New laws against hate speech and hate crime

Midster

LGBTQ are currently campaigning for new legislation on new laws against hate crime. But are they entirely necessary?
We have laws in place right now against a person verbally assaulting another person.
We also have laws against people being physically assaulted.

So do we actually need any new laws on this subject at all.

NaFirinne

We now have it confirmed that the Government are planning for new Hate speech laws.

Making it a criminal offence.

I personally think this is continuing the trend of oppressing free speech and in turn erroding the country as a democracy.

Basically designed to further silent people of different world views.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sharing-hate-speech-on-social-media-to-become-criminal-offence-under-new-plan-1.4438898

I presume many people now welcome this, but i don't see it as a good thing in the long run for the country and it's people.

looksee

It should be possible to express ideas and opinions, relating to anything, including religion, race or politics, without hate speech.

You can say, for example you would prefer not see religious concepts of morality from (whichever) faith influencing Irish law or culture, and express the opinion that they contradict or dilute (say) Irish culture, without any hate being expressed. You can say that it is wrong for religion, including Christianity, to influence secular life. This is not hate speech, it is opinion. You might be considered right or wrong by a majority of people, but you have opened an argument that can be pursued in a reasonable manner.

Just because you cannot, and should not, use hate speech does not mean you cannot have an opinion or express it. It just means that you are expected to behave in a civilised way towards other people regardless of their race, culture, religion etc.

What people say casually in private conversation is one thing, what has to be stopped is people - often people with influence or authority using a public platform to spread inflammatory and hurtful ideas and language that will encourage others to take up extreme attitudes leading to violence or discrimination against other people.

There is every reason to allow freedom to express arguments and ideas on any topic, but there is also every reason to prevent people inciting hatred, expressing bigotry and causing distress or fear simply because of their race, gender, age, religion, appearance and so on. Conversely a person expressing a measured and reasonable opinion on a topic should be able to expect a reasoned response, not abuse or threats.

GarIT

looksee wrote: »

It should be possible to express ideas and opinions, relating to anything, including religion, race or politics, without hate speech.

You can say, for example you would prefer not see religious concepts of morality from (whichever) faith influencing Irish law or culture, and express the opinion that they contradict or dilute (say) Irish culture, without any hate being expressed. You can say that it is wrong for religion, including Christianity, to influence secular life. This is not hate speech, it is opinion. You might be considered right or wrong by a majority of people, but you have opened an argument that can be pursued in a reasonable manner.

Just because you cannot, and should not, use hate speech does not mean you cannot have an opinion or express it. It just means that you are expected to behave in a civilised way towards other people regardless of their race, culture, religion etc.

What people say casually in private conversation is one thing, what has to be stopped is people - often people with influence or authority using a public platform to spread inflammatory and hurtful ideas and language that will encourage others to take up extreme attitudes leading to violence or discrimination against other people.

There is every reason to allow freedom to express arguments and ideas on any topic, but there is also every reason to prevent people inciting hatred, expressing bigotry and causing distress or fear simply because of their race, gender, age, religion, appearance and so on. Conversely a person expressing a measured and reasonable opinion on a topic should be able to expect a reasoned response, not abuse or threats.

Say I have the opinion that traveller culture is incompatible with current society and that work is needed to change or end that culture. How can I say that without it being hate speech?

Or that Muslim culture is incompatible with society and we need to keep Muslims out of the country? Someone will find that hateful.

moon2

GarIT wrote: »

Say I have the opinion that traveller culture is incompatible with current society and that work is needed to change or end that culture. How can I say that without it being hate speech?

Or that Muslim culture is incompatible with society and we need to keep Muslims out of the country? Someone will find that hateful.

Then write it in a not hateful way? The more precise you are with your language the less ambiguity and the less like hate speech it will be.

I know you just gave some random examples, buy what precisely is the incompatibility with 'traveller culture' ? Saying "traveler culture is incompatible with current society' is obviously false. This statement could probably be construed as hate speech depending on how you actually express it.

Were you to talk about a specific aspect and demonstrate the incompatibility, withoit ostracizing the whole minority simply because they're a member of that minority, then it's pretty unlikely it'd be considered hate speech.

seamus

GarIT wrote: »

Someone will find that hateful.

Thankfully, "Someone" finding something hateful doesn't mean it's hate speech.

A court will determine if the material fits the criteria and whether a crime has been committed.

It's pretty clear that the laws we have at the moment are ineffective at preventing malicious material from being distributed and or at preventing targetted abuse against classes of individuals based on bigotry. Either because the laws don't apply or they're too hard to apply.

So something needs to be done.

GarIT

moon2 wrote: »

Then write it in a not hateful way? The more precise you are with your language the less ambiguity and the less like hate speech it will be.

I know you just gave some random examples, buy what precisely is the incompatibility with 'traveller culture' ? Saying "traveler culture is incompatible with current society' is obviously false. This statement could probably be construed as hate speech depending on how you actually express it.

Were you to talk about a specific aspect and demonstrate the incompatibility, withoit ostracizing the whole minority simply because they're a member of that minority, then it's pretty unlikely it'd be considered hate speech.

Children not attending school, non-cooperating with the gardaí, barracading the gates to halting sites, illegally keeping horses, scamming the elderly, bare Knuckle boxing are all incompatinilities between traveller culture in modern society.

I don't think it's possible to say that we should make being a traveller illegal, which is a political opinion that should be protected even if it's not voted for, without that being seen as hate speach.

GarIT

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully, "Someone" finding something hateful doesn't mean it's hate speech.

A court will determine if the material fits the criteria and whether a crime has been committed.

It's pretty clear that the laws we have at the moment are ineffective at preventing malicious material from being distributed and or at preventing targetted abuse against classes of individuals based on bigotry. Either because the laws don't apply or they're too hard to apply.

So something needs to be done.

The proposals are quite ambiguous. I agree with you but I think it's going too far via ambiguity.

In the report in different places it says:

Hate speech that can't be proven to be hateful

Even if it is said calmly and in a polite way

Saying something unintentionally or not meaning to cause offence is not a defence.

And

Speech regarding a characteristic of a person.



So

You can say something that is said politely and calmly, may be hateful but can't be proven to be, you had no intention for it to be hateful, and still be done under the legislation.

I'm fairly confident people won't be, but I don't like accepting legislation just because it is likely not to be used.

A poor example, "I don't like those funny small circular caps some people wear." Could in theory have you fall foul of this if you are referring to a yamaka.

Tig98

Had to laugh at the first post, "LGBTQ are campaigning"..., we're not one big hivemind. Its like saying "straight people vote Finna Fail", - some do, some don't.

Anyways, until the new legislation is actually published I wont know how to feel about it. I do welcome hate speech being recognised as I have often had ****** and other slurs thrown at me if in public with a partner, one time up by Connolly Station a load of teenagers threw stones at us and told us to kiss. So yeah, it is a problem that needs addressing.

I do think free speech should be protected though, and there should still be a space for respectful open discussions on any given topic. For example, I dont care if someone hates gays as long as they articulate in a respectful way. "I dont agree with homosexuality / gay marriage etc because I think it is a mental disorder" vs "******s shouldn't be allowed marry". Big difference.

GarIT

Tig98 wrote: »

Had to laugh at the first post, "LGBTQ are campaigning"..., we're not one big hivemind. Its like saying "straight people vote Finna Fail", - some do, some don't.

Anyways, until the new legislation is actually published I wont know how to feel about it. I do welcome hate speech being recognised as I have often had ****** and other slurs thrown at me if in public with a partner, one time up by Connolly Station a load of teenagers threw stones at us and told us to kiss. So yeah, it is a problem that needs addressing.

I do think free speech should be protected though, and there should still be a space for respectful open discussions on any given topic. For example, I dont care if someone hates gays as long as they articulate in a respectful way. "I dont agree with homosexuality / gay marriage etc because I think it is a mental disorder" vs "******s shouldn't be allowed marry". Big difference.

Completely agree with your post. I'm wondering if the middle bit would fall under assault or harassment.

The pigeon man

Tig98 wrote: »

Had to laugh at the first post, "LGBTQ are campaigning"..., we're not one big hivemind. Its like saying "straight people vote Finna Fail", - some do, some don't.

Anyways, until the new legislation is actually published I wont know how to feel about it. I do welcome hate speech being recognised as I have often had ****** and other slurs thrown at me if in public with a partner, one time up by Connolly Station a load of teenagers threw stones at us and told us to kiss. So yeah, it is a problem that needs addressing.

I do think free speech should be protected though, and there should still be a space for respectful open discussions on any given topic. For example, I dont care if someone hates gays as long as they articulate in a respectful way. "I dont agree with homosexuality / gay marriage etc because I think it is a mental disorder" vs "******s shouldn't be allowed marry". Big difference.

I'm sorry that you have been subjected to such verbal and physical abuse. I do not think that hate speech law is really necessary because these offenses are already addressed under the public order act and non fatal offences against a person act.

Instead of more legislation I would like to see more enforcement of current legislation that is on the books.

storker

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully, "Someone" finding something hateful doesn't mean it's hate speech.

A court will determine if the material fits the criteria and whether a crime has been committed.

It's pretty clear that the laws we have at the moment are ineffective at preventing malicious material from being distributed and or at preventing targetted abuse against classes of individuals based on bigotry. Either because the laws don't apply or they're too hard to apply.

So something needs to be done.

"Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it."

looksee

traveller culture is incompatible with current society and that work is needed to change or end that culture. How can I say that without it being hate speech?

Or that Muslim culture is incompatible with society and we need to keep Muslims out of the country

'Some aspects of traveller culture are incompatible with the settled society, and work is needed to change that culture' is not hate speech, it is opinion. Others may come back and say that it should not be necessary for one culture to change to accommodate another culture. That is argument, an alternative opinion, valid and worthy of discussion.

Also:
'Some aspects of Muslim culture can be incompatible with the existing culture in Ireland and contact, discussion and even handed application of the law is needed to enable everyone to co-exist.' That is reasoned opinion which can be offered. Others may be of the opinion that Muslims (or any other group) should be allowed and enabled to continue to do whatever they say their custom is, even if it is incompatible with Irish law, because, that's their custom. It is an argument and can be disputed passionately, but there is no need whatever for hate speech to become part of it.

And as I touched on in my previous post, it has to work both ways. It is just as inflammatory for someone to offer abuse and threats to another person who is attempting to discuss a topic. It is essential that we keep open pathways of discussion and opinion - pushing it underground by censorship would be worse than keeping it open. The people who use social media to try to aggressively force public opinion to accept their views demanding rights on such things as gender, feminism, race issues etc can be as guilty of hate speech, and indeed creating a form of censorship, as the people speaking against those rights. It is not the rights that are in question, it is the violence of the language that creates the hate and damages society.

GarIT

looksee wrote: »

'Some aspects of traveller culture are incompatible with the settled society, and work is needed to change that culture' is not hate speech, it is opinion. Others may come back and say that it should not be necessary for one culture to change to accommodate another culture. That is argument, an alternative opinion, valid and worthy of discussion.

Also:
'Some aspects of Muslim culture can be incompatible with the existing culture in Ireland and contact, discussion and even handed application of the law is needed to enable everyone to co-exist.' That is reasoned opinion which can be offered. Others may be of the opinion that Muslims (or any other group) should be allowed and enabled to continue to do whatever they say their custom is, even if it is incompatible with Irish law, because, that's their custom. It is an argument and can be disputed passionately, but there is no need whatever for hate speech to become part of it.

And as I touched on in my previous post, it has to work both ways. It is just as inflammatory for someone to offer abuse and threats to another person who is attempting to discuss a topic. It is essential that we keep open pathways of discussion and opinion - pushing it underground by censorship would be worse than keeping it open. The people who use social media to try to aggressively force public opinion to accept their views demanding rights on such things as gender, feminism, race issues etc can be as guilty of hate speech, and indeed creating a form of censorship, as the people speaking against those rights. It is not the rights that are in question, it is the violence of the language that creates the hate and damages society.

You put those better than I could. I thinik under the proposed wording of things it still could be argued as hate speech. Agree with the last paragraph.

Infini

Honestly I would be against these laws if they're used punitively or if they used by trolls over one off incidents or overreactive cases. This would only become counter productive and build resentment and likely make these issues much worse.

Im all in favour of them though if they're only used exclusively to take down persistent and repeat serial offenders like O'Doperdy, De Wagon and various other social cancer media wagons who are out purely to stir up shìt and outright cause problems.

All about balance here you dont want this be used to unwarrently supress people's right to express themselves but neither should those who abuse that right be allowed to constantly cross the line either and cause trouble.

looksee

I think Ireland generally has enough cop on that if they were introduced and turned out to be censorship or unreasonable or too aggressive then a case would be brought and they would be amended or repealed. But if they are not introduced then the door is wide open for bigots and racists and other forms of trouble makers to stir up hatred and create social unrest and misery.

Free speech is a right, but it also has responsibilities, and if people are not willing to take on the responsibilities of using free speech wisely, then they have to be kept in some sort of order for the sake of society.

moon2

GarIT wrote: »

barracading the gates to halting sites

This is a pretty good example of something which which isn't ok. While it may not be considered hate speech it's definitely negative stereotyping of an entire group. Taken to extremes this would absolutely be hate speech.

I'm not aware of any culture in the world where barricading gates to halting sites is part of their culture. The vast majority of people from the minority you're using as your example don't do this, nor would they condone it.

Why are you stereotyping an entire group based on the actions of a few? It's not a ceptable across most walks of life, yet it was clearly acceptable for you when talking about travellers.

Hate speech is normally used for a relatively powrful majority to attack a relatively powerless minority. Offering a legal recourse for defense seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don't want to get into a discussion about travellers specifically though. The example is enough.

seamus

storker wrote: »

"Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it."

We don't have the "something" yet which is to be done. Let's wait and see what's published before assuming it's going to be a totalitarian thought police bill.

Before the hate crime legislation was published, we saw exactly the same nonsense flying around of, "Oh, if somenoe thinks I looked at them wrong because they're a traveller I'm going to be charged with a hate crime" .

Then the actual bill came out and it was fair and reasonable. Shocking.

I'm bemused by the amount of people who seem to think an 1984-style law against free speech is going to appear and be enacted and enforced, and it's a done deal.

Let's wait and see what's published before jumping to extreme conclusions.

AbusesToilets

seamus wrote: »

We don't have the "something" yet which is to be done. Let's wait and see what's published before assuming it's going to be a totalitarian thought police bill.

Before the hate crime legislation was published, we saw exactly the same nonsense flying around of, "Oh, if somenoe thinks I looked at them wrong because they're a traveller I'm going to be charged with a hate crime" .

Then the actual bill came out and it was fair and reasonable. Shocking.

I'm bemused by the amount of people who seem to think an 1984-style law against free speech is going to appear and be enacted and enforced, and it's a done deal.

Let's wait and see what's published before jumping to extreme conclusions.

The point isn't that there's one sweeping law that changes everything, it's drip drip of small measures that continually restrict freedoms.

Say a law is passed, aimed at protecting LGBT persons, to no fuss. Everyone can support that. Then you have more radical Trans activists who push their ideology into the mainstream. You can't challenge these ideas, for fear of being labelled a bigot and potentially running afoul of a hate speech law. Businesses are already at a place where they will cut sling on an employee who gets brigaded by online groups, how much worse will that be when there are actual laws which make it potentially illegal to boot?

GarIT

seamus wrote: »

We don't have the "something" yet which is to be done. Let's wait and see what's published before assuming it's going to be a totalitarian thought police bill.

Before the hate crime legislation was published, we saw exactly the same nonsense flying around of, "Oh, if somenoe thinks I looked at them wrong because they're a traveller I'm going to be charged with a hate crime" .

Then the actual bill came out and it was fair and reasonable. Shocking.

I'm bemused by the amount of people who seem to think an 1984-style law against free speech is going to appear and be enacted and enforced, and it's a done deal.

Let's wait and see what's published before jumping to extreme conclusions.

Reading the report it seems way too general and overreaching. If the actual legislation isn't that's great, but so far it isn't looking good imo.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Say a law is passed, aimed at protecting LGBT persons, to no fuss. Everyone can support that. Then you have more radical Trans activists who push their ideology into the mainstream. You can't challenge these ideas, for fear of being labelled a bigot

Firstly - i don't want to imply this is your actual belief even though that's how my response is going to be phrased! I want this to be a purely hypothetical!

Based on your answer - what's your criteria to determine when hate speech should be allowed and when it should be punishable? Is it fair to say that you could imagine supporting anti-hate speech laws for LGBT but you would support allowing hate speech against trans to continue?

Or are you conflating two things in this response. Are you actually concerned that if a wide sweeping anti-hatespeech law came into place, there'd be continuous follow up laws, which are minority agnostic, which would erode freedoms? Is this a slippery slope argument?

Brussels Sprout

Some things that I'd be interested in learning about this:

• Who gets to decide what is hate speech?
• What forms of discourse will be covered by the law?
• What will be the process for reviewing this in the future?
• How much leeway will prosecutors have in determining which cases should be taken?

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

Firstly - i don't want to imply this is your actual belief even though that's how my response is going to be phrased! I want this to be a purely hypothetical!

Based on your answer - what's your criteria to determine when hate speech should be allowed and when it should be punishable? Is it fair to say that you could imagine supporting anti-hate speech laws for LGBT but you would support allowing hate speech against trans to continue?

Or are you conflating two things in this response. Are you actually concerned that if a wide sweeping anti-hatespeech law came into place, there'd be continuous follow up laws, which are minority agnostic, which would erode freedoms? Is this a slippery slope argument?

My view is that no speech should be illegal, in context of restrictions. We have laws in place that deal with issues of inciting violence etc. I think the best option for dealing with hateful ideologies is to counter them with facts publicly. There are groups who view any questioning of Trans ideology for example, as hateful, whereas many people would have serious reservations about some of the ideas being pushed.

I would worry about the slippery slope. The law making misgendering in Canada is an example of something that on the surface seems fairly innocuous, but creates an environment where questioning an ideology could now run afoul of the law.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

My view is that no speech should be illegal, in context of restrictions. We have laws in place that deal with issues of inciting violence etc.

Incitement to violence is "illegal" speech in the context you've given. How do you support laws punishing incitement to violence and hold the view that no speech should be punishable?

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

Incitement to violence is "illegal" speech in the context you've given. How do you support laws punishing incitement to violence and hold the view that no speech should be punishable?

Those views are fairly in line with interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Can't go yelling fire in a theatre etc.

Peregrinus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Those views are fairly in line with interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Can't go yelling fire in a theatre etc.

But now you're offering us three separate standards:

1. No speech should be illegal.

2. "Laws that deal with issues of inciting violence etc." are OK.

3. Laws aligning with the "interpretation of the [US, presumably] 1st Amendment" are acceptable.

You seem to think that these are the same standard. They are three different standards. Maybe pick one, and offer an argument as to why it is the right one.

riclad

We have laws against online trolling, harassing people online, i don,t think we need laws against hate speech.
i presume there is a group representing lgbt people asking for new laws.
i think we need to be extremely careful about making any new laws ain the area of free speech ,people need to be able to express their opinions freely in a free society.
if someone defames you right now you can take a court case against them.
twitter and over services have blocked and removed accounts that promote hate speech and racist content .i think under existing law some speech is illegal, defamation, supporting or asking for money for a known terrorist group .
no country has 100 per cent total free speech ,there has always been some illegal speech.

looksee

riclad wrote: »

We have laws against online trolling, harassing people online, i don,t think we need laws against hate speech.
i presume there is a group representing lgbt people asking for new laws.
i think we need to be extremely careful about making any new laws ain the area of free speech ,people need to be able to express their opinions freely in a free society.
if someone defames you right now you can take a court case against them.
twitter and over services have blocked and removed accounts that promote hate speech and racist content .i think under existing law some speech is illegal, defamation, supporting or asking for money for a known terrorist group .
no country has 100 per cent total free speech ,there has always been some illegal speech.

We have laws against harassing people and trolling on line, but don't need laws against hate speech. Are you suggesting that hate speech is only online, or that harassing and trolling would cover hate speech?

Ah, then you mention lgbt people asking for new laws, and we should be very careful about making them. So is it specifically lgbt hate speech we are discussing? That was not my first thought tbh, I thought it was any speech that incited people to violence - physical or emotional - against other people.

Then you accept that some speech is illegal, defamation, funding terrorism, and point out that nowhere has totally free speech (the US gets very close) so on what basis are you suggesting that hate speech should be effectively permitted when you accept that other speech is forbidden?

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Then you accept that some speech is illegal, defamation, funding terrorism, and point out that nowhere has totally free speech (the US gets very close) so on what basis are you suggesting that hate speech should be effectively permitted when you accept that other speech is forbidden?

Actually, the US doesn’t get nearly as close to “totally free speech” as the defenders of free speech often assume. It has numerous and sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech that affect almost every area of life. Defamation laws, copyright, intellectual property rights, privacy laws, laws protecting the confidentiality of business information, laws requiring truth in advertising and product labelling, and much more besides are all infringements on freedom of speech.

This isn’t just a smart-aleck point. I'm not saying that these are unjustified infringements on the freedom of speech; they may all be completely justified. But even in the US, despite the rhetoric, they do not regard free speech as an absolute or paramount right; they limit it for a whole variety of reasons. It’s notable that they are quite willing to limit it in order to protect financial and commercial interests; this may tell us something about the nature of a capitalist democracy.

Denying or ignoring the wide limitations on freedom of speech that we accept is simply a tactic for avoiding discussion of what we consider an acceptable reason for limiting freedom of speech. If freedom of speech should be limited to protect a purely private financial interest, it’s not obvious that it shouldn’t be limited to defend an already marginalised, alienated or disadvantaged ethnic or religious minority.

smellyoldboot

"I do not agree with what you say, and I will chase you through the courts to silence and discredit you" - Definitely not Voltaire.

AbusesToilets

Peregrinus wrote: »

But now you're offering us three separate standards:

1. No speech should be illegal.

2. "Laws that deal with issues of inciting violence etc." are OK.

3. Laws aligning with the "interpretation of the [US, presumably] 1st Amendment" are acceptable.

You seem to think that these are the same standard. They are three different standards. Maybe pick one, and offer an argument as to why it is the right one.

There are differences between restrictions on speech that would carry a criminal penalty, the aforementioned crying fire in a theatre. Actions that could cause an immediate to others.

That's quite different from a situation whereby disagreeing with someone's world view or personal philosophy could be construed as a Hate crime. It's also rather discriminatory in it's own right, as it generally reinforces the notion that racism and bigotry only apply when certain demographics are guilty.

Chips Lovell

smellyoldboot wrote: »

"I do not agree with what you say, and I will chase you through the courts to silence and discredit you" - Definitely not Voltaire.

I'll put my pedantry hat on for a second and say that the original remark - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - wasn't Voltaire either, although it's been widely attributed to him. It was actually written by an early 20th century biographer, who formulated it as her summation of Voltaire's attitudes.

What she was writing about was Voltaire's reaction to a book burning. I'm not entirely convinced that Voltaire would have had the same attitude towards someone shouting racial epithets at their victim while they stab them with a broken bottle.

That's one of the issues that the proposed legislation hopes to address. At the moment, someone cannot really be prosecuted for hate-based aggravating factors. It may be considered at sentencing, but there's no way of ensuring that happens or even knowing that it has.

Ireland does not currently have any specific legislation to deal with hate crime. While at present, in sentencing for any offence, a judge may consider a hate motive to be an aggravating factor and may reflect this in the sentence handed down, even where this occurs (and there are few records available) it will not be reflected anywhere in the formal record of the conviction or sentence.

This means, for example, that a hate element will not be reflected in the charge against the accused, meaning that it may never be raised in front of the jury, and cannot be defended in the way that other parts of the offence can be, i.e. challenged by the defence in court. It also means that a pattern of such offences may not be apparent, even to those responsible for an offender’s sentence management or probation.

Peregrinus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are differences between restrictions on speech that would carry a criminal penalty, the aforementioned crying fire in a theatre. Actions that could cause an immediate to others.

That's quite different from a situation whereby disagreeing with someone's world view or personal philosophy could be construed as a Hate crime.

I think you're arguing against a straw majn of your own devising here. There is no proposal that " disagreeing with someone's world view or personal philosophy" could or should constitute a hate crime in Ireland.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's also rather discriminatory in it's own right, as it generally reinforces the notion that racism and bigotry only apply when certain demographics are guilty.

I'm not following this at all. Can you explain what you're talking about here?

AbusesToilets

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're arguing against a straw majn of your own devising here. There is no proposal that " disagreeing with someone's world view or personal philosophy" could or should constitute a hate crime in Ireland.


I'm not following this at all. Can you explain what you're talking about here?

There's laws on the books in Canada with respect to misgendering under the context of harrassment. These could run afoul of situations where someone doesn't want to recognise someone's claim to a gender and is called up as a Hate crime. That's a legitimate concern, given the well documented cases of trolling lately.

To your second point, racial based claims of hate crimes only seem to ever go against white people. I've yet to read of a case where a non-white individual is convicted of such a crime. It's an inherently discriminatory concept.

Manach

From a general perspective, to term political speech as hate speech is simple shortcut to penalise speech one does not agree with. This is now wide spread trend in Europe in spite of the ECHR and ironically seems to cement progressive ideology as the new orthodoxy in place of that removed from the blasphemy section of constitution.
Drilling down further from a legal persepecive in the best example of functional free speech, the US’s, the oft quoted check, that of “fire in a threatre” as it relates to the 1st ammendment. That was a case both dealing with the state attempting to quash dissent as well as only being relevant when, as per a fire, there was a clear and present danger. The only danger in hate speech speech is the threat to the free expression of ideas that is required for democracy.

Imreoir2

GarIT wrote: »

You put those better than I could. I thinik under the proposed wording of things it still could be argued as hate speech. Agree with the last paragraph.

Anything "could be argued as hate speach".

The important question is, could it be convicted of hate speach by a court. I am highly dubious that robust but respectful debate will be criminalised.

Peregrinus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There's laws on the books in Canada with respect to misgendering under the context of harrassment. These could run afoul of situations where someone doesn't want to recognise someone's claim to a gender and is called up as a Hate crime. That's a legitimate concern, given the well documented cases of trolling lately.

Can you link to the Canadian law? Not that I'm doubting you but I am a bit, um, sceptical.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To your second point, racial based claims of hate crimes only seem to ever go against white people. I've yet to read of a case where a non-white individual is convicted of such a crime. It's an inherently discriminatory concept.

What you are describing is not an inherently discriminatory concept; it's an inerently non-discriminatory concept which is — allegedly — being applied in a discriminatory fashion (like, say, the death penalty in the US).

I emphasise "allegedly" because the fact that you have "yet to read of a case where a non-white individual is convicted of such a crime" may not be evidence of discriminatory application so much as evidence of the, um, biased or selective news sources or social media outlets from which you gett your information. In the US in 2019, 52.5% of hate crime offenders were white, 23.9% were black, 14.9% were not recorded and the remainder were of other or mixed ethnic categories. That suggests that black people are substantially over-represented in hate crime convictions and, if there's a bias at work there, it's a bias which is the opposite of the one you believe to exist. You probably should be asking yourself why the news sources/social media outlets that shape your worldview are giving you such a distorted picture, and whether there is anything you can do to correct this.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please don't just paste videos here. A post has been removed. Thanks.