Hate Speech Public Consultation

Ironicname

Bobblehats wrote:

Their ‘rally4peace’ reminded me of this

That is absolute bollocks

Ironicname

I will never apologise for telling the truth. The truth may hurt some feelings but that is not my problem. If the truth hurts that is on you

Bobblehats

Then the truth will out. I myself am engaged in my own interpretation of goodwill hunting. I hope to see you at the pearly gates..

Personally, I'd say Ireland is one of the few countries with very little actual racism or racist tendencies, apart from the disgust at Travellers/Traveller culture. I've travelled extensively and have experienced far more racism applied to other people in just about every country, whereas in Ireland, any such racism is muted. I think those who rail against Racism in Ireland, really need to get some perspective and live abroad for a while. The only racism I've received towards myself was in the US (Black people towards me as a white person), and in Asia (again being white, although there's positives to that racism too). The left and those who support the leftist causes want to sensationalize racism.

Is there discrimination against migrants? Oh. Definitely. Is there racism against people of color? Oh. Definitely. But it's mostly on the level of the individual, and hardly widespread. Those objecting to migrants or others, likely have other reasons apart from actual racism for their aggressive behavior. They might be using racist slurs, but lets face it, many Irish people aren't particularly good at insults, so they fall back on their TV experiences for inspiration.

It's funny, in a way. I grew up in Ireland of the 80s. Nobody batted an eye when people got beaten up outside of nightclubs or the odd mugging occurred. Nobody went nuts at abusive language, because we expected people to defend themselves, or have friends to help them out. At least, that was the way my midlands town was like. However, now, we have migrants receiving that kind of attention, and regardless of the reasons why such aggression is happening, the migrants race is important. It's no longer that Irish people might become violent and abusive when drunk. Now, we have a racism problem. Just seems quite bizarre to me.

BTW. I'm not excusing racism, or violence/aggression against anyone. I'm just saying that race is being used far too often these days as being the only logical reason for such behavior. Migrants can be asshats too.

CrankyHaus

It's not merely, or even mainly, concern at actual racism driving things like hate speech laws though Klaz. It's part of a larger process of importing the grievance industry model from the US and UK, as it's very lucrative for diverse vested interests.

This model is shoehorned into Ireland with no regard to Irish realities.
Case in point is the bizarre attempt in recent years to present Travellers as something like the Irish equivalent of African Americans - the persistent victims of systemic racism. This despite the fact that African Americans struggle with the legacy of slavery in contrast to Travellers who have a tradition of keeping slaves that has survived to this day.

Jamie2k9

Appears FF have a new policy to report any groups which don't agree with them to guards and try get FB to shut groups down.

https://twitter.com/timmydooley/status/1208317715322195968

Boggles

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Appears FF have a new policy to report any groups which don't agree with them to guards and try get FB to shut groups down.

Apparently they are threatening to burn down the town center it would also appear that the people who set up the page are not from Ennis.

The usual Gemma types I imagine.

Absolute cretins.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Funny isn't it you have the left call anyone opposed to this Nazi and scum and other disgusting terms yet a Irish citizen is accused of being derogatory for opposing free speech laws. It's insane.

It's all part the ruling class controlling us even more.

The lies from the left were insane People before profit lying through their teeth on this issue on the rally!.

This is directly from the article on people before profits site on the rally for free speech. All words taken literally verbatim.


Let’s have a look at the utter lies people before profit can squeeze into one small article.


‘Over the past few months, a number of fringe far right groupings have become more energised after they managed to stage protests against the presence of asylum seekers in their areas’

Lie. No far right groups even exist in Ireland and the people protesting were local residents ie the protests in Rooskey. In fact far left parties bussed in people to scream abuse at the locals and call them racist!. Several of the locals were attacked by bussed in hard lefties!.


This is why they have planned a Freedom for Hate Speech rally at the Dail at same time as the Peace on Earth event.

Lie, the rally for free speech was planned LOOOOONG in advance of their counter protest, full of paid NGO’s all there to protest against free speech. The free speech rally was organised WEEKS in advance of the counter protest!.


Under the guise of wanting ‘free speech’ these far right bigots want to spread hatred against migrants. While they verbally abuse people of colour, Muslims or anyone without Irish accent, this emboldens their supporters to physically attack and abuse the targets of this hatred. This is totally unacceptable.

Total lie. What evidence of this is there?. There is no far right movement in Ireland. Where is the verbal abuse?. As you well know if they even had a second of it, it would be all over their social media in a second.
In fact it was the lefties and Antifa screaming abuse Nazi scum, racist, attacking people throwing bottles coins, breaking Garda lines etc and acting in a unbelievably aggressive and hostile manner. The hypocrisy of these people is staggering,
ALL of the aggression came from the left. I seen it with my own eyes.



Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history, knows that when the far right build a base through hatred and fear, the only ‘free speech’ they allow is one that deflects attention from their rich backers and turns social anger against other working people.

This one is a lie with bells on it. Anyone there for the rally for free speech was there out of their own pocket. Every single one. No one who sees through the left nonsense gets a cent from NGO’s there is not ONE single conservative or right leaning NGO there is over 80 left ones!. All in attendance at the ‘Rally for peace on Earth’ and all paid.

Who with conservative views gets so much as one sent from bankers?. Sheer tripe!.


These people are they going for some award in hypocrisy or something, it is truly astonishing how hypocritical they can be. Shows the desperation of the left to stop any opposition to their bull eh!.


People before profit like a brainwashing machine in Marxism.

Staggering the lies they come out with.
These are a few from just one tiny article!.

Honestly, if you’re denying that far right groups exist in Ireland, and that people were paid to attend the anti hate speech rally, you’re way down that rabbit hole. Load of unmitigated guff.

alastair

Boggles wrote: »

Apparently they are threatening to burn down the town center it would also appear that the people who set up the page are not from Ennis.

The usual Gemma types I imagine.

Absolute cretins.

It’s racist Catweazle for one: https://youtu.be/dMDUhvcAr2Q

Clarence Boddiker

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Man in the states gets 16 years for burning a lgbt flag.
Be afraid... Be very afraid.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1207767069279891457

Just to weigh in on this.......

The implication is that he was only given such a harsh sentence because of the LGBT element, which is what a lot of alt-right blogs and twitter accounts are portraying. He wasn't given 16 years for that reason at all, really.

Instead, he:

threatened to burn down the establishment, before returning with an LGBT rainbow flag he stole from the Ames United Church of Christ, and setting fire to it outside the bar. Martinez admitted to his crimes in an interview with KCCI, saying he was motivated by an antipathy towards homosexuality and that he had “burned down their pride, plain and simple.”

So, threatening to burn down the place then actually setting fire to something outside (no matter what it is) = arson = two years.
Because of the hate crime element = three years were added.
Because this is his third felony conviction = multiply sentence by 3.

You can argue about whether or not his actions constitute a hate crime, but, IMO, it's pretty cut and dry. Replace LGBT flag with a 'stars and stripes' flag, and his comment in bold above with "burned down their freedom", and the same people portraying this as "PC gone mad" would be calling for his head.

Doesn't cut the mustard as a dogwhistle / clickbait headline though.

Incidentally, it's not even the most recent case to fall under the hate crime category.

Boggles

alastair wrote: »

It’s racist Catweazle for one: https://youtu.be/dMDUhvcAr2Q

Loon Viking rants and raves.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

Replace LGBT flag with a 'stars and stripes' flag, and his comment in bold above with "burned down their freedom", and the same people portraying this as "PC gone mad" would be calling for his head.

Not so. The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. Most people I know accept that any genuinely free society should not restrict people from freely expressing their beliefs in such a manner.

Boggles

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Not so. The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. Most people I know accept that any genuinely free society should not restrict people from freely expressing their beliefs in such a manner.

Arson?

I think that is more of a reflection on the people you know, than you know, actual people.

Kameron Rapid Seacoast

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Not so. The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. Most people I know accept that any genuinely free society should not restrict people from freely expressing their beliefs in such a manner.

Didn't know that. anyway, it is the combination of the two elements which led to your man's sentence. Burning the US flag and shouting "death to Americans" would 100% be categorised as hate speech, under that Iowan law at least.

alastair

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Not so. The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. Most people I know accept that any genuinely free society should not restrict people from freely expressing their beliefs in such a manner.

Ehh, burning the flag is protected, just as burning a match is. But if you burn the match or flag with criminal intent, then it’s a different story. He burned a big old banner right outside a timber-clad club - so it was considered arson.

Kudos to the wonderfully named ‘Dangerous Curves Gentlemen’s Club” btw.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

Burning the US flag and shouting "death to Americans" would 100% be categorised as hate speech, under that Iowan law at least.

I don't see how. Burning the US flag and shouting "Death to Americans" would almost certainly be seen as protected speech under the First Amendment. The US Constitution supersedes all federal and state law, so any law trying to criminalize such speech would be struck down as unconstitutional.

The only exception would be if "Death to Americans" could be interpreted as a credible threat to imminent lawless action. If you're yelling it while brandishing an AK-47 at actual Americans, it takes on a different context.

However, the First Amendment robustly protects hate speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that Ku Klux Klan members decrying Jews and blacks, neo-Nazis marching through Jewish areas, cross-burners, and flag burners are all engaged in protected expression. Given the history of First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech laws won't gain traction in the US until the composition of the Supreme Court changes dramatically.

Kameron Rapid Seacoast

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

I don't see how. Burning the US flag and shouting "Death to Americans" would almost certainly be seen as protected speech under the First Amendment. The US Constitution supersedes all federal and state law, so any law trying to criminalize such speech would be struck down as unconstitutional.

The only exception would be if "Death to Americans" could be interpreted as a credible threat to imminent lawless action. If you're yelling it while brandishing an AK-47 at actual Americans, it takes on a different context.

However, the First Amendment robustly protects hate speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that Ku Klux Klan members decrying Jews and blacks, neo-Nazis marching through Jewish areas, cross-burners, and flag burners are all engaged in protected expression. Given the history of First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech laws won't gain traction in the US until the composition of the Supreme Court changes dramatically.

That's all good info, thanks for that. How does the Iowa law circumvent all that then, do you think?

Millicently

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+demanding+sharia+law+in+Britain&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNTIG_7tPtZ5raY8r9sm68YAXkyLTA:1577184241687&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirheKTjc7mAhXOTcAKHZ53DxAQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1366&bih=642#imgrc=7b48

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+demanding+sharia+law+in+Britain&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNTIG_7tPtZ5raY8r9sm68YAXkyLTA:1577184241687&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirheKTjc7mAhXOTcAKHZ53DxAQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1366&bih=642#imgrc=vlpyxpIQuyPkrM:


So are the above examples of hate speech? I would consider them so but I expect certain posters here would say otherwise. I see demanding Sharia law for Europe as hateful. I see demands for democracy to be replaced with Sharia law not just as hateful but as extremely dangerous.

Millicently

Millicently wrote: »

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+demanding+sharia+law+in+Britain&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNTIG_7tPtZ5raY8r9sm68YAXkyLTA:1577184241687&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirheKTjc7mAhXOTcAKHZ53DxAQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1366&bih=642#imgrc=7b48

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+demanding+sharia+law+in+Britain&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNTIG_7tPtZ5raY8r9sm68YAXkyLTA:1577184241687&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirheKTjc7mAhXOTcAKHZ53DxAQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1366&bih=642#imgrc=vlpyxpIQuyPkrM:


So are the above examples of hate speech? I would consider them so but I expect certain posters here would say otherwise. I see demanding Sharia law for Europe as hateful. I see demands for democracy to be replaced with Sharia law not just as hateful but as extremely dangerous.

What you have said is probably going to be called hate speech at worst or trolling at best by a few on here.

Millicently

Deleted User wrote: »

What you have said is probably going to be called hate speech at worst or trolling at best by a few on here.

They can call it what they like, I call it frightening. If people were to go out in protest carrying anti Islam banners and shouting that there would be no Sharia law and that democracy would triumph they would be arrested. Funny how Islam always gets a free pass.

Blaizes

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elderly-woman-questioned-police-hate-13535704.amp

This is the type of crap the gardai will have to be dealing with.

If that’s true it’s absolutely absurd. I am thinking of my own elderly mother who still drives and imagining her having to deal with something like that. Madness

alastair

Millicently wrote: »

They can call it what they like, I call it frightening. If people were to go out in protest carrying anti Islam banners and shouting that there would be no Sharia law and that democracy would triumph they would be arrested. Funny how Islam always gets a free pass.

About as many of the pics in your first link are opposing sharia law, as demanding it. Is that part of the whole ‘getting a free pass’ thing? 🙄

pinkyeye

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Man in the states gets 16 years for burning a lgbt flag.
Be afraid... Be very afraid.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1207767069279891457

Why would you be afraid unless you're going around burning flags?? :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

Why would you be afraid unless you're going around burning flags?? :rolleyes:

first they came for the flag burners, but I did not speak up because I am not a flag burner....

Millicently

All said and done there hasn't really been any Public Consultation on Hate Speech. Most of the posters on this forum had no idea that there even was any consultation on it. I've no doubt that it'll pass though as the quangos will have been working overtime on it getting people to say they are in favour of introducing it. The argument seems to be that because we've only had 5 or so cases of it prosecuted in Ireland that we aren't strict enough, rather than just saying we don't have a serious racism problem in Ireland. A consultation process should involve large advertising in printed and digital media to reach as wide an audience as possible to give an accurate representation of the will of the people. That isn't what happened though.

CrankyHaus

Millicently wrote: »

All said and done there hasn't really been any Public Consultation on Hate Speech. Most of the posters on this forum had no idea that there even was any consultation on it. I've no doubt that it'll pass though as the quangos will have been working overtime on it getting people to say they are in favour of introducing it. The argument seems to be that because we've only had 5 or so cases of it prosecuted in Ireland that we aren't strict enough, rather than just saying we don't have a serious racism problem in Ireland. A consultation process should involve large advertising in printed and digital media to reach as wide an audience as possible to give an accurate representation of the will of the people. That isn't what happened though.

I suspect "consultation" in this context is a fig-leaf for a drastic legislative change that has already been decided upon in some opaque arrangement between politicians and the NGOs that have been campaigning for Hate Speech laws for some years. It will be interesting to see the publicised "results" of this Consultation.

alastair

Meanwhile the actual consultation process was widely reported on, discussed in public fora, and is ongoing in terms of hate crime consultation. I know I contributed my thoughts. If others didn’t/don’t it’s no-one’s fault but their own. 😒

Millicently

alastair wrote: »

Meanwhile the actual consultation process was widely reported on, discussed in public fora, and is ongoing in terms of hate crime consultation. I know I contributed my thoughts. If others didn’t/don’t it’s no-one’s fault but their own. ��

You never did answer my question, do you work an NGO?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

That's all good info, thanks for that. How does the Iowa law circumvent all that then, do you think?

Edit: link to law https://oneiowa.org/laws/hate-crime-laws/

All that says is that: "Hate crimes are defined as crimes committed against a person of their property 'because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability.'"

It doesn't say anything specifically about speech.

If someone burns down a black family's house because he doesn't want African Americans living in his neighborhood, that's a hate crime.

But speech by itself is generally not a punishable offense in the US because of the First Amendment.

waynerooney

Hate speech legislation, whether it should be tightened or loosened, ought to be among all citizens' Top 5 issues for concern if a change is to be made. Yet there is no publicity in main stream media (e.g. RTE News) about it.

Does anybody know if I am wrong here?