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

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981175#Comment_121981175

"Hate speech" legislation creates a chilling effect whereby people self-censor for fear of being prosecuted (for what is otherwise considered a non-existent "crime").

The legislation is wholly unnecessary because society works perfectly well without it. Society will continue to work perfectly well without it. TDs aren't suddenly abandoning their support for the legislation on the basis that its passage is somehow essential. They're abandoning it because it's inherently absurd, unneeded, and acts as an affront to people's right to express themselves — even if some people claim calculatedly exaggerated levels of personal "offense" (or what they personally characterize as "hateful").

By way of contrast, obese people face enormous stigma day-to-day, probably more than any protected group. You could probably also include old people, too, given the unending abuse they endure. But these groups don't request nor demand special protection from criticism. It's accepted in society that sometimes unfortunate things happen, that sometimes unpleasant things are said. But we don't need legislation to work through that mess. It's an unavoidable consequence of living in a complex society where any point of difference is capitalized on by some people at some time. When a crime is committed — such as violence or harassment and so on — existing legislation is already available to prosecute any offenders.

In other words, freedom of speech doesn't need to be undermined in the process. Everything works well without that unwanted infringement. Thankfully, the prevailing political winds are gusting against this legislation. Unless a miracle happens, it's dead in the water.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981175#Comment_121981175

3000 complaints in 24 hours - that says it all and if you don't understand why you probably one of those who'd lodge a complaint.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981262#Comment_121981262

No one prosecuted either from those complaints.

That sounds very effective, doesn't it? Why even bother having the legislation at all if prosecution isn't going to happen…can someone who REALLY understands this much needed legislation explain that to us?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981611#Comment_121981611

It can't be explained away.

It's as I said before, namely — that it emboldens some people to report others for non-existent crimes, but that these reports are not crimes to begin with.

It's just a total waste of police resources and time.

It might make the person making the report feel powerful and relevant about themselves such is their toxic level of narcissism and entitled, immature sense of self-importance, but everyone else really doesn't care and will move on just fine. 🙂

But as I've said before, it seems more likely than not that this legislation will not pass. The narcissists won't get their way, after all, however much it was close that they would.

Thank goodness for that!

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981633#Comment_121981633

It essentially makes certain members of society look for reasons to be offended. As we can see in this thread.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981262#Comment_121981262

What it says is that there were a number of those calls were taking the piss as a sort of protest, which is understandable given their objections to the implementation of the legislation in the first instance:

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

I’ve no doubt there were a few complaints by Hugh Jass and Amanda Hugnkiss too 😒

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981693#Comment_121981693

I've always thought that the biggest weakness of a position i.e. the desire to permanently protect an idea against criticism / ridicule — is because the idea is fundamentally faulty to begin with; that it serves a personal purpose that nobody else will want to understand (for unreasonable reasons). Think of Putin and his deranged beliefs about Ukraine, and his response in Russia to prevent anyone knowing any different.

It's exactly the same phenomenon at work.

The only reason you would want to totally prevent an idea from ridicule or criticism is because deep down — really deep down — you know that the idea is wrong. You might personally benefit from it, but you have to make sure everyone else doesn't undermine it — however extreme the mechanism is.

So the deepest proponents of this legislation are, ironically and at the same time, the biggest proponents of the inherent weakness of the legislation to begin with.

We should almost be thankful.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981718#Comment_121981718

To pick being offended over actually defending your position…doesn't say much about your position at all really

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981739#Comment_121981739

That's it in a nutshell.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981245#Comment_121981245

"Hate speech" legislation creates a chilling effectwhereby people self-censor for fear of being prosecuted (for what is otherwise considered a non-existent "crime"). 

The legislation is wholly unnecessary because society works perfectly well without it. Society will continue to work perfectly well without it. 

What you call a chilling effect is exactly the intent of the legislation - where previously people felt they could just say whatever they like to whomever they like about whatever they like, now they are aware that they could be prosecuted for it, that does indeed tend to soften their cough a bit and make them think twice. You appear to have determined that’s a bad thing for society, whereas those on the receiving end (for whom society does not work perfectly well without it), are no longer subject to the same prejudice and discrimination they had previously been subjected to. You have no data for your claims of a chilling effect, whereas there is plenty of data to support the need for the legislation.

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression isn’t being undermined at all, it was always moderated and constrained by being subject to public order and morality anyway. The proposed legislation is a replacement for the existing legislation which is considered to be ineffective given the rise in hate crimes perpetrated against people on the basis of not only the existing protected characteristics, but the new protected characteristics which are included in the new legislation. It’s being brought in across all EU Member States to combat rising levels of hate crime, so if according to you society previously worked well without it, then you’re ignoring the reality that society has not functioned well without it, and that’s why it’s considered necessary.

That’s an objective assessment, as opposed to your subjective assessment that it interferes in any way with freedom of expression. Everyone will be able to express themselves freely without fear of being censored by people who would wish to deprive them of that right. That’s what it means when everyone in society is equal before the law - the few who imagine their right to free speech takes precedence over everyone else’s rights are reminded if necessary that’s simply not the case, and has never been the case.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981788#Comment_121981788

What you call a chilling effect is exactly the intent of the legislation.

I rest my case.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981806#Comment_121981806

So you should, when you’re showing yourself to be as capable of censorship as the imaginary censors who only exist in your own mind. Would’ve been civil of you to have quoted the full context before resting your case, but given you’ve consistently attempted to mislead and misdirect and deflect, I shouldn’t have been surprised. The full context btw is this:

What you call a chilling effect is exactly the intent of the legislation - where previously people felt they could just say whatever they like to whomever they like about whatever they like, now they are aware that they could be prosecuted for it, that does indeed tend to soften their cough a bit and make them think twice. 

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981889#Comment_121981889

People should not live in fear of what they say or how they say it — unless, of course, it transgresses against existing legislation (i.e. slander, libel etc.).

I'm glad you expanded on what you said earlier about how a chilling effect is "exactly the intention of the legislation".

People can read through your supplementary detail and come to their own conclusions.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981633#Comment_121981633

I can’t imagine much more narcissist than feeling what you have to say is so important and so revelatory, that you imagine it needs to be censored 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981739#Comment_121981739

Nobody is picking being offended when they are being subjected to attacks by some nutball who imagines they have rights that nobody has. If free speech were a right in law, then it’s a right that everyone is entitled to, not just the few who want to use it to attack other individuals or groups in society, then play the victim card when they’re the subject of a prosecution, or in some cases claim they would be subject to prosecution if they say what they really want to say. In some instances going so far as to try and goad the police into arresting them so they can play the martyr.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981981#Comment_121981981

There are laws against these attacks already. Who said it was just a right applied to those who want to attack other individuals? I hope you are aware that the protected characteristics in this legislation include religious orgs, who would be responsible for some of the worst behaviours and oppression that mankind has seen. Good luck to anyone who tries to bring a complaint against a religion, that will be a really fun one to watch.

You're making up scenarios here to try and get some sort of moral high ground, it isn't working.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982039#Comment_121982039

You're making up scenarios here to try and get some sort of moral high ground, it isn't working.

I’m not the poster who just made up the idea that religious organisations are a protected characteristic in the proposed legislation? 🤨

What you’re probably referring to is the protected characteristic of religion. That means that prejudice and discrimination against groups or individuals in Irish society on the basis of religion (or none), could constitute a hate crime. It means for example that some gobshìte making claims that atheists eat babies (‘twas common back in the ‘90s as a stupid retort when anti-theists accused Catholics of being child molesters, solely on the basis of them being Catholic… what a time to be alive! 😂), could find themselves the subject of a hate crime.

Anyone trying to bring a complaint against a religion would simply be told that the Act doesn’t apply, but depending upon the nature of the complaint, you can bet there are any number of Acts which would apply. Whatever else we may disagree on, I’m pretty certain that we can agree on the idea of anyone claiming that legislation prohibiting them from committing rape is having a chilling effect on their freedom to have sex, or that it’s unnecessary and society works perfectly fine without it, wouldn’t be long being told to GTFO. Same principles apply in regards to this legislation.

sligeach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121981012#Comment_121981012

It is a banning of common sense and scientific fact.

"The prohibition on misgendering".

See that right there is the crux of the problem. The "misgendering" is pandering to the delusion of some people thinking they're something they're not, never were and never will be. Plus, the minority forcing their misbelief on the majority.

I bet you didn't listen to the interview.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982201#Comment_121982201

It appears to be only a problem for you though, most people simply don’t give a shìt, they’ve got more things to be thinking about than trying to make a point that their opinion trumps even the opinions of the people they’re talking about. It really is nothing more than a minority trying to force their opinion on everyone else, and if anyone deprives them of the opportunity, then they play the victim as though they’ve somehow been wronged.

That was a safe bet in any case, I’d have told you straight up I couldn’t be arsed, I was only interested in your claim that scientific fact and common sense are banned on the site. I’m not going to suggest you’re delusional though, as that would be uncivil. I’m just not going to pander to your delusion of thinking that scientific fact and common sense are banned. See how that works?

peaty_trance0f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982201#Comment_121982201

You’d prefer to be called “Sligeach” I assume? I don’t agree and think I’ll refer to you as “Sligo Bogger”. Don’t try force your belief on me. I believe you are “Sligo Bogger”. I’m not going to pander to you by referring to you by your preferred name. Deal with it.

You’re the same kind of person who probably denounced (or still does) gay people as “pandering to the delusion of some people thinking they're something they're not, never were and never will be.”

I think a bigot is a bigot, you can call yourself not a bigot til the cows come home, you're still a bigot.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982388#Comment_121982388

It's not hate speech though.

The person is not committing a criminal act that should be punishable under the law. You could make arguments that the person is being impolite or ill-mannered or deliberately insulting, but that's roughly all it would amount to. If my name was Michael and someone kept referring to me as Paul, I'd think they were an idiot. But they wouldn't be "bigoted" against me. They wouldn't be "filled with hate", either. Just an idiot.

Even Helen McEntee confirmed that people who misgender would not fall afoul of this legislation:

“But this is not about criminalising people who insult others or misgender another person, this is very clearly about introducing hate crime, and hate speech legislation,” she said.

Ms McEntee said the legislation was “very clear” and concerns a deliberate attempt to spread hatred against another person, not misgendering someone.

Let me be clear: I'm not in favour of misgendering. But I just don't believe that it should be a crime. People should be free to act as idiots, in other words, even at the expense of causing offense to another person.

In action, the Scottish equivalent of this law didn't charge JK Rowling — who purposefully misgendered in her tweets after the legislation was passed.

Some activists naively believe that misgendering will become a crime after this legislation is passed. It's simply untrue. That said, it probably wouldn't stop them reporting, reporting, reporting — which, at this stage, almost seems compulsive.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982732#Comment_121982732

That said, it probably wouldn't stop them reporting, reporting, reporting — which, at this stage, almost seems compulsive.

It’s a bit early to be drawing conclusions like that, but if you are going to draw those kinds of conclusions, then you have to examine who is actually doing the reporting, and a large number of those 3,000 reports, were about a speech given by the Scottish First Minister FOUR YEARS prior to the legislation being introduced:

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

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

Safe to say the compulsive reporters aren’t who you think they are.

But to put that figure of 3,000 reports in context, the overall figure for all types of crimes recorded in Scotland in 2022 - 2023 was just under 300,000:

The total number of crimes recorded by the police in Scotland in 2022-23 was 289,362. This is 2,898 crimes (or 1%) higher than the level recorded in 2021-22.

Pictures too:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/recorded-crime-scotland-2022-23/pages/4/

I’d say you were jumping the gun there in your efforts to claim that the legislation will have any negative impact whatsoever on anyone’s ability to exercise the right to freedom of expression. One could be forgiven for thinking your concern is not for freedom of expression at all, but rather you’re more concerned about people having the right to make a complaint when they are the victim of a crime committed against them by someone who imagines that they are entitled to be treated more favourably in law than everyone else.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982988#Comment_121982988

It's not ok to stifle free expression for the sake of crimes that aren't.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121983080#Comment_121983080

Crimes that aren’t what?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121982134#Comment_121982134

A screenshot directly from the legislation being proposed. You’ll spot religion there as a protected characteristic, you would have known that if you read the proposed legislation, and saved yourself from embarrassment. You’ll note it says a group of persons…like an organisation.

The act simply doesn’t apply? So it’s a flexible a la carte bit of legislation, is it? Sounds like a very robust, well thought out piece of legislation, doesn’t it?

Jack Daw

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

People should be allowed to think for themselves, if some people think other groups are scum of the earth but they aren't in reality then challenge those beliefs and prove them to be nonsense.

People tend to want restrictions on speech because others are making a reasonable point it's just a point some people don't want to accept themselves or a point that can't be beaten by having a better argument.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121985036#Comment_121985036

Frank, I’m absolutely certain you are incapable of embarrassment, so I’ll simply point out to you again what I said in the post you’re quoting:

What you’re probably referring to is the protected characteristic of religion. 

I’m well aware of its existence in both the current 1989 Act, and the proposed bill which is intended to replace the Act. I’m aware it refers to a group of persons, I even gave you an example of groups of persons - Catholics, and atheists. Both groups are protected from prejudice and discrimination under the current and proposed legislation on the basis of religion being a protected characteristic. Here’s the real fun part though - removing the protected characteristic of religion, would also remove the protection for persons or groups of atheists, or non-religious persons. That’s just not a good idea.

That’s why I pointed out to you that in spite of your claim that religious organisations are a protected characteristic, they are not. And when you said good luck to anyone who tries to bring a complaint against a religion, and that it would be a really fun one to watch, I pointed out that the Act simply wouldn’t apply. Here’s the relevant section in CURRENT legislation:

“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;

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/print#sec2

Where a legitimate complaint could have been made, had the proposed legislation been in effect, is when that priest went off-script recently:

https://archive.ph/iaQXH

However, just like the recent legislation introduced in Scotland, it does not appear that the proposed legislation will apply retrospectively. I have no doubt however that there will be similarly compulsive reporters when the bill becomes law as was witnessed in Scotland, which the likes of media outlets like Gript will undoubtedly be eager to report on, while also claiming at the same time that they’re being silenced.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121985214#Comment_121985214

I think we have seen before what People thought about Jews in Europe in the 1930s and Black People in the USA in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and why it's a good idea to counter discrimination.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121986234#Comment_121986234

But that's not why activists support the legislation.

That's a consciously misleading angle put forward purely for propagandistic reasons (i.e. appeal to fear). The underlying desire is to restrict speech — or certain kinds of speech — and that's not ok.

Nor is this the first time you have indirectly referenced the Holocaust, and it's so out there as to be self-discrediting; hanging alone by its own demerits.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121986956#Comment_121986956

Indeed.

There is a general appeal to fear in Ireland at the moment of refugees/asylum seekers. In the midst of all the Dublin riots there were calls to murder all migrants. Why do you believe migrants should live in fear? Why do you believe migrants don't have the right to be safe? Why do you believe migrants don't have the right to be free from persecution?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121986956#Comment_121986956

Simply stating your opinion doesn't make it so.