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

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987877#Comment_121987877

Here is the relevant subsection of the 1989 law:

2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to publish or distribute written material,

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or

(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

As to the question in your post, that's a matter for the Gardaí and DPP — not for me to answer; unless, of course, you are now arguing the Gardaí and law enforcement forces are engaged in some bizarre conspiracy not to enact the 1989 law?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987883#Comment_121987883

I can make a complaint against a person calling for all migrants to be murdered and it has to be investigated. Its not at the discretion of the Gardi.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987893#Comment_121987893

Yes, you can.

I never argued against that.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987883#Comment_121987883

Stir up hatred, does not include violence.

Call for violence against protected groups are not covered in existing legislation.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987898#Comment_121987898

This is a fundamental difference in the new legislation.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987877#Comment_121987877

There are thousands of death threats made online daily in Ireland alone. A lot of these are targeted at individuals as well as groups. An extremely tiny number of the threats are followed through to murder. It would take a massive number of Guards to investigate all of them. Its a resource issue.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987667#Comment_121987667

What do you mean by “focuses on actual crime”? Sure something isn’t a crime if it isn’t a crime, there’s no ‘actual’ or otherwise about it. The proposed legislation doesn’t focus on thoughts / subjectivity / self-perception either. It’s doing nothing different than the previous legislation in that regard in that it prohibits anyone from engaging in the sort of behaviour that is contrary to public order and morality.

It’d be useful to know what evidence-based assessment you’re referring to before you accuse me of dismissing it (an accusation based entirely upon your perception, see how that works?). because I’ve been able to present evidence which supports the necessary changes in legislation - circumstances which aren’t covered by current legislation. The example I gave earlier of the priest in Kerry, is not covered by current legislation:

https://archive.ph/iaQXH

It’s perfectly normal that you would want to trust your own sources, but your own sources are of fcukall use to anyone else, certainly not if your aim is that legislation be objective! Objectivity requires that you take into consideration factors which you are deliberately choosing to dismiss in favour of promoting your own ideas about free speech, when that’s already constrained by the objective standard of the necessity to maintain public order and morality.

More speech doesn’t do anything, it only legitimises nonsense to entertain it. Nobody should be under any obligation to tolerate that kind of behaviour, which is what you’re suggesting is the more effective and appropriate way to deal with it. It isn’t, as has been evident by the rise in extremism in the last two decades as a result of people feeling they had the right to say whatever they like and treat people whatever way they liked, and if anyone objected they’re accused of being an activist or a compulsive complainer, etc, as you have done recently, repeatedly, over the course of this thread, while failing to make any sort of a rational or reasonable argument based upon facts, evidence, logic… the sort of concepts you purport to care about.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that you actually do care about them. It’s not because your ability to speak your mind freely is being limited by anything other than your own lack of imagination.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987904#Comment_121987904

I already said that if incitement to violence legislation needs to be introduced on an objective basis, I have no problem with that. For instance: if a religious cleric calls for the murder of Jews, that should be criminal; the evidence collected, and the perpetrator convicted. I fully support legislation that prosecutes people who explicitly call for violence against anyone, for any reason.

I do not support subjective hate speech laws which are an add-on to that. I do not support add-on legislation that seeks to transform subjective gender expression into a protected category. I do not support add-on legislation that seeks to criminalize people if they deny parts of history. I do not support legislation that prioritizes "perceived" crimes based on what they believe someone has said to them.

I hope I have made my position crystal clear.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987912#Comment_121987912

A death threat is a serious matter worthy of investigation, but this legislation is primarily designed to address coordinated and sustained campaigns of hate towards a group likely to lead directly to acts of violence. This is where the judgement of the Gardi and magistrates/judges is the deciding factor.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987980#Comment_121987980

I just cant see the guards ever having enough resources to do that. The vast majority of actual violent incidents are not investigated in a serious way by the guards and plenty of dangerous individuals are are let of lightly by the courts.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988017#Comment_121988017

Resources is the filter here, if some right wing nutjob tries to drum up a gang with pitch forks and knives to attack migrants and he is seen to be getting traction he will be arrested and prosecuted under this legislation.

The whole notion of frivolous claims getting any traction is the ludicrous element of this discussion but fundamental to the tenuous case been made by the right wing opponents.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988069#Comment_121988069

I don't understand how this new legislation impacts the example you make here. Surely the Guards could intervene with current legislation.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988069#Comment_121988069

What often happens with this debate is that a very obvious case of inciting violence is brought up, and then the conclusion, "…therefore, the legislation must be passed" is carried through.

As I already explained, I think very few people are against an objective-based incitement to violence law.

What people are uncomfortable about isn't these obvious cases of inciting violence, it's every other part of the legislation (the hate crime part; transforming gender expression as a protected characteristic; chilling effect) etc.

Take one of the more ludicrous parts of the legislation:

In this case, if someone denies or minimizes a "war crime", that is punishable under this legislation.

What right does Helen McEntee and others think they have to weigh down on issues like this? Whilst I don't support the idea of minimizing war crimes, the government shouldn't take it upon themselves to weaponize the Gardaí against people who do.

The government would be better off dealing with actual issues in society; the police, dealing with real crime in society. This kind of thing, as well as making subjective gender expression a protected characteristic, undermines the legislation.

Again, this stuff has nothing to do with the clear cases of inciting violence — of which almost everyone is in alignment. And once you start criminalizing speech, where does it end? When will the next wave of speech restrictions come in?

It's a slippery slope. We really are better off without this legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987956#Comment_121987956

incitement to violence is an add on to already existing legislation, that is being updated.

Gender is a protected characteristic, all gender, it does not discriminate between what you believe to be subjective gender expression and any other gender. The fact that you believe what you do, doesn't matter. You can continue to believe whatever you wish. And people can continue to choose their legal gender as per, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/print.html

And just fyi, all people who report incidents to AGS, perceive they are a victim, or that a crime has been committed, otherwise no-one would ever report anything! How do you think it works

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988017#Comment_121988017

The vast majority of actual violent incidents are not investigated in a serious way by the guards

Of course they are.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988105#Comment_121988105

Which legislation would cover a person calling for all travellers children to be drowned at birth, because they're all scumbag criminals?

Or someone advocating to burn all asylum seekers out of their accommodation? ( which imo is only a matter of time)

What act covers that?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988155#Comment_121988155

Only part of the legislation is about incitement to violence.

Every other part of the legislation is absurd.

It would be similarly absurd to pass legislation on that basis. Remove the nonsense parts of the legislation; keep the sensible incitement to violence clauses, and then almost everyone will be on board.

As an aside, there is a good argument that the 1989 law covers those two cases:

It shall be an offence for a person—

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988155#Comment_121988155

They are very different to the example I was responding to which detailed direct organisation of a violent attack, which current legislation surely deals with.

Your examples are different. As I said before there are thousands of such threats made daily. The resources will never exist to investigate even a tiny fraction of those, regardless of what legislation exists.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987879#Comment_121987879

There an Act of 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act which:

The 1989 Act prohibits certain forms of threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons on account of certain characteristics. These characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation. The threatening, abusive or insulting conduct can take the form of
 Actions likely to stir up hatred (section 2) – this covers the publication or distribution of written material; the use of words, behaviour or display of written material outside of a private residence; and the distribution, showing or playing of a recording of sounds or visual images;
 Broadcasts likely to stir up hatred (section 3) – this covers broadcasts to the general public of images or sounds; and
 Preparation and possession of material likely to stir up hatred (section 4) – this covers the preparation or possession, or the making or possession, of written material or recordings of sounds or visual images.

The above ais a quote from a review of the act available on Assets.Gov.ie

Shoog

Previous acts require the state to initiate a case, of which they have shown themselves singularly unwilling to do. The new legislation allows a citizen to make a complaint which must be investigated.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988349#Comment_121988349

And it will be widely used to silence opinions people don’t like and you know that.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988361#Comment_121988361

How ?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988181#Comment_121988181

No, it doesn't cover it. Nothing does, which is why there is new legislation required.

suvigirl

none of which contains any criminal.offence of incitement to.violence and no, it does not cover it. Which is why new legislation is.required.

suvigirl

What kind of opinions? It has nothing to finding opinions.

Apart from Section 11, which is the protection of freedom of expression

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988392#Comment_121988392

It certainly seems to.

Your example:

Someone advocating to burn all asylum seekers out of their accommodation.

Current law:

It shall be an offence for a person—

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

In other words, the act of burning the accommodation is not relevant. What matters is the threat and the possibility of the threat stirring up others to act.

Existing legislation covers your example.

Your second example:

A person calling for all travellers children to be drowned at birth, because they're all scumbag criminals.

Judge James O'Connor threw out the case as there was reasonable doubt the person did not literally intend to incite violence.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988409#Comment_121988409

No. It doesn't. It states quite clearly 'stir up hatred ' absolutely nothing to do with violence. Now, maybe you just cant get your head around that or maybe you are posting to stir up something yourself! But it is not covered. There isn't an offence there.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988432#Comment_121988432

No, the comment itself when said in public has the potential to stir up violence.

Violence doesn't need to occur, only the incitement of stirring up hatred which can then lead to the act of violence.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988443#Comment_121988443

Now you're trying to shoehorn in an offence when it doesn't exist.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987867#Comment_121987867

Its not working. It has barely been used. It couldn't convict a person calling for the execution of a trans person because she is trans like I saw last week.