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

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

Options
17576788081143

Comments

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


    Helen McEntees Husbands job is not the reason the law is being reformed. It is absolutely batshit nutjob insane conspiracy theory to claim there is a link.

    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: 968 ✭✭✭Str8outtaWuhan


    As George Carlin once said " it doesn't need to always be a conspiracy when two interests align, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence ".



  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Please quote where I said it was the reason the law is being reformed ?

    The only making stuff up here is you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    I don't think anyone has said that her husbands job has anything to do with the law here.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,134 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I realise some of you wish to try and turn any thread they can into discussion of trans issues

    This thread is about the proposed legislation, not your personal views on transgenderism

    Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in thread



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I am not getting any sections muddled😂.

    Sec 4 is the drunk part, sec 6 is the threatening, abusive behaviour part.

    both are minor summary offences. Head into the courts one day and see how many hundreds are charged with them both every day, and sec 8.

    The public order act does not cover incitement to hatred or violence. 🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Again, now read slowly this time..."For example, if your words or actions are likely to cause a fight with the person you are insulting"

    A fight, is an act of violence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Frank. like I said, read the legislation, not some simplistic example for the general public.

    Sec 6 POA;

    It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

    Yes a fight is indeed an act of violence, nothing to do with inciting violence though



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    An act of violence has nothing to do with inciting violence...what???

    And the simplistic example for the general public is still true, it is an example of what can happen and why the PO exists. How is that hard to understand? It doesn't mean it's not accurate just because it is on the Citizens Information site, why do you think it is there...to provide AN EXAMPLE!

    Just to remind you, as you seem to forgot quite often, section 15 (Violent disorder) and Section 16 (Affray) cover threats of violence. That is not from the Citizens information site, that is from the legislation itself.



  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭Become Death


    If someone punched me and called me an "F" word that rhymed with maggot, would that be a hate crime?

    If someone punched me and called me "fat", would that just be a regular crime?

    Should the punishment be different?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    The Public Order Act does not cover incitement to hatred and violence. Its getting extremely difficult trying to explain that to you.

    Riot and Affray have nothing to do with inciting violence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Correct, that is covered by Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

    Are you serious that a riot has nothing to do with inciting violence...no violence takes place during a riot...really?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    No, it isnt. There is no offence of incitement to violence. This is getting tedious.

    It seems you do not understand what incitement to violence is, can I suggest before arguing against something, you find out what that something is/



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Of course there is violence in a riot, who said there isn't?

    Still nothing to do with incitement to violence



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    It is the exact same song and dance as before with you. Claim we have no mechanisms in place therefore we need this new legislation to stop people from saying things that might be hurtful.

    You are trying to split hairs by saying that the laws now for threatening behaviour don't cover incitement, when in practise they do exactly that.

    This piddly new legislation has no real grounds for being implemented. Any cries that we need it are from individuals that want to hide behind a law, over a debate or discourse that might go agains their feelings.

    Saying that it incites hate it is a whine, nothing more.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    You said "Riot and Affray have nothing to do with inciting violence.", the definition of incitement "the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully"...kinda like what happens during a riot.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Read something Frank, Preferably some laws 🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Back to really informative rebuttals I see. Never change.

    Here we are on page 78 and not one relevant reason to implement this change. Telling.



  • Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭L.Ball


    I can't see any problems with this coming into force, I mean I don't plan on commiting any hate crimes so I've nothing to worry about.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Fergus Finlay: "We must take three steps to censor hate — and not apologize for it"

    The article (paywalled) is a full-on call for censorship. Finlay warns that Ireland is on the road to Hitler and Mussolini if "we" don't engage in censorship.

    Why is it that people like us this guy, who also want further restrictions on free assembly are constantly screeching about grave threats to Irish democracy? He also tried to drag Senator Ronan Mullen too, conveniently as our national mouth Joe Brolly did the same on Newstalk which Mullen responded and made him look foolish.





  • Registered Users Posts: 28,839 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Ah the old "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear" argument....

    That's grand and all, except that this legislation will allow you to be investigated and potentially prosecuted based on nothing more than someone else's opinion of what you said/did and their hurt feelings.

    Can you see why your confidence may be misplaced?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,526 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Mullen making anyone look foolish is all kinds of implausible tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    Yes, it's actually Joe Brolly who's making himself look foolish not anyone else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Marcos


    And the people that use this quote don't like to be reminded that it is attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933.

    When most of us say "social justice" we mean equality under the law opposition to prejudice, discrimination and equal opportunities for all. When Social Justice Activists say "social justice" they mean an emphasis on group identity over the rights of the individual, a rejection of social liberalism, and the assumption that unequal outcomes are always evidence of structural inequalities.

    Andrew Doyle, The New Puritans.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,329 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Not the person you replied to, but no. Because someone reporting me does NOT mean that I WILL be investigated. It's very likely it'll be dismissed before it even gets to me.

    And even if it doesn't, I'm still not worried because I can actually articulate myself and defend my statements with logical arguments and informed debate. Writing, saying and posting stuff that is NOT based on fake news, sensationalist Twitter accounts and hysterical scaremongering and is checked before posting is the fail-safe here.

    You seem to think someone being offended automatically results in someone being prosecuted without going through all the legal steps in between.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    There are plenty of people who would say the same but could disagree with you on your views. If someone were to, as you say, use logical arguments (that is quite subjective, by the way) and informed debate to counter trans rights, abortion, religion or a religious stance where they say something along the lines of "all gay people should be banned because the bible says so", you wouldn't see that as "hate speech"?

    I don't believe that for a split second.

    And again, they can articulate themselves, use logical arguments and informed debate, most of which is subjective to them anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,839 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Fundamentally, "feelings" and "I think that" or "I was offended" are variables and criteria that should have no basis in commencing or deciding on any legal or criminal action.

    But that's exactly what this legislation proposes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Precisely.

    Religion is the main one. I am not a religious person in the slightest, I mostly detest it. If someone uses their religion for their own personal gain or benefit, fine and so be it. If they use that as a means to protest abortion, gay rights, women's rights, fine and so be it, they are totally free to say what they want and can easily say "my religion teaches me this".

    If someone feels "offended" by that, they could easily hide behind this legislation and run and cry, over standing their ground and debating back, which is what I do (I also very much enjoy doing that).

    Leaving something so open ended is wild to me, especially as it related to legal framing. "I feel XYZ, so therefore this is offensive to me and is hate speech", flood gates would be opened all over the shop with that kind of carry on.

    And don't think it will stop at some of the subjects mentioned here, political views (not egregious ones) would be equally subject to this legislation, debate about the famine in Ireland which gets referred to as a genocide as well. All of this could be deemed "hate speech".

    Utter rubbish.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,329 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Firstly, the claim is too vague and not a complete sentence: "all gay people should be banned..." - from what? From where? Wouldn't this be discrimination and already illegal?

    Second, the Bible is not a justified legal document under Irish law. It's not scientifically proven or disproven - you might as well defend your stance using Twitter, or Inforwars as a source, it's no more or less relevant.

    Case in point: where does said Bible even say that?

    Legally speaking, using the Bible as a defense of something you say, is no different from using the Bible as a defense of something you actually do; and it won't stand up in court - so 'because the Bible says so" is null and void.

    Finally, if you're thinking, "ok, then, but what if they said all gay people should be killed"?, then the answer would be yes. I would consider that hate speech, unless the person saying it would come up with some scientific or legal reasoning for the killing.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



Advertisement