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
18485878990143

Comments

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


    Said article: "Article 10 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

    Where does it say anything about hate speech...go on, point it out there, go on.

    Combating racism and xenophobia would, yet again, fall under the 1989 act already "AN ACT TO PROHIBIT INCITEMENT TO HATRED ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, RELIGION, NATIONALITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION."

    How the hell do you not get this?



  • Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭L.Ball


    I never thought of that, could rack up 90+ convictions for posting pics of Leo Vardkar eating the face off some lad half his age at a nightclub, I think once you pass the 50 mark they stop bothering with locking you up.



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


    "Broadcasting is the distribution of audio or video content to a dispersed audience via any electronic mass communications medium"

    Try again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭freebritney


    Look, it's clear from your posts here and on other threads your an intelligent and level headed person. Just because people you don't normally agree with are against something doesn't mean you have to support it. Surely you can see that this legislation is too vague and open to abuse. Do I think that anyone currently in power might use it for political purposes, not really, but who knows who could be in power in 5-10-15 years.



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


    I get it perfectly. There are numerous claims this law would prohibit rights to free speech. These claims are untrue because our rights to freedom of expression are limited under the European convention on Human Rights.

    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



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


    No. I agree with this bill because it makes sense. Not because of what fascist Senators think or dont think.

    If you read all the 1989 debates on the 1989 Act There was lots of similar doom and gloom conspiracy claims that never happened. Like honestly some of the crap about this bill is groundless hysterics and some of it is similar to; oh can I marry my horse cause the gays are marrying.

    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: 277 ✭✭freebritney


    Do you think the scenario I posted about Alan Shatter is plausible?



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


    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: 11,451 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Exactly, sounds like a great use of the already thin resources we have within the Garda.

    Might as well put them to extra use here with this really important legislation...



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


    Nope. That's not what it says at all. Different words completely. Read it again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭freebritney


    Not alone is it possible but it's highly likely a country like Israel or a person like Shatter would use this legislation to stifle criticism of it's actions. You know this of course but when your gone this far it's very difficult to turn back.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭growleaves


    I'd never heard of her before today.

    I didn't realise this issue was a question of 'sides'. Are you very in favour of this legislation so?



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


    If you're citing a Senator with a questionable record including that of pushing xenophobia and conspiracy theories about putting microchips in people.... Then ya know what, I'm not gonna have much time for her. It's like citing David Icke or Alex Jones...



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


    And where are the limits? The article you yourself referenced says absolutely nothing about any kind of limitations or what is prohibited. If there are "limits" on Free Speech, then it isn't Free speech at all. The dog on the street can understand this.



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



    This far gone 🤣 Having considered this matter extensively I support human rights including rights to free speech, thats a perfectly reasonable position to take. A lot of the things people are saying in opposition to this bill are irrational. The bill doesnt harm democracy, the bill doesnt harm freedom of expression, the bill doesnt criminalise thoughts and opinions. Its a delicate balance to achieve when you have competing human rights of freedom of expression versus rights to be safe and to be free from torture.

    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: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Easy work?

    This is most certainly not 'easy work' how many do you see before the courts charged with current incitement legislation.

    gardai have plenty to be doing, your very wrong if you think they will be going out of their way to prosecute people



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


    A Limerick city councilor and Fianna Fáil member called for "anti-immigration" protestors to be "shot in the head Abul Kalam Azad Talukder came to Ireland in 2000 & was elected to Limerick council in 2019. Here is what he said ....

    “Not even an animal does these kind of thing. It is very shameful and they should get public punishment...I’d like to see them shot in the head or bring the public in and beat them until they die”

    Will the councilor be investigated for incitement to violence as we're told the Gardaí were considering investigating Conor McGregor? How long has he been in this country and to think talking like that is acceptable, especially in his position? I'd class this as hate speech too, absolute neanderthal like thinking




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭Icyseanfitz


    is there a clear definition of "hate speech" in this new law? or is it whatever is deemed inflammatory when needed?



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


    Thats up to each state decide on the limits. There is no right to absolute free speech. There never has been. If your dogs on the street claim they understand there is then they understand wrongly.

    ECHR Article 10 is quite clear that there can be limits to freedom of expression.

    Article 10 – Freedom of expression

    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    — The European Convention of Human Rights

    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: 7,595 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Blindingly obvious that most posters haven't even bothered to read the proposed legislation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    Those pro this legislation are the worst for not having a clue what it's about so I completely agree.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    Hate is not defined in the legislation so leaves it completely open to interpretation, so yes just applicable when those who know better than us deem it necessary in the circumstances that they see fit.



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


    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: 2,187 ✭✭✭sonofenoch



    Bit like the modding on Boards with it's system of warning and banning



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭Icyseanfitz




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


    Hate is not defined in the Incitement to Hatred act 1989. So, nothing different to current legislation



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


    So you are saying that each state can have its own law or legislation to deal with certain types of speech...like the 1989 act that we ALREADY have, correct?

    This article, again, does not reference hate speech anywhere, nor does it say what you can or cannot say. We have existing legislation that covers that, how do you just not get this?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Ah no I wouldn't really like to see the likes of this getting caught up under this investigation. Resources could be better spent looking into other cases more in line with the wider publics interest in mind



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭Bigmac1euro


    I was just asking a question. Stop spamming the thread.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    It is advisable to make use of the ignore poster feature in these threads.



Advertisement