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

I posted the definition hatred from An Garda Siochana, the EU, the COE, And the UN already in the thread, maybe you missed them, they're still there if you wish to go back and see them.

Hate to break it to you, these are not from An Garda Siochana, the EU, the COE, like you claimed.

Do you think these definitions are valid here? Good lord.

What? Did you not bother reading the links to the definitions in the original post? I can't help you anymore if you don't bother to read them. For the second time.

Traveller and Roma NGO Pavee Point were in front of the Oireachtas the other day. Gabi Muntean, a Roma woman called for the Hate Speech law to proceed through the Seanad "as quickly as possible" to deal with “far-right” discrimination and racism. "People need to be held [to] account" the irony of that.

“It’s also important to remember that, for example, if a Traveller is attacked on a street for being a Traveller, the psychological harm can run much deeper than if someone is mugged at random for their wallet,”

The lived experience of the majority of Ireland has been both psychological and physical as a result of these minorities, so both groups playing the victim aren't going to convince anyone. It's infuriating.

You'd either want to be suicidal or john wick to attack a traveller

Not really, the word is hatred/hate it's not a free for all.

We live in a common law jurisdiction, we have judge made law as part of our system as it is.

There are many instances where something isn't defined precisely in legislation, but it works.

But it is as clear as possible, hate and hatred are everyday words, known I would think to most people. And there are definitions a plenty should the DPP or the courts have some problem deciding what is 'hatred'

A poster brought up the Non Fatal Offences act earlier, a good example 'harm' is defined as 'harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness '

Another poster had an issue with any of the definitions of hatred that were supplied in thread, because they contain the word 'hatred'

It hasn't caused any issues with the Non Fatal Offences

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, section 1,

' Harm ' means harm to body or mind.

Like words.

And there is no offence of slander or libel. It's defamation.

'defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly.

Fairly open definition there.

The right to freedom of expression is protected in our constitution, Article 40.6

It is also protected under Article 10 of the ECHR.

Pretty sure that it is well respected.

also the defamation Act itself has numerous defences under part 3

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print#part3

Yes, let's leave aside the facts and that you linked to a US website, with completely different legislation to Ireland.

Defamation exists, full stop.

If, as you say, actual legal words don't matter, I fail to see your issue with actual understood word, such as hatred.

statements of dislike against far right groups?

Well, statements of dislike are not hate crime, against any groups. They are opinions.

And far right groups are a political grouping, politics is not a protected characteristic.

You're asking me if people should be allowed to have opinions on others?

Nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed legislation this thread is about.

What about religion then? That's protected. But I know someone who's often expressed to anyone who will listen how much he "hates those F-ing priests", and the catholic church in general (he had a rough time at a Christian Brothers school).

So once the law passes, wouldn't that be banned? What if some little old lady - or indeed a proest - is offended by it?

And do you think it's a good thing for that sort of "hate" comment to be against the law, or is it an attack on his right to freedom of opinion and expression?

Hate and hatred mean that words become criminalized. 

No it doesn’t. It never has, and certainly it’s not going to mean that in the proposed legislation which is intended to replace current legislation. It means that for the purposes of the Act in question, hatred is defined by the meaning within the Act. It’s right there, explained in the Interpretation:

It doesn't matter what legal words we apply; 

It matters a great deal what legal words you tried to apply, when they don’t apply in this jurisdiction, and the words that do apply, you’ve spent a considerable amount of time declaring that they shouldn’t, because their existence in Irish law impedes on a perceived right, which doesn’t exist outside the jurisdiction of your own mind!

What about religion then? That's protected. But I know someone who's often expressed to anyone who will listen how much he "hates those F-ing priests", and the catholic church in general (he had a rough time at a Christian Brothers school).

So once the law passes, wouldn't that be banned? What if some little old lady - or indeed a proest - is offended by it?

Religion is the protected characteristic, it doesn’t suggest that religions are protected, nor does it suggest that anyone who criticises a religion would be liable to be charged with an offence under the Act. Religion existed in the current Act for 30 odd years and to the best of my knowledge, even for a short while when the offence of blasphemy was a thing (with a bizarre 35% voting to retain it in 2018), there had never been anyone charged with an offence on that ground, not even since blasphemy had been reintroduced into legislation in 2009. The closest anyone actually came to it in recent memory is actually RTE when they broadcast a sketch that made out God was being put on trial for rape:

https://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-martin-rte-sketch-god-rape-5314469-Jan2021/

But it was because the sketch wasn’t just offensive to anyone who was offended by it on the basis that they were either Catholic, a priest, or a little old lady, it was simply because it made light of the issue of rape, and skirted the line on the broadcasters freedom of expression so long as it wasn’t considered contrary to public order and morality.

That sort of edgelord shyte is best confined to the shìttier corners of the internet. It’s not unreasonable to expect that the national broadcaster is expected to maintain higher standards.