Hate Speech Public Consultation

KiKi III

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, but at this stage it's too ambiguous. If it was clearer I could be more comfortable with it.

People who believe it to be well intentioned will gloss over the various parts where it says:

Hate speech

But

Even if hate can't be proven

Even if it is said calmly and politely

Any speach targeting a characteristic [of a person or people]

And

Not having malicious intentions or saying something without realising it to be hate speech can not be used as a defence.


I have also noticed you talked about patterns of hate speach. There is nowhere this mentions patterns. One sentence is enough to be prosecuted. If it did mention patterns I'd be somewhat more comfortable with it. There's also the assumption it won't be used for something once off, or something said to a friend. But that isn't written anywhere in the report. I'd even sort of assume that myself but I'd much prefer to see it written than assume it.

The minister is also saying it depends on intention and the actual report specifies intention doesn't matter.

One sentence is enough to be prosecuted? Where are you getting that from?

Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that’s true, nor that if it’s said “calmly and politely” it can be hate speech.

If that was true I’d be concerned myself but it’s not.

Eric Cartman

KiKi III wrote: »

Yeah, I see a ton of racism and anti-LGBT commentary on this site that might fall under this legislation. I’m fine with that, the level of bile directed towards some groups on this site is disgusting. Boards would be a better site and Ireland would be a better society without it.

It’s been made very clear by the Minister that good faith arguments will not fall under this legislation. If you can articulate your concerns about immigration without falling into hate speech that’s allowed.

Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you a right to any platform you want without any consequences. My right to swing my fists ends when they connect with your nose.

Ok so you do believe this laws powers are so over reaching that they might curtail or shut down opinions on this site, thats far enough for me to call it totalitarian and wrong. Within the rules of boards we have a broad debate with multiple viewpoints that thankfully people are still allowed to have, if whats even ok with the mods here would fall foul of a hate speech law then thats an insanely dangerous law to enact.

People need to be able to air their grievances and some of those are going to be about minority groups. I have to say though ive seen very little racism on boards and only almost no anti LGB content. Its a pretty civil place

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

You could, but I’ve posted links to articles and quoted from them to support my view.

Not really. They keep referring to the actual piece of legislation that has been posted to the thread. They don't need to provide further articles...

Most people on the other side of the argument are relying on pretty hysterical slippery slope arguments completely lacking in substance.

Right back at you.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not really. They keep referring to the actual piece of legislation that has been posted to the thread. They don't need to provide further articles...



Right back at you.

This is not a strong argument. I’m basing my opinions on the reality of what’s being proposed.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

One sentence is enough to be prosecuted? Where are you getting that from?

Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that’s true, nor that if it’s said “calmly and politely” it can be hate speech.

If that was true I’d be concerned myself but it’s not.

I'm getting that one sentence is enough from nowhere saying it isn't. All is says is what hate speach is. There is no quality given.

Read the report it's in there.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

Yeah, I see a ton of racism and anti-LGBT commentary on this site that might fall under this legislation. I’m fine with that, the level of bile directed towards some groups on this site is disgusting. Boards would be a better site and Ireland would be a better society without it.

It’s been made very clear by the Minister that good faith arguments will not fall under this legislation. If you can articulate your concerns about immigration without falling into hate speech that’s allowed.

Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you a right to any platform you want without any consequences. My right to swing my fists ends when they connect with your nose.

You can argue against our position, but only with the pre-approved parameters we set for you. Seems fair alright.

KiKi III

They are essentially updating laws that already exist under the 1989 Act for the digital era.

The Stasi aren’t on the way.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

You can argue against our position, but only with the pre-approved parameters we set for you. Seems fair alright.

Wah wah wah, I want to be allowed to be racist.

Boohoo.

Eric Cartman

WrenBoy wrote: »

You can argue against our position, but only with the pre-approved parameters we set for you. Seems fair alright.

And ofcourse art and academia, the bastions of left wing soapboxing are allowed to continue unfettered.

We are staring down the barrel of a gun and may enter a world where career racists like ebun joseph are allowed to continue unabashed and somebody like niall boylan or peter casey get charged for pointing out the elephant in the room

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

You can argue against our position, but only with the pre-approved parameters we set for you. Seems fair alright.

The law will apply equally to everyone so this point makes zero sense.

BattleCorp

KiKi III wrote: »

One sentence is enough to be prosecuted? Where are you getting that from?

Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that’s true, nor that if it’s said “calmly and politely” it can be hate speech.

If that was true I’d be concerned myself but it’s not.

If I made a one sentence statement such as "We should kill all N***ers", wouldn't that be enough to be prosecuted?

Fair enough, I'd deserve to be prosecuted for that, but that's not the point. I'm just using that as an example of where one sentence could be enough to be prosecuted.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

Wah wah wah, I want to be allowed to be racist.

Boohoo.

I'm sure any facts or arguments that go against your position will amazingly be felt to be racist. Your right The Stasi aren’t on the way, they're already here.

GarIT

Page 44 of the report

"speech which
is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is
couched in polite or coded language, would
be covered by the new offence."

That sentence on its own is fine, but elsewhere they make the terms of what is inciting hatred to be very loose. Anything that targets a characteristic of a person is hate speach in this context.

Eric Cartman

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I made a one sentence statement such as "We should kill all N***ers", wouldn't that be enough to be prosecuted?

Fair enough, I'd deserve to be prosecuted for that, but that's not the point. I'm just using that as an example of where one sentence could be enough to be prosecuted.

Id disagree you should be prosecuted for it, horrible thing to say but it shouldn't be illegal.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

The law will apply equally to everyone so this point makes zero sense.

Even if the laws were to be applied equally, they will not protect all groups equally

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

I'm sure any facts or arguments that go against your position will amazingly be felt to be racist. Your right The Stasi aren’t on the way, they're already here.

You are truly ignorant of the history of East Germany if you believe that to be true.

biko

Ms McEntee can say whatever she likes.

It's how the Garda, the prosecutors and the courts will handle the law that will be the real test.

Eric Cartman

GarIT wrote: »

The law might be applied equally, but will not protect all groups equally

We have no laws that are applied equally here in Ireland. Serial offenders from ‘bad areas’ , women and minorities are already receiving lesser custodial sentences here. Giving a broken legal system another tool to apply unfairly without fixing its core first is insanity

KiKi III

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id disagree you should be prosecuted for it, horrible thing to say but it shouldn't be illegal.

No surprise you think that, nor that you’d oppose this legislation given your post history here.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

This is not a strong argument.

It's not an argument at all. I've been watching the posts coming from "both sides", and yeah, what I said is accurate.

You simply believe that your opinions are of greater value. I don't.

I’m basing my opinions on the reality of what’s being proposed.

As are they. They're talking about what can come from the introduction of the legislation, and further additions/changes down the line. Which is a reasonable suspicion, considering the evolution of such laws over time.

Considering how vague/broad this legislation is, there is a lot of scope for it to be applied for all manner of situations based on who is supporting it. That leaves it open to be a tool to censor people... who shouldn't be censored. We live in a world of agendas...

Now, at the moment, those agendas match your interests, but over time, they could change. We're already seeing a pushback against feminism in society... so you could easily see this legislation used to censor you, or others who make negative remarks about "men".

GarIT

The country will need to order a lot of handcuffs for when we vote again on birthright citizenship and ticking one of the boxes is hate speech.

That's if we vote again. An 80% majority in a referendum probably isn't enough to overturn the will of Twitter.

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The word ‘racism’ has already been redrawn, those who are the ‘oppressed’ cannot be an ‘oppressor’ so basically this law only applies to white people who aren't travellers or jews.

as there are so few jews in ireland , i really dont think jews will come into it at any level bar the holocaust denial inclusion which nobody is likely to find themselves in breach of

the kind of people pushing this dont like the state of israel anyway

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

No surprise you think that, nor that you’d oppose this legislation given your post history here.

I was carded for saying this about yesterday and you personal attack on me earlier went unchecked. So we will see what happens now, see if the rules are applied equally.

Eric Cartman

KiKi III wrote: »

No surprise you think that, nor that you’d oppose this legislation given your post history here.

Yes I have been a consistent defender of free speech, thank you

Tell me how

WrenBoy wrote: »

You can argue against our position, but only with the pre-approved parameters we set for you. Seems fair alright.

That's literally how societies have evolved.
As opposed to neanderthal origins.

Why should speech and communication be any different.

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Having seen the landscape of boards posts , do you think that in the average CA thread that any poster who has posted anything or if they were to say those posts out loud in public would be guilty of anything under these laws ?

Can you think of, in your interpretation , any persons in Ireland who would fall foul of these laws if they re-uttered certain sentiments?

Do you think this will in any way prevent people protesting against migration or journalists reporting on the over representation of traveller, african and ‘asian’ people in crime in the country. ?

could easily see myself up on a charge in the future , not bothered though as i know i would be one of many

Eric Cartman

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as there are so few jews in ireland , i really dont think jews will come into it at any level bar the holocaust denial inclusion which nobody is likely to find themselves in breach of

the kind of people pushing this dont like the state of israel anyway

And I think those very people will be quite shocked when the israel lobby hauls them all infront of a court for ‘anti semitism’ , they don’t think this law will be abused against them, only for them

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not an argument at all. I've been watching the posts coming from "both sides", and yeah, what I said is accurate.

You simply believe that your opinions are of greater value. I don't.



As are they. They're talking about what can come from the introduction of the legislation, and further additions/changes down the line. Which is a reasonable suspicion, considering the evolution of such laws over time.

Considering how vague/broad this legislation is, there is a lot of scope for it to be applied for all manner of situations based on who is supporting it. That leaves it open to be a tool to censor people... who shouldn't be censored. We live in a world of agendas...

Now, at the moment, those agendas match your interests, but over time, they could change. We're already seeing a pushback against feminism in society... so you could easily see this legislation used to censor you, or others who make negative remarks about "men".

I don’t make hateful remarks about men. I say things like “men are responsible for most murders of women in Ireland” and “men are more likely to commit sexual assault” and some sensitive souls here respond to these *facts* with howls of “feminazi”.

I have nothing to fear from this legislation and don’t feel in any way impeded in my freedom of expression because I’m not a hateful person. There isn’t a group alive I feel hatred towards.

I can distinguish quite easily between good faith arguments, criticism and incitement to hatred. It’s actually not that hard if you try.

biko

GarIT wrote: »

Page 44 of the report

"speech which
is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is
couched in polite or coded language, would
be covered by the new offence."

That sentence on its own is fine, but elsewhere they make the terms of what is inciting hatred to be very loose. Anything that targets a characteristic of a person is hate speach in this context.

This is what I previously posted - if they believe your intention with whatever you said was bad you're going to jail.
Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature.
The burden of proof may even be on you to "explain yourself". If you're remorseful enough you might just get off.


https://gript.ie/hate-speech-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

@DeptJusticeIRL in response to burden of proof: advises that it is ‘highly unusual’ to reverse it in Irish law, but is in consideration for the drafting of the new hate-crime legislation #CERD19

biko

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25380&LangID=E

Ireland should use all legislative and non-legislative means to create a world in which ethnic categorizing and vestiges of colonialism would be relegated to the past where they belonged, said Verene Shepherd, Expert of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, as the Committee brought to an end its review of the report of Ireland. She urged Ireland to make racists feel uncomfortable in the country, including politicians and rogue police officers, and to criminalize hate speech and prosecute the perpetrators.

Irish, the colonialists.


Verene Shepherd is Professor of Social History (The UWI, Mona Campus) and
the former University Director of the Institute for Gender and Development Studies.
She is currently the Director of the Institute for Reparations Research at The University of the West Indies.

Not biased at all...