Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

_Kaiser_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956352#Comment_121956352

The "Hurt Feelz Bill" would be more accurate considering that there's no firm definitions given, it's hugely open to legal and individual interpretation, and basically comes down to someone's personal sense of being offended.

I guess the "wholly unnecessary and nonsensical identity politics/culture war pandering Bill" is probably a bit too long to be fair.

Whatever its name though it's a very bad idea and extremely damaging to our democracy.

suvigirl

. deleted

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121957430#Comment_121957430

Not at all. Merely an updating of current legislation. Current legislation doesn't define hate either. Not an issue.

Given that prohibition of incitement to hatred act has been around since 1989, it's hardly something new.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121957365#Comment_121957365

No it is not.

Vote4Squirrels

Well as it is now 1 April and the most draconian laws impinging on freedom of speech is now active in Scotland.

We’re about till see just how bad our law would be.

1800_Ladladlad

Senator Malcolm Byrne (FF) states that calls for hate speech legislation to be scrapped are unnecessary, according to him definitions in the Bill can be tightened, but why were they not "tightened" from the beginning? Too many know what they're at now. The calls are necessary. This is a response to Sinn Fein making the call, along with Charlie Flanagan, TD Michael Ring (FG) and former minister for defense Willie O'Dea (FF), who have echoed them.

Recently Byrne asked the Press Council at an Oireachtas Joint Committee "How was Gript Media permitted into the Press Council?" adding that "we have to be very concerned about news channels" that "stir up hatred." He heavily implies that Gript shouldn't be on the Press Council as they allegedly "stir up hatred" and in the current context of what the bill entails, the law c/would be used against journalists. The likes of Byrne should never be the arbiter of what "hate' means when all it takes is perception.

Noticeable Mentions

• When Byrne was the chair of a disciplinary panel on a Wexford primary school, Gaelscoil Moshíológ's board of management he sacked a school principal for fraudulent behavior despite the school’s disciplinary panel nor the disciplinary appeal panel finding no actual fraud. It went to the high courts and was closed after 10+ years. Imagine Gript writing an article or shooting a report and Byrne &Co "perceive" it as "hate" or incitement.
• Byrne is seeking to make protesting outside direct provision centers illegal with possible jail time for offenders. The Bill has moved past the first stage in the current Seanad term
• When he was running as a candidate for the European Parliament, he 'striked out' at a female friend at college which feels 'shame and regret' over. Striking out, hit in the face, assaulted, left with a bloody nose, hit hard enough they received medical attention, many ways of saying the same thing.

Individuals like Senator Malcolm Byrne will weaponize this bill. I don't like their new talking points. I dont trust any of them

"The continuing deterioration of press freedom in China is deeply concerning" he said in 2021, and yet here we are.

gym_imposter

The bill is an ex parrot , it just doesn't know it yet

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959222#Comment_121959222

These two sections break the bill down into speech and crime.

"PART 2
PROHIBITION OF INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE OR HATRED"

"PART 3
OFFENCES AGGRAVATED BY HATRED"

gerogerigegege

nothing will come of this.

this government are failed imbiciles.

They barely have a proper Garda force to do the basics as it is.

Silentcorner

What is a sight to behold is how much the political establishment is rattled!! They are all over the place…senior politicians still defending the bill, backbenchers vocally opposing it in public….this in an election year, I can't quite remember such a remarkable time, Fg, FF and Sf, the three biggest parties in this state are all going through a very public split simultaneously. And knowledgeable heads in the parties also know the fact that the media establishment are very much pro this bill is meaningless, that same media have lost their influence!!! They have all backed themselves into a corner that they can't get out and they have lost the ability to present a united front!!!

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121962093#Comment_121962093

No they don't.

The first is prohibition of incitement to violence/hatred.

Second is about sentencing

chuchuchu

This video sums it up

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gm4ITjSRE8M&pp=ygUbSXJlbGFuZCdzIHdvcmtlIHJldm9sdXRpb24g

nachouser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121962992#Comment_121962992

That Lorcan lad is also linked to this Gilead-like world view.

https://adfinternational.org/

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121962967#Comment_121962967

Part 2 is all about communicating i.e. speech

Part 3 is about sentencing but it's for updated crimes.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963197#Comment_121963197

Its not 'hate speech ' act.

It is prohibition of incitement to violence and hatred. No such thing as 'hate speech '

CatFromHue

They don't use the word speech directly but communicating material and speech are pretty much the same thing.

Hungry Burger

I seen an interview with Helen McEntee where she was going on saying that the rest of Europe has similar laws basically implying “You’re making us look bad in front of our friends” for daring to oppose restrictions on freedom of speech.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963290#Comment_121963290

They must invite violence or hatred, though. It's not just 'speech '

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963339#Comment_121963339

But you agree that speech is included in that?

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963378#Comment_121963378

Don’t forget also the nonsense peddled these days that words make people feel unsafe; the rhetoric that speaking the actual truth causes “actual violence” and of course the key parts of the law whereby “hate speech” is not defined in a legal sense but how someone feels or reacts.

You state x person (who identifies as a woman) is a man - it is legally and biologically true which used to be a defence in law - but now no longer and you’ll face a charge if this law comes up.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963457#Comment_121963457

No you won't. Just stop Fearmongering

concerned_tenant

The only people in favour of hate speech legislation is a tiny minority of people who want the possibility of threatening people who have opinions against their own self-perception.

I emphasize the word "possibility" because they want said legislation to act as a "chilling effect" first and foremost, and dare anyone say a word out of line, like fascists would expect, then the legislation can be used to punish that individual to the highest possible extent.

It's yet another version in history of authoritarianism acting as beneficence.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963549#Comment_121963549

I decided against reporting this as I would prefer to address it.

Other jurisdictions that have a similar law - some not as draconian as ours - have sent officers round to houses based on a single tweet; one teenage autistic girl faced questioning from SIX officers for remarking that a police officer resembled her “lesbian nana” and the recording of “non crime hate incidents” that can be reported on via online or print media and can cost jobs and livelihoods are as much of a “charge” as an actual charge - more so in fact as at least with a charge one can mount a defence and seek legal assistance.

So no, I’m not fearmongering.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963611#Comment_121963611

We have replaced one blasphemy law with another.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963701#Comment_121963701

Report anything you feel you must. Other jurisdictions legislation is nothing to do with us.

We already record 'non crime hate incidents ' which don't cost anybody anything and are most certainly not in anyway like receiving a charge sheet for a crime.

'You state x person (who identifies as a woman) is a man - it is legally and biologically true which used to be a defence in law - but now no longer and you’ll face a charge if this law comes up.'

That is what you posted, with absolutely nothing to back it up whatsoever, it's Fearmongering.

Vote4Squirrels

https://x.com/sunnydaysahea/status/1774494582253801487?s=46

This would be funny if it wasn’t a representative sample of some people who want this regressive Law.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121963611#Comment_121963611

What ‘highest possible extent’ are you talking about? You must surely be aware that cases are tried on their own merits, that doesn’t even require you to be aware of the current Act or cases regarding said Act, and this proposed legislation is doing nothing more than updating the current Act to address specific circumstances in cases where a protected characteristic is a factor. There’s ten of them listed in the Act. In current legislation they aren’t listed, and it means that cases like the very first one, I have to go back 20 years (Act was introduced in 1989). What happened?

https://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0312/13266-incitement/

Another case (no offence under the current Act):

Doran had alleged that as he opened his car window, the bus driver raised his fists and said, “You get out of my way now,” before adding, “I will finger you up the bum black boy before I **** you up the ass.”

Judge determines the man is a decent man who has no aversion to black people generally, but notes an irony in the case:

“A sad irony in this case is that Mr Doran, an Irishman who is black, was racially abused by a white man who has come to this country from abroad and thus might be exposed – unacceptably, were it to occur – to some form of intolerance,” the judge said.

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-street-racism-courts-2586422-Feb2016/

And given this case was used as an example earlier, the man in question wasn’t charged under the current Act either (and the fashion police aren’t a thing, sadly!):

His trial at Cloverhill District Court heard claims Berkeley, who has been getting psychiatric and psychological treatment, was wearing a “racoon onesie” outfit when he was arrested shortly after the graffiti attack.
…
Despite allegedly admitting the crime to gardaí, he was granted a dismissal following a number of technical arguments made by defence solicitor Tony Collier. The lawyer contended that the case had to be thrown out due to gaps in evidence such as the lack of CCTV evidence as well as the absence of a Garda witness who authorised an interview when Berkeley allegedly owned up.
…
Garda O’Carroll had already seen CCTV footage of the incident with a person in “very distinctive clothes”, the court heard.

https://www.thejournal.ie/the-george-vandalism-court-3830763-Feb2018/

Yet you’re banging on about ‘facists’ and ‘authoritarianism’, ‘chilling effects’, ‘the possibility of threatening people with opinions against their self-perception’ and ‘using the legislation to punish the individual to the highest possible extent’.

Current legislation has been on the books for the last 30 odd years. In that time they’ve managed 50 convictions, and you’re talking about a tiny minority of authoritarian facists who are only in favour of the legislation because it will allow them to threaten to punish anyone for opinions against their own self-perception?

I’d ask you what the fcuk that means, but I doubt even you know what it means 😒

concerned_tenant

You can be against both hateful speech and hate speech legislation.

It isn't either, or.

Both are bad ideas.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964301#Comment_121964301

You can be against both hateful speech and hate speech legislation.

I’m not aware of anyone ever having argued otherwise? This particular piece of legislation though is intended to address prejudice against protected characteristics, as opposed to your idea of creating a fascist, authoritarian State. Existing legislation has been proven to be ineffective in tackling the issue, and this legislation is merely to update existing legislation. Whether it will be any more effective than current legislation is still unknown.

What it doesn’t do however, is it has no impact whatsoever on legislation regulating freedom of expression. That’s an entirely different piece of legislation. It’s how for example Stephen Fry was able to say what he said on ‘The Meaning of Life’ with Gay Byrne, a member of the public made a complaint to Gardaí, and Gardaí couldn’t find anyone who was actually offended.

The kind of stuff you’re talking about, harassment of an individual by another, is already addressed in legislation under the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, Section 10:

Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html#sec10

And should it occur in the workplace, it’s their employers responsibility to address any issues arising from an employee who imagines their right to freedom of expression allows them carte blanche. It does not, it never has, and continuing to argue that freedoms which never existed in the first place are being threatened by this new legislation, is just nothing shy of paranoid nonsense.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959222#Comment_121959222

Well there you go folks, that's the debate over. A rock solid argument in favour of the Hate Speech bill right there.