Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Hate Speech Public Consultation

1246785

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,584 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    Which area of the city is this then?
    No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

    Well - half the non-nationals in the north inner city are EU nationals, so I’m not sure how that fares in your dystopian musings. But the notion of any manner of non-national majority in the city - beyond a couple of localised clusters, is a fiction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ TwoMonthsOff


    I watched that episode of prime time, it was Dorset street/Hardwicke street area he was talking about. Think it was 30 odd percent Irish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,319 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    Phoebas wrote: »
    How many people will spend hours on this thread and others on this site complaining that they're being silenced by the state, but who won't actually make a submission now when they have a chance?
    Judging by the first page of this thread, hopefully most of these posters don't make a submission given that they've no idea what the consultation is about.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,584 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    seamus wrote: »
    Judging by the first page of this thread, hopefully most of these posters don't make a submission given that they've no idea what the consultation is about.
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

    497183.jpeg

    To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

    But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

    497183.jpeg

    To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

    But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.

    I must have missed the bit where seamus advocated for any reduction in burden of proof. Strange that. For what it’s worth my submission was supportive of extending legislation on hate speech, of greater enforcement of the existing 1989 legislation, and for the need of documented or third party evidence to support prosecutions on the back of new legislation.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,584 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    For what it’s worth my submission was supportive of extending legislation on hate speech
    Well paint my arse red and colour me surprised.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well paint my arse red and colour me surprised.

    Yeah - I’m no fan of those who lazily ascribe societal ills on the other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭ James Brown


    I made a submission on how asking me awkward questions was crossing my humanity. Also I said they should clarify what that means ;)

    For me any group generalisation is bad. Individual fact based criticism or praise, fine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭ Midster


    Wibbs wrote: »
    You said "coloured", so you're on the naughty step already.

    I’m sorry I completely forgot for just a second that brown isn’t a real colour.
    Neither is white though btw.

    What is the correct and widely accepted wording these days?

    Btw my white Latvian neighbour said he hated me because I’m English, and then immediately followed that up by punching me in the face....

    Is that a hate crime?

    Or is white on white violence just a normal crime thing?

    Oh and one more thing, if the word coloured is now disallowed when used to describe people of darker skin to my own.

    Why the hell do they get away from calling us white!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭ vladmydad


    I see the NGOs are putting massive pressure on government to push this through, painting anyone who objects as “far right”, which seems to have replaced racist as their go to smear. These cranks are already so powerful in Ireland and shape so much of the debate here, can you even imagine how dominant they will be with this draconian legislation in their back pocket. Mass silencing is the name of the game. Just read their tweets, they’re salivating and already planning on who they’re going to target.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    vladmydad wrote: »
    I see the NGOs are putting massive pressure on government to push this through, painting anyone who objects as “far right”, which seems to have replaced racist as their go to smear. These cranks are already so powerful in Ireland and shape so much of the debate here, can you even imagine how dominant they will be with this draconian legislation in their back pocket. Mass silencing is the name of the game. Just read their tweets, they’re salivating and already planning on who they’re going to target.

    Can you link tweets


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭ Sir Oxman


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

    497183.jpeg

    To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

    But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.


    I can see reported offences due to 'perception of offence' being rated as non-crimes but recordable and on file which lets them off the burden of 'burden of proof' but indicates a 'check your thinking' utopia for the perpetually offended activists and those that don't want any discussion or debate.
    There may even be, believe it or not the possibility of a third-party being able to report someone on behalf of someone else if they perceive for example, an online comment you make is offensive.



    That is the position in the UK and yes, we do follow the UK in a lot of respects.


    Orwell was approximately 35 years out.



    Submission sent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭ Lord Fairlord


    Wibbs wrote: »
    No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.

    Nobody gets to be consulted about their neighbours. Sorry to bring this news to you so late.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭ 1800_Ladladlad


    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.

    My entire family is spread across the North East inner city and I can confirm this too. I've sent this on to family and friends who weren't even aware of the consultation itself. So many do not know about it and it would be something they would have strong opinions on, more than worthy of submission.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭ 1800_Ladladlad


    Angela went full Authoritarian there a week ago and this kind of rhetoric is acceptable? Have we not seen something like this before? Stating that freedom of expression ends once a person engages in "hate speech" or "extreme speech". So Free Speech has its limits? She sees this as necessary for preserving a "free society".



    ...........when the dignity of others is violated

    LOL


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭ RandomName2


    $hifty wrote: »
    This is an occurrence that is more prevalent these days.
    Person 1: says something about immigrants...
    Person 2: replies....
    Person 1: "who are you calling a racist?...bleeding heart liberals, the world is fcuked"
    Person 2: .....?
    Person 3: "That's their only response, when you lose the argument you just play the auld racism card, despicable"

    Is this flat-earth territory?
    alastair wrote: »
    Given that there is no mass immigration at play in this country, you’d have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim there is. The Venn diagram of racists and those who buy into ‘the great replacement’ isn’t exactly sparse territory.

    So alastair says that anyone who says there is mass immigration into this country is wrong, and almost certainly a racist. You'd have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim that people who say that there's a lot of immigration are likely to be racists. :rolleyes::pac:

    82% of Irish population are ethnically Irish. The largest groups of non-nationals are all EU (chiefly UK and Poland). About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu.

    There you go. The big racist head on me. Hope that that legislation gets passed soon so that statistics like the ones I just typed don't get published, stirring up the usual knuckle draggers.

    I jest, but so many of these terms are subjective (certainly the term 'mass immigration' is subjective), but already we have someone using a subjective term to spearhead a claim stating a particular topic is probably indicative of people who need to be shut up. I'm not going to be hypocritical and say that those who are in favor of authoritarianism need to be shut up though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭ Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Midster wrote: »
    I’m sorry I completely forgot for just a second that brown isn’t a real colour.
    Neither is white though btw.

    What is the correct and widely accepted wording these days?

    Btw my white Latvian neighbour said he hated me because I’m English, and then immediately followed that up by punching me in the face....

    Is that a hate crime?

    Or is white on white violence just a normal crime thing?


    Oh and one more thing, if the word coloured is now disallowed when used to describe people of darker skin to my own.

    Why the hell do they get away from calling us white!

    Yeah, I’d consider that a hate crime. It’s based on your perceived ethnicity.

    As for being called white, do you not say someone is black? I mean, we’re all a colour (white people are shades of pink), so ‘coloured’ doesn’t make much sense as a descriptor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,319 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.
    Sure. Given that what's up for debate?

    The consultation mentions nothing about reversing the burden of proof. The justice department in response to a question at a conference said that it's "in consideration". That's it.

    It's unusual, but not unheard of. It's a rather important part of tax evasion and money laundering prosecutions, for example.
    This is merely a simple response to a simple question. Without the text of any proposed legislation and how it's proposed to be applied - neither of which exist - there is nothing here to be worried about.

    I thought it was odd that you would post a screenshot of a tweet without any dates, rather than a link to it.

    Of course, anyone who went digging into the context would find out that it's not nearly the massive, "breaking the fundamental foundations of law to pander to immigrants" issue that you want people to think that it is.

    And given some of the responses to that tweet, it's pretty clear that you've picked up this talking point from some other forum more sympathetic to your point of view and regurgitated it here. You didn't find this tweet on your own.

    I knew you'd fallen down the anti-immigration rabbit hole Wibbs, but I thought you were better than dishonest sh1t-stirring.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,584 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    seamus wrote: »
    This is merely a simple response to a simple question. Without the text of any proposed legislation and how it's proposed to be applied - neither of which exist - there is nothing here to be worried about.
    Given our government's record on the blasphemy legislation and the internet copyright legislation and the apparently increasing need in some to out tumblr Sweden in being right on, reduction of the burden of proof being "in consideration" with this proposed legislation is at the very least concerning. This is not money laundering or tax evasion, it's about the right to hold an opinion that some might dislike, or feel they dislike. It's quite different.
    And given some of the responses to that tweet, it's pretty clear that you've picked up this talking point from some other forum more sympathetic to your point of view and regurgitated it here. You didn't find this tweet on your own.

    I knew you'd fallen down the anti-immigration rabbit hole Wibbs, but I thought you were better than dishonest sh1t-stirring.

    Nope, it's from the very first page of this thread.
    The pic is hosted on Boards.ie, so Boards.ie seems to the "forum more sympathetic to my point of view". :rolleyes: BTW I'm not even on twitter. You seem to be the one more eager to forensically go down the "rabbit hole" to back up your position with "dishonest sh1t-stirring".

    Oh and for clarity: I'm am not against legal and controlled levels of immigration. I am against the current politic of top down "multiculturalism" and its clear failures elsewhere that inevitably lead to increased social problems, including very serious ones. I do not want to go down the road of France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Holland and all the others who have run this idiotic policy. Even the European ex colonies who were founded and needed multiculturalism illustrate the long term social problems with the notion.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭ Midster


    You are not allowed to show a woman doing more housework than a man on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a person that does not have a variation of pink colour skin being treated badly on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a woman being touched in the work place on tv by a man. (Unless the woman disagrees With it, and is offended and the man is then sacked and arrested.)

    Your not allowed to show anyone (men, women, gay, lesbian, transsexual, people from different colour skin other than different variations of pink) on tv as might be seen as stereotypical in anyway. (Unless it is presented in such a way as to prove that it is either wrong, or wrong to do so.)

    You are not allowed to show any story of mass migration on tv. (Unless there is a story of peril behind it.)

    Nobody is allowed to offend anyone ever, in any way in which they might be able to describe being offended either deeply or otherwise.

    Not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as black. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)

    Also your not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as coloured. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)


    Have I left anything else out that your not allowed to do anymore?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Is this flat-earth territory?



    So alastair says that anyone who says there is mass immigration into this country is wrong, and almost certainly a racist. You'd have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim that people who say that there's a lot of immigration are likely to be racists. :rolleyes::pac:

    82% of Irish population are ethnically Irish. The largest groups of non-nationals are all EU (chiefly UK and Poland). About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu.

    There you go. The big racist head on me. Hope that that legislation gets passed soon so that statistics like the ones I just typed don't get published, stirring up the usual knuckle draggers.

    I jest, but so many of these terms are subjective (certainly the term 'mass immigration' is subjective), but already we have someone using a subjective term to spearhead a claim stating a particular topic is probably indicative of people who need to be shut up. I'm not going to be hypocritical and say that those who are in favor of authoritarianism need to be shut up though.

    Mass immigration isn’t a subjective term - it’s large scale immigration above and beyond the scope of the typical levels of migration apparent in this country - 32 thousand people added to a population of nearly 5 million in a year is nothing near atypical. Our immigrant levels are well within the norm for Western Europe, and well below some states. It’s this reality that is at odds with the whole ‘open borders’ / ‘mass immigration’ / ‘great replacement’ guff that permeates so much of the anti-immigrant commentary - and yes - the majority of these people are racists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Midster wrote: »
    You are not allowed to show a woman doing more housework than a man on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a person that does not have a variation of pink colour skin being treated badly on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a woman being touched in the work place on tv by a man. (Unless the woman disagrees With it, and is offended and the man is then sacked and arrested.)

    Your not allowed to show anyone (men, women, gay, lesbian, transsexual, people from different colour skin other than different variations of pink) on tv as might be seen as stereotypical in anyway. (Unless it is presented in such a way as to prove that it is either wrong, or wrong to do so.)

    You are not allowed to show any story of mass migration on tv. (Unless there is a story of peril behind it.)

    Nobody is allowed to offend anyone ever, in any way in which they might be able to describe being offended either deeply or otherwise.

    Not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as black. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)

    Also your not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as coloured. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)


    Have I left anything else out that your not allowed to do anymore?

    Clearly you’re still allowed propagate deluded nonsense on the interwebs.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,584 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    Our immigrant levels are well within the norm for Western Europe,
    That's hardly a great metric considering the demographics of the last decade or so. The "norm" has shifted, or did you miss the "refugee" crisis?

    As SC pointed out earlier in the thread:
    who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

    So a doubling in numbers in the last twenty years is nothing to see here? Right you are.
    and well below some states.
    And long may that remain so, better yet, may it remain much lower.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Oh and for clarity: I'm am not against legal and controlled levels of immigration. I am against the current politic of top down "multiculturalism" and its clear failures elsewhere that inevitably lead to increased social problems, including very serious ones. I do not want to go down the road of France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Holland and all the others who have run this idiotic policy. Even the European ex colonies who were founded and needed multiculturalism illustrate the long term social problems with the notion.

    For even greater clarity - immigration into this country is legal and controlled. There is no significant issue with illegal immigrants in this country, and the few who are found are deported, unless there’s mitigating circumstances that warrant a reprieve. That’s the fact. You can argue that abuses of student visas exist, but that’s people taking advantage of a legal mechanism.

    You seem determined to believe that monocultural societies in the developed world are a realistic option. This is at odds with basic common sense. You can’t accept that our citizenship is demonstrably multi-ethnic and that multi-culturalism comes with that, whether you like it or not. Demeaning the citizenship of a Nigerian who opted to become Irish in 2003, as you’ve done, is no different than telling all those Irish people who took up US citizenship following on from their Morrison visas that they’re not actually American. You’d have to wonder what the difference is in your mind?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    That's hardly a great metric considering the demographics of the last decade or so. The "norm" has shifted, or did you miss the "refugee" crisis?

    As SC pointed out earlier in the thread:



    So a doubling in numbers in the last twenty years is nothing to see here? Right you are.

    And long may that remain so, better yet, may it remain much lower.

    Our immigrant population is comparable with Norway, not Sweden. Or pre refugee crisis levels, if you want to be specific.

    Doubling of numbers from a small starting point is nothing to get excited about. The low level of immigrant population is still the reality. You’re like the Henny Penny of xenophobia.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,960 ✭✭✭ $hifty


    Is this flat-earth territory?

    About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu..

    So, of 64k in growth......32k were immigrants. And of that number, a third were non-EU, which includes USA, Australia South America etc. If even half that number were the "wrong" type of immigration, we're down to about 5,000 per annum. Hardly "mass immigration" now, is it?

    No idea what the flat earth crap is about. I was saying that it's more common to see people incorrectly claiming they're being called a racist than it is to see someone being incorrectly labelled a racist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭ Midster


    alastair wrote: »
    Clearly you’re still allowed propagate deluded nonsense on the interwebs.

    There is nothing deluded at all about those statements.

    This is the world we live in.

    And insulting the questioner, rather than putting anything forward of any substance shows your complete ignorance and naivety of the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    Midster wrote: »
    There is nothing deluded at all about those statements.

    This is the world we live in.

    And insulting the questioner, rather than putting anything forward of any substance shows your complete ignorance and naivety of the problem.

    Nope - it’s deluded guff. None of those things have any purchase outside your fevered imagination.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement