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

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817213#Comment_119817213

The new bill is codifying existing laws. Nothing in the new bill would stop what the guy did. As it was not illegal at the time. That can also be used in a defence it set precedent.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817217#Comment_119817217

No clearly the quote does not explain your position entirely: you both simultaneously seem to be of the position the shark bait posting was both not acceptable and is acceptable. Which is it?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817232#Comment_119817232

Certainly the discussion of the bill is not so as to prosecute this person for this incident, laws are not retroactive.

@Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817248#Comment_119817248

It was a question of intent.

The evidence established his intent was to cause offense; to be childish and to want a reaction. To get attention.

Do I approve of his Facebook page? No.

Do I believe that he should be prosecuted and jailed for what he did? No, I don't.

Both views are consistent.

However if his intent was to literally promote violence against the Travelling community, he would have been rightly convicted under incitement to violence legislation. That legislation already exists. No hate speech legislation is required.

I don't believe people should be jailed for holding offensive opinions or actions. I think law enforcement should be out arresting murderers, rapists, burglars, and all the rest. They should not be policing language just because it causes offense to some people.

My position is clear.

You're attempting to smear it. It's transparent. It's wrong. It's an affront to engaging in good faith. But you know this. As does @Annasopra.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817274#Comment_119817274

Thanks, no, I was attempting to get some expansion from you - I observed the opposite as paucity earlier.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817280#Comment_119817280

Can you elaborate on your view.

Do you think this individual should have, in an ideal world (in your view), been jailed for 5-years for starting that Facebook page? Or jailed at all.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817297#Comment_119817297

5 years seems like a lot. Steve Bannon got 4 months for contempt and he helped incite an insurrection..

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817304#Comment_119817304

True but bannon will not be affected by this bill tbh doubt he will ever come to Ireland.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817304#Comment_119817304

But you believe he should have been jailed, to some degree, and have a criminal record for the rest of his life?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817319#Comment_119817319

Making out criminal record to be so sinister, boo, happy halloween. If he has the mens rea to incite violent acts because he hates they are travelers etc. then I don't see how that should be regard as lawful behavior. In Ireland wouldn't a bloke like that normally get the awl eddie halvey, just issue an apology, pay some money and have a few months of a suspended sentence?

Sudden Valley

Under what legislation was that kerryman charged under when he racially insulted Ian Wright online?

If new laws are introduced it would certainly making trolling online a mkre dangerous hobby.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817372#Comment_119817372

We've already established - indeed, the court did - that he didn't have mens rea to incite violence against the Travelling community.

I'm assuming you are not contradicting what the court determined?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817382#Comment_119817382

I don't have the capacity to contradict the court. Did they actually find that or are you just going off what I said?

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817380#Comment_119817380

He was charged with harassment, under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

I guess because he was posting abuse to him directly(?)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817394#Comment_119817394

Yes, the court found that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119816966#Comment_119816966

You know there was a day when people spoke of gays in the same way, right? And it wasn't all that long ago.

Potential-Monke

Jesus H Fudder Mukkin Christy. People want to know why boards is gone so quiet? The last 5 or so pages is why. I've never felt like I was reading boards while in a playschool as I have in the last hour reading this nonsense. A literal bunch of adult children. And it was going pretty good, for a thread of it's nature.

Whoever keeps harping on about the traveller babies comment, the case rightly failed because they determined there was no INTENT. And because there were no injured parties coming forward. But the court decided, and rightly, it was a reaction. NOBODY thinks that using traveller children as sharkbait is acceptable. But most people rightly know he wasn't being serious. A court decided he wasn't being serious. Nobody in their right mind should think he was being serious, especially after reading about the case. But you continue to stick to the headline and the outcome, not the details. Stop repeating it. You sound like the child in the corner shouting the same thing over and over in the hope you'll get attention. Just stop. Please.

Overheal, you have no right to look down on people who can't correctly read legalese, just because you can. How dare you call people out on it with your snarky comments about it couldn't be simpler. Not everyone has your ability and it's horrible to see people use their "superiority". No matter how simple you think something is, it's not always the case. Have a bit of cop on. You're the rich kid in the corner thinking he's billy big balls.

Gone are the days of people simply agreeing or disagreeing. There always has to be some personal insult in there. It's sickening and stifles any and all possible debate. And the worst part is, that's usually taken as a "victory". Civility is needed on both sides. It's possible to disagree without making a song and a dance about it. Without making sure people know you "won". Can't people just move on? Oh, that person disagrees with me, I'll no longer engage them. No. Can't be done apparantly. Children.

On topic, time will tell what's going to happen here. And before someone gives me a place in the playschool, I'm the selfish unsocial person walking by cursing the place. Bloody kids.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817861#Comment_119817861

Couldn't agree more.

marieholmfan

overheal is right though .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817412#Comment_119817412

I could be wrong, but I think this is a good example of what the point of the new act is. Under the old act this would be seen as incitement. Now whether you agree or disagree that it is doesn't matter: I'm just saying it's what the new act was draw up to reclassify.

That said, it was a one-off act and not something he pursued, which was what led to the aquittal - as opposed to **** you see Alex Jones coming out with over in the the US, which is very much sustained incitement and if if you have to curtail free speech a little to hold off dangerous fuckwits like him, then so be it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818425#Comment_119818425

He was acquitted under existing legislation on the basis he was behaving like a moron.

I don't know about you, but I don't want already limited police resources spent on policing moronic language, let alone packing the prisons and handing out fines in the process.

It's total overkill, an unneeded excess, and a case of where the state stretches its authority too far, too fast.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818466#Comment_119818466

Yeah, I know - and as we both know, bring a moron isn't illegal.

I'd be with you on the prisons, not so much the fines and if you think hate speech is harmless or just "moronic language" you clearly don't know your history, but I made that point earlier on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818525#Comment_119818525

Ask yourself the question, how did society survive up to this point without this new hate speech legislation?

Where were the constant stream of cases that weren't being attended to?

Nah, this is creating new crimes where no crime exists.

Any crime worth the name can already be prosecuted under extant legislation.

And what will happen will emulate some of the madness we've seen in the UK, with police knocking on the doors to warn people on the basis of the offense that their tweet has caused.

We even had a recent case in the UK where police insisted that referring to a convicted paedophile as a man was "hateful":

Police force 'that prioritised trans paedophile's feelings' enforces gender-neutral warrant cards

Sussex Police, which warned people against 'hurtful' comments towards a sex criminal, has a history at the forefront of 'woke' policies

The local crime commissioner condemned her own force on Wednesday night for “prioritising the hurt feelings” of a convicted transgender paedophile over the trauma suffered by their victims.

The controversy over Sussex Police’s handling of the case has continued to spiral after the force warned social media users not to “misgender” the sex offender who identified as a woman.

Dixon, 58, from Havant, Hampshire, was jailed for 20 years for the sexual abuse of seven children between 1989 to 1996. At the time of the offences, Dixon was a man called John.

AFter Dixon#s conviction, Sussex Police issued a press statement headlined: “Woman convicted of historic offences against children in Sussex”. But when on Twitter, users complained that Dixon was a man when the crimes were convicted, the force responded: “Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed.”

This is the reality of hate speech legislation.

It leads to absolute madness like this.

Fandymo

If gender cannot be defined, how can this nonsense be enforced? You can’t have a law based on feelings. Law deals in facts.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818592#Comment_119818592

It's worse than that.

In the case above, the trans person's sexuality changes when they self-identify. I don't know the sexuality of John Dixon but let's say he was heterosexual. When transitioning to a she and they are still interested in women, then they become homosexual (i.e. he is straight as John and gay as whatever name they adopted post-transition).

So given that sexuality is also a protected characteristic in the hate speech legislation, referring to Dixon as heterosexual and not homosexual may also be considered hate speech.

And what's happening in the UK will be mirrored here. People scouring through social media to identify any sources of "hate" and the police investigations that will ensue off the back of that. This is really what the supporters of this legislation want. All the talk of travellers and sharks is just a distraction.

It's all about censoring critics of modern gender theory. The UK proved it. It's only a matter of time now before the same happens here. There's no reason to assume that it won't.

As I've said since the beginning of this thread, nothing but regression comes from this legislation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818578#Comment_119818578

How did we survive? By banning terrorist organisations and extremist political and religious networks from using hate speech to destroy us, that's how we survived. The last time we were to late to the punch, Europe was nearly destroyed. Are you seriously telling me you don't see a problem with giving said groups free reign? A simple "yes" or "no" answer this time please.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819032#Comment_119819032

We've been banning terrorist organizations for decades. We don't require hate speech legislation for that, either.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819048#Comment_119819048

And how do you think they became terrorist organisations in the firstvplace?

So I'll rephrase thecquestion: are comfortable with terrorist organisations being created via hate.speech? And AGAIN - just yes or no.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819180#Comment_119819180

If an organization in this country develops into a terrorist organization, that organization will be banned - irrespective of whether hate speech laws are on the statute books.

Yet again, you are demonstrating how utterly superfluous these laws are. We've already been banning these organizations, and will continue to do so even if hate speech laws are not passed.

These laws serve no purpose, except - of course - to limit the range of what's considered acceptable criticism of modern gender identity theory and activists.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817861#Comment_119817861

“Overheal, you have no right to look down on people who can't correctly read legalese, just because you can. How dare you call people out on it with your snarky comments about it couldn't be simpler. Not everyone has your ability and it's horrible to see people use their "superiority". No matter how simple you think something is, it's not always the case. Have a bit of cop on. You're the rich kid in the corner thinking he's billy big balls. “

Gone are the days of people simply agreeing or disagreeing. There always has to be some personal insult in there

clearly…

(rich kid lmfao where’s my money)

to clarify it doesn’t seem like you disagree with what I’ve illustrated about the legislation thanks and bye