Hate Speech Public Consultation

Clarence Boddiker

alastair wrote: »

Have you had a look at the ‘ideal examples of men and women’ who make up the freezepeach contingent? ��

They're not neurotics..thats the difference.

Clarence Boddiker

Looking at some of the photos, I see the Anti free speech side had a placard of Julian Assange with his mouth taped over.
Irony is obviously not one of their strong points.

alastair

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

They're not neurotics..thats the difference.

Riiight. 😂

alastair

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Looking at some of the photos, I see the Anti free speech side had a placard of Julian Assange with his mouth taped over.
Irony is obviously not one of their strong points.

They’re not anti free-speech though, they’re opposed to hate-speech. Assange whether you like him or not, was never engaged in hate speech. There’s no contradiction there.

Clarence Boddiker

alastair wrote: »

They’re not anti free-speech though, they’re opposed to hate-speech. Assange whether you like him or not, was never engaged in hate speech. There’s no contradiction there.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech"
Noam Chomsky

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

They’re not anti free-speech though, they’re opposed to hate-speech. Assange whether you like him or not, was never engaged in hate speech. There’s no contradiction there.

Define hate speech. Actually, define hate.

Mad_maxx

alastair wrote: »

They’re not anti free-speech though, they’re opposed to hate-speech. Assange whether you like him or not, was never engaged in hate speech. There’s no contradiction there.

Anyone with a bit of wit knows it's the PC Left who will be the arbiters of what qualifies as "hate speech"

alastair

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech"
Noam Chomsky

Except it’s nothing about ‘views you like’. There’s no ideological basis of any kind in hate speech. Here’s a handy guide to the definition of hate speech, and how it diverges from the tenets if free expression: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf

various artistes

alastair wrote: »

All refugees are background checked. Those who make their claim here are checked here, the few that we’ve taken in from foreign UN camps are checked by the UN. The vast majority of asylum claims here are rejected, but that’s not to say their backgrounds don’t check out - their claim may be valid but not meet the criteria for protection.

Doesn't really answer the question though- how many fail the background check?

From memory something like 2500 Syrians have been resettled here. Assuming 1000 of them are minors and thus haven't had an opportunity to accrue any convictions, that's 1500 adults. So you would assume a total of, let's just say, 1650 Syrian adult refugees were screened, but 150 found to have prior convictions, or an affiliation to ISIS, were told no entry.

I'd like to know exactly what the failure rate was, the rejection rate.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say zero.

If you picked 1650 adults off an Irish street and told them they could emigrate to Australia, provided they passed a character test, a fair few dozen are going to fail it.

How many Syrians were told they failed the character test for admission to Ireland?

I'm going with zero myself. Why would the Syrian civil service be interested in providing criminal record checks to the Irish government?

Programme refugees have been given allocated housing, but they comprise a minority of refugees that make their way here. And yes - a family will generally rank higher on housing wait lists than a single adult - irrespective of any other criteria.

2500 Syrians must equal, what, 500 to 600 homes?

Do you think in the midst of a housing crisis of the proportion we have now, that giving away 550 homes to people who haven't contributed is the best use of public funds?

Not that all of those Irish on the housing list already actually deserve a bargain home, but it's a sight better than keeping them in private rentals and hotels at 10 times the long term cost to the state.

alastair

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Anyone with a bit of wit knows it's the PC Left who will be the arbiters of what qualifies as "hate speech"

Because...? Where’s this leftist leverage suddenly springing from? Not in the legislation anyway, since there’s a solidly centre-right government. The notoriously left-wing judiciary? 😂

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

Except it’s nothing about ‘views you like’. There’s no ideological basis of any kind in hate speech. Here’s a handy guide to the definition of hate speech, and how it diverges from the tenets if free expression:

Not only is that not handy, it also doesn't define what hate speech is.

TwoMonthsOff

4 arrests today, all leftist mongloids.

various artistes

gw80 wrote: »

I suspect a lot of the type of people you are thinking about were themselves kind of the outsiders growing up,who weren't in with the popular crowd maybe some were even bullied by some of the "cool kids" and now feel some sort of affinity to refugees and other minorities,
They kinda remind me of ephialtes from the movie "the 300', rejected by his own people so turns to their enemies to betray them.

Indeed.

When you read the Twitter of various activists like Leah O'Doherty, Fiona whatsit et al it is quite obvious that they're every bit as unhinged as cousin Gemma. Left, right, both run by ****ing weirdos.

Whatever you think of them, Matteo Salvini, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump strike you as mens men. Would you really want to go for a pint with Justin Barrett?

various artistes

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

4 arrests today, all leftist mongloids.

Shure as any tweed wearing gender fluid kale drinking 70's NHS glasses wearing regular of the Bernard Shaw knows, All Cops Are Bastards.

alastair

various artistes wrote: »

Doesn't really answer the question though- how many fail the background check?

From memory something like 2500 Syrians have been resettled here. Assuming 1000 of them are minors and thus haven't had an opportunity to accrue any convictions, that's 1500 adults. So you would assume a total of, let's just say, 1650 Syrian adult refugees were screened, but 150 found to have prior convictions, or an affiliation to ISIS, were told no entry.

I'd like to know exactly what the failure rate was, the rejection rate.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say zero.

If you picked 1650 adults off an Irish street and told them they could emigrate to Australia, provided they passed a character test, a fair few dozen are going to fail it.

How many Syrians were told they failed the character test for admission to Ireland?

I'm going with zero myself. Why would the Syrian civil service be interested in providing criminal record checks to the Irish government?




2500 Syrians must equal, what, 500 to 600 homes?

Do you think in the midst of a housing crisis of the proportion we have now, that giving away 550 homes to people who haven't contributed is the best use of public funds?

Not that all of those Irish on the housing list already actually deserve a bargain home, but it's a sight better than keeping them in private rentals and hotels at 10 times the long term cost to the state.

I did answer your question. The vast majority of asylum seekers are not successful. Their case decision rationales are not made public, so no-one can tell you specific reasons fir those rejections.

Most of the Syrians went into Direct provision, and were not allocated local authority housing. And local authority housing isn’t allocated on contributions - it’s allocated on need.

There is no such thing as a ‘character test’.

TwoMonthsOff

How many organisations did they have behind them? And that's all they could muster. Finished.

1800_Ladladlad

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Anyone with a bit of wit knows it's the PC Left who will be the arbiters of what qualifies as "hate speech"

They will be apart of some form of group relating to feminism, Islam, Against Racism, pro-immigration, Anti-fascism, Green peace, Anti Semitic or more than likely all of them.

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

Not only is that not handy, it also doesn't define what hate speech is.

It certainly does.

...its sole purpose is to protect individuals and communities belonging to ethnic, national or religious groups, holding specific beliefs or opinions, whether of a religious or other nature, from hostility, discrimination or violence, rather than to protect belief systems, religions or institutions as such from criticism. The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones, as long as this does not advocate hatred that incites violence, hostility or discrimination against an individual or group of individuals.

alastair

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

How many organisations did they have behind them? And that's all they could muster. Finished.

You can move on then, eh?

various artistes

alastair wrote: »

I did answer your question. The vast majority of asylum seekers are not successful. Their case decision rationales are not made public, so no-one can tell you specific reasons fir those rejections.

But are the vast majority deported upon not being successful?

I don't believe they are. The deportations vs applications figures indicate that it isn't the case, that most are eventually granted exceptional leave to remain.

Most of the Syrians went into Direct provision, and were not allocated local authority housing. And local authority housing isn’t allocated on contributions - it’s allocated on need.

Syrian programme refugees do not go to direct provision centres, they go to reception centres. You know that full well. After 3 months in a reception centre the target is to move them to an actual house.

There is no such thing as a ‘character test’.

So how many do fail the background check, if you want to split hairs? Like, if it is so rigourous, there must be some fails, no?

Annasopra

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

interesting first and second video in the thread. Christ almighty

https://twitter.com/AllPassingThing/status/1205638644893200384

Not from todays rally anyway. Theres no trees on kildare Street.

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

It certainly does.

It certainly doesn't. It's incredibly vague.

alastair

various artistes wrote: »

But are the vast majority deported upon not being successful?

I don't believe they are. The deportations vs applications figures indicate that it isn't the case, that most are eventually granted exceptional leave to remain.





Syrian programme refugees do not go to direct provision centres, they go to reception centres. You know that full well. After 3 months in a reception centre the target is to move them to an actual house.



So how many do fail the background check, if you want to split hairs? Like, if it is so rigourous, there must be some fails, no?

Failed asylum seekers, post appeal, are issued with deportation orders. Only those who fail to leave with assisted transit require enforced deportation. You’re looking at enforced deportation figures, not deportation orders. So your belief doesn’t amount to much in the absence of any evidence of people overstaying post deportation-order.

And plenty of Syrians spend way longer in direct provision centres: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/syrian-family-wait-17-months-in-rural-direct-provision-centre-845114.html

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

It certainly doesn't. It's incredibly vague.

Which bit are you struggling with?

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

Which bit are you struggling with?

The part where it doesn't define what constitutes hatred or hostility are just two that stick out to me.

We just get arseholes using the phrase hate speech to shoot down anything they find "problematic" when there is no definitive definition of what hate speech is.

Bobblehats

Apparently there’s been an abnormal amount of unhealthy ‘emmisions’ from the laboratory that is Ireland leading a UN delegate to the realisation there is an abnormal amount of NGO’s here. Which an ‘irish representative’ attempts to diffuse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahhrWAUG-Vk

all’s going swimmingly then! Just put a cap on it nothing bad can happen...

ThunbergsAreGo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not from todays rally anyway. Theres no trees on kildare Street.

It was also posted at midnight

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

The part where it doesn't define what constitutes hatred or hostility are just two that stick out to me.

We just get arseholes using the phrase hate speech to shoot down anything they find "problematic" when there is no definitive definition of what hate speech is.

Do you equally struggle with ‘defame’ or ‘slander’ or ‘assault’? The definition of hate speech is made crystal clear in the document I linked to. It’s the polar opposite of ‘shooting down the ‘problematic’’

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1214/1099131-anti-racism-rally/

Barrister Tracey O'Mahony said the free speech protest was held to mark the end of public consultation on new hate speech laws.

She said there is concern about the impact on free speech as it is proposed to use someone's perception of what is said to decide if a criminal offence has been committed rather than the intent of the person who made the comment.

What is proposed probably would be in violation of both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. So I don't see how Charlie Flanagan regards the proposal as workable.

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

Do you equally struggle with ‘defame’ or ‘slander’ or ‘assault’?

No.