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

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122007990#Comment_122007990

Who ever thought taking 1980s and 90s legal shows off TV would have such a damaging effect.

Anyone who says Matlock was crap is going to have to explain it to the Aberdeen Police.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011045#Comment_122011045

Doubling down I see with a bit of a strawman, nice.

Off you pop, please take your vast knowledge of EU law with you 😀

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122010876#Comment_122010876

It's worse than false reports.

It's deliberately exaggerated reports. For instance: when someone is so personally offended that they elevate to others that they "perceive hate" against them, and so submit a report on those misleading grounds.

It's completely disprovable, and nobody can stop it.

This legislation is so open to abuse, it's embarrassing.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011104#Comment_122011104

That may indeed be how it seems as far as you’re concerned. Reality however, would seem to suggest otherwise:

The force released data showing 3.8% of the 7,152 complaints it received in the first week the hate crime act was in force were judged to be legitimate. Two hundred and forty complaints were logged as hate crimes and 30 as non-hate incidents.

Police Scotland said the vast majority of reports received during this period were anonymous and submitted online. “These were assessed against the new legislation and no further action is being taken,” it added.

Nearly half of the total number of online and anonymous reports that week were made on 1 April, at 3,419. The daily rate fell very sharply to just 180 reports on 6 April and 343 on 7 April.

In contrast, the number of complaints judged to be legitimate remained relatively constant at between 30 and 39 a day through the week. The force said the surge of complaints caused “minimal” impact on frontline policing and was dealt with by its call-handling centres and hate crime specialists.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/10/complaints-police-scotland-hate-crime-law

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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011113#Comment_122011113

I’m not sure whether that’s directed at either myself or tayto lover as there is no evidence to suggest that either of us have been informed by 80s and 90s legal tv shows off TV, let alone the idea that it has any effect, damaging or otherwise.

There might be cause for concern for people whose opinions of the Irish legal system and agents of the State authorised to maintain it is informed by works of fiction such as 1984, cobbled together with the idea of the right to freedom of speech from an American Constitutional perspective, in order to form the belief that free speech has, or will ever be an actual concept in law anywhere other than in their own minds.

That’s a matter of their own perception of reality, which in the vast majority of people is completely harmless. There are the tiny minority of people who try to make reality bend to their will, and they’re the kind of person who makes false reports to the authorities in the hope of frustrating the process which is made available to people to report incidents they perceive to be wrongdoing which amounts to a legitimate complaint.

This makes them a witness as far as the law is concerned, because criminal offences are committed against society, and the victim involved is a witness who can be compelled to give evidence. Victims aren’t usually compelled to give evidence, which can lead to an investigation or a prosecution being dropped due to lack of evidence. It is not, and has never been, the role of a complainant, a victim or a witness, to prove that a crime has been committed, or to prove that a person committed a criminal offence. That’s always been a matter for Gardaí.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011219#Comment_122011219

One could be forgiven for thinking from the way you’re talking, that you are unaware that this happens already, regularly, and can lead to prosecutions depending upon the circumstances in each instance:

Gsoc said that under Section 110 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 it is an offence for a person to provide information to Gsoc “that they know to be false or misleading”. The offence is liable, on summary conviction before the District Court, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or up to six months in prison, or both.

In a statement, Gsoc pointed out that, while it conducts the investigation, the decision on whether or not to bring charges is taken by the DPP on foot of examining the Gsoc file.

https://archive.ph/SOJhC

It’s simply a fact that most people in society simply have no interest, incentive, motivation or desire to do so, and those people who do are representative of a tiny, minuscule, so insignificant as can be easily ignored by the vast majority of people in society, who are motivated by a desire for attention, and in seeking attention, they have no qualms about making other people’s lives more difficult, even to the extent where they will only be satisfied when everyone in society is as miserable as themselves.

That’s what’s embarrassing and subjective, not the legislation itself which is yet to be determined as either effective, or as ineffective as the current legislation it is intended to replace, which in spite of your opinion, is objective in the sense that it applies to everyone in Irish society equally, in order to protect everyone in society, and prevent that tiny minority in society from inflicting harm upon others.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011341#Comment_122011341

Gsoc said that under Section 110 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 it is an offence for a person to provide information to Gsoc “that they know to be false or misleading”. The offence is liable, on summary conviction before the District Court, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or up to six months in prison, or both.

The problem is that with this legislation, you cannot disprove someone's perception of claiming to experience hatred against them.

With other crimes — yes, the above can be easily established in most cases.

But for the sake of what someone is thinking, you cannot objectively disprove their feelings of perceiving hate, almost by definition.

Scotland proved that malign actors on both sides of the debate can get away with manipulating this legislation.

I say let's not make the same mistake that Scotland quite clearly has made.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011448#Comment_122011448

Riiiight, I’m following you, and why would Gardaí be trying to prove anyone making a complaint is doing so under false pretences?

Go on, I’ll await your answer as to what would cause Gardaí to become suspicious that a person or group of persons is making a complaint under false pretences.

combat14

more subjective nonse this time from unions....

Mr Callinan (Forsa) said limited information available from the Public Appointments System (PAS) shows that 88% of applications, between 2019 and 2021, were from individuals who identified as 'White Irish', and of the appointments during that period, 89% were ‘White Irish’

"What does this limited data tell us? It tells us one thing: these public services roles are not reflective of the diverse communities that they serve. And this raises some concerns for the public service more broadly," Mr Callinan said.

the figures for "white irish" applications 88% and "white irish" appointments 89% are practically the same - at this stage its every clown jumping on the political correct bandwagon and it will be the so called "white irish" who are discriminated against next !!

no wonder "hate speech" censorship and this nonsense get peoples back up

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0412/1443197-forsa-union/

nachouser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011448#Comment_122011448

What mistake? You won't engage with any of the stats posted about Scotland. You just keep the blinkers on because it doesn't suit your opinion about gender and trans people.

You only need to scroll back up to a post at 5.30pm. It's working for Scotland.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011615#Comment_122011615

Absolutely ridiculous that.

Explain how precisely Scotland’s law is “working” ??

nachouser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011634#Comment_122011634

Read what was posted and sourced from people with actual names and come back and tell me that the 30-39 daily reports considered to be worth looking into by actual professionals are ridiculous.

nachouser

Also, I didn't reply to you, but sure...

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011104#Comment_122011104

That is certainly not a fair summery.

Shoog

Youve shown repeatedly that you aren't able to see how EU regs get transposed into law and why membership of the EU compels such transposition.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011153#Comment_122011153

your whole position is a doubling down on purposely not understanding how EU law is transposed into Irish law. Find me a single EU directive which has not been transposed into Irish law and we might start taking your position a little more seriously. Your obstinent ignorance of how it works is stunning.

nachouser

post 3998

Could squirrel and Jk explain how it's not working?

Or just keep blithely ignoring facts.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011615#Comment_122011615

People being convicted of a crime is not a measure of the success of a law.

By way of example, people are convicted all the time in Putin's Russia of certain crimes, including so-called hate-based crimes. Does that mean the laws are "effective"?

Of course not.

That's not an accurate nor fair representation of whether a law is effective.

First the law must be justified and, if it isn't, then no amount of convictions can justify its alleged "success".

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011686#Comment_122011686

Whatever you say, go do some research yourself. This legislation is about Ireland laws, not the EU. That is a fact, get over it.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011153#Comment_122011153

There’s no doubling down with any strawman, and a vast knowledge of EU law is not required to provide evidence that you are mistaken in your claim that there is no mandate for an Irish law to be passed, and asked me to remember the Lisbon Treaty, as if that had anything to do with… anything! I pointed out to you the relevant Irish law, written in our Constitution, which provides the mandate for EU law to be transposed into Irish law, and may not be invalidated by any provision of the Irish Constitution. I did this because you made some mention of Ireland being a sovereign state, as though that impeded the transposition of EU law into Irish law. It does not.

Really, really basic stuff, and yet you insist that in spite of evidence demonstrating that you are simply mistaken, your opinion takes precedence over EU and Irish Law, and telling me that the bill won’t pass unless there are changes, when it is at the 3rd stage in the Seanad. The bill will pass, regardless of whether there are changes made or not, because Ireland is required to do so by virtue of our membership of the EU. Ireland’s sovereignty is neither here nor there in respect of that mandate, which you claim Ireland doesn’t have. I’ve highlighted the relevant bits:

European Community Law

Ireland is a dualist State, Article 29.6 of the Constitution providing that international agreements have the force of law to the extent determined by the Oireachtas. This means that international treaties entered into must be incorporated into domestic law by legislation before they are applicable within the State (for example, incorporation of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Immunities was effected by the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967). The exception to this is European Community law, which, under the terms of Article 29 of the Constitution, has the force of law in the State. This means that any law or measure, the adoption of which is necessitated by Ireland's membership of the European Union, may not, in principle, be invalidated by any provision of the Constitution.

Your ideas about sovereignty or the Lisbon Treaty having anything to do with anything mean fannyadams, frankly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122008240#Comment_122008240

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122010431#Comment_122010431

Have you not read the thread?

It has been explained numerous times already

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011104#Comment_122011104

Are you on the loony left? Didn't you make a complaint the other day?

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122011104#Comment_122011104

It's ironic that JK Rowling is regularly accused of inciting hatred (despite police confirming she has done nothing wrong), when hatred and incitement to violence are regularly meted out to her.

If anyone should be prosecuted under this legislation, it should be people who make violent threats, like this:

This is the face of actual hatred.

Nuts102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012976#Comment_122012976

The only positive if the law comes in is that hopefully people like these can be prosecuted.

I have no doubt they would be among the people looking everywhere to find something to report someone.

They seem to think because they speak on behalf of minorities that being a hateful scumbag is fine.

Shoog

This legislation is a done deal. Harris will try to rearrange the deckchairs to placate the right wing of his party which he will be pivoting to. However he is a coalition member so he has almost zero scope to change anything, and then there is the issue of the EU directive which defines almost every substantive aspect of the legislation.

The only thing that he could try, and which might get him universal praise, is to more explicitly define a hate crime, but that's about it.

Even that would require a new piece of amending legislation as the bill is far to far into the legislative process for such a major change.

What amazes me is the almost total lack of understanding of how things are actually done.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012906#Comment_122012906

I have but the thread is like the proposed bill. Very unclear.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012909#Comment_122012909

I made several and will continue to do so, the Little lords and ladies of the left want this law so they might as well get it.Thousands of complaints were made about Rowling.

It is a foolish piece of legislation.

Danzy

Threats to kill are all ready legislated for.

Its who Is saying it and who it is directed to that determines outcome.

This legislation will not change that but reinforce it.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013412#Comment_122013412

Some of the people who support this legislation also think it's ok to send hatred to Rowling. The irony hasn't caught up.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013505#Comment_122013505

Nobody here claimed that. You are making it up.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013505#Comment_122013505

That would be pointless and again in very bad taste.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013210#Comment_122013210

We don’t understand, is it?

You’re admitting that the only way this will pass is if it’s changed. You seem happy with that but also with how it exists right now…sounds like a very stable position to base your argument.

This EU directive…again, Ireland has control over its laws as a member. The EU can issue a directive but the state itself has to put it into law. There is nothing the EU can do about this.

Please link to the EU directive that explicitly defines hatred.

I will wait, but I won’t hold my breath.