Hate Speech Public Consultation

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429285#Comment_118429285

It's quite conceivable, given the wording of the proposed legislation, that the same could easily happen here.

So whilst it might not be relevant today, it may be relevant at some point in the future after the legislation has passed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429072#Comment_118429072

Hating a murdering, raping, pillaging warlord is perfectly normal. But we are only allowed to criticise the failed warlord that took a newly united german nation and didnt manage to conquer an empire

Chips Lovell

It's unlikely to happen here because, unlike Austria, we voted to remove blasphemy laws. I'd be very surprised if we voted to reintroduce them.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429301#Comment_118429301

Clueless as always Bubbly. She was charged under hate crime legislation, aswell as what is a de-facto blasphemy law. Thankfully she was acquitted on the former. But the fact that charges can be laid for doing so is the problem.

'N, a journalist working at a weekly journal, clandestinely attended two of E.S.’s seminars on October 15 and November 12, 2009. As a result of what was said at these seminars the journal laid criminal complaints against E.S. and a formal preliminary investigation was instituted during which E.S. was questioned, on February 11, 2010, about the content of the seminars. The investigation focused on various derogatory statements about Muhammed and the religion of Islam that E.S. had made which included her linking paedophilia with the religion [para. 13]. She also said that Muhammed “was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children” and that Muslim men saw Muhammed as the “ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim” and that an attempt to emulate him means that “Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system.” [para. 13].

On August 12, 2010, the Vienna Public Prosecutor charged E.S. under article 283 of the Criminal Code for inciting hatred. This article states: “(1) Whoever, in a manner capable of endangering public order, publicly incites to commit a hostile act against a church or religious community established within the country or against a group defined by its belonging to such a church or religious community, a race, a nation, a tribe or a state, shall be liable to up to two years’ imprisonment; (2) Similarly, whoever publicly incites against a group defined in paragraph 1 or tries to insult or disparage them in a manner violating human dignity shall equally be held liable.”

On February 15, 2011, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court acquitted E.S. on the charges under article 283 but convicted her for “publicly disparaging an object of veneration of … Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation” under article 188 of the Criminal Code which criminalises “disparaging religious doctrines” [para. 12]. Article 188 states: “Whoever, in circumstances where his or her behaviour is likely to arouse justified indignation, publicly disparages or insults a person who, or an object which, is an object of veneration of a church or religious community established within the country, or a dogma, a lawful custom or a lawful institution of such a church or religious community, shall be liable to up to six months’ imprisonment or a day-fine for a period of up to 360 days.” The Court held that E.S. had “conveyed the message that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies” and that “Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship” but that E.S. had not intended to disparage all Muslims [para. 14]. The Court made a distinction between child marriage and paedophilia and said that while “criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies” [para. 14].

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/e-s-v-austria/

Blasphemy laws and modern hate speech legislation are two sides of the same coin.

Both seek to protect their own ideas at the expense of the majority.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429341#Comment_118429341

So charges against her under hate crime legislation were thrown out, so what's your issue? The courts did their job. She was convicted under a blasphemy law.

You do know we have the Incitement to Hatred act here since 1989?

Chips Lovell

It’s almost as if some people want this to be true in order to have something to be cross about.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429314#Comment_118429314

Can a person be tried and convicted for denigrating a religion in Ireland?

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429405#Comment_118429405

Under the new legislation it is very possible yes. The above quote made by the lady in this case could be construed as being reckless and inciting hatred (significant ill will) against a group of people due to them worshipping a paedophile.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118427637#Comment_118427637

yes which shows that it does work, because only cases that fit such a definition get prosecuted and we have a high bar in terms of proving that such actually did take place.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429535#Comment_118429535

And do you think she could be prosecuted under present legislation in this country?

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428679#Comment_118428679

no, they aren't untrue.

if the prosecution are unable to provide sufficient proof then that is on them, not on the legislation which is fine.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429560#Comment_118429560

Aswell as many cases may have been prosecuted under section 6 of the criminal code due to less onerous proof being required.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429606#Comment_118429606

You know more than the Law Reform Comission. 🤣. Pull the other one. I proved your statements wrong. Your statements were untrue so stop embarassing yourself trying to pretend you are right when you are wrong.

y0ssar1an22

has anyone here tried to define their own version of hate speech?

its seems like something near on impossible to define without having unintended consequences

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430338#Comment_118430338

that is what you want to believe but you are incorrect on all counts.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430376#Comment_118430376

Just saying "nanana Im right" proves nothing. If you have some actual argument provide it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430606#Comment_118430606

I agree.

If you have some actual argument, provide it.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430648#Comment_118430648

Yes. The law reform commission has stated the 1989 law is ineffective and needs to be updated.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429389#Comment_118429389

Or they have a genuine concern. People should be involved in what legislation is being proposed by the government.

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432075#Comment_118432075

I think people with genuine concerns would be prepared to listen to points that address those concerns. What I'm referring to is those who keep insisting that this is some kind of conspiracy to facilitate repression whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. At some point, you just have to acknowledge that the facts don't matter to these people and there's little point in engaging with them.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118428711#Comment_118428711

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. If you are asking me if I would support someone being prosecuted for genuinely suggesting that kn..........babies be used as shark bait, then yes I would support a prosecution for that. But if it was said 'in jest' with no malice intended (kind of like a Frankie Boyle joke or as a funny/unfunny meme), then no I wouldn't be supportive of that person being prosecuted. It depends on context.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432145#Comment_118432145

The irony is that could easily be said about those opposing the posters voicing their concerns on this thread. There's been a variety of posters on the thread who are critical of the proposed legislation who have provided detail on their whys, and by providing facts to support their positions.

If you disagree with them, disagree... but don't dismiss their concerns. The value of a democratic system is that people are involved/interested in most aspects of governance. It is much worse when people sit back and wait for changes to be implemented without their interest.

As for the conspiracy suggestion, that's just another way to dismiss opposing opinions. There are social movements in all western societies which seek to promote and elevate the concerns or positions of minorities, whether it's the NGOs, activists or lobby groups. That's not a suggestion of a conspiracy but the acceptance of the way things are in the world.

Chips Lovell

I'm not saying dismissal should always be the first port of call, but it does become necessary if people won't engage with the facts. If someone asserts the earth is flat and you repeatedly present evidence to the contrary, which they repeatedly ignore, at some point you have to dismiss them because you're simply wasting your time continuing to engage.

There are of course, cases where dismissal should be the immediate reaction. Do you really think someone should take an assertion that they're "building gulags" seriously?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432324#Comment_118432324

No, but the nature of the internet is that some people will express extreme viewpoints. Does that mean that everyone else who also opposes the same idea should be grouped/associated with that extreme viewpoint? Which is what you've just attempted to do.

What are all these facts that people are supposedly arguing against? I've been following the thread for a while now, rarely posting, but staying relevant to the ongoing arguments, and I haven't seen any of these facts supporting the legislation that counter the concerns of those objecting. A load of opinions supported by external information/facts.. but those objecting to the legislation haven't been arguing against any facts.. not that I've seen anyway.

However, the fact is that hate crimes occur everywhere regardless of what legislation is implemented. Having such legislation in place doesn't stop hate crimes from happening, and while many posters here seem to be very focused on the hate crime aspect of the legislation, the proposal covers a range of other situations which are far more open to interpretation.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

Does any legislation stop crime. Does the criminalisation of drugs stop people from buying selling or taking drugs. Can we legislate away murder?

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

I very specifically said "some" people. Not all people.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432959#Comment_118432959

The association was made. We both know how language, and internet discussions work.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432862#Comment_118432862

Having any type of legislation doesn't stop crime.

There are parts of this legislation that are, imo, not required, and should not be implemented. However the majority of posters are not arguing against anything specifically in the legislation. Those that have bothered to read it, get as far as incitement to hatred and pick issues with it, even when it has been pointed out time and time again, that it is already an offence, with basically the same wording.

I have no issue with posters having problems with this proposed legislation, if they are aware of what is included, or are willing to learn about what is included.

Anyway, threads were merged, the OP a few days ago asked if we were looking are democracy because of this, and of course, we are not.

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118433000#Comment_118433000

The association was made, by you. It's not my fault that you misinterpreted what I said.