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

Our supreme court judges are extremely knowledgeable in law,.precedent and constitutional law. I would have every confidence in their ability.

What case is that you're talking about?

So, you have no issue with random men slapping you, your wife, your children on the arse? You didn't say what case it is either?

I'm fine with the process of the warrant. I'm just not happy that they could take away every piece of electronic equipment in the house, even if it's owned by someone else and not the accused.

" The law doesn't stop you having opinions, " Hey that,s not what Pauline said last week.

" If a person,s views on other people,e Identities make their life unsafe and Insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace our Job as legislators is to restrict those freedoms for the common good " .

In other words opinions on migration policy or expressions of view believing in only two genders must be censored for the common good according to Pauline because such views / opinions cause deep discomfort.

We will find out a few months after it has been enacted.

I am sure there are plenty of groups, on all sides of the political spectrum, gearing up to use this legislation to their advantage.

It could end up as a gigantic s**tshow with accusations and challenges flying about all over the place.

It may become unworkable.

Genuine question about this legislation, is it going to cause potential issues for things like board games that's may cause offence... thinking of "Secret Hitler" https://www.secrethitler.com/

If someone was to find it offensive, could it become a victim of the law...

Regards Gender, if a biologist says that someone with a penis is a man, are they liable under this legislation

The problem with this bill is that it is way too open to interpretation.

I own "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier, and "Trans" by Helen Joyce. Some people consider these books hateful.

I probably have a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere too, which is full of hateful material, but to make it a potential crime to possess these is batshit.

Someone could disagree with something I've said on twitter, report me for a hate offence, and use these books in my possession as evidence.

The bill doesn't say it only applies to 'severe' incitement to violence or hatred.

The problem is that none of us know how it will be implemented.

Will I be prosecuted if I say 'Kill all trans people' or that they should all be stabbed? I'd expect so because there's a clear threat of violence.

But if I say that I think all trans people have a mental illness, will I be prosecuted? I'd hope not because that statement neither portrays that I hate trans people or that I advocate violence or hatred against them.

The problem is that this legislation is too open to interpretation. Intent is no longer required for conviction. The term reckless is enough for a conviction and reckless isn't defined. Could my statement that 'all trans people have a mental illness' be determined to be reckless under the legislation even though I didn't mean it to be taken as a call to violence or hatred against trans people? We just don't know.

Will possession of distasteful memes be a crime under Section 10? And under that section you've to prove your innocent rather than the State having to prove you guilty.

We'll know soon enough when the bill is enacted. And by then it will be too late.

With respect, what a Government TD says isn't worth a shyte. You can't use 'My TD told me so' in court.

And again with respect, I'd go so far as to say that what an Attorney General says isn't worth a shyte either. All an Attorney General can do is give their opinion on something, they don't make the rules. It's what's written in the law that counts. Just because one Attorney General views something one way, that doesn't mean that the next Attorney General will view it the same way. Feck, we even get different opinions from Supreme Court Judges hearing the same case.

By the way, where has the Attorney General said that only the most severre types of threatening speech inciting violence and hatred will be criminalised? As far as I was aware, all legal advice by the Attorney General is not published and I don't remember seeing any comments by them online.

It's passed the Seanad

Not a surprise - government have majority there and half the opposition supporting

Sen. Lisa Chambers has called for the bill to be paused...said she has been receiving many emails about the issue and said it was not all as part of an organized "far-right" movement but citizens with genuine concerns.

Sen Eugene Murphy also said he has been getting thousands of emails about it from constituents.

Sen Murphy threatened to not support the bill in the Seanad and said the definition of gender needs to be defined further through amendments.

Sen McDowell's amendment to extend the debate for another 6 months was voted down.

The blasphemy law was deliberately structured so as to make a conviction as hard as possible.

This law, from what has been said in the media over the last few weeks, seems deliberately left open to make getting a conviction easier.