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

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964637#Comment_121964637

If someone posts lies, why would they get any other response

o1s1n

I haven't read this thread in a while, are the same folks still for the bill and the same folks still against?

Would be interested to hear if any opinions changed in 16 months and 3,112 posts.

plodder

Not a lawyer, but one observation, if I may.

It's interesting that the current law describes hatred as against a group of persons; the Scottish law that came into effect yesterday also defines it the same way - as against groups; whereas our new bill talks about "hatred against a person or group of persons". That's quite a significant change, a lot more than just updating the list of protected characteristics.

Looking at that example of the bus driver above, I wonder is that where this idea of "hatred against a person" is coming from, and if it might be better handled as a separate offence. Afaik, a credible threat of violence is already a crime in the Non Fatal Offences against the person act, and the allegation in that case, surely meets that bar. The problem then, and always will be though, not the law, but proving the facts. In a simple he-said, she-said situation you aren't going to get criminal convictions regardless of how the law is worded. If there had been independent corroboration of what the bus driver allegedly said, I'd say maybe he could have been prosecuted under existing law? Without independent corroboration, no future law is going to get a conviction either I suspect ……

What's interesting in that case, is how it ended up as a civil action, which obviously has a much lower standard of proof and the bus driver (or his employer) lost that case.

I don't think this bill captures the distinction properly between what might be hate speech against protected groups, and what is basically threatening and abusive behaviour towards an individual on account of their protected characteristics. They are quite different things. For example, the concept of what makes a threat credible is very important in current law, I would guess. Threatening someone face to face is a lot more credible than saying the same thing anonymously over the internet (which isn't very credible at all) but this bill doesn't go into any detail on that.

Oscar_Madison

seeing the Scottish protests against the legislation just enacted there should be sufficient for everyone to take a big step back here and really think out more what we want to achieve - it feels like this legislation was developed for a problem that doesn’t exist - as others have said maybe existing legislation needs to be updated or strengthened - but really only if there’s a clear need .

Stifling debate even if hatred language is used, doesn’t solve anything- I’d prefer to see the hatred speech visible to all - then we can tackle it - if it’s moved underground it’s much harder to monitor and counteract which will happen if this bill is passed - I’d prefer to know who the gombeens are so I can avoid them - maybe someday they’ll grow up - but this legislation is just wrong and I haven’t seen one valid argument that justifies it

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965075#Comment_121965075

Lies? We disagree. That post is out of order there.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965075#Comment_121965075

Are you saying I was lying?

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965654#Comment_121965654

Me I believe because the fact that “misgendering” will become an offence under the law, as it is now in Scotland and other jurisdictions - was deemed a lie and fearmongering. If only it was.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965728#Comment_121965728

If you can post the proposed wording of the offence of 'misgendering' then I'll say it's not a lie.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965654#Comment_121965654

Not at all.

1800_Ladladlad

Poland is to prepare and introduce a new hate-speech law very much like ours, which is a radical shift in gears under the new left-liberal government, a law that could see people imprisoned for up to three years for saying anything about age, disability, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity people.

Brussels down.

sliabh 1956

So much for the Scotish hate law Jk Rowling has just called their bluff

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966474#Comment_121966474

Her post yesterday was a brilliantly worded shot across the bows!!!

Vote4Squirrels

For some reason the quote function isn’t working but @suvigirl

This really should not need to be explained as I had previously understood from your posts that you were fully versed in the proposed new law, but…

The current “protected characteristics” (usually sex, race, religion, membership of the Traveller community” etc - will now include “gender expression and identity”.

So as I stated correctly earlier - if you refer to a biological male who “identifies” as a woman, that they are biologically, genetically, chromosomally a man - you will fall foul of this horrendous law.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966584#Comment_121966584

No you will not.

Not unless you are inciting violence or hatred. Free speech is neither and is protected.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966669#Comment_121966669

You are very wrong. “Hatred” is to be as perceived by the person hearing the speech. This is literally written in the proposed law. And no, I won’t go and get it - it is there, we both know it.

Some wish the law to be implemented so as to stifle free speech and open debate. Thankfully there’s always the ignore option which I’m now exercising.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966736#Comment_121966736

If that is written in the law you won't have an issue linking to it here then.

Free speech is protected under Section 11 of the proposed legislation.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966763#Comment_121966763

I’ll bite - mainly because it’s joyful to say you’re wrong again.

Section 11 allows “discussion” of potential hate speech, for example in academia, media etc.

Now blissful silence.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966792#Comment_121966792

it's a shame you're wrong, again.

Protection of freedom of expression

11. For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or

hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics

or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes

or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.

No mention of acadamia or media.

If all you want to do is express a view about trans people (it's always trans people 🙄) there is no offence.

Unless you want to say something that will incite violence or hatred…...

Large bottle small glass

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that
the material concerned or, insofar as appropriate, the behaviour concerned consisted
solely of—
(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific,
religious or academic discourse,

That's the defence in the event of a charge arising. Which of the following would be seen by a "reasonable person" as " a contribution that is considered by
a reasonable person as being reasonably necessary or incidental to such discourse".

1. A lot of those middle age transwomen are just cross dressing perverts getting off on getting access to previously prohibited women's spaces.
2. Enoch Burke and the rest of those fundamentals Christians are the devil
3. Half of our new immigrant Muslim are Isis sympathisers and we shouldn't let them in

Those section 11 below allow me to express those beliefs freely.

I'm not a stupid man but the wording below isn't simple and would certainly put me on edge in the public sphere.

To paraphrase Hitchens Freedom of expression is the most important of freedoms as it's the one we use to argue for the others.

The current bill makes me feel spancelled (a nice farming phrase 😀) in how I speak in the future.

11. For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or
hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics
or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes
or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.

Large bottle small glass

Btw I wouldn't trust those Brussels looking virtue signaling **** in current cabinet with a single thing

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966814#Comment_121966814

who or what makes the determination on what’s considered hate?

Say for example I say “trans people, for the most part and in my opinion, suffer from complex mental health disorders”

Can the trans community bring me in front of a judge?

Or what if I say, I hate Leinster rugby, can the IRFU and Leinster take me to court?

What about I think Fine Gael are corrupt, could I get threatened to cease writing about why I think they are corrupt?

I think this is all too vague and a index of hateful material and speech needs to be defined because at present it looks to me like having a meme of Johnny sexton saying feck Leinster could be considered hateful material if the judge was a big fan.

What do you think?

seanin4711

As vague as the definition of hate is,it's whatever the justice minister deems to be hate is what you are going to be done for.

Strange that all the hate laws coming in at the same time,almost like it's scripted.

Thought police.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966901#Comment_121966901

Are you new in Ireland? The DPP bring people to court, no one else.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966915#Comment_121966915

that for me?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966901#Comment_121966901

Its the same as any other criminal offence, you make a statement of complaint to Gardai, who investigate, the DPP then decides if it should go to court or not, then a judge and/or Jury decides if the person is guilty or not.

Not sure why you think hating Leinster Rugby could be an offence? Unless you think they are protected?

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966919#Comment_121966919

Yes.

thomas 123

100% valid, but who decides I just think there needs to be very clear definitions. How would a Garda know what is and is not hate speech or hateful material? How would the DPP know? How would a judge or jury make decision like based on what? Someone’s feelings?

.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966964#Comment_121966964

Oh right, I’ve yet to see The DPP arrest someone or charge someone.

nachouser

Chuck any of the off-piste stuff you want to say or type anonymously into a work group chat and see how you get on.

techdiver

How are people still defending this bill? If "Hate" or "Hatred" is not defined in the bill it must be assumed to be the exact definition "Intense Dislike". So I can, for instance, say I intensely dislike travellers and will have committed a crime.

It's often proffered in legal discussions that "ignorance is no defense". Well in this case the lawmakers are ignorant to what they are implementing. When presented with examples all politicians and even members of the legal profession can come up with is "that probably won't fall under this", or "a jury will decide". This is scarcely believable stuff. No one knows the potential impacts of this apart from individuals who have an overinflated sense of their I own intellect.

If supporters of the bill are so confident in their interpretation of it why are they against amending it to provide clarity? Why? Because it's exactly what they want. It's an ideology. The ironic thing being, what a potentially malevolent authoritarian regime (both home and abroad where similar laws are being implemented), could do with such a dangerous vague law. Remember that line from MacBeth - "But in these cases We still have judgement here; that we but teach Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague the inventor."