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

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.

The use of religion as a defense is never going to work: freedom of expression of religion has limits, as Enoch Burke is finding out.

Law trumps religion every time, at least in this country.

Enoch Burkes case has nothing to do with his freedom of religious expression. He is in jail because of his behaviour, not his beliefs.

It can be accepted as a defence though, it doesn't need to be absolute either, no law or reason for an offence ever is. If it were, then the court system would run fluidly, and it doesn't. Again, freedom to practice religion is part of the Irish Statute, if someone says in public "I believe all homosexuals live in sin and will burn in hell", their right to say that is protected, as it should be. I don't agree with what they might say, but they shouldn't be stopped from saying it. I fail to see that has hate speech either, seeing as there is no evidence for hell. And it they were to say "all gays should be killed", that is already illegal under the 1989 act.

How exactly do you know there won't be a conviction? Based on you thinking that your views are safe from being viewed as hateful? You have to be quite naïve to think that your views are free of any sin here, and that only those who oppose yours could be seen as hateful.

It might not be hate to you though, that is my point, which you are either ignoring or not getting. You aren't seeing the forest from the trees here at all, the fact that you say that that statement might be or might not be hate shows my point exactly, it is totally open to how someone might interpret what someone is saying, and that could land them in legal trouble.

Again, how do you know that? How can you possibly know what someone might view as hate when it is totally in the eyes of the beholder. And yet again, this law isn't about you, it is about a country and people can and can't say. Try broaden your horizons here a bit.

What??? I have the bill open and have read it, there is nothing about exemptions.

Plus, how the hell would you provide exemptions for religion, on what grounds exactly? We have 2 posters here saying that religion has limits when it comes to expression, and another now saying there are exemptions in this bill.

This thread is a clown show.

Maybe, don't know. I'm pretty much athiest, so I wouldn't be useing religion as a defense. I'd going to use logic and informed research.

Of course I am - that's been my point all along...? My behaviour in protecting myself.

Rest of your post I've already addressed more than once:

• they can complain all they want - they can make a complaint right now if they want: nothing stopping them;
• I'm not responsible for what other people say or don't say or how they protect themselves. I am free to ignore and I choose to ignore - why wouldn't I?

That said, I'd advise people to fact check before speaking/writing and avoid dodgy news sites, but whether or not they do so is up to them. I have neither the right nor desire to force them.

OK. I'm just advising you of facts.

This is the text of the bill I am referring to

In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that the material concerned or, insofar as appropriate, the behaviour concerned consisted solely of— (a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse,

This is kind of my point to Frank - if you can back it up (or if it's art, apparently - good to know!) you've got a defence. But if you can't - and that may well be the case if your source is biased or unregulated like Twitter, then you're far more likely to be in trouble. Whether ot not that means you can use the Bible to spout hate is still unclear: saying the Bible or your religion says so is one thing, being challenged to find a specific passage is different.

And I'm not sure even the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as anything beyond sinful at the moment.

I’ve no clue what your point is then, or if you are in favour of this legislation or not. I was focusing on how you were only thinking of your own actions when this law doesn’t just effect you, but again you seem happy enough to just think of you and your rights, not others.

Show me, and everyone, where the words religious exemptions are being made, go ahead…I’ll wait.

You exactly what my point it, you just don't want to admit it. I've written it four or five times and you're not stupid.

I can only be responsible for me and what I saw or do. I can not and do not want to be responsible for others, I really don't know why you think I should.

Please don't reply unless you want to challenge the points I actually made.

There is no point. I don’t think you understand how laws impact a society which you are part of, maybe you do and you are just ignorant of that.

Let’s leave it there, we aren’t solving (we’re we ever?).

Not honestly sure if that was or wsan't your intention.

I'm just pointing out my stance - seemed to make you angry for some reason.