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

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979180#Comment_121979180

The illegal immigrants are not being prosecuted, until recently.

https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-passports-2-6339239-Mar2024/

2023 = just two people, out of thousands

2024 = an increase, but from a very low base, and still the majority are not prosecuted for arriving without documents

_Kaiser_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979308#Comment_121979308

The moral though is that (as most people know), SF are no better than what we have.

They've flip-flopped because of public opinion and the outcome of the referendum. Otherwise they'd be all for turning us into an authoritarian socialist/communist State.

It highlights again how badly served we are by the current "choices" and how massive the gap is for a party that is actually centre-right (which is not the same as "far right" I add for anyone confused) and which is actually reflective of the needs and interests of most people on the issues.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979397#Comment_121979397

I love the phrasing "arriving without passports" like "oh drat I left it on the kitchen worktop…."

They have a passport on taking off - they're actively destroying them or handing them to a trafficker, who I am sure would NEVER use them for nefarious purposes like enabling terrorists to bypass a no fly list …..

It's gas - I'm flying out for a match tomorrow and on my return to my own country I will need my passport to get back in; yet laddo from whatever far flung country doesn't. Joke of a situation.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979397#Comment_121979397

Rather than this thread becoming another discussion of illegal immigration, I think we can both acknowledge that one still has to imagine the scenario you presented, and that’s not an argument that should have real world consequences in law.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979363#Comment_121979363

No, I included a source in my post.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979481#Comment_121979481

I’m referring to your earlier claim:

Harris is now in favour of "amendments" to the bill, given what he claims are legitimate issues raised with the legislation; whilst also saying he supports passing the legislation.

Did you really not think something like that would warrant some kind of independent verification?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979517#Comment_121979517

You're wrong, again.

From the Irish Examiner:

"I think it is clear that our statute books do require updating in relation to this. I think it is also fair to say within that space that there have been a number of legitimate questions raised by people about the content of the legislation."

Mr Harris said he will not abandon it but expects constructive amendments and clarification for the public.

"I think if we have learned anything from the referendum, I think politicians should approach all of these issues with humility and listen to people and the concerns that they are raising," said Mr Harris.

sligeach

I listened to Jeff Kuhner on The Hard Shoulder yesterday on Newstalk.

‘They believe she’s a free speech martyr’ - J.K. Rowling has support of US politicians

https://www.goloudplayer.com/episodes/they-believe-shes-a-free-speech--OGQ4YTUyOGMyZGJlZjk1YWVhNWNmMDJhNTNlYzY5Nzg%3D

It's really interesting and well worth a listen. He makes 100% sense, common sense. This site bans common sense and bans scientific fact.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979671#Comment_121979671

How am I wrong when I asked did you not think something like that would require some sort of independent verification? When you initially said ‘Harris is now in favour of “amendments”’, that inferred it was a recent development:

Simon Harris, speaking last week, said he expects constructive amendments and clarification for the public:

Mr Harris said he will not abandon it but expects constructive amendments and clarification for the public.

Not even close to what you were claiming.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979777#Comment_121979777

It's exactly what I claimed.

The only part that isn't directly related to that source is my own opinion that the legislation will not go through (at least not in its existing form) because it is politically unpalatable.

Harris confirms its unpalatability by saying the public should be listened to — and he specifically references the recent referendum result, too.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979821#Comment_121979821

It’s not even close to what you claimed, and I didn’t question the part which wasn’t directly related because I’m well aware it is just your opinion.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121979741#Comment_121979741

Probably off topic, but what scientific facts are banned here?

Frank Bullitt

I will summarize myself with this post over addressing individual posts.

I have mentioned how important free expression and free speech is to a society and to people as a whole. Limits put on opinions, conversations or comments is just another form of censorship. Censorship can directly contradict the fundamental right to freedom of speech. It limits individuals' ability to express their ideas, thoughts, and opinions freely, even the ones you really don't like hearing.

When certain ideas or viewpoints are suppressed, it can hinder progress and innovation. New and unconventional ideas may be stifled if they challenge the status quo or go against the beliefs of those in power. Just imagine challenging a religion (a protected characteristic in the new legislation) over a position it holds dear to itself, or a claim it makes. The religion itself might not say anything, but its followers very much would. Put this in the context of a Catholic Ireland, where the church is embedded into the DNA of the state…and you get the idea.

There are those who say that the above example will not happen, just remember that they can never actually know that. Look at what happened in England when someone called a Police horse 'gay', a man was arrested and the case was only dropped after he refused to pay the fine, there are other examples of this. Cases only dropped due to the publicity that came along with them. People have been arrested, taken to court and then released, if ever there was proof that a law wasn't working, there is it for you. It is pure intimidation.

How language can be criminalized is a dangerous path to go down. This is where some posters struggle to grasp that language can be interpreted in so many ways. Some will think "that isn't hateful", but to another member of society, it can be interpreted that way. Examples being criticism seen as insulting, you can add sarcasm to that as well, and jokes as well. We see this in conversations today. Opinions seen as insults or hate speech.

Society and culture has changed over the years where we see a new form on intolerance taking hold. New ways have emerged with social media where someone can voice an opinion and be branded some sort of racist, misogynist, fascist, etc.

All this law will do is give people an avenue to be more offended, it won't stop people actually having views that others don't like. At this point, ask yourself who actually gets to decide what is harmful/hateful, and who is the harmful/hateful speaker, who would you give this job to? Who gets to decide what I can read, or hear or see, and how did they get that position? But lets have a law that says there is, which can take away your ability to make that choice for yourself. Take the example of Dr Samuel Johnson who created the first dictionary, where he was congratulated and applauded for not including indecent or obscene words, to which he responded "I can congratulate you on being able to look them up".

This will not address the core issues, which should be dealt with outside of legal processes. The best way to combat topics like this is not to suppress views you don't like, or to hang a punishment over peoples heads, it is to allow conversations to take place, and not place the veil of protection over people. Better resistance to anything like this, is to encourage more of it. The problem isn't those who are saying it, it is what they are saying. This law won't change that.

I think that covers it, but I will finish up with some quotes from Barack Obama, not someone I am sure you would think would be in favour of more speech, even if they are points you don't like.

"The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech"

“I tell them, I want you also to be able to listen. I don’t want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up, and that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side. And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, ‘We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,’ I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective.” 

Feel free to agree or disagree.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980367#Comment_121980367

Could not agree more wholeheartedly!!!!

No one decent would go out of their way to hurt another person but there are simple facts in life. For example, one cannot “change sex”. One can respect another’s wish to express themselves in any way they see fit and more power to them. They don’t however BECOME that.

This week marks World Health Day - the theme “know your health rights”. Try as a biological woman going through some severe gynecological health issues and requesting as your right, a woman as your nurse for the most intimate of care - not only can’t you, but this law will make you a criminal for asking if the male you ask to be replaced “perceives” it as hate.

It is a very very badly written, badly thought out law and will be abused by those with an agenda.

Annasopra

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

But it also isn't merely about what's on the internet at all. It's about creating a societal culture and message that some groups of people are scum of the earth, that these groups of people should be treated as scum of the earth. Its the second rung on a ladder.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980549#Comment_121980549

Sadly the irony there is lost on the base of the pyramid there - stereotyping.

The current definition of gender is based on old fashioned sex based stereotypes that people of my generation fought to remove.

Economics101

I'm sure this has been raised some time ago, but I have a problem with "protected characteristics" (race, gender, etc). If the law has a list of (say) 10 such characteristics, then its a fair bet that there will be pressure to add more to the list, so eventually it becomes a bit meaningless.

I would like to have only one protected characteristic: that of being Human. If we are entitled to equal protection under the law, that should apply to everyone. Sure, some people are more at risk of racial or sexual or other harrassment than others, but that is an argument for better law enforcement, not special status.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980367#Comment_121980367

At this point, ask yourself who actually gets to decide what is harmful/hateful, and who is the harmful/hateful speaker, who would you give this job to?

The job is already given to the authorities, such as the Gardaí and the Courts.

All this law will do is give people an avenue to be more offended, it won't stop people actually having views that others don't like.

The law will do much more than that for people who are the victims of someone who imagines they have the authority to humiliate other people, to promote prejudice and hatred against other people and groups in Irish society, as evidenced by the increasing number of attacks on people on the basis of characteristics which are already listed in the 1989 Act, and additional characteristics in the 2022 bill. It’s not attempting to stop anyone from having views anyone doesn’t like, it’s intended to protect the Irish society from people who would wish to inflict harm upon other people, or cause harm to be inflicted upon other people by inciting hatred against them.

This will not address the core issues, which should be dealt with outside of legal processes.

The core issues shouldn’t need to be dealt with within the legal process, but some people who have no regard for the legal process and imagine they have rights they’ve never had, seek to exercise those perceived rights to the detriment of others, and that’s why the legal system exists in order to prevent those people from causing harm to others, and to protect people from harm being caused to them by those people.

Unfortunate that you didn’t include the full quote for context, but here it is in full:

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.  We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.  We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. 

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

That was in 2012, and post-Trump in 2022, well, Obama was suggesting that America needs to be more like Europe in leading the way to regulate the abuses seen in big tech companies, with America setting the example as what he claims is the world’s leading democracy:

“Here in the United States, we have a long history of regulating new technologies in the name of public safety, from cars and airplanes to prescription drugs to appliances,” Obama said. “And while companies initially always complain that the rules are going to stifle innovation and destroy the industry, the truth is that a good regulatory environment usually ends up spurring innovation, because it raises the bar on safety and quality. And it turns out that innovation can meet that higher bar.”

Obama warned that if the U.S. does not act on these issues, it risks being eclipsed in this arena by other countries. “As the world’s leading democracy, we have to set a better example. We should be able to lead on these discussions internationally, not [be] in the rear. Right now, Europe is forging ahead with some of the most sweeping legislation in years to regulate the abuses that are seen in big tech companies,” Obama said. “Their approach may not be exactly right for the United States, but it points to the need for us to coordinate with other democracies. We need to find our voice in this global conversation.”

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/04/21/disinformation-weakening-democracy-barack-obama-said/

I think he may have been a tad biased in claiming America is the world’s leading democracy tbh 🤔

The ten most democratic countries are Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, Taiwan, Australia, and Canada.

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-democratic-countries/

sligeach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980205#Comment_121980205

I'll transcribe and quote Jeff.

"But if I say I disagree with the transgender lifestyle. No I think a woman is a woman, you can call yourself a man til the cows come home, you're still a woman. If you have the plumbing of a woman, if you have the biological sex of a woman, if you have the chromosomes of a woman, you're still a woman.

Now, you may not like it, you may disagree. In other words what we used to understand, is that there was a thing called persuasion. In other words, the goal is to persuade people in a free society. What's changing among many elites on the left is it's now going from persuasion to coercion."

You're not allowed call a transgender woman "he" or a transgender man "she". It's a dictation from the site owners.

almostover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980666#Comment_121980666

Great post, and our republican constitution already safeguards our equal rights as individuals irrespective of race, creed, sex etc. Even the proclamation advocated 'cherishing all the children of the nation equally'. If we stuck to that we'd be doing well

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980666#Comment_121980666

How would the list become meaningless by adding more characteristics to it? That’s what the 2022 bill is doing - adding characteristics which don’t exist in the 1989 legislation, precisely because there has over the years been an increase in the number of victims targeted on the basis of those characteristics.

The fundamental characteristic of being human is protected already in Irish law, in numerous ways, not just by the inclusion in article 40 which recognises this fact:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part13

Before homosexual acts were decriminalised for example, or marriage equality was introduced, all citizens were not held as equal before the law.

Prior to the Gender Recognition Act in 2015 for example, and one of the reasons for it, is that before the Act was introduced, all citizens were not held as equal before the law.

The protected characteristics themselves are not a special status, not in that sense, in that they have been identified as being characteristics which were the motivation for offences, and being able to identify and categorise those motives, record them and identify trends from them is exactly what leads to better legislation, better law enforcement and more effective policing.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980666#Comment_121980666

Its not about special status at all no. Human beings are already not all equal.

Different groups in society are discriminated against and targeted within hate speech and hate crime and already treated unequally.

Recognising that certain people are more vulnerable to persecution/targeting/discrimination and working to address that is exactly about being seen to be equal before the law. Its about removing discrimination/removing societal barriers.

If you accept that it's OK that people are more at risk of being harassed because of who they are then you can't honestly argue that people are equal before the law at all as you are already accepting an inequality.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980942#Comment_121980942

Recognising that certain people are more vulnerable to persecution/targeting/discrimination and working to address that is exactly about being seen to be equal before the law. Its about removing discrimination/removing societal barriers.

And how would you expect to address it if there are limits on what people can and can't say then?

How would this legislation remove discrimination or remove societal barriers? Does putting the fear of prosecution over peoples heads actually do anything to address it in a proper manner?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980765#Comment_121980765

It's a dictation from the site owners.

The site neither bans common sense nor scientific facts. The prohibition on misgendering is based upon the idea of being uncivil. Coercion would be attempting to enforce your will on another person, then declaring that they may not like it and they may disagree. That’s why the legislation is important, because regardless of your feelings about it, that doesn’t give you the right to disrespect other people. For most people that IS just common sense, and that’s definitely not been banned.

Economics101

Annasopra: you replied to my post saying: "If you accept that it's OK that people are more at risk of being harassed because of who they are then you can't honestly argue that people are equal before the law at all as you are already accepting an inequality".

I never said or implied any such thing. People are and should beequal before the law. If some groups are more likely to be victims, then take appropriate law enforcement measures. If (say) gay people are being targetted by hatemongers, go after the perpetrators: you don't need a law about protected characteristics to do that.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121980549#Comment_121980549

In the Scottish equivalent of this law, 3,000+ complaints were registered in less than 24-hours — almost all of which were related to a non-issue regarding an author's tweets. Not societal breakdown, not mass murder or chants of hatred and incitement against protected groups — but a couple of harmless tweets.

By bringing in "genocide" into the debate — implying that genocide is at risk if this legislation isn't passed — is a gross and deliberate distortion of this legislation. It's also fearmongering.

In fact, it's an outrageous comparison.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981041#Comment_121981041

3,000 complaints and not a single person being prosecuted? I’d say that blows a hole in your whole argument about the impeding perils to Irish society of the introduction of similar legislation then.

Laughable that you would criticise anyone bringing genocide into the discussion when you’ve been predicting all sorts of doom and gloom for Irish society on the basis of the proposed legislation, as if that isn’t a gross and deliberate distortion of the legislation which amounts to nothing more than fearmongering.

You’re in a poor position btw to be lecturing anyone about outrageous comparisons 😂

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981111#Comment_121981111

No, it demonstrates why this legislation is wholly unnecessary at the very least, whilst at the same time insidious and censorious at its very worst.

nachouser

I wouldn't bother replying to anyone with a JK profile pic on a thread like this. Just a WUM account.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981159#Comment_121981159

It doesn’t demonstrate why the legislation is unnecessary. The legislation is still necessary, regardless of the number of complaints received.

And as for the idea that it is insidious, that’s a subjective assessment, and I know you’re not into subjective assessments, apart from your own of course. Censorious though? Was anyone’s opinion censored as a result of any of the 3,000 complaints? According to your own assessment again - they weren’t.