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

It doesn’t take a learned barrister, all anyone needs is an Internet connection to encounter examples of people arguing over what they believe doesn’t constitute hate speech, or an action which they believe is a violation of their right to freedom of expression and so on. Whether or not based upon their behaviour they could be considered ordinary or reasonable is another question entirely.

I totally get what you mean about preferring that when laws are brought in that there be no ambiguity around them, but people who are opposed to bringing in any law can claim that it is ambiguous or unclear or vague and should therefore be considered unconstitutional. They don’t necessarily have a point, as the test requires that the law be considered excessively vague as to be so easily misunderstood by an ordinary or reasonable person. Take for example the recent Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act - there is no definition of what constitutes ‘grossly offensive’, because it’s taken that the term is widely understood already -

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/32/enacted/en/print

No need to go twisting oneself up in knots and dancing on the head of a pin about the interpretation of what grossly offensive means in the context of that particular piece of legislation, it’s easily understood what’s meant by grossly offensive in that context. The fact that people appear to be discussing only one very specific aspect of this particular legislation and ignoring it’s broader context where it relates to at least eight other protected characteristics does indeed say a lot, particularly about the interests of those people who appear to be only concerned with protecting their own ability to cause offence to other persons without any regard for other people’s right to be protected from prejudice, discrimination and harm.

Have you considered the possibility that they feel that they have got it right already, and that it’s not necessary to be obsessing over the meanings, definitions and interpretations of words which they don’t consider warrants an explicit definition when it’s already well understood what is meant by the use of the term in the context of the legislation? It’s a given that it’s open to being challenged in the future, but for now I’m kinda reminded of what happened when an individual made a complaint to the authorities about Stephen Fry allegedly committing blasphemy - Gardaí couldn’t pursue an investigation as they couldn’t find anyone who gave a shìt, not even the person who actually made the complaint:

https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/09/irish-police-halt-prosecution-of-stephen-fry-for-blasphemy

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=576256257977518&set=pb.100067794463880.-2207520000.&type=3

That,s the way this group views the planned changes, while you see their view as " hate speech " I see it as a group dissenting and objecting to policy changes.

Even the Irish muslim council have expresses opposition.

You noticebly didnt deny it as hate speech - if you do, then you either see lies about marginalised groups as acceptable, or you need to prove its accurate.

They could show dissent and disagreement without telli g lies and using hate speech.

After all, The Irish Muslim Council managed it.

Varadkar "speech that causes harm to other people and that's is not the same thing as expressing your opinion or telling a joke."

When all that is required is the perception of 'hate", the person accused of 'causing harm to other people with speech will be presumed guilty until they prove their innocence. This is why 'hate' must be defined. I don't think Leo has read the legislation, if he did he would understand how his response contradicts itself.

At the end, there was a confirmation that both members of the party unsure have been set straight and will vote for the bill

Are they really copying Zelensky by pulling up a chair to speak and be closer to the "reporters" ffs

Yeah that’s definitely nothing like what you said the first time, but I’m not going to quibble over the details, apart from the fact that you left out the fact that they can decide whether legislation is excessively vague, and should therefore be regarded as unconstitutional. You appear to have decided it’s already a foregone conclusion that they would make such a declaration should the opportunity present itself by anyone choosing to pursue a legal challenge the legislation.

I know what you mean by genuine concerns coming from people who know what they’re talking about, and that’s why the Government has, as one would expect, sought legal advice from the Attorney General, who advised against the idea of a requirement for a specific definition of the meaning of the word hate in the context of this particular piece of legislation -

On this basis, the Attorney General has advised against any amendments to the Bill with regard to the meaning of hatred. I agree with this advice. Hatred is a concept that is well understood by our courts. It is fair and correct for us to place our faith in the criminal justice professionals whose duty it is to interpret and apply legislation decided on by the Oireachtas.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/dail/2023-04-26/20/

But then people like Michael McDowell have expressed concerns, a barrister, former Attorney General, former minister for justice,equality and law reform and current sitting senator.

We have current hate crime legislation, in the prohibition of incitement to hatred act 1989, which is never used because it's just not good enough. We need up to date legislation. I'm really not sure this bill in its current state is good enough, but I'm sure we will find out!

There's no such thing as charged with hate speech in the bill.

I try not to get hot under the collar about instances of "woke-ism gone mad". I generally find that articles on the subject written with the most quivering indignation are based on innuendo, exaggeration or are straw-man responses to points that have not actually been made by any serious commentator.

A classic example is the recent article by Eilish O'Hanlon in the Sunday independent (referenced above) which is a lengthy response to a purported email of unstated origin, from which a solitary, incomplete and vapid quote concerning pronouns is taken to imply that free speech as we know it is under threat if we let these lunatics dictate the limits of public discourse.

Anonymous people sending e-mails to Sindo staff are nothing to worry about. Of more concern might be the report below on the BBC Northern Ireland Website. Here, somebody from one of the world's most venerable news organisations has clearly gone to some trouble to marshal a chorus of disapproval against a local singer/songwriter who told people in Canada some examples of Irish slang. This included the word "knackered" meaning tired.

He warned that a shortened form of the word is a derogatory term for Travellers in Ireland and he was at pains to point out that it was not a word that one should use in that context at all.

Cue outrage, denunciation and demands for an apology. Really?

Dermot Kennedy has done nothing wrong here. The journalist who rang around the rent-a-quote mob asking people to comment on this outrage is concocting a story based on nothing but innuendo. I suspect they didn't give people the full context in which Kennedy's comment was made. The clear point of the story was to elicit outrage and condemnation. Over nothing. And this is the BBC, remember.

What would be the consequences if we had anti-"hate-speech" legislation?

Dermot Kennedy: Singer urged to apologise for racial slur - BBC News

We are talking about being charged with incitement to hatred as a criminal offence which is a very serious offence with quite a high bar. There won't be people "charged with hate speech" for many many things that could be considered hate speech.

Government and the Attorney General have confirmed that only the most severe types of speech that constitute incitement to violence or hatred would be criminalised under the Bill. 

That's probably because we don't have access to guns! In my defence though, the post I was referring to specified the US.

I accept your point of needing an outlet- but you can have the outlet while expressing respectfully. Case in point: the Irish Muslim Council letter posted above.

Like when nothing was done about the guy talking about wiping out the Jews who eventually had to be arrested for calling for riots through Finglas Garda Station?

But are you planning on going anything that will be against the law?

The law doesn't stop you having opinions, so shouldn't affect you.