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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120725120#Comment_120725120

Can you give some examples of "hate" that this legislation caters to that existing legislation doesn't already cover?

silverharp

A very good contribution from Mullen, as Norm McDonald would say, now you dont know what the hell to think

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/1669600808428601347

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120725823#Comment_120725823

Not really, why? Did I say something indicating that i could?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726000#Comment_120726000

It indicates how redundant this legislation is.

In other words, extant legislation is sufficient to deal with hateful actions (i.e. violence, harassment etc.) in a way that makes this legislation superfluous.

Nobody - including proponents of this legislation - can seem to offer examples of cases where this legislation is needed. Saying, "well, it addresses hate", is not a case; it's an emotive statement.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726006#Comment_120726006

Just to be clear - I have stated several times that I'm not a proponenet of the legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726031#Comment_120726031

I'm aware of that. But I'm highlighting a broader point among its actual proponents - namely, that they cannot offer a single example where this legislation is needed in a way that extant legislation does not already address.

Even McEntee herself cannot even give examples. In fact, terms like hate go undefined.

So no real-life cases, and no definition of that which is supposed to deal with these phantom cases.

The legislation is a mess, and its proponents cannot even summon the arguments to defend it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726038#Comment_120726038

A guess would be the guy who trained his pug to get excited by shouting "gas the Jews" when he was taking him for a walk as mentioned by 200mg on the previous page - but it is just a guess. it might already be covered.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726049#Comment_120726049

Nobody should be criminalised for teaching a dog to respond to a stupid statement.

Neamhshuntasach

Could handing out pamphlets for Palestine for example be seen as incitement to hatred or violence under this for example? I think some comments in the Dáil have even resulted in anti-semitic claims from israelis in the past.

What about singing ballads in a pub? Or could a comedian like Ricky Gervais fall foul of it?

One of my gay friends uses the word fag on placards in an ironic way when turning up to marches etc. Could he be arrested under the legislation if some other gay person took offense.

I think the legislation is so vague and will end up being used more against people that current comments in favour of it are saying it is needed to protect.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726407#Comment_120726407

One of my gay friends uses the word fag on placards in an ironic way when turning up to marches etc. Could he be arrested under the legislation if some other gay person took offense.

That's the thing.

I'm gay but I wouldn't find the ironic use of that word "offensive" or hateful. But you could easily imagine a scenario where a gay person does find it "hateful" use of language in a public place. A case could probably be made under this legislation. And that feeds back to the fundamental flaw of this legislation - namely, that it is wholly dependent on subjective interpretations of events. In other aspects of law, subjectivity is taken out of the picture. And rightly so, because you almost always cannot disprove subjectivity in a court of law.

Let's consider the following example: a gay person is murdered by a homophobic killer, who killed that person as a direct consequence of being gay. We can establish objective evidence that this was the case i.e. the evidence stands on its own merits, independent from what anyone else thinks or believes. We could also consider this particular case of murder to be a hate crime. But the former charge is what matters because that's the crime that was committed from an objective standpoint. There is no additional benefit to having hate legislation in this case. It's entirely redundant.

This legislation achieves the precise opposite, in that it prioritises subjective personal experience which almost always cannot be disproven. Unlike the case of the above murder, where we can prove or disprove the claim based on tangible, objective evidence; this legislation carries the risk that someone could make a claim that they find certain comments hateful, but there's no way anyone can disprove that claim. We cannot enter the mind of said person and establish whether their claim is legitimate or a lie or manufactured outrage or manipulation or any other reason (unless of course, they admit to it).

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

It's stupid legislation, counter to how sensible laws should be created in this country.

1800_Ladladlad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120717419#Comment_120717419

https://twitter.com/greenparty_ie/status/1669696502216679426

Simon Harris said something similar on April 6th “But when you see Donald Trump, junior or senior, whatever, a member of the Trump family and Elon Musk opposing your legislation, and when you say Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Greens and Sinn Féin, Labour, all these people coming together to vote in favour of something, you know there’s no conspiracy here.”..........yeah, no!!! I know Harris has no 3rd level of education or relevant experience to justify him being in any government role but both his and senator O'Reilly's statements are not only infantile and dangerous especially when setting policy, but this seems to be all the rage.

Harris said as well that “we live in a democracy and let people have their debate,”...Let? Yes for now! If we did live in a democratic society the results of their own gov public consultation wouldn't have been disregarded and ignored with lies, this would have been put to a vote.

Read what else he says, he has no political philosophy other than to get as much public attention for himself as possible.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-conspiracy-behind-irelands-new-hate-speech-laws-says-justice-minister-1471640.html

Rocko

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1670450104287862784

TooTired123

Ellis O’Hanlon speaks for me on this subject in the Sindo. I hope it’s ok to post it here.

An email recently went out to staff at Mediahuis, the company which publishes the Sunday Independent and Irish Independent.

Sent to celebrate the “LGBTQIA+ community”, it included a special Pride flag for people to pin to their emails, as well as the following message: “We endorse the use of pronouns and would like to encourage you to join us, cultivating an inclusive office environment.”

Now, there may be some people out there who still don’t know what the hell that means. They can consider themselves highly fortunate.

Basically, it’s like this: some people don’t think words like ‘male’ and ‘female’, or ‘man’ and ‘woman’, are adequate to describe how terribly interesting they are, and have decided to adopt new pronouns — perhaps calling themselves ‘she’ when they were actually born a man, or ‘they/them’ if they’ve adopted what’s known as a non-binary identity somewhere on the spectrum between the two.

They might even invent so-called ‘neo pronouns’, such as ‘xe’ and ‘zir’. 

They’re entirely free to do so. Roald Dahl made up new words too. ‘Crodsquinkled’ was a good one. It means to be caught out at something.

Like, for example, if you’re a government minister briefing against your own taoiseach, because you want his job — but think no one’s realised it’s you.

ADVERTISEMENT

Words being delightfully malleable in this way, people are free to invent as many new pronouns as they wish.

Indeed some people now use multiple combinations of them, depending on how they feel at the time.

There is, however, no compelling reason why this practice should include an obligation on, or even be of any interest to, other people.

It’s an entirely personal matter, like going to church. You go if you want to. I neither have to go with you, nor applaud enthusiastically when you do.

Unfortunately, it’s no longer considered acceptable to just let people do whatever it is they choose to do.

Increasingly, tolerance has been redefined to mean everyone is expected to join in by demonstrating allegiance to other people’s personal beliefs, even ones they regard as ridiculous. For most people, myself included, the situation remains hypothetical.

The email in question was sent to members of staff at Mediahuis, not freelance contributors like me. No one has asked me to do anything.

And indeed, whilst some people who received the email expressed irritation with its contents, anecdotally many others barely gave it a second thought, and have no intention of trumpeting their pronouns in their email signatures or anywhere else.

But it’s not as simple as that. As the display of pronouns for ideological purposes, however well-meaning, becomes more common, not going along with it will automatically draw attention to oneself as a refusenik.

Even asking someone why they don’t follow the practice reinforces the idea that this is something which they must justify, especially when the companies for which they work explicitly frames the appeal as a way of making the office “inclusive”.

Even if the compulsion to go along with it merely boils down to a subtle moral or social pressure to conform, many people are bound to feel uncomfortable at the request.

But who cares about their unease when it’s already been classified as bigotry by proxy?

Diversity is a meaningless slogan if we’re all required to think alike.

​That question is all the more pressing in light of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) bill which is currently going through the Seanad.

This legislation gives authorities new powers to combat “hate”, without once defining what “hate” means.

It also seeks to increase penalties for language which allegedly provokes this vague “hate” against people on the grounds of their gender identity, again without stating what gender is.

As with pronouns, it’s just taken for granted that there’s a right thing to do, and that everyone knows what it is, which conveniently negates any need to prove that this is the case.

Just go along with it, the argument runs. Don’t you want to be kind?

Submissions to the public consultation on the bill published last October were so largely hostile that the Government felt the need to append a preamble warning that readers might find the contents “disturbing, insulting, offensive and deeply upsetting.”

Still Justice Minister Helen McEntee felt confident enough to declare last week that “the vast majority of people do want this”. Her evidence for thiswas the debates in the Dáil and the Seanad.

It seems as if politicians have, in the manner of Eamon de Valera, only to examine their own hearts to tell them what the Irish people want.

McEntee continues to insist that her bill will not stamp down on free speech or “prevent people from expressing views, opinions or facts” — but the cat was let out of the bag by Green Party senator Pauline O’Reilly in her contribution to last week’s debate.

“We are restricting freedom,” she admitted, before adding that, if someone’s “views on other people’s identities” cause “discomfort”, then “it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good”.

Many at home may have wondered who gets to decide the level of “discomfort” at which restrictions on basic freedoms should be introduced.

The second, in some ways far more pertinent, question that may have crossed their minds is: Pauline who?

O’Reilly stood unsuccessfully at the 2020 general election, when the good voters of Galway West took a long, hard look at her and said: No, thanks.

Undeterred, she was back within weeks as a candidate on the Seanad’s Labour panel, where she attracted a stonking 7pc of votes.

Given that the valid electorate on the day was a little over 1,100, that means Pauline O’Reilly received a grand total of around 80 votes.

That’s fewer people that can fit on a double-decker Dublin Bus — but on that basis she claims the right to restrict Irish people’s basic freedoms of expression, according to her own definition of the common good.

Who do these people think they are? It seems they’ve forgotten that their job is to serve the people. Now it is the people who must answer to them as mighty ‘legislators’.

The arrogance and entitlement it must take to simply ignore that people don’t want what you’re forcing them to buy is outrageous.

Of course, there is a simple solution to all this. If Helen McEntee is so certain that the vast majority of people in the country support her hate offences bill, let her put it to a referendum.

Better still, make it a double whammy by having another vote on abolishing the Seanad at the same time.

One thing’s for sure. Having seen Senator O’Reilly in action, many of us who defended the second chamber in the 2013 referendum would be far less willing to do so again.

alan partridge aha

This bill must must must be defeated.

Hodger

Interesting video of a school teacher trying to force a belief about gender onto her pupils.

https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1670145753669410816

JP Liz V1

So everyone will identify as Sam Smyth to avoid "hate crime punishment"

I'm confused by it all tbh

For me your are either male or female even if gender changed e.g. if male now female then identify as female

Risteard81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732441#Comment_120732441

It is not my belief that it is possible to change gender. I use the term "belief" lightly - it's simply a fact.

mjsc1970

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732441#Comment_120732441

Identify all ye want, yer still male in this case.

But who cares really

Hodger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732630#Comment_120732630

Its when these confused men who say they Identify as women get allowed access to women,s spaces and make women real uncomfortable, take this for example.

https://twitter.com/AudreySuffolk/status/1670484025058680834

Hodger

As I said before what some see as " hateful " is subjective.

For example according to some, old ladies who don,t want to be exposed to male genitals in a women,s changing area is somehow " hateful " .

https://twitter.com/KarSugrue/status/1670699402078351360

If the planned law passes in full, someone who see,s such a thing as " hateful " will be able to go make a garda report about an Imagined " hate " incident.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732642#Comment_120732642

Ah jaysis.

People need to be worried less about their and other people's bodies.

There's old ladies in Finland walking around naked and sitting in saunas with naked men for generations. Who cares what anyone identifies as!

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120734329#Comment_120734329

It's really mind blowing how us predatory males, the greatest fear of neo feminists, suddenly lose our threat the minute we put on a dress and give ourselves a female name.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732146#Comment_120732146

Yea, it won't be though.

TomTomTim

When exactly can we be honest and call what is supposed to be a democracy something tyrannical? If you look at the vast majority of the laws passed in this country since covid, it's impossible to say that there was a mandate for most of them, and when all the laws that we're being forced to live under have nothing to do with the will of the masses, what do you call that exactly? The will of the people means nothing, when their servants ignore that will time and time again.

Faugheen

https://gript.ie/ms-bernadette-linnane-and-gript-ie/

There's the Press Ombudsman exposing Gript for the liars that they are.

But yet in the eyes of many they are telling 'de troot'.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120734939#Comment_120734939

Gript are awful, for sure. John McGuirk beclowns himself as its head.

But so too is this legislation.

Gript being awful doesn't cancel out how bad this legislation is, which is bad on its own demerits.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120735128#Comment_120735128

That’s an absolutely fair statement to make, even though I personally think there is a lot of doom mongering about the legislation.

However, there are many, including here, who think Gript are being honest in their reporting. They’re not, it’s agenda driven and it’s to suit themselves, nobody else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732421#Comment_120732421

Very poor argument on both sides - not knowing the diffeene between a social construct and a tangible object. Student identifying as an animal (or whatever the argument was) has nothing to do with gender.

They can be a cis boy and still idenfity as a cat - where does gender come into it?

Hodger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120734363#Comment_120734363

If someone goes to a nudist sauna they go in the full consenting knowledge of what to expect n see, however a regular women,s changing area most women don,t expect to see and be exposed to male genitals .

Hodger

A quote from Lisa Chambers at 2.45 " Im very concerned that we,re going towards a situation where we,re telling people how to think how they should think " . That,s exactly how this whole thing comes across.

https://twitter.com/FreeSpeechIre/status/1669018968441405440