Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Options
1707173757685

Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    If they're trepassing and harassing, then report them.

    It's really not a difficult concept.



  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    What you said above isn't correct.

    Here's the link and if you aren't bothered looking at it, I've just cut out something from it.

    Note Paragraphs (1) and (3) create new offences of incitement to hatred. These are to replace the offences in the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, which is being repealed by this Bill (Head 10).  (Page 8 of the document). Note the words 'new offences'.

    Actually there are a good few new offences if one was inclined to read the whole document.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    This. Anyone who thinks Helen McEntee is in anyway left wing needs their heads examined.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Unfortunately, McEntee is a creature of the prevailing extremist orthodoxy that argues that everyone must be protected against "offense".

    It bothers me not whether this is classified as "left-wing" or "centre-right".

    All I know is that any politician who advocates such a move is politically spineless. They feel the need to cower to a vocal minority who understand perfectly well that all the evidence and argument is against their position and, because they're on the losing side, they wish to effectively criminalise the opinions they are unable to disprove.

    McEntee, in that context, is the kind of spineless politician we expect to enact laws such as this.

    Bow to the loud, irritating minority!



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So which sections of this proposed legislation are you particularly worried about?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have read it, they are replacing offences that already exist.

    No big deal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Hahaha. Everyone who you disagree with gets labelled an extremist. 🤣🤣🤣

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    As I said, the only reason that people would support such legislation is because they effectively want to outlaw the truth.

    When you can't argue against the truth, outlaw it - kind of thing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    I've read it too. Yes, they are replacing offences that already exist.................with new offences. The bill actually says that they are creating new offences. It could be a big deal. We won't know until it is in operation and by then it's too late to do anything about it.

    Here's a couple of problems I have.

    Head 3

    Provide that: (1) A person is guilty of an offence who – communicates to the public or a section of the public by any means, for the purpose of inciting, or being reckless as to whether such communication will incite, hatred against another person or group of people due to their real or perceived association with a protected characteristic. 

    Where is the bar set for being reckless? If I say "I don't like ginger hair and that I'd never ride a ginger haired person", does that mean I have been reckless? Don't forget we have the police in the UK using similar legislation and then coming out with sh1te like this. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-56154542

    If I am critical of a female politician or someone who is a different colour to me, can I then be prosecuted because she is a woman or of different ethnicity because of the 'protected characteristic'?

    It's very wishy washy and it's easy to see how it could be used to shut down discussion, and silencing voices isn't a good thing to do, no matter how obnoxious you think they are. That said, of course I'm all in favour of being against someone trying to incite hatred. Anybody spouting 'kill kn1ggers' etc. should face the full rigours of the law. I've no problem with that. But something like that is clear. This new legislation is not clear.


    If I send a meme to a friend that someone might contain a reference to one of the 'protected characteristic', am I committing an offence under:

    Head 3

    (3) Subject to paragraph (5), a person is guilty of an offence who - publishes or otherwise disseminates, broadcasts or displays to the public, or a section of the public, images, recordings or any other representations of a communication the subject of paragraph (1) above. 


    If Frankie Boyle tells a joke that involves making fun of some disability, is that an offence?

    I'd like to think that common sense will be applied but from what I can see across the water, sadly that isn't always the case.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    In my book, the creation of a culture of fear is a threat to democracy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    It is a fact that there are concerns about the possible effect of the new legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Can you explain to me the reason for someone being found guilty of hate speech irregardless of

    whether or not any actual instance of harm or unlawful

    discrimination is shown to have occurred, or to have been likely to

    occur, as a result.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You don't even know what the legislation contains because you haven't even read it.

    If you were really do concerned you would make it your business to read it and speak to your TD, if you had concerns.

    Faux outrage in every thread🙄



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Drunk driving used to be an offence under Section 49 of the road traffic act, 1994, now it is an offence under Section 4 of the road traffic act 2010.

    It was still always an offence, that hasn't changed. Incitement to Hatred has been a.crime since 1989, that's not going to change.

    'reckless ' is a term used in most offences.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Well why don't you link to the proposed legislation, and point out what sections in particular you have concerns with?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,850 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    They feel the need to cower to a vocal minority who understand perfectly well that all the evidence and argument is against their position

    Rich criticism coming from the man with Farage as his profile pic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,301 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Anybody telling me I can't speak freely without being in fear of prosecution without intent on my part to instigate anything is removing my freedom.

    I'm against any law which means I can't speak freely. I'm also against any law which helps crooks and evil people get one up on ordinary decent people.

    I have friends of different ethnicities and sexual preferences but I'm not worried about them.

    There's loads out there who will use these laws to get people convicted so they can take a civil case against them. That's the world we live in today, full of people with no shame who will use any angle to get handy money.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Democracy is simply a manner of government... and the method of choosing that government. Anyway, while I consider that this legislation is inappropriate (considering the wording about who is exempt or immune to accusation and the vagueness about what could be considered "hate"), it's not any kind of threat to democracy. We're not anywhere close to a culture of fear in Ireland, or any European nation. It is a possible danger to freedom of expression, and the ability to criticise various groups though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭conorhal


    If you're building gulags for wrongthinkers like a Stalinist fanatic, you ARE an extremist.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭conorhal


    If the UK is any evidence, cops love legislation like this. Who wants to pound the beat dealing with actual crime and actual criminals when you can rack up easy crime stats by sitting on twitter all day going 'careful now!' whenever somebody states the bleedin' obvious?



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Hilarious drivel. Noone is building gulags for wrongthinkers like Stalinist fanatic.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Whatever about the second comment, the first is in response to a suggestion that gulags are being built. Do you really think that warrants a serious and thoughtful response?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No one is looking anyone up for having an opinion.

    read the proposed legislation, then have an informed discussion about it.

    I have doubts over some things proposed myself, however that is because I have read it and understand what is included.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen




  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    As opposed to Gulags being built? Thats not a serious or credible argument.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    I've read the heads of the bill. The full text of the actual legislation that has to be voted on hasn't been published yet.

    You keep saying that you've read the proposed legislation and understand what is included but you don't seem willing to give much detail on the parts you think are good or bad. What are the doubts that you have about it?

    Now, answer this question please. Can you guarantee that the proposed legislation won't be used to prosecute people who tell offensive jokes (about people in the protected characteristic), or who send memes to each other etc. that contain reference to people in the protected characteristic? I'm talking about stuff that doesn't incite hatred but is maybe in bad taste or offensive? This law appears to make it dodgy as to whether or not this is an offence.

    I think it will be misused because it's very subjective.

    Look, I'm in favour of not allowing people to incite hatred against people but this legislation isn't the answer.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement