up video.

https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/status/1660055643225567234

Two passers by are by debating, 35 seconds into the video the girl in brown jacket says " you,re here to defend this man who,s here to spread hate " .

There you go someone who subjectively sees objection to puberty blockers for underage children as hate, now under the full proposed planned laws all it takes is someone who subjectively sees an expression of an opinion they don,t like as " hate " in order to report to the guards.

Does anyone on here actually think that someone objecting to puberty blockers for underage children warrants an actual garda investigation ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622629#Comment_120622629

What a perfect illustration in that video of one side which is self-righteous, angry, vacant of facts and seemingly reason itself, totally self-obsessed and narcissistic; and the other side, with that lady calmly presenting the facts in a reasonable and polite and mature, confident manner.

Good on the older lady for fighting back like that. Quite enjoyed watching the three girls make a total fool of themselves.

Marcos

Just a thought, given the wide scope of this legislation, imagine if the family members of that guy beaten up in Navan for being gay were charged for uploading that video. It definitely seems to meet the requirements for hate under the bill. It has embarrassed the Guards into taking action, and Norma Foley and Pearse Doherty said it shouldn't have been posted online.

Hodger

Interesting case reported in the Irish times and what,s even more Interesting is the order the Judge gave.

" A campaigner against bogus medical treatments has claimed before the High Court that her right to freedom of expression has been breached by a District Court judge’s order not to post anything on social media that is abusive or offensive to any person. "

" She said she does not intend to be offensive or abusive online, but if she does express her opinions, which she says she is entitled to do, she cannot control or decide what others find to be offensive or abusive. "

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/05/22/campaigner-claims-rights-breached-by-judges-order-not-to-make-offensive-social-media-posts/

She is right in the context that " she cannot control or decide what others find to be offensive or abusive. " in the same way one cannot or decide what others find to be " hate speech " and this is also before the new laws are passed in full .

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120613065#Comment_120613065

The U.S. is a common law jurisdiction

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629392#Comment_120629392

Do you know who she is? Her arguing for freedom of expression is beyond ironic, as she's the very type of person who'd happily censors others with the "wrong views". She doesn't believe in freedom of expression, and like most progressives, holds said belief only when it's convenient. I would be no surprise to me at all if she will be one of the many abusing the upcoming legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120619374#Comment_120619374

Jaysus, that woman is a ####!

A senator stirring **** like that, should be stopped. I'm not saying anything about the current bill, but she's some stirrer.

Hodger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629448#Comment_120629448

I know who she is, I,ve seen what her views are.

The order though " not to post anything on social media that is abusive or offensive to any person. "

If the planned laws go ahead in full unamended woulldn,t a Judge be able to give similar orders to people brought before a court over " hate speech " that,s what I find concerning in the longer term of things.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629431#Comment_120629431

Cheers.

Marcos

 "Jaysus, that woman is a ####!"

A senator stirring **** like that, should be stopped. I'm not saying anything about the current bill, but she's some stirrer."

Is this a prime example of the kind of "hate speech" that this proposed bill is trying to stop?

ArthurDayne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622629#Comment_120622629

The existence of the new law or otherwise doesn’t prevent anyone calling the guards about anything, and in any event Ireland already does have existing laws on hate speech under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. So there’s long been scope to make a call to the police over someone saying something you perceive to be stirring up hate and an actual legislative potential offence to tie it to. This is not a new concept being introduced by the new legislation.

In any event, if what you are trying to say is that the effect of the new legislation is that someone simply saying something is hate subjectively means that law deems it hate objectively — then I would personally find that very hard to believe and I can’t see it panning out that way under judicial interpretation. What section of the new Bill are you referring to?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621430#Comment_120621430

This is an extraordinarily alarming threat on decent free speech.

CrabRevolution

The flippancy with which the term "genocide" is used to describe society's engagement with trans people, and the vast swathe of people and opinions that get called "far right" makes it pretty clear that the bar for what qualifies as "hate" will be set so low as to be subterranean.

Hodger

According to a recent opinion poll

" 70% oppose the proposed hate speech laws. "

https://twitter.com/ConMurphyCarlow/status/1663118379857616898

Plus when you take into account the public consultation carried out most were opposed also too.

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1654113707004239872

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120658437#Comment_120658437

He’s not wrong 😬

But a new research paper points out one huge potential flaw in all this research: kids who skew the results by making stuff up for a giggle. "Mischievous Responders," they're called.

They may say they're 7 feet tall, or weigh 400 pounds, or have three children. They may exaggerate their sexual experiences, or lie about their supposed criminal activities. In other words, kids will be kids, especially when you ask them about sensitive issues.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/05/22/313166161/mischievous-responders-confound-research-on-teens

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630481#Comment_120630481

No. That's just an insult. Not hate speech.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120658685#Comment_120658685

Not just an insult though is it Suvi? That online account has stated the senator "should be stopped". Now that can be interpreted as a legitimate Threat. Some nutjob could see that online, agree with this sinister sentiment that this senator "should be stopped", "stopped" for expressing her opinion on potential legislation, which she is entitled to do. Plenty of politicians were "stopped" before, and they were stopped by being murdered by people who disagreed with them.