Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

Arghus wrote: »

I was in the wrong there.

Ah sure I'm in the wrong all over the place A I do think regardless of one's personal position on it this whole subject needs much wider debate and I would go so far as to say it requires a vote on it too.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

On that cogent argument thing - perhaps consider some, rather than rolling out claims that don’t actually tally with the facts? Just a suggestion.

Are you being wilfully obtuse and avoidant?

She claimed Ireland has always and I quote: "Been a diverse society, linguistically, ethnically and religiously. Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish". Which is nonsense on a few levels and a barefaced lie in others. Never mind that what "diversity" was here came on the back of conquest and colonialism, the effects of which are still evident today. Her and the NGO she represents have also called for more education on our "colonial past" in the Caribbean.

Wibbs

OK I'll lay a bet now and let's see how this plays out. I bet that within the next five years or less, it will become "hate speech" to criticise multiculturalism as a politic itself.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Are you being wilfully obtuse and avoidant?

She claimed Ireland has always and I quote: "Been a diverse society, linguistically, ethnically and religiously. Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish". Which is nonsense on a few levels and a barefaced lie in others. Never mind that what "diversity" was here came on the back of conquest and colonialism, the effects of which are still evident today. Her and the NGO she represents have also called for more education on our "colonial past" in the Caribbean.

Feel free to link to the part of her presentation where she touches on this colonial past in the Caribbean. While you’re at it, the same for her statements on the demographic crisis would be good, because it would be a shame if these were yet more straw man arguments.

You might not like the provenance of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity in Ireland, but that doesn’t make it a nonsense. James Joyce was happy enough to ridicule a monocultural notion of Irish nationhood through the character of ‘the Citizen’ in Ulysses - over a hundred years ago - this isn’t exactly a new idea.

Harvey Weinstein

Wibbs wrote: »

Are you being wilfully obtuse and avoidant?

She claimed Ireland has always and I quote: "Been a diverse society, linguistically, ethnically and religiously. Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish". Which is nonsense on a few levels and a barefaced lie in others. Never mind that what "diversity" was here came on the back of conquest and colonialism, the effects of which are still evident today. Her and the NGO she represents have also called for more education on our "colonial past" in the Caribbean.

Why do you bother with this guy?

Marcos

I’m going to quote an article that well known alt right supporting publication the Irish Times which argues against such legislation.

The ostensible motivation behind legal measures against hate speech is laudable. Who, after all, would deny that “threatening, abusive, or insulting conduct. . . intended or likely to stir up hatred”, to use the language of the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, is noxious and undesirable?
Yet it does not follow from the fact that a behaviour is harmful or undesirable that it should be legally regulated. There are many forms of socially destructive behaviour that are not regulated by law. For example, we do not legally enforce courtesy, gratitude, sincerity, sobriety or charity.

I put up an earlier example of an old lady in the UK who beeped at a motorist taking up a spot at a garage and being reported for a hate speech. The majority of posters who replied didn’t seem to think this was appropriate.

Legislating for such matters is ill-advised and counter-productive. Its likely benefits are paltry compared with its risks, in particular the erection of a Big Brother State with powers of surveillance and control easily moulded to the ideological and political agendas of the controllers.

If one was of a cynical bent, it would almost be easy to imagine that certain parties might actually prefer such a situation to come about. :rolleyes:

Using the law to regulate hate speech is a bit like erecting a Special Criminal Court to tackle petty theft: while it might have some positive effects, it is an ill-chosen instrument, likely to do more harm than good. The most appropriate instruments for combating hate speech are not laws, but political persuasion, education and social norms.

One of the first comments under that article says that the best antidote to an obnoxious argument is a better one. Well certain parties on here don’t seem to agree. It’s almost like they don’t have faith in their arguments and are seeking to use this legislative sledgehammer instead. I think most people who read this thread can identify them.

the notion of “incitement to hatred” based on group traits is so extraordinarily vague and contestable that defining it as a justiciable offence gives judges and public officials wide-ranging powers of censorship and exposes the law to rampant ideological and political manipulation.
What one person views as legitimate criticism of group behaviour, another will perceive as an intervention “intended or likely to stir up hatred” against the group in question (to use the language of the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act).

A point that many on here have been arguing in this thread. Unless such vagueness is a built in feature, and a way to control the little people and force them to respect their betters.

Those who are inclined to express prejudice and hatred toward certain social groups are not likely to stop feeling hatred and prejudice
For example, if someone publicly satirises the beliefs of Catholics as naive or childish, is that person engaging in legitimate social critique or stirring up hatred against Catholics? Shouldn’t these sorts of thorny question be thrashed out politically rather than settled in a court of law?

You would think so but some parties on here argue against this.

Another serious objection against hate-speech laws is that their promoters are just as liable to make mistakes as the rest of us. To believe in the moral infallibility of those tasked with creating or enforcing hate-speech rules would be historically myopic, given the number of gross falsehoods and injustices that have passed for common sense in the past, such as apartheid, slavery and religious persecution.

Sounds like alt right fake news to me. I mean we have to respect our betters right? Of course this ignores the fact that the betters views can change. If such legislation was around in the 1930’s then perhaps people may have been prosecuted for arguing against the Catholic church giving their blessing to those who went to Spain to fight alongside Franco against the Godless Russians.

hate-speech laws are likely to have a chilling effect on public debate about controversial social and moral questions. Because of the inherent vagueness of the notion of hate-inciting speech, its legal prohibition is likely to make citizens leery about publicly expressing criticism of behaviour, actions or beliefs associated with protected groups, even if such criticism is backed up by reasoned argument and is not in fact motivated by hatred.

Again, if one was of a cynical bent it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that this is seen as an advantage by some parties.

Finally, those who are inclined to express prejudice and hatred toward certain social groups are not likely to stop feeling hatred and prejudice just because they cannot express it in public. On the contrary, they are likely to be driven underground, where their feelings of resentment and hostility may continue to simmer and grow, far removed from the scrutiny of public opinion. Ironically, hate-speech legislation may help to forge ghettoed communities brimming over with unvented anger and prejudice.

And I think that I can speak for the majority* of posters on here, for once and only once, that this would not be a good thing.

In public debates about contentious issues, some degree of bitterness and acrimony is par for the course. People are bound to say things, at least occasionally, that others find offensive and unacceptable. That is just the nature of robust civil discourse. A public sphere in which nobody is ever seriously offended is a public sphere that has been infantilised and neutered beyond recognition.

Surely not. I mean who would want such a thing?

One thing that certain parties advocating such legislation studiously ignore is that the same laws they argue for now could be used against them in the future. Say if the government changed and decided that certain topics du jour were verboten and were now to be regarded as hate speech. What happens then?

*Well those that argue in good faith anyway.

Marcos

There's an interesting tweet from the Association of Former Muslims of Ireland regading Free Speech and how it's a movable feast. they reference a tweet from the Connolly Youth Movement calling for the defence of free speech in the Jobstown protests and their opposition to a free speech demonstration outside the Dail this weekend.

Go figure.

alastair

Marcos wrote: »

There's an interesting tweet from the Association of Former Muslims of Ireland regading Free Speech and how it's a movable feast. they reference a tweet from the Connolly Youth Movement calling for the defence of free speech in the Jobstown protests and their opposition to a free speech demonstration outside the Dail this weekend.

Go figure.

It’s pretty straightforward - hate speech isn’t free speech. Nothing at issue in Jobstown relates to the proposed legislation.

alastair

Marcos wrote: »

I’m going to quote an article that well known alt right supporting publication the Irish Times which argues against such legislation.


I put up an earlier example of an old lady in the UK who beeped at a motorist taking up a spot at a garage and being reported for a hate speech. The majority of posters who replied didn’t seem to think this was appropriate.



If one was of a cynical bent, it would almost be easy to imagine that certain parties might actually prefer such a situation to come about. :rolleyes:
One of the first comments under that article says that the best antidote to an obnoxious argument is a better one. Well certain parties on here don’t seem to agree. It’s almost like they don’t have faith in their arguments and are seeking to use this legislative sledgehammer instead. I think most people who read this thread can identify them.


A point that many on here have been arguing in this thread. Unless such vagueness is a built in feature, and a way to control the little people and force them to respect their betters.



You would think so but some parties on here argue against this.



Sounds like alt right fake news to me. I mean we have to respect our betters right? Of course this ignores the fact that the betters views can change. If such legislation was around in the 1930’s then perhaps people may have been prosecuted for arguing against the Catholic church giving their blessing to those who went to Spain to fight alongside Franco against the Godless Russians.



Again, if one was of a cynical bent it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that this is seen as an advantage by some parties.

And I think that I can speak for the majority* of posters on here, for once and only once, that this would not be a good thing.


Surely not. I mean who would want such a thing?

One thing that certain parties advocating such legislation studiously ignore is that the same laws they argue for now could be used against them in the future. Say if the government changed and decided that certain topics du jour were verboten and were now to be regarded as hate speech. What happens then?

*Well those that argue in good faith anyway.

It’s an op-ed piece, which misses the point if it suggests that disseminating hatred is equivalent to ingratitude or discourtesy. Not too many people suffering serious consequences for either of those. It also comes from a writer based in a country with existing hate speech legislation, and where people are still regularly offended and seem to have managed not to be infantilised.

Joker2019

The likes of Sinn Fein and PBP/AAA or whatever they call themselves these days are surely numbered. They seem have abandoned their main voting class the Irish working class in favour of climate change and indentity politics. Their loss will be the "far right's" gain in future elections I predict.

brilliant post, marcos

Harvey Weinstein

Marcos wrote: »

There's an interesting tweet from the Association of Former Muslims of Ireland regading Free Speech and how it's a movable feast. they reference a tweet from the Connolly Youth Movement calling for the defence of free speech in the Jobstown protests and their opposition to a free speech demonstration outside the Dail this weekend.

Go figure.

Wow

Dick_Swiveller

The 'flakes seem to be pushing this. Why is that? Is it possible they want to silence those with whom they disagree?

The 'flakes are notoriously intolerant of opposing opinions.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

It also comes from a writer based in a country with existing hate speech legislation, and where people are still regularly offended and seem to have managed not to be infantilised.

You're using Spain as a good example of implementing this kind of law? :pac: You may recall the ongoing trouble in Catalan Spain. The authorities used this very law in a number of cases against those calling for Catalan independence. Oh it started out sounding reasonable, or reasonable enough as these kind of laws do, but then more and more "protected groups" got added to the list, including the police and other arms of the government.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Why do you bother with this guy?

True. Though I find it interesting to observe the knots these worldviews will tie themselves into in support of their politics. They're as easy to expose to critique as ardent right wingers, but they're not nearly so used to having their BS examined more closely. They seem more reasonable, I mean we're all against hate aren't we? But they're just as dug in, just as convinced they're right and just as dangerous for a society when they seek to control the narratives of that society. A functioning society has unhappy people in it, people who may be just venting, some of whom may actually have valid points, but bringing in laws to insulate the current status quo from criticism and the government and other authorities that enforce it is dangerous for any society.

tjhook

There have always been people who wanted to control what others think and say. In years past, these people did it for the good of society and to save our souls. Today, same sh!te, different justification. If "hate speech" wasn't a thing, there would be some other excuse.

I suppose we should be glad there isn't yet a non-invasive way to control people's thoughts.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You're using Spain as a good example of implementing this kind of law? :pac: You may recall the ongoing trouble in Catalan Spain. The authorities used this very law in a number of cases against those calling for Catalan independence. Oh it started out sounding reasonable, or reasonable enough as these kind of laws do, but then more and more "protected groups" got added to the list, including the police and other arms of the government.

Not so. Spain has hate crime legislation that relates to race, religion, and gender identity. No more ‘protected groups’ were added to this legislation, and the legislation requires the victim of hate bring the prosecution themselves. The Catalan case doesn’t relate to this legislation at all, but rather to completely separate terrorism incitement legislation which has been used to stifle any separatist or anti-monarchy rhetoric. You’re equating two completely different pieces of legislation. So - more misrepresentation.

Mad_maxx

alastair wrote: »

Casey and Grealish had their respective idiotic claims deflated in the cold light of day. Not sure how you missed all that.

name one thing casey said about tinkers that isnt true ?

Boggles

Mad_maxx wrote: »

name one thing casey said about tinkers that isnt true ?

Careful now. You mean Travellers, right?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

A functioning society has unhappy people in it, people who may be just venting, some of whom may actually have valid points, but bringing in laws to insulate the current status quo from criticism and the government and other authorities that enforce it is dangerous for any society.

Yeaaaah. Nothing in the proposed legislation serves to insulate the government from any criticism. Nothing in it relates to government policy or activities whatsoever. So that would be yet another straw man.

Mad_maxx

alastair wrote: »

Except it’s not. Casey offered no competition to Higgins at all.

miggeldy had the entire backing of both the political establishment and media tribe behind him full square , had he snorted coke off a dwarf strippers thighs during the tv debate , he still would have had that full square backing

caseys performance was the truth being outed about a sacred cow of the PC left

alastair

Mad_maxx wrote: »

name one thing casey said about tinkers that isnt true ?

That they are not a ethnic minority, but merely “basically people camping in someone else’s land”. And then claiming that “If Travellers think that I slighted their community in any way, they’re wrong, I did not.” 🤡

alastair

Mad_maxx wrote: »

miggeldy had the entire backing of both the political establishment and media tribe behind him full square , had he snorted coke off a dwarf strippers thighs during the tv debate , he still would have had that full square backing

caseys performance was the truth being outed about a sacred cow of the PC left

So - as I say - Casey offered no competition.

Mad_maxx

Boggles wrote: »

Careful now. You mean Travellers, right?

tomatoe tomato

Mad_maxx

alastair wrote: »

That they are not a ethnic minority, but merely “basically people camping in someone else’s land”. And then claiming that “If Travellers think that I slighted their community in any way, they’re wrong, I did not.” 🤡

bestowing ethnicity on them was a political decision , they are not an ethnic group , they are a sub culture

a criminal sub culture in my opinion

Wibbs

Mad_maxx wrote: »

bestowing ethnicity on them was a political decision , they are not an ethnic group , they are a sub culture.

Indeed and the genetic "evidence" for ethnicity to back this up was bloody dubious too. You may as well argue all men with M222 on their Y chromosome with names associated with O'Neill are also an "ethnic group". On the different cultural aspects there was more solid ground, but by god it's a stretch and far more about the political decision you mention.

Which BTW I wouldn't have much of an issue with if it were a positive way of changing things for them and wider Irish society, but instead it has meant more of the nothing to see here, let's ignore the facts and accuse those raising those facts however civilly of being racists. I don't mean Casey or support for him in this. The support he got was as much about the shock of hearing someone, somewhere on the national airwaves raising this without being filtered through Pavee Point's prism of perpetual victimhood.

alastair wrote:

The Catalan case doesn’t relate to this legislation at all

And again it seems you have lost the ability to bloody well read. When it suits. From the link I posted from the on the ground sources: A Catalan high school teacher, Manel Riu, appeared in court on Thursday accused of hate speech for his tweets and Facebook posts criticizing Spain, government members and the Guardia Civil police. And yes the police were added as a group to Spanish "hate speech" legislation. That's precisely how the man was charged with those offences in the first bloody place.

Maybe a report in Spain's El Pais newspaper on the back of Amnesty international expressing concern might help. If you can get your literacy skills back in play. You don't even have to understand Spanish. In its annual report on the state of human rights in countries across the world, Amnesty International has criticized Spain for making excessive terrorism allegations against people expressing a difference of opinion on social media These were prosecuted under Spain's "hate speech" legislation.

But ah no, that could never happen here. "Multiculturalism" and "diversity" is current government political policy. There have already been a couple on here clutching their outrage and offence pearls over others criticising those policies and out and out called them racists for holding this viewpoint. As for the proposed legislation we've little actual hard facts as to what it will actually contain. It's still in the planning stage. That's the point of this very thread

But please don't let anyone stop you from continuing on with your usual deflection.

ArrBee

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and the genetic "evidence" for ethnicity to back this up was bloody dubious too. You may as well argue all men with M222 on their Y chromosome with names associated with O'Neill are also an "ethnic group". On the different cultural aspects there was more solid ground, but by god it's a stretch and far more about the political decision you mention.

Which BTW I wouldn't have much of an issue with if it were a positive way of changing things for them and wider Irish society, but instead it has meant more of the nothing to see here, let's ignore the facts and accuse those raising those facts however civilly of being racists. I don't mean Casey or support for him in this. The support he got was as much about the shock of hearing someone, somewhere on the national airwaves raising this without being filtered through Pavee Point's prism of perpetual victimhood.

And again it seems you have lost the ability to bloody well read. When it suits. From the link I posted from the on the ground sources: A Catalan high school teacher, Manel Riu, appeared in court on Thursday accused of hate speech for his tweets and Facebook posts criticizing Spain, government members and the Guardia Civil police. And yes the police were added as a group to Spanish "hate speech" legislation. That's precisely how the man was charged with those offences in the first bloody place.

Maybe a report in Spain's El Pais newspaper on the back of Amnesty international expressing concern might help. If you can get your literacy skills back in play. You don't even have to understand Spanish. In its annual report on the state of human rights in countries across the world, Amnesty International has criticized Spain for making excessive terrorism allegations against people expressing a difference of opinion on social media These were prosecuted under Spain's "hate speech" legislation.

But ah no, that could never happen here. "Multiculturalism" and "diversity" is current government political policy. There have already been a couple on here clutching their outrage and offence pearls over others criticising those policies and out and out called them racists for holding this viewpoint. As for the proposed legislation we've little actual hard facts as to what it will actually contain. It's still in the planning stage. That's the point of this very thread

But please don't let anyone stop you from continuing on with your usual deflection.

In before someone else responds with "but Ireland isn't Spain; terrorism is different to hate; we don't even speak Spanish" or some other logic defying response....

LostinBlanch

suicide_circus wrote: »

what is the impetus for this legislation? presumably it comes from the same quarters that peddle the idea that "hate is on the rise".

The number of quangos, "activists", special interest groups and people making a living from this trope is certainly on the rise, a growth industry indeed.

Yes it'd be wonderful to see exactly how much money all these quangos, special interest groups and "activists" are making from this. Pigs with their snout in the immigration industry trough. I mean look at all these immigration lawyers keeping on appealing their clients refusals for years on end and contributing to the mess that is Direct Provision. They're not doing it for free. Follow the money.

suicide_circus wrote: »

But the idea that our society is more racist and bigoted than it was 30/40 years ago is demonstrably false and i'd like to see anyone argue that point while keeping a straight face.

The largest groups arguing this are part of the immigration industry, using taxpayers funding to call the host country racist in the hope of shaming the powers that be into giving more resources to deal with this. It's a pattern that has been happening all across Europe, and it's been working so of course they're going to rinse and repeat here.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i can only surmise that those in favour of chipping away at civil liberties have no understanding of the historical context in which the freedoms they take for granted were won and maintained.

I agree, but to me this is the crux of the argument in this thread. Those arguing for this as a means of control versus those who want to stop our freedoms and civil liberties being chipped away.

LostinBlanch

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is hardly surprising to me though. Forcing people to talk about their political beliefs only in echo chambers with like minded people produces just one outcome. Silencing people and demonising them for beliefs they legitimately hold causes they to double down on said beliefs.

My ex-girlfriend has been pro-life and vehemently anti-abortion for as long as she can remember, for extremely personal reasons relating to the circumstances of her own birth, and because my generation so shamefully refuses to separate the personal from the political, she has been almost entirely ostracised by family and friends (all of whom are broadly pro-choice and campaigned as such in the referendum). Apparently I'm the only person of a liberal persuasion who still values her friendship, and I have good reason to believe she's not exaggerating in saying that.

One side effect of this has been that she has drifted considerably towards the right wing in recent years. She used to be a typical D4 millennial in all of her political views except the issue of abortion, but because she has been so comprehensively shunned by her social circle, and probably because this has resulted in her only being able to socialise with conservatives for the past few years, she has been influenced entirely by conservative thinking and is now a card carrying Trump and BoJo supporter among other things. If you knew her, you'd understand just how incredibly bizarre it is to see her espousing these views now, given the things she believed in when we first met back in 2011 - but this, to my mind, is the result of being shut out of mainstream discourse in the manner in which she has.

I'm sure many on my own side would regard me as some kind of traitor for this, but I have been consistent in encouraging her to stand up for what she believes in and get involved in politics, from cheering her up over the phone after rough days on the "vote no" campaign trail, to explaining how to find out when a bill is up for committee discussion and which TDs are on said committees, so that she could lodge objections. She is now intending to enter politics herself and has become very close with several right-leaning senators who are actively helping her to achieve that.

My point? This is what believing in democracy is supposed to be about. I disagree with almost everything she believes in politically with one or two exceptions, and I will support and encourage her every step of the way in campaigning for those things I so fundamentally disagree with - because that's her right in a democratic society, the same as it's my right to campaign for the things I believe in. The fact that she has lost friends and family over this is f*cking insane. But it has resulted in her drifting very significantly to the right, primarily on account of being unable to keep any social company to the left of herself because of their intolerance.

I have absolutely no doubt that this story is in no way unusual. Experiencing political intolerance and ostracism for daring to oppose the zeitgeist is the perfect gateway drug into doubling down and becoming more extreme in one's own beliefs. I support her and anyone else who feels strongly enough about their believes to actively get involved and try to change the world, but at the same time I am absolutely furious with the bulk of my own side in politics for allowing this climate of intolerance to develop to the point that this is the inevitable result.

You know when you see members of PBP bragging on Facebook about tearing down or otherwise vandalising the election posters of the opposition? This is the kind of sh!t I'm talking about. This is what happens when you create a climate of political intolerance, and that climate of political intolerance is exactly what is going to be furthered with the trojan horse of hate speech laws. How long before it becomes "hate speech" to suggest, for example, that social housing creates ghettoes and that people on the dole are layabouts? Anyone who knows me on this forum will know that I very, very vehemently oppose both of these statements, but I will happily choose defending those who espouse those views as my hill to die on, because that is the essence of democracy, and democracy is humanity's greatest achievement to date.

That's a very cogent point, and it's a pity that those on the liberal side of the argument don't see this. Ostracising and shunning people just because you disagree with them on one issue can have the opposite effect to what was intended. I'm sure in their minds they would have accepted her back into their circle if she publicly disavowed her views and apologised and did some penance. Instead she has now become in your words a card carrying Trump and BoJo supporter.

Regarding the political intolerance it's a pity that it is rising but IMO the vast majority of it is coming from the one side. Remember when the gay marriage referendum passed by a huge majority. Every constituency bar one, this was more than the yes side imagined, and something to be celebrated or so you'd think. But the vitriol spewed at the voters of Roscommon South Leitrim for daring to be the only constituency to record a No vote was totally out of proportion to the result. To me it was something visceral like they took it personally that one consitituency dared to vote against them. It wasn't a good look.

Padraig Mor

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and the genetic "evidence" for ethnicity to back this up was bloody dubious too. .

To add to this: at the time I actually looked up the relevant study, something I doubt most of the Traveller cheerleaders have done. It did state that Travellers had some minor genetic differences from normal Irish people, but the bit most people leave out is that this was down to inbreeding. Further, the same authors had previously published a separate study which indicated that people from the Midlands were genetically more distinct from other Irish people than Travellers were - surely they qualify for 'ethnic minority' status then?

Given that Peter Casey saying that Travellers should be treated equally to everyone else is regarded by some here as hate speech, I'm sure the above would see me in the dock if this farcical law comes in.

1800_Ladladlad

There is a rally at 1 pm tomorrow outside Leinster house for those who are not aware.

https://twitter.com/FreeSpeechIre/status/1205185296968667144