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

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122016741#Comment_122016741

The only part worth responding to is the about the EU directive transposition into law. A directive of the EU is a condition of membership, just as not following the law of a state leads to enforcement action, the same applies to a member state and a failure to transpose a directive into domestic law. Enforcement actions have been taken against Ireland in the past for failure to adequately transpose a directive into domestic law and the same will happen with this directive.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122016906#Comment_122016906

Hate to break it to you, a directive is not a law. Only a few posters in here started talking about the EU, this is trying to side step actually talking about the legislation in question.

This is not the same as not following laws or directions. Ireland has total control of the laws it enacts in its own state, the EU can make the directive but it’s up to the country to enact the law.

This was all done in November 2010, and this was said back then: The Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobiaFootnote 8 (“Framework Decision”) is the only existing EU criminal law instrument that harmonises the definition of and criminal penalties for some specific forms of hate speech and hate crime, namely race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Aiming to ensure that serious manifestations of racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties throughout the EU, it requires Member States to take the necessary measures to criminalise the public incitement to violence or hatred on above stated grounds.Footnote 9 Member States were obliged to transpose the obligations imposed on them under the Framework Decision into their national law by 28 November 2010. As a result, they already have or should have national laws in place criminalising hate speech and hate crime on the grounds of race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin – even though implementation varies greatly

you’ll note the dates there.

Shoog

Ireland has opted into that directive so it is compelled to enact it in all its clauses.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122016997#Comment_122016997

it would be helpful if you actually understood the directive.

Thar is all we are required to do and we already have that. It is up to each country to enact its own law.

Perhaps the 1989 Act needs updating to reference rh digital age but the criminalization of speech purely because you don’t like it is a step too far.

tarvis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013140#Comment_122013140

Could it be that this law which these people cheered on so loudly will in fact be the law that is turned on them, as more and more people come to see the ever widening cracks in their ideology.

Potatoeman

So a complete waste of time in Scotland:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/scotland-hate-crime-law-sees-10000-calls-in-just-over-eight-days-1713940

"Police Scotland have said that each and every single case that is reported under this legislation will be investigated.

"With the scale that we're talking about and the size of the teams initially dealing with these types of calls before this legislation, it's simply not manageable."

Meanwhile real crimes are not being investigated:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68501949

It’s clown world stuff.

urbnjgl

If, for example, you publicly disagree with a politicians statement, and post it on social media. If those who agree with your concerns threaten or slur the politician could it be argued that YOU incited hatred for bringing it to the attention of others?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122028490#Comment_122028490

clearly you didn't bother to even read any of the thread or any of the proposed legislation

Being a Politician is not a protected characteristic.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031178#Comment_122031178

That is why the poster said "a politicians statement", not the politician.

Clearly, you didn't bother to read the post.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031186#Comment_122031186

I did read it Frank. The poster asked

'if the people in agreement with you threaten or slur the politician, could it be argued that you incited hatred, for bringing it to the intention of others'

Firstly, if it it just a post disagreeing with the politician, then obviously it isn't incitement to anything, because being a Politician isn't a protected characteristic.

Second, if the poster posts a comment that incites hatred, then they will be guilty of incitement to hatred, whether or not anyone else does anything.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031221#Comment_122031221

Firstly, if it it just a post disagreeing with the politician, then obviously it isn't incitement to anything, because being a Politician isn't a protected characteristic.

Oh dear, it is not about if a politician is a protected characteristic, the poster isn't saying that, at all.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031332#Comment_122031332

And as I pointed out, if the poster poster something that was considered incitement to hatred, he would be guilty of an offence, whether or not anyone did anything or not.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031353#Comment_122031353

So wait, there would be automatic guilt now? Not just being reported for something? Is that written in the legislation now too???

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031358#Comment_122031358

Did you miss this bit?

'if the poster posted something that was considered incitement to hatred, he would be guilty of an offence, '

If something is considered to be incitement to hatred it has obviously been deemed so by the courts

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031373#Comment_122031373

Under the 1989 law, is that what you mean?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031502#Comment_122031502

The poster asked a question about the proposed legislation. I'll put it simply for comprehension by all. The poster would not be found guilty of incitement to hatred, unless their post itself was incitement to hatred. Nothing to do with anyone else's actions.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031544#Comment_122031544

So it has nothing to do with what someone else might interpret as hatred? You have a solid definition as to what hatred actually is, do you? In regards to this legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031637#Comment_122031637

Incitement to hatred is set out in section 7 of the proposed legislation.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031753#Comment_122031753

Weird, it doesn't seem to define hatred at all.

Offence of incitement to violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected
characteristics
7. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) and section 11, a person shall be guilty of an offence
under this section if—
(a) the person—
(i) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
(ii) behaves in a public place in a manner,
that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on
account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics, and
(b) the person does so with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or
group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those
characteristics or being reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby
incited.
(2) It shall not be an offence under this section for a relevant service provider, within the
meaning of the European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regulations 2003
(S.I. No. 68 of 2003), to do an act to which Regulation 16, 17 or 18 of those
Regulations applies if the requirements of the Regulation concerned for liability not to
apply are satisfied.
(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that
the material concerned or, insofar as appropriate, the behaviour concerned consisted
solely of—
(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific,
religious or academic discourse,
(b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
(c) material or behaviour, as the case may be, that is necessary for any other lawful
purpose, including law enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an
offence.
(4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for a body
corporate to prove, as respects the communication of material by the body corporate,
that—
(a) it has reasonable and effective measures in place to prevent the communication
generally of material inciting violence or hatred against a person or a group of
persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those
characteristics,
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
(b) it was complying with the measures referred to in paragraph (a) at the time the
offence concerned was alleged to have been committed, and
(c) it did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time the offence concerned
was alleged to have been committed that the content of the material concerned
was intended or likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of
persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those
characteristics.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5
years or both.
Offence of condonation, denial o

Can you help me understand it more, please?

1800_Ladladlad

Why not add retail workers to the list of 'protected characteristics'?

https://twitter.com/fiannafailparty/status/1780569491677626866

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031939#Comment_122031939

I posted the definition hatred from An Garda Siochana, the EU, the COE, And the UN already in the thread, maybe you missed them, they're still there if you wish to go back and see them.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031939#Comment_122031939

The definition of hatred under the proposed legislation begins with: "Hatred means 'hatred'…".

It defines itself as the actual definition.

That can only be considered a failed definition.

Legislation that seeks to constrict free speech should not be based upon definitions that cannot legally be defined.

The definitions should be concretely defined. For this reason alone, the proposed legislation should be considered failed legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122032207#Comment_122032207

And I answered this earlier, to yourself I believe with the definitions i listed above. Posters are being disingenuous I think.

Frank Bullitt

For anyone claiming they have given a definition of hatred, friendly reminder from the EU themselves.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10609-022-09440-w

Lastly, a note on terminology. “Hate” in hate speech and hate crime is a bit of a misnomer, a catch-all word that rather poorly describes what is, in reality, a variety of prejudice-based motivations, some arising out of quite different emotions (not hatred as such), some not directly prompted by emotions at all. This is why hostility, prejudice, bias or intolerance of “the Other” is more accurate and more commonly used in scientific literature – particularly the one that draws on psychological data – and progressively so in official definitions. Hate crime would therefore be more appropriately defined as prejudice crime, prejudice-motivated crime (also bias-motivated crime) or intolerance-motivated crime.

So, if someone is claiming there is a clear defintion for this, they are talking out of their hoop.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121987633#Comment_121987633

As attached, definitions of hatred, please find also

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hatred

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hatred

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred

BillyHasMates

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039562#Comment_122039562

So 3 different sources giving 3 different definitions for hatred, none of them in a legal / criminal context. Which ones do we adopt for the purpose of the legislation?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039673#Comment_122039673

You can surely decide by reading them, they are mostly exactly the same.

Dodo you think you would have a problem spotting hate or hatred in real life?

BillyHasMates

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039693#Comment_122039693

It should be legally defined within the legislation, and it shouldn't be left up for people to decide what it is. Any decently written piece of legislation should have it, I mean it's the most important term along with violence in the entire piece. For eg the offence of Assault Causing Harm has a clear definition within the legislation of what harm is.

Personally I am neither for or against this type of legislation, but I do think the government's version is poorly written and has issues. Whatever about defending the need for this type of legislation, I can't understand why people defend the current version they are proposing to bring in.

BillyHasMates

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039693#Comment_122039693

It will be much easier to spot incitement to violence since violence is an act. Hatred is more a feeling or expression so yes I do think it will be harder to spot and prove unless legally defined within the legislation.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039727#Comment_122039727

There is good reason, within plenty of existing legislation to not define a word. For a start it limits the legislation. It would be fairly hard to define all types of hate and hatred I'm sure you would agree.

I would be satisfied that the DPP and the courts could deal with any case without the need for a limited definition within the legislation itself.

'harm' as defined with the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness. What is 'harm' to body or mind? And why isn't that defined?