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

You’re not likely to spare anyone your dramatics any time soon, so I dealt with it already by demonstrating that your dramatics are just that: dramatics.

What else she said doesn’t counter what she said in the first place, which was nowhere even close to what you claim she said. This was what you claimed:

Only last week you had a Fine Gael MEP wanting to "call out" people who in a sovereign Republic want to address themselves as 'sovereign'. Both Deputies Martin from the greens and Fianna Fail have also stated similar far left extremism…

And it was the inference that there was any sort of far-left element within FG that caught my attention, because there isn’t. FG are a centre-right political party, always have been, and in Europe they are aligned with the centre-right European Peoples Party:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party

So when you claimed that a member of the party who is an MEP had exhibited far-left extremism, I had to know what the fcuk was going on there. And it turned out… well, you were simply talking nonsense. I don’t know how you managed to mangle a centre-right MEP criticising Sinn Féin (a Left-wing party in opposition) for their flip-flopping, into anything remotely resembling far-left sentiment when she was critical of them using language like ‘sovereignty’ and ‘we must protect our borders’, which she correctly identified as the language used in Brexit, straight out of the Trump playbook:

"Using words like 'sovereignty' and 'we must protect our borders', that language was used in Brexit. It's right out of the Brexit playbook, right out of the Trump playbook. I didn't think as a country we would get to this point, but we're here.

"We need to call it out and be practical and rational to the fact we cannot afford to follow the lines of Brexit or, in fact, where the opposition want us to go."

You response in claiming that you’ll be sent to the gulag for not using State sanctioned media outlets as your news source is neither practical nor rational, and your ideas of sovereignty and what it means aren’t even worth entertaining, much the same as your claims of centre-right politicians being far-left because you say so. Only difference is, and this was the only thing that gave me a chuckle - your invoking Moses, the lawgiver of Israel, in claiming that Maria Walsh is ‘a high ranking member of the establishment’, as if she were emulating Moses on Mount Sinai (they were both reading from tablets, is about all they have in common!), which is why Jews claim sovereignty over Israel.

I’m absolutely certain that wasn’t the kind of imagery you intended 🤔

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy

It means the law must be adjudged on its validity — not on how many people it prosecutes.

Can you expand on this? How do you judge a law?

Of course it can be defined by people prosecuted, the point of having a law is to prosecute people committing offences. If no one is prosecuted under a law, then it is clearly ineffective!

The crime under this proposed legislation is defined, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't good law.

Its tragic to that a whole political wing are afraid that their everyday rhetoric will fall fowl of this law.

And just to be clear I don't need you to defend my freedom of speech because what you all define as freedom of speech is abhorant.

If you made drinking tea illegal in the morning you'd have over 1million prosecutions. That doesn't make it a good law does it ?

Some people obviously have no issues with calling homesexuals/trans/immigrants/Jews subhuman scum. Just ordinary free speech.

The issue really boils down to the fact that defining "scapegoat" groups are the stock in trade of how some groups actually operate. Create an in group by defining an out group - galvinize your desperate base of conflicting interests around victimising an easy target group. How do you operate when your basic tool of operation is made illegal ?

So you would say that because people are prosecuted it is effective, and thereby a good law?

Or what exactly are you saying?

941 men in Ireland were prosecuted for homosexual acts prior to 1993. Were you against the decriminalisation of that based on it prosecuting offenders?

Just be honest and say you agree with the law from your own moral standpoint. I think none of us want people abused because of who they are. But that's no reason to pretend that laws which lead to prosecutions are always good laws, or that legislation brought in for good reasons can't be used for bad reasons down the line .

This shows a level of naivety that oftens surrounds these debates. A law cannot protect anyone from hatred. The very notion that it can is absurd. A law is there to punish using the full force of the State. The State can be a benevolent actor that won't abuse its power or it can swing the other way. Laws like this can and will be used for all sorts of unintended actions in the future.

The law is primarily there to signal what is acceptable behaviour, most people do not follow the law out of fear of prosecution.

Guilty of what though? Seems like they'll have carte blanche to just invent offences… if someone is offended.

And of course, this will undoubtably further erode the presumption of innocence. Guilty until proven innocent, as this whole cancel culture has been pushing. We're basically codifying cancel culture into official legislation. It's a disgraceful power grab, and I hope there is a serious push back against this.

Laws are there to signal where the government will use its full force to enforce it in whatever way they see fit. Signalling acceptable behaviour has nothing to do with it. Everything is legal until a law is passed to make it illegal.

'People should be allowed to say they hate all white/black/gay/straight people. '

They can, this legislation doesn't stop you from hating anyone.

And yes laws do exist to protect people.