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

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988374#Comment_121988374

You do know this but I’ll bite - the law only refers to “perceived” hate. All a person has to do is report they “perceived” a threat, and there’ll be a Garda at their door - or more, look at the case in the UK where six officers turned up to manhandle a child who made a comment to a very thin skinned officer.

The likes of JK Rowling thankfully has mega resources and can keep fighting the good fight for women’s rights and not worry about facing a charge but the rest of us don’t.

For example, personally feel silenced in work - we recently had a Menopause event, led by a biological male and all I could think was “how the f**k would you know ??” when they were talking about night sweats and the like. “Oh the things us girls go through!!” - seriously?? Yet I say that and my job would be on shaky ground, and I remained silenced.

This law is going to have the same effect, there are people who may have an employment contract stating that arrest is grounds for dismissal and will be reluctant to speak out as the “perception” of hate is all is needed regardless of the intent. We’ve all seen how the far left want to close down debate on anything they disagree with, “no platforming” etc - now they have just the mechanism.

It is a very bad law and should not go through and anyone who believes it is has a serious hatred for free speech.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987487#Comment_121987487

Your arguments are literally laughable and self contradicting at this stage

You claimed

1 The 1989 law is effective

2 The 1989 law should be opposed because of its definition of hatred.

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988477#Comment_121988477

funny that you use the word 'shoehorn' because thats exactly what it feels like is happening with this bill.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988649#Comment_121988649

So what have you said which makes you think you will be under threat. All these vague assertions need some context. I personally can't think of a single incident where I have said anything which would leave me open to a threat of prosecution under this legislation. How can I be so confident and you so deeply concerned ?

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988676#Comment_121988676

That this person may believe they are a woman but they are not and have never, nor will ever experience the worst symptoms of the menopause and I find it offensive to pretend.

They could say they “perceive” this as hatred and there you go, I’ve broken the law by simply acknowledging biological reality.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988686#Comment_121988686

They could say whatever they like but it doesn't elevate it to an offense under this legislation.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988706#Comment_121988706

Yes it does.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988649#Comment_121988649

All a person has to do is report they “perceived” a threat

which is the same as every single incident reported to Gardai. How does anyone report something if they don't perceive a crime has been committed?

Thats not an argument against it. Just because someone perceives something, doesn't make it so.

peaty_trance0f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987590#Comment_121987590

Clever girl to come back with the equivalent of “I know you are”.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988657#Comment_121988657

That's not my position at all, but this isn't the first time that you have sought to deliberately misrepresent my position.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988477#Comment_121988477

Would you agree with me that, say if someone had 10,000+ followers on Twitter and they announced more than once that, "Accommodation for asylum seekers should be burned" — as per your example — that this utterance would likely stir up hatred against asylum seekers, and from that, the increased possibility of violence?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988869#Comment_121988869

It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. It matters what the law thinks. The legislation is not suitable and requires updating.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988975#Comment_121988975

No, but I'm asking you a question that is directly related to the 1989 legislation and the example you posted. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the question.

If you don't want to engage with it, that's fine.

Annasopra

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

Your arguments are shambolic

You claimed The 1989 law is effective and sufficient

Then you claimed it isn't effective or sufficient because of definitions.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988773#Comment_121988773

Complete rubbish.

If you have been mugged it’s not a matter of perception - you either have not.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988228#Comment_121988228

Yes.

The 2022 Bill is updating the 1989 Act because it has proved unworkable.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988764#Comment_121988764

Prove it

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989034#Comment_121989034

Its not that I don't want to engage, i am engaging. The point is that it doesn't matter what you or I think, should be included. The law is that it is not. There is no offence of incitement to violence, and we all agree there should be.

The list of protected characteristics is in line with current equality legislation in Ireland.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989364#Comment_121989364

When you search “gender identity” there are, depending on the site, 9 or 35 or 72 or 100 genders.

This is why it’s nonsense to say that it is “in line with current equality legislation” which based on two and people’s rights to identity as the other one in law.

The rest is nonsense that cannot be defined or agreed upon and has no business being added to law.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121988706#Comment_121988706

In that case what's the point of the legislation?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989562#Comment_121989562

The person making the complaint isn't the arbitor of what constitutes hate speech - that is reserved for the Gardai and courts.

The person making the complaint has a right to be considered in their complaint - not to define what constitutes a hate speech crime.

Its not difficult.

urbnjgl

Can this be used to stifle the voice of anyone who disagrees with politicians or is this just aimed a protecting what someone considers a minority.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989613#Comment_121989613

If the politician indulges in hate speech then they would be fair game. Enoch Powell would likely have fallen fowl of this legislation.

I am not sure how it could be used against a person criticising a politician unless the criticism focused on their gender or race.

Annasopra

Only the most severe types of speech that constitute incitement to violence or hatred would be criminalised under the Bill. Discussion of protected characteristics, including criticism of matters relating to protected characteristics, is not a crime unless it crosses the line into incitement to violence or hatred. This remains a high bar and is not something into which people would just fall.

I have already answered this several times. See Minister James Brownes contribution in the Dail

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989283#Comment_121989283

Again, you are trying to misrepresent my position (knowingly).

Yes, the 1989 law is more than sufficient. It has, after all, worked for the past 30-years.

The new legislation is insufficient because it introduces subjectivity which, when combined with the existing text, is — to borrow a phrase — shambolic.

It will only encourage reporting of non-existent "hate" incidents.

Nor do I support the new legislation's intention to criminalize someone who minimizes a war crime (police have better things to be doing); I don't believe that gender expression should be a protected characteristic; and I don't believe that subjective "hate" is a sufficient basis for any law.

The current legislation is fine. I'm sticking with that.

Strengthen incitement to violence laws, if required. Very few would argue against that.

But the hate speech content I have no time for — and, nor it seems, do many other people.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989364#Comment_121989364

You brought up the example of an incident which you believe cannot be prosecuted under existing legislation i.e. a person calling for migrant accommodation to be burned down.

What I am saying is that any person who publicly calls, say on social media, for burning down migrant accommodation, is by definition inciting hatred — and that is already prosecutable under existing laws.

Unless you are arguing that such a person isn't spreading hatred?

If someone then acts on that and actually commits arson, that is already a crime too.

As I say, your example fails because novel legislation is not required to prosecute someone for that offense.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989646#Comment_121989646

Enoch Powell would likely have fallen fowl of this legislation.

Presumably for his 'chicken licken' warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of immigration….

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121989500#Comment_121989500

Current equality legislation includes gender, it makes no reference to any number.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121990175#Comment_121990175

Missing my point spectacularly and likely on purpose there.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121990175#Comment_121990175

Can you define what it should mean to qualify as a protected characteristic, in your opinion?

What kind of traits justify the inclusion of something as a protected characteristic, in your view.