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

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764098#Comment_120764098

Nonsense. I'm literally trained in law. Definitions are created with the attempt at creating clarity, just because there's some interpretive wiggle room doesn't change that fact.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764112#Comment_120764112

Wonderful, and good for you, and I know definitions are created with the attempt at creating clarity, but that’s not what you originally claimed. Your original claim was that the law functions on specifics, things which are very clearly and precising defined in the name of clarity.

Law simply cannot function on specifics, for the reasons I stated above. Given your familiarity with Irish law I’m sure you can think of numerous examples which contradict your earlier assertion, which may go some way towards explaining why what you consider to be one of the most legally flawed pieces of legislation arguably ever made, doesn't get the derision it deserves from our politicians, media and our supposed legal scholars.

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764083#Comment_120764083

Not really. I don't mind pointing out drivel when I see it.

Snake Plisken

So who should we be emailing lads Dept of Justice? local FF/FG TD's ?

I'll never vote for any of these individuals or Parties again that supported this bill

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764097#Comment_120764097

Yes we do, out of date and literally never used.

which is why it makes sense to legislate correctly now.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120763994#Comment_120763994

Beyond the whole feeling that they will automatically be persecuted for expressing an opinion about trans rights specifically, there is the whole feeling that the legislation will have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, which is why the suggestion exists that the legislation could be weaponised in any direction. It could, but that’s not a sufficiently compelling argument against the legislation as it is drafted, because that’s not its intent.

The Minister is very clear about the intent of the legislation, and has been clear about where and how it does, and does not apply, with examples which make it’s intent very clear -

I want to be clear about what is intended, and what is not, with this bill.

You will still be able to offend other people or express views that make others uncomfortable. You will still be able to debate and discuss issues regarding protected characteristics.

The new law includes defences for reasonable and genuine contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting.

Protection for freedom of expression is included, in addition to the protections already provided under the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The line we are drawing is that you can be offensive, say things that make others uncomfortable, have full and robust debate — but you cannot incite hatred or violence.

I don’t agree with the idea that anyone should be free to offend others, but that is at least consistent with the values inherent in promoting and protecting freedom of expression and freedom of speech in a liberal democracy.

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764187#Comment_120764187

Assuming you're speaking about the last round of emails that got spammed to TDs from users here, do you think spamming some TDs with the same email is going to have any effect at all? Because it just looks like a group of lads with their own agenda spamming the same email to a TD. Can't imagine it would be taken seriously since it's a clear spamming attempt of the exact same email. Also consider that some posters are probably going to send their own emails to the TD informing them of what is going on which might undermine the entire spamming process, like last time.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764098#Comment_120764098

The paragraph below is an absolute pile of shyte. There are laws in place now to deal with people who are attacked. Both physically and if they are threatened with violence.

Unless of course the definition of attacked now means having a difference of opinion.

We have also defined gender in a manner that includes a person’s gender, their expressed or preferred gender and the gender with which they identify.

This is to allow for the protection of transgender and non-binary people. If we did not do so, a non-binary person who was attacked for who they are would not be protected.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764208#Comment_120764208

Maybe.....just maybe.....the reason they're "never used"........is that there is very little ACTUAL hate speech around?

Hence Helen and her pals in the grievance industry NGOs gerrymandering this law so people who disagree with the latest cause du jour can be silenced with the threat of prosecution.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764552#Comment_120764552

Oh no, there is plenty of actual hate speech around, you only need to.go to some of these protest to see it, loud and proud. however current legislation isn't good enough. We definitely need more modern legislation, done correctly.

I don't see the arguments against other then the worry that perhaps it isn't done.right.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764489#Comment_120764489

There are of course existing laws in place which deal with people who attack other people, but there are no laws in place which deal with people who attack other persons on specific grounds, and that’s why it was proposed that existing legislation required updating -

Those protected characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and disability.

The Minister is correct to point out that previous legislation did not protect people on the basis of certain characteristics which were not considered in existing legislation, which are now being included in the proposed legislation. You really don’t need to go as far as referring to anyone who is physically attacked, existing legislation already prohibits even the threat of an attack. Think non-fatal offences against the person.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764097#Comment_120764097

Which are ineffective

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764663#Comment_120764663

If there were an overwhelming backlog of "hate crime" cases that needed to be addressed, we would surely be aware of this by now.

But there isn't.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764674#Comment_120764674

But there is, and there’s no reason anyone who isn’t interested would be aware of it -

An Garda Siochana last year recorded 510 hate crimes. The most prevalent discriminatory motive was race (32 per cent), followed by sexual orientation (22 per cent) and nationality (21 per cent).

Despite this, and the recording of certain crimes as hate crimes, and despite the fact that hate crimes increased by 29 per cent last year over the previous year, we do not yet have specific hate crime legislation.

There is nothing set out in law, making us an outlier in the western world. That’s why I am progressing the Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764687#Comment_120764687

Let's take the sexual orientation example.

What constituted a "hate crime" against those approximately 100 people who are homosexual? I've never experienced it, but does it refer to verbal abuse?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764674#Comment_120764674

That makes no sense whatsoever

There can't be an overwhelming backlog of hate crime cases that need to be addressed because there is no such thing legally as hate crime at present

And it has nothing at all do with the point I answered.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764701#Comment_120764701

That's my whole point.

What "crime" needs to be addressed that is currently unaddressed by existing legislation? I'm using the word crime in the sense of something that really needs to be punished, that is not currently punished.

Just saying the words "hate crime" is not good enough. We need detail, on individual cases. Not general statements about what may or may not constitute a hate crime.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764660#Comment_120764660

I'm fine with it being against the law to commit violence against anyone, including non-binary people. I'm fine with it being agains the law to threaten violence against anyone, including non-binary people. No issue there.

But here's my problem, what happens if I have a disagreement with someone who is non-binary? Supposing I have the belief that there are only two genders and people can't magically swap their gender. So if I publish something along the lines of 'I think transgender people have a mental illness', am I in danger of falling on the wrong side of this law? I haven't threatened them nor am I inciting anyone else to commit violence or hatred against them.

Or lets take it a notch lower. Supposing I make a statement about fat people (in the interests of honesty I'm one of the fattest people around) that "I'd never date one, they are disgusting", there's no incitement to violence but is saying fat people are disgusting now going to be against the law?

I'm being genuine here but I'd love an example of something that this legislation would be able to deal with that isn't a crime under existing legislation but would be under the new legislation. Because as far as I can see, this is way too vague.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764720#Comment_120764720

OK. Go and ask the Gardai for all the details then. Let them tell you where to go. 😶.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764663#Comment_120764663

I'd love an example of a situation where existing laws are ineffective but this new law will be able to punish the perpetrator, if you can think of one?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764725#Comment_120764725

How do you think expressing an opinion, that doesn't invite hatred or violence would be against the law?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764734#Comment_120764734

You are advocating in favour of this legislation.

I'm flummoxed that, despite not having these very important details to hand, you still support this legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764743#Comment_120764743

I asked this very question many pages ago.

The example I received -- the only singular example I received -- was that an irresponsible Scotsman taught his pug to perform a Nazi salute, and who posted the video to social media.

Clearly, the dog owner is a stupid idiot. But he should not be criminalised for his actions.

Nobody has any idea when and where this legislation should be applied. Instead, it's simmered down to general statements about "hate", and how it may constitute a crime.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764743#Comment_120764743

I think I gave an example already

Person created a Facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" - person posted on it a little bit

Travellers complained. DPP prosecuted. Judge through it out of court because it didn't meet the threshold of the 1989 incitement to hatred act.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764755#Comment_120764755

You are not making any sense

I answered a question about incitement to hatred --you started talking about hate crime. I explained this doesn't make any sense. You are now demanding lots of details just because. None of what you are saying makes any sense.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764761#Comment_120764761

That's an example of a stupid person creating a stupid, immature -- but inappropriate -- Facebook page.

If the person actually meant it, and meant to cause harm to babies throughout the country, that would be catered to by existing incitement to violence legislation.

So either way, your argument fails utterly.

If that's the best example you can give for justifying wide-reaching hate speech legislation, the legislation is based on very, very shaky grounds.

Do we really want limited police resources criminalising immature people who set up Facebook pages or who make dogs do stupid acts?

No, we want law enforcement out on the streets criminalising real crime, not imaginary crime.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764794#Comment_120764794

How can you tell what their intent was?

You also clearly don't know what incitement to hatred is

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764803#Comment_120764803

If their intent was to cause and promote physical harm, it is catered to under existing incitement to violence legislation.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764811#Comment_120764811

The DPP felt it was strong enough to prosecute under existing incitement to hatred legislation. The judge threw it out of court because it didn't meet the threshold.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764811#Comment_120764811

How.

Can you explain that to me? Only it seems to me like you are making all sorts of claims and don't even understand the law.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120764822#Comment_120764822

Which proves my point.

No crime was committed.

Do you want police resources wasted on criminalising immature people who say stupid things or who make dopey Facebook pages?

Is that level of fragility in society worth creating legislation that limits free speech? I say no, it doesn't.

Limited law enforcement resources should be used to target real crimes in the real world, not imaginary crimes created by sensitive people who find absolutely everything in the world "offensive".