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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

The Bible doesn't have to be a legal document for it to be used as a reason for someone thinking or behaving a certain way though. People use it to inform their morals and way of life the world over, I don't agree with that but that is how they see it. As it related to homosexuality, the church as held a stance that is immoral and against natural law, it's been seen as a disorder as well. That is what their Bible teaches them, is that Hate Speech in your eyes?

On the second point, it was a generic comment as to what certain churches the world over have said towards gay people. If as you say that is discrimination, then this legislation isn't needed. We agree on that.

Legally speaking, if someone were to stand on a street and say that homosexuals are all evil and should not be afforded the same rights as others, with this legislation that could be a crime. I do not agree with what they are saying, but I disagree more with taking away their right to say it.

And finally, if someone were to say that, Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 would have that covered. So this legislation doesn't apply, yet again.