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

suvigirl

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

Sorry, my apologies, I scrolled back and saw your questions, honestly didn't notice them before. I don't know what she tweeted

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975551#Comment_121975551

There is no link to where this came from?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975579#Comment_121975579

You know full well where I got it. Do you think I just made it up? Another tactic to try and discredit an opposing view.

Here you go, maybe bookmark this so you have it on hand.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/print#sec3

In case you get lost in there, it is section 3, there is a hot link to it at the top as well.

You are welcome.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975590#Comment_121975590

I am aware of current legislation.

I also understand that it does not cover the examples that I posted.

Which is why we need to update the legislation.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975563#Comment_121975563

Of course it should be illegal. Travellers as individuals have rights to be safe and secure, free from torture and violence. This sort of post encourages violence against them, encourages discrimination against them, sends out messages that their children are worthless and should be murdered because of who they are. When this extreme hate becomes normalised in our society you are degrading individuals, you are saying they are not worthy of any human dignity or respect. By normalising this extreme hateful language you are legitimising a situation where conflict violence and violenct treatment is likely to escalate.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975693#Comment_121975693

How does what I posted not cover your example? Simply saying it doesn't without explaining why…nope, you aren't getting away with that

suvigirl

Is obvious from reading legislation. My examples are not covered by current legislation. They are not against the law.

Do you think that is acceptable?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975541#Comment_121975541

You’ve linked to legislation alright, but it’s because existing legislation doesn’t cover the scenarios that are proposed will be covered by the proposed legislation, is the reason for the new legislation. Those in favour of the proposed legislation can’t link to anything which doesn’t exist in existing legislation, because the proposed legislation hasn’t been enacted yet. Pointing that out may well be perceived as condescension, but as far as I’m concerned it’s stating the bloody obvious.

The evidence I referred to already which is provided by concerned_tenants contributions to the discussion already. Even the way you speak of anyone’s rights being taken away, or imagine that citizens have ever had the right to completely free expression. I already pointed this out yesterday to concerned_tenant when I printed the text of Article 40.6. I’m guessing you didn’t bother to read the post, and I don’t know if you have ever bothered to familiarise yourself with the Irish Constitution: -

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: 

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The right to freedom of expression is subject to public order and morality, and there are numerous pieces of legislation in Irish law which give effect to both the right to freedom of expression, and the limitations imposed on the exercise of this right. The right to freedom of expression isn’t just concerned with limiting freedom to express opinions or convictions, it’s also concerned with people’s freedom to express themselves in terms of characteristics like religion, gender, gender identity, etc, and to be able to do so without experiencing discrimination and prejudice on the basis of other people’s subjective beliefs about them.

It’s rather your feelings aren’t so important, that you imagine yourself somehow exempt from Irish law which is intended to protect you from other people, and protect other people from you, on the basis of any or a combination of any of the protected characteristics proposed in the bill which is intended to replace current legislation to bring Ireland into line with other EU member States:

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-hate-speech-and-hate-crime_en#:~:text=Hate%20motivated%20crime%20and%20speech,or%20national%20or%20ethnic%20origin.

Rather than suggesting it is the target of their hatred has any responsibility to to anything, the legislation puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs - on the people who are responsible for expressing an opinion, or attempting to influence people to behave with prejudice towards other people, or to suggest that discrimination against individuals or groups of people on the basis of any of the included protected characteristics is justified. It isn’t, and that’s why there is a law needed - because in the absence of it, people are not protected from harm being inflicted upon them by people who imagine that their standards are how other people in Irish society should be treated. It’s not me you need to be telling to get over themselves at all, but rather the people who have no understanding of treating other human beings with basic respect and dignity.

You claim that this legislation might see someone who makes a joke about religion or sex reported, and ask me would I be happy with that. That’s a two-parter in that the hypothetical scenario you present isn’t new, and therefore it’s not as a consequence of the proposed legislation; an individual can make a complaint to Gardaí already, and then it’s a matter for the Gardaí. As for whether or not I’m happy with that, I am, because it means that people who are the butt of the joke are able to make a complaint to an objective party and they decide whether the complaint has any merit.

With regard to the new legislation in Scotland, it was known long beforehand that people would take the piss in order to make out that the new legislation is ineffective, but all they’re doing there is the very thing they are rallying against, wasting police time and resources by playing the victim, or in at least one case, pretending they’re someone else, playing the victim:

A large number were about a 2020 speech by First Minister Humza Yousaf - then justice secretary - highlighting white people in prominent public roles.

Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown said people were making "fake and vexatious complaints".

Police Scotland said complaints about Mr Yousaf's speech were assessed at the time, with no crime committed and no action taken. The new law will not apply retrospectively.

Hate crime reports are handled by the force's Contact, Command and Control centres.

These have been extremely busy but are understood to be coping with the number of complaints

Ms Brown told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotlandprogramme that "misinformation" and publicity had led to the high number of reports.

She also confirmed that a "fake complaint" was made using her name and contact details on Monday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68721208.amp

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975869#Comment_121975869

You’ve linked to legislation alright, but it’s because existing legislation doesn’t cover the scenarios that are proposed will be covered by the proposed legislation, is the reason for the new legislation. Those in favour of the proposed legislation can’t link to anything which doesn’t existing legislation because the proposed legislation hasn’t been enacted yet. Pointing that out may well be perceived as condescension, but as far as I’m concerned it’s stating the bloody obvious.

Hold on, are you saying those in favour of this legislation can't give valid examples because the legislation hasn't been enacted? It doesn't need to be enacted, you can read it already in this PDF. You do not need anything enacted to be in favour of it, it is free for all to read. Stating the obvious would be that your point here is so full of holes, it would sink in a bath.

You are legitimately saying there are people in favour of it, but they can't give examples because it hasn't been enacted yet…but they are able to read the legislation, or not, of course.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/ver_b/b105b22d.pdf

The right to freedom of expression is subject to public order and morality, and there are numerous pieces of legislation in Irish law which give effect to both the right to freedom of expression, and the limitations imposed on the exercise of this right. The right to freedom of expression isn’t just concerned with limiting freedom to express opinions or convictions, it’s also concerned with people’s freedom to express themselves in terms of characteristics like religion, gender, gender identity, etc, and to be able to do so without experiencing discrimination and prejudice on the basis of other people’s subjective beliefs about them.

If there is a freedom to express something, but you want to put a limit on it, it is not a freedom. Putting a limitation on what someone can say (wether you like it or not) is not free speech. You are trying to tell people how to feel and accept a position (whatever that may be) for fear of being under rule of law. Again, that is not a freedom, that is a totalitarian approach.

You claim that this legislation might see someone who makes a joke about religion or sex reported, and ask me would I be happy with that. That’s a two-parter in that the hypothetical scenario you present isn’t new, and therefore it’s not as a consequence of the proposed legislation; an individual can make a complaint to Gardaí already, and then it’s a matter for the Gardaí. As for whether or not I’m happy with that, I am, because it means that people who are the butt of the joke are able to make a complaint to an objective party and they decide whether the complaint has any merit.

So you are happy with limiting what people can say because it suits you? That is quite the selfish approach. Maybe think if you were at the end of that complaint for a second, you would be so happy with the police at the door, I am sure. And before you say "well I don't or won't say something hurtful or that could be subject to a complaint", you can not know that at all, you are then making the claim you know what someone could find "hateful", can you read minds?

I don't see how you can be happy that people who are the butt of a joke can make a complaint, why would people need protection from jokes is beyond me. Thin skinned probably doesn't really cover it there.

With regard to the new legislation in Scotland, it was known long beforehand that people would take the piss in order to make out that the new legislation is ineffective, but all they’re doing there is the very thing they are rallying against, wasting police time and resources by playing the victim, or in at least one case, pretending they’re someone else, playing the victim:

What is this meant to prove? You think that those calling to complain were taking the piss? Should we treat this legislation the same? So the Gardai would think "they are taking the piss" so it will be ignored…if that is the case, then what is the point at all of the legislation?

suvigirl

Seeing as posters are so interested in legislation in other countries, here is Canada,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

suvigirl

Finland

https://yhdenvertaisuus.fi/en/hate-speech

suvigirl

Netherlands

https://www.liquisearch.com/hate_speech/netherlands

Augme

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

Tbf ive nothing really against that attitude. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on that side of things. My biggest issue around the discussion on this Bill has been people trying to claim that it will be used if a person critises a politician or other scenario's that cant legally happen.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976107#Comment_121976107

Laws that we already have, as you already know but choose to ignore.

Next.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976080#Comment_121976080

Here is one for Ireland as well 😀

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/print.html#:~:text=%E2%80%94(1)%20If%20an%20item,to%20be%20stirred%20up%20thereby.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976216#Comment_121976216

This is complete and utter gaslighting. Suvi has explained her position, has explained the bill, has explained her point of view on things and all you have done is "nananananana you are casuistry and evading" - You are the one not arguing in good faith here.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976271#Comment_121976271

You made the philosopical point that this law is a restriction on your freedoms. I pointed out thats not true and that actually human rights have limitations. Your dismissive response makes no sense.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975950#Comment_121975950

Yes, I am saying that those in favour of the proposed legislation can’t give valid examples of legislation which is already enacted, when it isn’t. Again - stating the bloody obvious. Let’s not pretend you haven’t been given numerous examples which the proposed legislation is intended to address.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I was ever in favour of free speech to begin with? Freedom of expression is not the same thing, but you’re right that it’s not free at least. I’m not trying to tell anyone anything, let alone how they should feel about anything; regardless of my opinion one way or another, it’s unlikely to change how they feel, and the opinions you’re expressing are a valid example which provides evidence of that much. I’m not telling anyone they should accept anything out of fear of rule of law either. In fact I’ve been very clear in pointing out that because the law is objective, it exists both to protect you, and to protect people from you.

What I’m happy with, is that people are limited in what they can say about other people, particularly in circumstances where they aren’t joking about those people, but rather they are simply attempting to incite hatred and fuel prejudice against anyone in Irish society on the basis of any of the protected characteristics.

You asked me to look at what’s happening in Scotland, so I did. I’m not even remotely interested in JK Rowling or anything she has to say about anything, but I looked at the response to the legislation more generally, and the point I was making is that it was well-known there would be people taking the piss. It goes back to your asking me whether I was happy with people being able to make a complaint to the authorities.

At no point have I ever suggested that ‘we’ do anything, let alone take the piss out of legislation which is intended to protect people from being harmed by other people, nor do I intend to imagine myself at the end of a complaint, not even for a second, but I did find it interesting that you tell me I can’t read minds, while also possessing the rather curious ability yourself to tell me what Gardaí in any given situation would think, and on that basis would ignore a complaint. It’s as though you invented the hypothetical scenario in your own mind and then argued with yourself that the outcome would be as you imagined it. I’m not sure why you need my input, you’re doing a fine job of arguing with yourself! 😳

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976464#Comment_121976464

You are shifting the goalposts here, I am not saying there are not laws restricting my freedoms, I was talking specifically about this legislation and it's impact on speech, you knew that though. Worth pointing out there are laws for murder, people still murder, there are drink driving laws, people still drink and drive.

We have existing legislation for incitement to hatred, you have said it is unworkable but never said why, please explain that.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976216#Comment_121976216

Total rubbish post. I have explained why current legislation needs updating.

I have given examples that are not currently illegal, which I believe should be.

Any direct questions, I have apologised for missing and also stated if you want to link to JK Rowlings tweets with questions, I'm happy to answer.

Of course, it's actually nothing to do with my opinion wether she be investigated not. I know nothing about any of it.

Your personal attacks about my knowledge of news in Scotland is, nothing to do with this thread and also personal.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976549#Comment_121976549

I have posted examples that are not covered by existing legislation.

DDo you think it's right that they are legal?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976516#Comment_121976516

You aren't making sense.

Yes, I am saying that those in favour of the proposed legislation can’t give valid examples of legislation which is already enacted, when it isn’t. Again - stating the bloody obvious. Let’s not pretend you haven’t been given numerous examples which the proposed legislation is intended to address.

Are you talking about Ireland, so I am clear. Otherwise you are saying peopel are in favour of something but can't give examples of why but are still in favour of it…that makes no sense at all. Any examples given have been covered by the 1989 act, the posts are there to see.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I was ever in favour of free speech to begin with? Freedom of expression is not the same thing, but you’re right that it’s not free at least. I’m not trying to tell anyone anything, let alone how they should feel about anything; regardless of my opinion one way or another, it’s unlikely to change how they feel, and the opinions you’re expressing are a valid example which provides evidence of that much. I’m not telling anyone they should accept anything out of fear of rule of law either. In fact I’ve been very clear in pointing out that because the law is objective, it exists both to protect you, and to protect people from you.

What I’m happy with, is that people are limited in what they can say about other people, particularly in circumstances where they aren’t joking about those people, but rather they are simply attempting to incite hatred and fuel prejudice against anyone in Irish society on the basis of any of the protected characteristics.

So you are against free speech? You are dilly dallying on this, if you aren't then of course you would be in favour of limits to it, especially given your position on other topics in other threads.

You would be very happy to limit what others can say, if you are (as you claim to be) worried about inciting hatred, we have an act for that already (I am a broken record pointing this out), Again, can you define what is hate in this regard, that wouldn't be covered under the 1989 act?

Worth pointing out that limits on any kind of speech won't actually stop people from saying or even thinking things either, and if anything it will just stoke the flames even more. This is another potential pitfall of this legislation, which thankfully looks to be dying off.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976617#Comment_121976617

You have posted nothing of the sort.

Do I think that people can say what they want, do you mean? Yes I do, even if I find it uncomfortable…or dare I say it, offensive, which is nothing more than a whimper or whine.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976636#Comment_121976636

You clearly haven't read or understood the proposed legislation.

Can people say what they want? Even if it is offensive? Yes, of course they can.

IF someone runs for government in the next election, and they have posters, tweets, and speeches that say,

'Traveller Babies should be drowned at birth, asylum seekers should be burnt out of their accommodation and Jewish people should be forced out of the country. ' and they are suggesting to the electorate that they do those things.......is it ok that those things are not illegal?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976549#Comment_121976549

I have explained this to you numerous times in this thread. Not my fault you you either didnt read the thread, didnt understand what I said or chose to ignore what I said cause you didnt like what I said.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976633#Comment_121976633

Of course I’m talking about Ireland, and Irish law, what you’re talking about, ‘free speech’, is a concept which doesn’t exist in law anywhere, at least not in any jurisdiction I’m aware of. It solely exists in the minds of its proponents, and frankly I’m happy for it to stay there if the best example they use to argue in favour of it is the freedom to abuse, insult and humiliate other people in Irish society. It’s not as though they even argue it has legitimate use in terms of being able to criticise what they regard as an oppressive regime, which might be of some value or benefit to society - nope, it generally amounts to wanting the freedom to shoot their mouth off and abuse anyone who doesn’t share their views. People make allowances for that sort of behaviour in children and people who are unable to control themselves, but people who are able to control themselves? They’re expected to be able to do so, especially when what they are arguing for amounts to the right to attempt to control others.

I’ve not dilly dallied on it either, and if you’re as familiar with my post history as implied by your comment about my position on other topics in other threads, then the question shouldn’t even arise as I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I am opposed to the idea of free speech, generally for the reasons given above.

I’ve never been worried about inciting hatred, it’s the people who are on the receiving end have always been my concern, not the people dishing it out who, when they’re reined in, attempt to play the victim as though they have somehow been wronged by being deprived of rights they imagine they had, which nobody in Irish society has, like your idea of free speech and the idea of it’s being limited so it can’t be called free speech. It never existed in Irish law in the first place! Frankly it was a wonder that the prohibition on blasphemy existed in the Irish Constitution for as long as it did without legislation to give it effect until 2009, then it was removed in 2018, and that’s what would have to happen if you wanted to introduce the concept of free speech into the Constitution.

I can’t define what hate is in regards to the Constitution, or the 1989 Act for that matter, because the legislation refers to hatred, which it defines as:

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

It doesn’t include the additional protected characteristics in the 2022 bill, and it doesn’t prohibit hatred on the basis of those protected characteristics specifically, so the 1989 Act doesn’t for example allow for offences to be considered a hate crime on the basis of what prejudice against a particular characteristic or trait motivated the offence. The proposed legislation allows for the motivation for the offence to be recognised as prejudice based upon one or any of the protected characteristics, with the intent of recognising an additional element to the offence in Irish law. The proposed legislation also prohibits the trivialising of genocide, something which current legislation does not.

It won’t stoke any flames even more, that’ll be entirely within people’s own self-control, and if they can’t manage that much, then the legislation will exist to protect Irish society from people who imagine that Irish law shouldn’t or doesn’t apply to them, a point which they are welcome to take up with the Gardaí should it come to that. Then they won’t be long finding out exactly what Gardaí in those circumstances think of their behaviour.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976264#Comment_121976264

I think very few will be prosecuted if at all but I think there is a genuine fear around politicians wanting this law in order to create a chilling effect and stifle criticism of polices they may have.Even the thoughts of the law getting involved (even if it is unlikely) is enough for most people to think "oh forget it, I just won't risk saying anything".

Pretty much every organisation in favour of stifling free speech over the years, Fascists and Communists in Europe the catholic church for example have were not doing it to protect anyone they wanted restriction on speech for preservation of themselves and control of the people.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121977237#Comment_121977237

to create a chilling effect and stifle criticism of polices they may have

Any chance you could explain what proposed legislation has to do with government policies?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976871#Comment_121976871

You keep using that one example, or rather it has been used a lot in here. It is tiring.

And no, with the new legislation, if for example someone were to say "the religion of Islam is repressive to women and gay people", due to religion being a protected characteristic, someone could be reported for saying something like that.

Using extremes to make a point won't get you very far.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121976921#Comment_121976921

Back to "you don't understand", this is almost like a religion at this stage where only you know what is going on.

It is only to avoid engaging properly in this thread, it's sad.