Hate Speech Public Consultation

If anyone wants an insight into how 'hate crime' legislation is selectively applied with the intent to attack indigenous Europeans, you can review this story from the UK.

Here we have an example of a racially aggravated assault. Two British women have a minor altercation at a Tesco checkout. One is in her 60s. The other in her 40s. The younger woman threatens the OAP - 'watch what happens when you come out' which implies pre-meditation. She uses racially abusive language 'you've met the wrong woman, you <insert race here> b***h'. So it is a racially motivated crime.

The older woman is terrified. She actually tries to evade the threat by taking an extraordinary route back to her car, to avoid the younger woman. She fails - the younger woman is so possessed with irrational racial hatred for this woman that she waits for her outside the store. When she finds the OAP she (and her son) attack the OAP, pushing her in front of a bus with the intent to kill her.

The attacker in this story avoids jail. Indeed, she gets a character reference from the judge who attempts to explain how she wasn't really at fault. This sort of sympathy wouldn't be displayed if an English person shoved an immigrant under a bus whilst hurling racial abuse. Let us not forget that only a few posts ago, advocates for hate crime legislation were concerned with the plight of someone being racially abused on a bus. Whereas we can see from the UK experience that English people can be shoved under a bus in a racially motivated assault without any jail time. For the same reason Stephen Lawrence is the national saint of the UK, whereas no one has ever heard of Kriss Donald.

The whole idea that 'hate crime' legislation will be applied evenly and without favor is nonsense. It is intended to attack indigenous people, not protect them.

Not sure you can include sexism as hate speech. Some religions are very clearly sexist. While I find those views horrible does the hate speech trump people's religious freedom.

I am reminded of the muslims are right about women meme.

I am a bit sickened saying this but people have a right to be sexist. Even if you don't agree.

The path the UK is taking is about as grim as could be reasonably imagined. While it is always claimed initially (as in this thread) that 'hate speech' laws are to protect terrified victims from abusive and threatening speech or calls for attacks on such people, that is just the thin end of the wedge. It gets the usefully vague and malleable concept of 'hate' recognized. It then proceeds onto criminalizing dissent, which is then characterized as 'hate'.

A new report in the UK now recommends that fighting 'hate' should now be used as a justification to make it illegal to express realities which the UK government finds inconvenient. The report repeatedly declares that material which is not abusive, threatening or violent in nature must be criminalized. So for example, pointing out that the English or White British are a minority in London would be illegal under the reports recommendations.

Activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group motivated by or intending to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology:

a. To create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence; or

b. Attempt to erode or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democratic society as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the HRA 1998

It might seem that the torrents of mainstream material which demonize British people specifically or Europeans more generally as a constant and real threat to others might fall foul of such legislation if it was genuine in its intent and applied without favor. Never fear, this legislation is intended to attack indigenous people. Never to protect them. It will still be entirely possible to designate areas, institutions or activities as being too white/British, especially in the context of those areas, institutions or activities being viewed with suspicion by non-indigenous people. It will still be entirely possible to make sweeping negative generalizations about indigenous British, especially as a danger or threat to non-indigenous people. And it will still be entirely possible to say '**** white people' on social media if you just want to get straight to the point.

Given how Ireland follows the trends set by the UK, we can expect this to influence how Irish law is implemented. Already advocates for this legislation have been at pains to point out that 'hate' doesn't need to be threatening or abusive.

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

NGOs were out in force before an Oireachtas committee calling for stronger sanctions for election candidates who use "hate speech" and that they should be removed from the ballot. Imo, this seems to be an attempt to screen certain ideological opinions or views out of Irish political life.

The article is by Kitty Holland of course, so she was nice enough to include ****e about gender quotes etc ......

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/candidates-who-use-hate-speech-should-be-removed-from-ballot-committee-hears-1.4587913?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Catherine Lane, local, community and rural development officer with the NWCI, said women running for, or in, public office should not be expected to tolerate online abuse.

Madness. Every politician suffers some form of abuse, it comes with the package. They essentially want to jump into the water and not get wet.

Merely stage two - who can forget 'Amnesty Ireland' and friends call to shut up Irish women and LGB people who have a different opinion to the critical gender/queer theory hold on Irish legislation.
They had to deploy a massive dollop of xenophobia to square that imbecilic but dangerous reasoning but sure why let the truth get in the way?
I'm less and less assured now that when the legislation is finalised that it won't resemble the shítshow of Scotland despite the Justice ministry's assurances.

The bloke who has been harassing Leo Varadkar the last few months recently had a video up on facebook calling for jews to be wiped out. I have no problem with that being criminalised.

In a letter published in the Indo today, Karl Martin of Dublin 13 wrote (with reference to an article written by Dr Theresa Reidy of UCC in yesterday's edition), that Fine Gael "increasingly resembles Labour, but with fewer Trinity barristers". He mentioned that, under Justice Minister Helen McEntee, gardaí have adopted the UK College of Policing's 'hate speech' guidelines, which the English Court of Appeal ruled, in a case taken by Harry Miller to challenged the guidelines, can interfere with the legal right to speak one's mind.

Karl Martin concludes his letter with the following sentence: "One dreads to think what Ms McEntee's new Hate Crime Bill will do to our rights as Irish citizens".

There are concerns that the new legislation would have a chilling effect on the willingness to express concern about issues of public importance (e.g. gender-critical feminists' opposition to the use of women's changing-rooms by biologically-male persons who identify as being trans-women) because of the fear of being prosecuted.

Does the new legislation threaten democracy in this country?

I am reporting your post for hate speech. How dare you mention the N-word era, I find that offensive and hateful to survivors of the N regime.

No, it doesn't threaten democracy.

Go read up on the legislation then come back and tell me what it is.

Mr. Martin is a prolific, some would say persistent, letter-writer to newspapers where you can often find him whinging about "lycra-clad" cyclists, "liberals", affronts to Irish culture, and the rest. He'd be right at home here.