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

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121973739#Comment_121973739

100% agree - and I'm a practicing Catholic, I have no problem with people disagreeing with my religion or even mocking it - Dave Allen was a favourite in my house!

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121971574#Comment_121971574

Missed the list - happy to see it. Is there safeguards in place to stop items being added to it?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121973085#Comment_121973085

You are repeatedly making false claims about the Bill. Of course you are going to be challenged on that.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121973441#Comment_121973441

The simple fact is "gender identity and expression" is now listed as a protected characteristic which is insane - there is no defined metric to this; it is purely subjective and has no business being in a law or bill.

Ever hear of this ?

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/html

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121973971#Comment_121973971

I would imagine the law can be updated, like any other, so in the future I guess something could be added.

But the list is in line with current equality legislation.

Ireland’s equality laws outlaw discrimination on nine characteristics: gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, religion, age, race, and membership of the Traveller community.  All of these grounds are protected from discrimination in employment and in access to good services and facilities.

https://www.makerightsreal.ie/understanding-rights/equality/#:~:text=Ireland%E2%80%99s%20equality%20laws%20outlaw%20discrimination%20on%20nine%20characteristics%3A,and%20in%20access%20to%20good%20services%20and%20facilities.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121972585#Comment_121972585

I've seen you saying it's OK to abuse people calling them groomers and paedophiles.

More lies.

But I'll address your point regardless. You are saying if someone is called a groomer or a paedo that that's hate speech.

Well it isn't. I've noted that Panti Bliss said 'he get's called a paedo all the time'. But the thing is I've never been called a groomer or a paedo despite that I share the same 'protected characteristic' as him. Proof that the comments made were personal and not aimed at a 'group'. I can assure you I am not in any way personally affected by comments directed at PB by way of fear that the same comments might be directed at me leading me to feel 'unsafe', because it won't happen. Besides I'm not a member of any group of transexual-ists so what would I have to worry about. Bet some think that should be on the list of PC's as well.

Speaking of PB, he's another one of those those encouraging fear about rising homophobia with his 'I don't feel safe holding my partners hand in public, you never know what's coming round the corner' bs, and only the other week I heard Peter Thachell say on UK radio that 'when gay people move into a new home the first thing they worry about is if they have homophobic neighbours. 🤣🤣🤣. I've had enough of these melodramatic queens.

I feel really lucky when I grew up I wasn't exposed to this kind of fear-mongering as I think it's very damaging to young people. Nothing worse than those LGBT NGO's and their celebrity agents grooming kids.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121972897#Comment_121972897

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121972944#Comment_121972944

Any comment on the "Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred" or the Search Warrants parts of the bill?

If I say I've a folder full of memes and I'm ready to use them, should I be investigated. Should all my electronic devices be seized. If I refuse to give up my passwords should I be charged, and face up to a year in prison?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121974652#Comment_121974652

I'd be surprised if you receive an answer in good faith to that legitimate question.

I've repeatedly asked proponents of this legislation if they believe that JK Rowling was right to be investigated over her recent tweets, and irrespective of that, whether they themselves believe JK Rowling has committed an act of hate speech (in their ideal world scenario).

Answer there came none.

Because when it comes to specifics — about how this legislation should work in the real world — abject silence and nothing less besides is all that comes through.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121973739#Comment_121973739

I can’t tell whether you know what is meant by objective and subjective, or whether you genuinely aren’t aware of the difference between them. The protected characteristics as they are included in the bill, are objective, meaning they are not subject to the whims of individuals beliefs, convictions, absence thereof, or opinions one way or another. Subjective, is what you’re doing - giving your opinions based entirely upon your own individual standards, as though that’s how the legislation should operate.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/objective-vs-subjective/#:~:text=What%20do%20objective%20and%20subjective,feelings%2C%20opinions%2C%20or%20emotions.

Because the characteristics are objective, it means that regardless of whether anyone is or isn’t a subscriber of a particular belief system, organised religion, etc, they are protected from discrimination and prejudice in the same manner as anyone who is a subscriber, believer, adherent, whatever. If the characteristics of either Religion or Gender (including gender expression and identity) weren’t included, which is what you’re proposing, then people would be free to discriminate and incite hatred and prejudice against people on the basis of those characteristics.

That’s why regardless of your feelings towards the legislation, it’s intent is to protect the public from people who would otherwise make a nuisance of themselves, sometimes going further than just making a nuisance of themselves and imagining it is their right to take the law into their own hands. That’s what happens when people act upon their subjective feelings, and why the law exists which is intended to prevent and prohibit them from doing so, with the intent of keeping the public safe from harm.

Whatever laws do or don’t apply will depend upon the circumstances in each case. It isn’t up to the individual making a complaint to determine how Gardaí should proceed in their investigation, that’s for the Gardaí to determine, and in relation to certain parts of the proposed legislation - it’s a matter for the DPP to decide whether or not to pursue a prosecution. That’s what is meant by objective, as opposed to arguing as though the individual making the complaint has any say in the matter. They do not, any more than you for example would have a say in determining whether or not you have committed an offence. It’s not your decision.

That point can’t be made clear enough, but by way of example, there was a recent case before the Workplace Relations Commission where the complainant had been subjected to discrimination by her employer. Gardaí were present at the hearing having received previous complaints of witness intimidation. The respondent, her former employer, didn’t want the Gardaí present, submitting among other things that they ‘had no business being in the room’. Like yours, that was their subjective opinion. Their request for the hearing to be held in private was denied by the Adjudicator, an objective party, much the same way as the Gardai are an objective party, and neither they, nor the law, are subject to the whims of any individual party, regardless of whatever the individual’s opinions are based on.

https://www.thejournal.ie/migrant-worker-discrimination-sexual-harrassment-6343945-Apr2024/#:~:text=A%20MIGRANT%20WOMAN%20has%20been,takeaway%20in%20Skerries%2C%20Co%20Dublin.

kippy

I wouldn't be too concerned about this bill..it will never be signed into law.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121974970#Comment_121974970

Gender expression is subjective. So is religion. Neither should be protected characteristics in the bill.

How can you independently and objectively prove the existence of someone's gender identity? You can't. It's entirely inner-based i.e. subjective.

Second question: can gender expression change over time, if a person chooses to do so. The answer to that question is yes.

So no, you're 100% completely wrong.

If protected characteristics are to be included in the bill, it should only include objective criteria (sexuality, race etc.).

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121972688#Comment_121972688

Please explain it to me then, seeing as you seem to have a proper grasp on why we need this, and the rest of us really don't understand.

Go on, inform us.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975028#Comment_121975028

I'm largely agreeing with you on this - and whilst my faith is fine, if we remove religion as a protected characteristic in the law, I'd be deeply concerned about the level of antisemitism given how much there is even with the equal protection given to all faiths.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975062#Comment_121975062

If a person engages in harassment, violence, or open threats toward anyone — for any reason — that is already covered under extant legislation.

Threats to anyone, for any reason, should be treated as equally abhorrent as each other, whether the reason is based on a protected characteristic or not.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121974652#Comment_121974652

So let's say this folder full of memes is pictures from what the nazis did in auschitz or another concentration camp with phrases like "A great day" "let's make this happen again" or memes of black people hanging from trees from American deep south with similar phrases. Why exactly do you think sending those images to Jewish people or black people or a native fan club or a Kkk fan club should be allowed?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975028#Comment_121975028

Do you understand why they are protected characteristics? Do you understand the purpose of the bill? Because from the way you’re talking, it’s clear that you don’t understand or know what is the purpose of the bill. It is simply to prohibit discrimination and prejudice against people on the basis of the characteristics in the bill. Yours or my opinions on gender or religion don’t change the fact that they are characteristics which are commonly used to exhibit discrimination and prejudice against people on the basis of those characteristics.

They are necessarily included because in just the same way as they prohibit discrimination and prejudice against people based on religion, they prohibit discrimination and prejudice against people who have no religion, or people who have no gender, or whatever their ideas are about gender. The legislation protects you too, as much as it protects others from you, by prohibiting you from inciting hatred of other people on the basis of whatever protected characteristics are included in the legislation.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975077#Comment_121975077

Those things are disgusting things to do but I don't think they should be illegal.

A person can simply choose not to read those phrases/images if they are sent to you on the internet

Really not a good idea to start legislating against nasty behaviour if it just is nasty behaviour. If it doesn't involve threats of physical harassment or abuse then it shouldn't be legislated against.

How offensive something is is very subjective and can largely depend on how easily offended someone is.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975173#Comment_121975173

Do you understand why they are protected characteristics? Do you understand the purpose of the bill? Because from the way you’re talking, it’s clear that you don’t understand or know what is the purpose of the bill.

Is this the new tactic, just claim that people don't know what they are talking about or really understand it? The condescension is chronic from a few posters in here. Keep the holider than thou attitude.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975076#Comment_121975076

And what about groups?

for example, if someone is running for election next time, and they have posters, tweets, speeches all about how all travellers should be drowned at birth, or calling on the electorate to burn asylum seekers out of their accommodation, or how all Jewish people living here should be forced out of the.country......is it ok that they are not breaking any laws?

Do you think that perhaps some members of those groups might become scared for their lives, their families etc?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121974652#Comment_121974652

Memes? just little comedy cartoons? Why would they be material likely to invite violence or hatred?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975190#Comment_121975190

Yes, it’s a new tactic to ask someone do they actually understand the purpose of the bill when it’s clear from their opinions that either they DO know what they’re talking about, and they’re being deliberately dishonest, OR, whether they really don’t actually understand the purpose of the bill, and therefore don’t understand the point of the protected characteristics. I’m keen to give concerned_tenant the benefit of the doubt as opposed to just straight up telling them they’re wrong, they haven’t a clue, I’m trying to help them understand, etc, because that would be condescending bullshìt and displaying a holier than thou attitude.

Best establish a baseline of their understanding first, because right now it’s way off. Whether they intend to be deliberately misleading or not, I don’t know, but evidence so far suggests they’re not even remotely interested in the purpose of the bill, or its intended effects. It has nothing to do with impeding upon anyone’s right to freedom of expression.

It’s intent is doing exactly the opposite - ensuring that all people are equally protected from discrimination and prejudice in exercising their right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), freedom from discrimination against anyone on the basis of gender (or gender identity or gender expression), and freedom from discrimination based on the idea of not being on board with anyone’s subjective ideas, beliefs or opinions about gender upon which they choose to discriminate or otherwise incite hatred and prejudice against other persons or groups in Irish society.

Essentially, nobody has the right, or the authority, to go around acting all holier than thou and making a nuisance of themselves in public places or in public spaces, and nobody has the right to attempt to make other people’s lives miserable. Fairly basic stuff that the majority of people in Irish society can manage without being told already. It’s the minority who imagine the world should revolve around them and their subjective perspective, who causes trouble for everyone else.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975180#Comment_121975180

The 1989 Act is unworkable. A person who set up a Facebook page to "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" couldn't be prosecuted because it is unworkable.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975346#Comment_121975346

I'm happy to answer your questions but only if you are willing to answer mine. That's the only way that meaningful dialogue can occur.

Twice over the past day I asked you whether you think it was reasonable for the police to investigate JK Rowlings tweets and, irrespective of that, do you think she should be prosecuted (in what you would consider the ideal world).

Because your answers to that determine how you think the same legislation should be used / weaponized in this country.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975077#Comment_121975077

I wouldn't have to send them to anyone, it'd be an offence to simply have them.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975375#Comment_121975375

More condescending, get over yourself.

I have actually linked to existing legislation that covers scenarios, those in favour have not. If you want to educate us, please do so with parts of the legislation that you are in favour of that isn't covered currently.

Best establish a baseline of their understanding first, because right now it’s way off. Whether they intend to be deliberately misleading or not, I don’t know, but evidence so far suggests they’re not even remotely interested in the purpose of the bill, or its intended effects. It has nothing to do with impeding upon anyone’s right to freedom of expression.

What evidence?

This bill does indeed target freedom of expression, even if that expression might "upset" or heaven forbid "offend" someone. Your feelings (or anyones feelings) aren't so important to take away the rights of citizens to completely free expression, even if that expression is something you, or I, don't like. This is not the same those who say things are free from consequences.

This bill/legislation does nothing to protect the rights of expression (hate or not), it limits it. Just look at what is happening in Scotland, people calling the police because they don't like what JK Rowling has to say…just ignore them, it is that simple. No need for a law, just means having a bit of common sense to ignore what someone says.

Essentially, nobody has the right, or the authority, to go around acting all holier than thou and making a nuisance of themselves in public places or in public spaces, and nobody has the right to attempt to make other people’s lives miserable. Fairly basic stuff that the majority of people in Irish society can manage without being told already. It’s the minority who imagine the world should revolve around them and their subjective perspective, who causes trouble for everyone else.

Oh the irony, yet again. No one has the right go be holier than thou…but they can have the right to report you for saying something they deem "hateful". How can saying something make someones life miserable, they are words, again, people can choose to be the victim or ignore what is being said. How can something so basic not click for people in here.

If it goes beyond that, there are already laws for harassment and Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989. This already covers this through actions or broadcasts that are likely to stir up hatred, so if someone says "I think we should all get together and burn down the refugee centre", that is prohibited. But this new legislation will have someone who might make a joke about a religion or sex reported…and you would be happy with that? Give yourself a talking to.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975522#Comment_121975522

You didn't ask me that..…at all.

I have no idea what she tweeted.

Whether she should be prosecuted or not depends entirely on the Scottish legislation. Tell me what she tweeted.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975346#Comment_121975346

3.—(1) If an item involving threatening, abusive or insulting visual images or sounds is broadcast, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You'll be happy to see, we already have something to cover that. You must be delighted.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975418#Comment_121975418

Saying it is unworkable, without actually detailing how, doesn't mean it is unworkable.

Provide evidence, or even an opinion, as to why.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975359#Comment_121975359

You really must have your head in the sand.

Remember the cartoons about the prophet Mohammed? Maybe do a quick google on that…

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975418#Comment_121975418

again horrible stuff, but unless they threatened specific individual then I don't see why it should be illegal.Do people not realise you don't have to read something on the internet if you don't like it or find it unpleasant.