Hate Speech Public Consultation

1800_Ladladlad

This post is a bit rushed but anyway. The department for justice and equality is consulting with the public about how reviewing Ireland’s legislation on "hate speech", and how this area can be improved.


I wasn't aware of this until yesterday so I thought I would post it on here so that if there was people unaware of it and would like to have there say.

Deadline is December 13th

Please click Here

I think it's dangerous bringing in hate speech laws and that this could be used as a way of politicians removing their ideological opponents from the marketplace of ideas. Im worried this would create protected religious groups or ethnic minorities from any criticism. In a generation consisting of the hysterically outraged and progressives, both online and in public, the meaning of words is context-dependent. Offending someone is not a crime.

Im expecting the usual bolloxogy “you're confusing the right to free speech with the imagined 'right' to speech free of consequences."

Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.

hatrickpatrick

Freedom of speech and speech free of consequences are the same thing. If one fears consequences of speaking their mind, then they are not truly free to speak it. The law shouldn't criminalise any political or ideological speech, and indeed society shouldn't penalise anyone for speaking their mind about political policy or ideology. To do so is to dilute democracy itself.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.

Theyll try use it to strangle the media from reporting on serious crimes

CageWager

Who gets to define what constitutes hate? (Both now and in the future).

See you all in the gulag.

suicide_circus

thanks for that, i wrote them a stinker.

RobbingBandit

Open to blatant manipulation and exploitation with silly stuff like this

Irish Guitarist

Hate speech my arse. Criminals in Ireland barely get punished for actual crimes where victims are physically injured or worse. That's okay though as long as it's just white people attacking other white people and they don't hurt anyones feelings.

And look at the way hate speech is handled in Britain. About a year ago a boy was killed in a hit and run. As far as I know the driver was never prosecuted. The police put greater effort into dragging a 17 year old girl into court who had posted rap lyrics on her Instagram page as a tribute to this boy because the lyrics contained the word 'nigga'.

TheValeyard

Legislation like this is a direct threat to democracy and people expressing an opinion. Existing laws can already deal with such issues.

vladmydad

If you read the proposal you’ll see it’s all based on the perception of the “victim”. If someone “feels” offended by what you’ve said then it’s a crime. Which is obviously terrifying. They really haven’t thought this through and the potential for abusing this legislation is enormous. It would give a massive weapon to every NGO and pressure group in the country.

You know all those nasty hyper offended people online, who shout racism sexism etc every 10 seconds, well this legislation would be like giving them a veto on all speech in this country.

There was even a mention of removing the burden of proof, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent.

Phoebas

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?

mickuhaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of speech and speech free of consequences are the same thing. If one fears consequences of speaking their mind, then they are not truly free to speak it. The law shouldn't criminalise any political or ideological speech, and indeed society shouldn't penalise anyone for speaking their mind about political policy or ideology. To do so is to dilute democracy itself.

Well said. Free speech includes expressions that might offend or upset people in the interest of learning and finding truth.

I am sure Aristotle's ideas upset, angered and offended alot of people and their beliefs.

suicide_circus

Hate Speech laws are the genetic descendants of blasphemy laws. We got rid of the blasphemy crap in the 2018 referendum and here they go trying to introduce more unenforceable wholly subjective ideologically driven sh1te.

The word hate has no place in legislation. Imagine having a law based on an objective understanding of the word "Love" - there is no such thing. There are as many definitions of love as there are people.

TwoMonthsOff

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.

Cheers for the link OP. I just made a submission.


The gist of my points where that I felt the law is already robust enough (albeit not enforced) and adding new laws to be seen to be doing something doesn't actually help. However, on the basis of hate speech itself, I feel any descriptions of a person/people that are factual shouldn't be described as hate speech anyway.

(ie; if a traveller steals from a shop and the Gardai are looking for him, telling the public he's a traveller, rather than an actual description, probably doesn't help and is a needless dig. However, if the person is black, then not mentioning that he's black, for fear of being viewed as a racist, is counter-productive and describing someone in a factual manner should never be considered hate speech).


Naturally, wandering down the road calling people knackers and n/ggers all day is a whole separate thing, but I'm fairly confident we have abusive language, threatening behaviour, intimidation etc. already well covered (albeit, as above, not actually enforced).

Ironicname

I think the ability to critique and voice your dissatisfaction about certain social and societal acceptances is vital.

However, calling for violence or violent suppression should absolutely be legislated for.

Everyone should have their say, but laws telling people how they must feel or else feel the wrath of punishment is contravening of what hate speech is.

If I disagree vehemently about certain common acceptances and am willing to vocalise those thoughts in a respectful and factual matter, that should not be hate speech.

US2

Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.

Hector Savage

Ireland bringing back the blasphemy law.

US2

Hector Savage wrote: »

Ireland bringing back the blasphemy law.

This one will only cover a certain religion though.

Hector Savage

US2 wrote: »

This one will only cover a certain religion though.

of course, or criticizing immigration, and the "liberals" will lap it up ...

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.

The law came in in 1989.

Manach

Thanks for OP for highlighting this. Free speech the core element of a society and as such political "hate" speech legislation is the state attempt to immunise itself from criticism and instill a culture of conformatism.

US2

Phoebas wrote: »

The law came in in 1989.

"Hate speech" wasn't even a phrase in 1989. Hate speech is to silence criticism of islam or open border immigration and has only recently come about.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.

you could probably add the islamic cultural centre and iona institute to that list in time

Annasopra

US2 wrote: »

Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.

The point of a law is to make it clear!!!

Annasopra

Phoebas wrote: »

The law came in in 1989.

Very few prosecutions.

The guy who set up the facebook page “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” should have been prosecuted in my opinion

US2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The point of a law is to make it clear!!!

If someone deems something offensive its hate speech, not clear at all.

Annasopra

US2 wrote: »

If someone deems something offensive its hate speech, not clear at all.

If there is a law on hate speech the law will define it.

US2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If there is a law on hate speech the law will define it.

The UK hate speech law doesn't define anything other than if someone finds something offensive you can be prosecuted.

DrumSteve

Hate Speech is a bit 1984 for my liking...

Annasopra

US2 wrote: »

The UK hate speech law doesn't define anything other than if someone finds something offensive you can be prosecuted.

We are not the uk

Theres plenty of definitions of hate speech out there if you look

US2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We are not the uk

Theres plenty of definitions of hate speech out there if you look

The law will define it as anything someone finds offensive. Same as the UK. Have you read the link in the OP? Very broad.

Annasopra

US2 wrote: »

The law will define it as anything someone finds offensive. Same as the UK.

Ye what? How do you know what legislators will do exactly? Thats a huge oversimplification to say that hate speech law in the UK is merely about anything someone finds offensive

utyh2ikcq9z76b

They are locking up comedians in the UK.

paw patrol

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Very few prosecutions.

The guy who set up the facebook page “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” should have been prosecuted in my opinion

based on your previous posts I'd say you'd send any dissenters to the gulag if they looked sideways at you or were critical of your utopian dream.

TwoMonthsOff

People are being arrested in the UK over simple disagreements with people of colour.

US2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ye what? How do you know what legislators will do exactly? Thats a huge oversimplification to say that hate speech law in the UK is merely about anything someone finds offensive

You can not be a serious person, it is exactly that in the UK, and it looks very likely to be the same here from everything I've read.

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

"Hate speech" wasn't even a phrase in 1989.

And yet, here's the "Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

US2

Phoebas wrote: »

And yet, here's the "Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

That's a big difference from "hate speech" which is offending a liberal on Twitter. If this isn't the case, what are we bringing in this new law for?

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

You can not be a serious person, it is exactly that in the UK, and it looks very likely to be the same here from everything I've read.

What have you read?

This thread is telling you about a public consultation - there isn't some published proposed legislation out there that's about to be enacted. You have an opportunity, like everyone else, to have your views heard.

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

That's a big difference from "hate speech"

The existing legislation covers hate speech - have you looked at it at all?

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

[...]

or

(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

US2

Posting something factual and scientific like "There is only 2 genders" could have you before a judge, deemed as hate speech towards people who identify as "them" or "they".

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

The law will define it as anything someone finds offensive. Same as the UK. Have you read the link in the OP? Very broad.

There is no new law defining anything yet. This is about a public consultation.

US2

Phoebas wrote: »

The existing legislation covers hate speech - have you looked at it at all?

Have you seen how this is being implemented in the UK. You want that here?

Phoebas

US2 wrote: »

Have you seen how this is being implemented in the UK. You want that here?

We aren't in the UK, so we aren't subject to the laws there.

If you want to influence how we organise our laws, here in Ireland, this is your opportunity.

TwoMonthsOff

Phoebas wrote: »

We aren't in the UK, so we aren't subject to the laws there.

If you want to influence how we organise our laws, here in Ireland, this is your opportunity.

It'll be the same here.

US2

Phoebas wrote: »

We aren't in the UK, so we aren't subject to the laws there.

If you want to influence how we organise our laws, here in Ireland, this is your opportunity.

It is the very same as the UK. I haven't said we are subject to their laws. I have taken the opportunity, dont worry.

Phoebas

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

It'll be the same here.

Off course it will.
If all of the people who spend countless hours on Boards and social media complaining, simply throw their hands up in the air and say it'll be the same as it is in the UK, then maybe that's what you'll get.

TwoMonthsOff

Phoebas wrote: »

Off course it will.
If all of the people who spend countless hours on Boards and social media complaining, simply throw their hands up in the air and say it'll be the same as it is in the UK, then maybe that's what you'll get.

I've no confidence in this government taking any public consultation seriously. Theyll do what they want.

X111111111111

TheValeyard wrote: »

Legislation like this is a direct threat to democracy and people expressing an opinion. Existing laws can already deal with such issues.

The establishment don't care about that. They will use these laws to suit them and their agenda and to protect their own from criticism. Take Marie Bailey the insurance fraudster as an example, iv'e already heard certain government mouthpieces (newstalk etc...) try and claim she was being bullied by the line of questioning she was getting. They would call that hate speech right there and stop anyone from asking pertinent questions about her role in the scandal.

It's a slippery slope.

US2

US2 wrote: »

Hate speech is to silence criticism of islam or open border immigration and has only recently come about.

US2 wrote: »

If someone deems something offensive its hate speech, not clear at all.

US2 wrote: »

The law will define it as anything someone finds offensive.

US2 wrote: »

That's a big difference from "hate speech" which is offending a liberal on Twitter.

US2 wrote: »

Posting something factual and scientific like "There is only 2 genders" could have you before a judge, deemed as hate speech towards people who identify as "them" or "they".

For someone who professes to be against people making up what constitutes hate speech, you seem to spend an awful lot of time making up what you think will constitutes hate speech.