Hate Speech Public Consultation

Strumms

I love the.. ‘fact check’…

because if you say something factually inaccurate it could be deemed as ‘hate’ speech.

man… what a time to be alive…

get whatever eejit in the Gardai who spent our time concocting that, put a uniform on it and get it out on the streets, roads and doing something tangible to help the wellbeing, security and safety of citizens instead of concocting nonsense like that….

Gardai ought to get on with what they are paid to do, actual police work as opposed to woke work.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220654#Comment_119220654

Lol.

Fact check to stop hate speech.....

A man is a biological male...THATS HATE SPEECH.

but it's true.....

HATE SPEECH.

archfi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220654#Comment_119220654

Oh it wouldn't have been the guards formulating this, why do you think we have multiple govt funded and established intersectional NGOs for?

This will be a carbon copy of British police forces for example arresting women for 'hateful' tweets describing their sex class on the whim of any deranged activist lunatic.

I have zero faith in McEntee to not do that despite what she says.

redunited

Looking at the new proposed Hate Crime Laws planned for Ireland I am worried that free speech may soon be coming to an end, simply because under the new act you are guilty until proven innocent, thus sites like Boards.ie surely will have to curtail certain discussions in case they fall under the new act.

Below is a copy of the new Act,

https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf/Files/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf

Parts of Interest that I have looked at,

In this Act— “hatred” means detestation, significant ill will or hostility, of a magnitude likely to lead to harm or unlawful discrimination against a person or group of people due to their association with a protected characteristic “protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability “ethnicity” includes membership of the Traveller community “religion” includes the absence of religious belief “gender” includes gender expression or identity “disability” has the same meaning it has in the Equal Status Act 2000 “Minister” means the Minister for Justice

Part 1 – Incitement to Hatred

A person is guilty of an offence who –

communicates to the public or a section of the public by any means, for the purpose of inciting, or being reckless as to whether such communication will incite, hatred against another person or group of people due to their real or perceived association with a protected characteristic.

Basically means sites like Pish, P.ie even Boards are doomed because everything posted is communication to the public.

So If I post to say something along the lines, I hate those Martians, they really need to go back to their own home, they are horrible people, I oculd technically be charged with inciting, or being reckless as to whether such communication will incite, hatred against another person or group because my words could effect someone reading my post even if my intent was not to do harm to others.

This next part also puts blame on sites like Pish, P,ie and Boards because it has already become established that the owners of these sites are publishers.

(3) Subject to paragraph (5), a person is guilty of an offence who - publishes or otherwise disseminates, broadcasts or displays to the public, or a section of the public, images, recordings or any other representations of a communication the subject of paragraph (1) above.

The only defence you may have is contained in the below,

in a prosecution for an offence under paragraph (3), it shall be a defence to prove that -

(a) the material concerned consisted solely of - a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic discourse, - an utterance made under Oireachtas privilege, - fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings, - material which has a certificate from the authorising body, in the case of a film or book, or - a communication necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence under this Act

(c) In the case of dissemination or distribution of material by an individual, - that they were unaware and had no reason to suspect that the communication concerned was intended or likely, in all the circumstances including the manner in which they either obtained or disseminated it, to stir up hatred.

A person may be found guilty of an offence under this section irrespective of; (a) whether or not the communication the subject of the offence was successful in inciting any other person to hatred, and, (b) whether or not any actual instance of harm or unlawful discrimination is shown to have occurred, or to have been likely to occur, as a result

Paragraph (1) prohibits communicating with the public by any means, where the purpose of the communication is to incite hatred, or where the person is aware that there is a significant risk that the communication will incite hatred. The incitement can be against a person, or a group of people.

Paragraph (3) prohibits disseminating or distributing of communications prohibited under paragraph 1 to the public or a section of the public.

Paragraph (6) contains a number of presumptions which the court is entitled to make in a prosecution for incitement to hatred. Firstly, the prosecution does not have to prove that a person knew what their material contained. Unless the person can show, more likely than not, that they didn’t know what the material contained, then it can be presumed that they did. Secondly, the prosecution does not have to prove that the person knew what their material meant, and thirdly, where a person posts material on a public forum (so on their social media account, for example) the court is entitled to presume that the person knew it would be public. Similarly, for these last two, if the person can show that, more likely than not, they didn’t know those things, then they can rebut the presumption

Paragraph (7) is designed to ensure a person can still be found guilty of incitement to hatred even if no imminent harm to any other actual person occurred as a result of their actions. This is designed to cover situations where, for example, those present are sympathetic to the victim, rather than siding with the perpetrator. The offence of incitement to hatred is composed of the mental element (intent or recklessness) and the act (communicating with the public or a section thereof) and does not require any actual consequences as a result of that act in order for the person to be guilty

Paragraph (8) provides for jurisdiction over offences committed by a person inside the State who is using material hosted on an information system outside the State, or a person outside the State who is using material hosted on an information system inside the State (as required under Article 9 of EU Council framework decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law).

Head 9 – denial or gross trivialisation of crimes of genocide

A person commits an offence who publicly condones, denies or grossly trivialises any act falling within the definition of a “genocide” in Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention).

Head 9 creates a new offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising a genocide. The definition of genocide used here taken from the Genocide Convention and is the same one used in the Genocide Act 1973. 

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058252314/will-new-hate-crime-laws-kill-free-speech-in-ireland

Talking or receiving offense, as that is what this law is effectively about, should never fall under the criminal justice system. Period.

To answer your question then - yes, this will have a chilling effect on what people feel they cannot say anymore.

growleaves

Minister McEntee said that Zero Tolerance of misogyny means we all have a commitment 'to call out inappropriate behaviour in WhatsApp groups'.

You could be in trouble if you text a dirty joke to someone.

I've said it before, the government see themselves as a gigantic HR department and us as their employees essentially.

It means you can only relax among people you trust and who can take a joke so choose your friends wisely!

Padraig Mor

It is specifically designed to kill free speech. Just look at the reaction to the Joe Duffy trans debate, where a seemingly never ending stream of NGOs, politicians and journalists have lined up to express their horror at the fact that a debate was allowed at all - these are the very same people screaming for 'hate' speech (as they define it of course) to be criminalised.

o1s1n

It's worrying how open to interpretation these things potentially are. Especially including religion and lack of religion as protected characteristics.

I don't agree with this legislation at all but specifically don't agree in lumping in things which are choices people make based on personal ideologies.

Saying something like 'Religion is a huge cause of harm in the world, it should be disbanded' or even on the flip side 'atheism is the root of all evil in society' could be viewed as hate speech against those ideologies, which is absurd.

куриный шарик

First they came for the knackers, i did not speak out as im not a knacker

Then they came for the LGBT, i did not speak out as im not LGBT

Then they came for the muslims , i did not speak out as im not muslim

Then they came for the jews , i did not speak out as im not jewish

Then they Came for the Globalists, i did not speak out as im not a globalist

Then they , well they stopped coming as all the problems seemed to have been sorted out.

Would this be classed as hate speech, satire or juts someone opinion, should it be banned or is it allowed?

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265837#Comment_119265837

Always look to the Austrian hate speech case that ended up in the EU courts, where saying that the Prophet of Islam was a pedophile, was not deemed to fall within freedom of expression, even though it was factually accurate. The EU judges in that case made a massive legal leap too, when they said it could be considered incitement to hatred too, when in nearly every other instance incitement has to be at least somewhat clear cut. If the laws were to be applied fairly, then RTE would have be prosecuted for their "God is rapist" sketch, which of course they were not, and will not be.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265975#Comment_119265975

knacker

Simply using that term could be considered as hate speech..

As for the rest, no, it's not hate speech, even under the new proposals.. the problem is when you say something even remotely vague, as that allows others to interpret it the way they want... which opens you up to hate speech. The problem is that many statements people say each and every day, are vague enough to be twisted into meaning something else.

Bobblehats

Already bound and soon to be gagged. They’ll be breaking out the gimp ; next to lord it over us again yea I think I’ve seen that movie too…

-if you’d not seen the photograph but didn’t pan out too well did it. Hate shebeens will be booming i imagine, where the craic will be mighty.

xxxxxxl

What a huge waste of time and money. All this will do is embolden the twitterazi to fill the Guards time with pointless complaints that then fill the courts. Ending resources for real crime intervention.

dorothylives

It's good to see Midwives hitting back at this nonsense. It's gone too far now, when you have the Royal college of Surgeons and the Royal College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians issue a joint statement referring to 'people who were assigned sex at birth' when discussing maternity issues. The midwives are up in arms and rightly so. They don't assign sex at birth, they observe and record it.

Bit by bit the word woman is being eroded to appease the tiny percentage of men who identify as women and women who identify as men. Seriously, how the actual fuckity **** does a woman with a child in her womb consider herself to be a man? I really don't get it and I refuse to acknowledge it as a real thing. The fact that there are books telling trainee midwives that men with penises can become pregnant and give birth is absolutely insane and dangerous.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10964279/Now-midwives-told-sex-ASSIGNED-birth-Royal-colleges-inclusivity-memo-sparks-fury.html

Mic 1972

The Hate Speech Law are going to be a major step towards totalitarianism. It's unbelievable how quickly they are moving with these things

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119277453#Comment_119277453

Anyone notice the first thing on https://garda.ie/en/ is about hate speech. Is this law already ?

куриный шарик

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119277547#Comment_119277547

Ebun Joseph is stealing a living with all the perceived racism she encounters, well two can play that game, report all anti-white/Irish slights you encounter, overwhelm the system and see it swallow up precious Garda time and resources, it will soon be abandoned and people will have to get back to the good old reliable Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119278613#Comment_119278613

Back in the day before I grew into my nose I got dogs abuse about it. Mom said sticks and stone, I said what if they keep doing it. She then said call them a See you next tuesday. 🙂

Shoog

Why are some people are so afraid of hate speech legislation, is it because they understand that their words are intentionally hateful ?

TomSweeney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119281745#Comment_119281745

Because hate is extremely subjective, who gets to define hate?

Anything can be deemed hateful and you are going down a rocky road when you introduce hate speech laws, some woman in the UK called the cops on a guy that called her fat ffs.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119282230#Comment_119282230

I have zero worries about hate speech legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268271#Comment_119268271

Friend's wife is expecting so they sat down to watch some videos. The whole industry is hilarious in its price, scope and lack of scientific backing. Anyway, before the video series started there was a chapter 0 which was 10 minutes of an emotional woman apologising for the non-"inclusive" language used throughout.

A few midwives might raise an objection or two but when money is involved the vast majority will just shrug and do what they're told.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119282925#Comment_119282925

You must be planning on keeping your mouth shut and sitting on your hands so.

Supposing a female politician does something I'm not happy with. Can I criticise her? Will I be prosecuted for mysogeny if I criticise her online?

I've a lesbian friend (I was best man at her wedding) and I often send her memes that make fun of gay people, for the craic. I don't hate gay people. She knows I don't hate gay people. She laughs at the memes too. And she'll send me memes making fun of me too. All good humoured, but you can bet your testicles/whatever that someone will find them offensive. But am I committing a crime under these new laws by sending these types of memes?

The laws we have are good enough if they are enforced properly. This legislation is going over the top and has the potential to criminalise the most trivial of stuff.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119285257#Comment_119285257

If you threaten to raise a mob to intimidate person because you disagree with them then you should be very worried.

There are examples of hate speech in Ireland with regard to direct provision which precipitated at least 3 arson attacks - one against an elected member of the Dail. This is what the legislation will make a criminal offense.

I can say whatever I like unless my intent is to encourage violence against a group or individual.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119285315#Comment_119285315

I can say whatever I like unless my intent is to encourage violence against a group or individual.

Absolutely not true. There's more grounds to be prosecuted than if you encourage violence against a group or individual.

Part 1 – Incitement to Hatred

A person is guilty of an offence who –

Communicates to the public or a section of the public by any means, for the purpose of inciting, or being reckless as to whether such communication will incite, hatred against another person or group of people due to their real or perceived association with a protected characteristic.

Given the above wording, could I be prosecuted for repeatedly making the statement "Trans women aren't real women, they shouldn't be allowed in women's sports". Supposing I send a meme that mocks trans people, will I be prosecuted?

The problem with this law is that it's too vague, too subjective. And puts too much of a restraint on what can be said.

I'm absolutely fine with someone being prosecuted for encouraging violence against people. No problem whatsoever there. But this will criminalise a lot of stuff that goes nowhere near encouraging violence against a group or individual.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119285455#Comment_119285455

I can say with some certainty that if your hate speech doesn't cause some demonstrable direct harm or distress to an individual then the state will not be wasting it's money on taking you to court. So I think you need to think long and hard about your intent when expressing transphobic sentiments.

And I will repeat, I have absolute confidence that anything I say in public or private will not fall fowl of this law.

Strumms

phobic

/ˈfəʊbɪk/

1. having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something

disagreeing

1. have or express a different opinion.
2. "no one was willing to disagree with him"

you can disagree with someone, some people, something…have an alternative opinion, without it being a phobia.

amazing how many shysters in life when people disagree with them or their viewpoints they accuse people of having a ‘phobia’ or some ‘ism’ towards them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119285516#Comment_119285516

So what?

That only demonstrates you are happy with a law being in place because you feel it doesn't effect you.

And it's a flaw too.

What you have said distresses me. So where do we go from here?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119281745#Comment_119281745

Yes.

I hate your opinion.

I hate that you think that because you find yourself to be virtuous, that hate speech doesn't apply to your words.

I hate that you think me vocalising that is somehow a crime.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119285651#Comment_119285651

You think about the consequences to others of what you say maybe .

It's quite possible to express any idea you might have without loading it with hate and falling fowl of this law.