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

First thing that jumped to mind when he said this. The neck to say such a thing while being a member of government currently ramming through a bill with no popular mandate which restricts freedom of speech.

Astounding lack of self awareness.

McEntee is now stating that new research by the University of Limerick and Queen’s University Belfast included an Amárach Research survey and was “more representative of the general population” saying that this had shown 82% of those polled favors the “protection of transgender people in the bill,”. New research? Well isn't that convenient? And what's also convenient this new research won't be available to us for months. Engagement with "key stakeholders"? The NGOs and the people that will benefit from this bill being implemented? As in her husband.....allegedly.

That still doesn't explain the complete disregard for the response to their own government's public consultation and its results. But 73% of 3,597 submissions were from people who were diss informed and uneducated, who've been lied to and misled, by the far right people on the internet.....

This is what happens when we elect TDs based on who their father was and allow them to fail upwards.

This woman had done nothing of note before being elected and now she is holding one of the most powerful ministries and using it to push her identity politics twitter crusading into real laws that will criminalise anyone who isn't "on message" with the latest trend.

I've said it before.. for all the (deserved) criticism FF get, FG in government are FAR more dangerous to our society. We just haven't seen it as often because they are never elected on their own merits but as a protest vote - and only until they remind us why that is!

... Which they've just done again - well that and the housing crisis, healthcare crisis, free-for-all immigration policy, and all the other damage they've done in the past decade!

According to the tweet above supposedly Helen McEntee isn't going to rush the bill through the Seanad. We'll see.

It's honestly hard to work out if Helen is genuinely dense, a complete snake, or just doing what she's told. Aims don't matter if they still trample on our rights in the process. She too goes straight for the word "vulnerable" a establishment favourite term to evoke emotions and sympathy. They love to use the term around immigration too, where we often here about all the "vulnerable refugees" that we must save.

She's also abusing the live and let live philosophy, which often means "I may not agree with you but you've a right to your opinion", which she's literally in the process of harming. In ways it's like they are mocking us, but I think with the likes of Helen that she honestly doesn't give these things enough serious thought to understand the contradiction.

Thanks for another insightful contribution.

McEntee has her 'Dear diary' moment writing for the times today. It's full of thoughts and prayer, and feelings. "I'm right, you are uneducated" It's like nailing jelly to a wall.

In the Gender Recognition Act 2015, not only is the definition of gender clearly defined in binary fashion - Male and Female, gender is also defined the same way in the Employment Equality Act 1998, Interpretation Act 2005, Passports Act 2008, International Protection Act 2015, Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021. I wonder why the definition of gender has been clearly defined in each of the six acts provided yet a whole new definition appears in this Bill? Also Simon Harris said he was “future-proofing the legislation“, which one can presume to mean there will be future definitions coming down the line and it will fit this bill. Mental

Government: "We aren't attacking freedom of speech, we are legislating against hate."

Us: "Ok, so what's the definition of hate?"

Government: "We cannot tell you that or it will make it harder for us to achieve convictions for hate speech. But we pinkie promise freedom of speech is protected".

That's the entire defense.

She actually explains things quite well. It's quite clear why the hate speech bill is needed.

You literally are legally clueless. The law functions on specifics, things that are very clearly and precising defined in the name of clarity. This legislation as it stands is a legislative joke, a mockery of Western legal standards, that I hope will be unmercifully mocked if it ever gets near the courts.

The fact that 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, say so much about the sorry state of modern Ireland.

You must have read a different piece to the one I did.

As usual, no substance. A rational and reasonable person would explain themselves, and show me the error of my ways. I've made no errors though, so you'll not be showing me any.

Consider looking it up again to find the right one.

I was addressing a reference to the 2009 blasphemy law on this thread. That law was in place until the constitutional ban on blasphemy was repealed. The difference with the 'hate speech' law is that, unlike the 2009 law, it doesn't put a constitutional ban on something into effect, and thus it can be challenged in the courts.

You're literally wasting your own time engaging with me then if you won't back up your words. How can you not see that?

I wonder why the definition of gender has been clearly defined in each of the six acts provided yet a whole new definition appears in this Bill? Also Simon Harris said he was “future-proofing the legislation“, which one can presume to mean there will be future definitions coming down the line and it will fit this bill. Mental

The Minister explains why gender is defined the way it is for the purposes of this legislation, just above the part you quoted -

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.

The meaning of gender in this bill applies for this bill alone and has no bearing on other legislation.

Government: "We aren't attacking freedom of speech, we are legislating against hate."

Us: "Ok, so what's the definition of hate?"

Government: "We cannot tell you that or it will make it harder for us to achieve convictions for hate speech. But we pinkie promise freedom of speech is protected".

That's the entire defense.

There is no ‘Us’, there is you, who appears to have considerable difficulty with accepting the reasons for why the Bill is drafted the way it is -

There have been suggestions that we include a definition of “hate” in the legislation but by being overly prescriptive we risk making the law so complicated it could be ineffective.

“Hate” is not defined in the current incitement to hatred legislation. It is commonly understood by people generally, by judges, juries and the director of public prosecutions. In the UK the term “hostility” is used and is not defined any further because it is commonly understood.

The law functions on specifics, things that are very clearly and precising defined in the name of clarity.

To claim anyone is literally legally clueless, and then to follow it up with a claim like that, takes some doing.

It ignores so much of the legislative and judicial process that it’s not even remotely worth entertaining. Were it an actual fact, there would be no requirement for the Courts to interpret the intent of the legislation, or what legislation applies and how it applies in criminal and civil cases.