Hate Speech Public Consultation

US2 · 09-12-2019 11:52am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For someone who professes to be against people making up what constitutes hate speech, you seem to spend an awful lot of time making up what you think will constitutes hate speech.

That's a bad effort at being funny or something?

We can see all the examples of "hate speech " across the water, I'm not making anything up.

Annasopra · 09-12-2019 11:53am

US2 wrote: »

You can not be a serious person, it is exactly that in the UK, and it looks very likely to be the same here from everything I've read.

Its really a massive oversimplification to say that uk hate speech laws are just anything offensive. Not just an oversimplification but untrue.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 11:54am

TheValeyard wrote: »

Legislation like this is a direct threat to democracy and people expressing an opinion. Existing laws can already deal with such issues.

Indeed. Every single tinpot dictator and regime in history has sought to control and ultimately outlaw ideas and opinions it didn't like and were a threat to it. Damn near every human right we currently enjoy in the West was once seen as beyond the Pale of the current established order. That included slavery, women's rights, children's rights, contraception, the right to vote etc and yep freedom of expression. In good oul Catholic Ireland many opinions were seen as incorrect speech and thoughts. Sod that.

This is coming on the back of our dear political class getting on board with the multiculturalism politic, trying to head of at the pass the results of that in the future. Nothing to see here. That and the currently fashionable victimhood olympics stuff playing out in western cultures.

And yep I sent a submission, though knowing our political class it will be a waste of keystrokes as the end result has almost certainly been preordained. I'm reminded of when that idiot Sean Sherlock was in the midst of "discussing" Copyright legislation and invited industry people to debate, when the ink was still wet on the legislation. A PR exercise as I suspect this to be. Plus when it's couched in terms like "hate speech" most normal people will naturally think "oh no I don't want hate involved in anything" without looking at the wider consequences of such legislation.

Annasopra · 09-12-2019 11:55am

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

It'll be the same here.

Who said?

Annasopra · 09-12-2019 11:56am

US2 wrote: »

It is the very same as the UK. I haven't said we are subject to their laws. I have taken the opportunity, dont worry.

This is just silly nonsense. The UK has laws. We have laws. Our laws dont always mirror the uk ones.

Hector Savage · 09-12-2019 11:57am

X111111111111 wrote: »

The establishment don't care about that. They will use these laws to suit them and their agenda and to protect their own from criticism. Take Marie Bailey the insurance fraudster as an example, iv'e already heard certain government mouthpieces (newstalk etc...) try and claim she was being bullied by the line of questioning she was getting. They would call that hate speech right there and stop anyone from asking pertinent questions about her role in the scandal.

It's a slippery slope.

Exactly, surprised they didn't try and say the questions she was getting were just misogynistic .. that will cow any reporter into quiet submission.

Annasopra · 09-12-2019 11:57am

US2 wrote: »

That's a bad effort at being funny or something?

We can see all the examples of "hate speech " across the water, I'm not making anything up.

I dobt think it was funny at all. You completely oversimplified and misinterpreted the uk laws on hate speech

US2 · 09-12-2019 11:58am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really a massive oversimplification to say that uk hate speech laws are just anything offensive. Not just an oversimplification but untrue.

Certainly not untrue. There is examples there for you to look at, plenty of them.

The girl who posted lyrics of a rap song on her Facebook just one

MontgomeryClift · 09-12-2019 12:25pm

If Ireland is going to meet its multicultural destiny, hate speech legislation is just part of the package. This is only the beginning.

TwoMonthsOff · 09-12-2019 12:29pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

If Ireland is going to meet its multicultural destiny, hate speech legislation is just part of the package. This is only the beginning.

The minister for justice considers being asked about mass immigration as hate speech.

MontgomeryClift · 09-12-2019 12:34pm

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

The minister for justice considers being asked about mass immigration as hate speech.

Hate speech is whatever they want it to be.

X111111111111 · 09-12-2019 12:59pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, surprised they didn't try and say the questions she was getting were just misogynistic .. that will cow any reporter into quiet submission.

One lady on newstalk actually did use that interpretation of events.

ThunbergsAreGo · 09-12-2019 1:28pm

Didn't we just vote to remove our Blasphemy laws?

alastair · 09-12-2019 1:48pm

US2 wrote: »

The UK hate speech law doesn't define anything other than if someone finds something offensive you can be prosecuted.

Nope - offensive on the basis of race, ethnicity or other broader grouping. And then the claim has to be proven in order for a crime to have been committed.

alastair · 09-12-2019 1:52pm

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

The minister for justice considers being asked about mass immigration as hate speech.

Given that there is no mass immigration at play in this country, you’d have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim there is. The Venn diagram of racists and those who buy into ‘the great replacement’ isn’t exactly sparse territory.

The_Brood · 09-12-2019 1:55pm

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Didn't we just vote to remove our Blasphemy laws?

As long as something is generally percieved as "sticking it" to religious people, whether vaguely or not, much of society and goverment support it.

This is pretty much the underlining rule of the Western world right now, regardless of topic.

suicide_circus · 09-12-2019 1:56pm

alastair wrote: »

Given that there is no mass immigration at play in this country, you’d have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim there is. The Venn diagram of racists and those who buy into ‘the great replacement’ isn’t exactly sparse territory.

who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

TwoMonthsOff · 09-12-2019 2:04pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

Didnt the UN actually acknowledge replacement migration?

ThunbergsAreGo · 09-12-2019 2:05pm

The_Brood wrote: »

As long as something is generally percieved as "sticking it" to religious people, whether vaguely or not, much of society and goverment support it.

This is pretty the underlining rule of the Western world right now, regardless of topic.

Very true, especially if Christian

alastair · 09-12-2019 2:06pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

A five percent increase in 17 years in one area of the country that has twice the immigrant population than the national average. Mass immigration it is not.

TwoMonthsOff · 09-12-2019 2:09pm

Apparently the unicorn brigade are having a pro hate speech laws march on Saturday. I seen them on facebook sending out an SOS to Celtic football fans. It's a pity they got filled in by Rangers fans outside hampden yesterday.

alastair · 09-12-2019 2:12pm

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

Didnt the UN actually acknowledge replacement migration?

Nope. They didn’t. They produced a research paper which outlined how it might be considered for regions which required greater population growth, but they didn’t advocate for it, or claim that it was occurring anywhere in the world.

Midster · 09-12-2019 2:12pm

Hypothetical question. If a white man beats up another white man, simply because one doesn’t like each other.
And another white man beats up a coloured man for just the same reason.

Would the punishment be the same in both cases?

And if the coloured man got a few of his friends that were with him to say it was a hate crime, when it wasn’t, to what degree would the white man be punished by the law then?

How about if 2 coloured men have a fight because they hate each other?

Or if 2 coloured people from 2 separate countries have a fight, could one claim hate crime against the other?

What If a coloured man hates white men and beats one up for the fun of it, what then?

alastair · 09-12-2019 2:18pm

Midster wrote: »

Hypothetical question. If a white man beats up another white man, simply because one doesn’t like each other.
And another white man beats up a coloured man for just the same reason.

Would the punishment be the same in both cases?

And if the coloured man got a few of his friends that were with him to say it was a hate crime, when it wasn’t, to what degree would the white man be punished by the law then?

How about if 2 coloured men have a fight because they hate each other?

Or if 2 coloured people from 2 separate countries have a fight, could one claim hate crime against the other?

What If a coloured man hates white men and beats one up for the fun of it, what then?

🙄

Hypothetical question - you understand that hate speech is nothing to do with assault?

Midster · 09-12-2019 2:25pm

alastair wrote: »

ðŸ™„

Hypothetical question - you understand that hate speech is nothing to do with assault?

I know, but I just wanted to ask a theoretical question

Eric Cartman · 09-12-2019 2:32pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really a massive oversimplification to say that uk hate speech laws are just anything offensive. Not just an oversimplification but untrue.

A man was done for teaching a dog to raise its paw when he said heil hitler. Its a terrible law used to censor people at the whim of others feelings.

WrenBoy · 09-12-2019 3:09pm

Since many people don't believe in "reverse racism" (white people cannot be the victim of racism), will this law only allow non-white people to claim they are the victim of a racist hate crime ?

suicide_circus · 09-12-2019 3:10pm

alastair wrote: »

A five percent increase in 17 years in one area of the country that has twice the immigrant population than the national average. Mass immigration it is not.

true but when do you propose mass immigration be discussed? when its already happened?

alastair · 09-12-2019 3:15pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

true but when do you propose mass immigration be discussed? when its already happened?

Firstly no-one has been stopped discussing immigration.
Secondly, if you are going to discuss immigration in terms that don’t tally with the reality, expect to be called out for shilling misinformation. That’s also part of the conversation.

suicide_circus · 09-12-2019 3:21pm

alastair wrote: »

Firstly no-one has been stopped discussing immigration.

unless their assessment is 100% positive they will be called out with racism, bigot etc.

I'm the son of an immigrant. I am the spouse of an immigrant. I do not live in some sort of mono cultural bubble. But I have seen what has happened on the continent. Parallel societies with little or no integration, indifference at best, hostility at worst. I just dont want this country to go down the same road.

alastair · 09-12-2019 3:28pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

unless their assessment is 100% positive they will be called out with racism, bigot etc.

I'm the son of an immigrant. I am the spouse of an immigrant. I do not live in some sort of mono cultural bubble. But I have seen what has happened on the continent. Parallel societies with little or no integration, indifference at best, hostility at worst. I just dont want this country to go down the same road.

You’re raising a straw man argument there - and one that’s not remotely convincing. Racists and bigots are called out on their racism or bigotry - if you’re being called out for either, perhaps it’s worth considering if you are actually expounding racist or bigoted claims. Your perspective on the continent is remarkably out of whack with the norms I have experienced.

suicide_circus · 09-12-2019 3:33pm

alastair wrote: »

You’re raising a straw man argument there - and one that’s not remotely convincing. Racists and bigots are called out on their racism or bigotry - if you’re being called out for either, perhaps it’s worth considering if you are actually expounding racist or bigoted claims. Your perspective on the continent is remarkably out of whack with the norms I have experienced.

i can only speak from my own experience too.

you seem to think that the only time someone gets called racist is when they are being racist which even a cursory understanding of the current zeitgeist will tell you is total bollox. i've a feeling we're not going to agree on this.

alastair · 09-12-2019 3:44pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

i can only speak from my own experience too.

you seem to think that the only time someone gets called racist is when they are being racist which even a cursory understanding of the current zeitgeist will tell you is total bollox. i've a feeling we're not going to agree on this.

I get the feeling you are rather too quick to ascribe accusations of racism where none are levelled. Plenty of anti-immigration rhetoric is knee-deep in racism and bigotry, some is not - irregardless of any zeitgeist.

09-12-2019 3:48pm

alastair wrote: »

I get the feeling you are rather too quick to ascribe accusations of racism where none are levelled. Plenty of anti-immigration rhetoric is knee-deep in racism and bigotry, some is not - irregardless of any zeitgeist.

This is an occurrence that is more prevalent these days.
Person 1: says something about immigrants...
Person 2: replies....
Person 1: "who are you calling a racist?...bleeding heart liberals, the world is fcuked"
Person 2: .....?
Person 3: "That's their only response, when you lose the argument you just play the auld racism card, despicable"

suicide_circus · 09-12-2019 3:53pm

alastair wrote: »

I get the feeling you are rather too quick to ascribe accusations of racism where none are levelled. Plenty of anti-immigration rhetoric is knee-deep in racism and bigotry, some is not - irregardless of any zeitgeist.

irregardless lol. you dropped the R bomb in your first post in this thread man, give it up.

alastair · 09-12-2019 3:56pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

irregardless lol. you dropped the R bomb in your first post in this thread man, give it up.

Nope. I didn’t.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 4:24pm

Midster wrote: »

What If a coloured man hates white men and beats one up for the fun of it, what then?

You said "coloured", so you're on the naughty step already.

suicide_circus wrote: »

who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

Apparently not. When a Dublin city manager on Primetime expressed that the area of inner city Dublin he was responsible for was majority non Irish as a big positive and something to be proud of this will tell you much.

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'm the son of an immigrant. I am the spouse of an immigrant. I do not live in some sort of mono cultural bubble. But I have seen what has happened on the continent. Parallel societies with little or no integration, indifference at best, hostility at worst. I just dont want this country to go down the same road.

Pointless to argue with the multicultural zealots SC, especially if they have any skin in the game. They're near religious in their zeal and equally near religious in their inability to see the provable negatives and their speed at calling out blasphemy against their particular "faith".

You don't want to go down the decades long potholed with the obvious negatives road of every single other multicultural nation in Europe? Every single one of which has ended up with extra social issues over non multicultural nations. This makes you a blasphemer. There is nothing to see here, nothing to discuss, it'll all be grand. This time. The multiculturalists have spoken. Diversity. Amen. And you will bow your head.

And again it's always the White countries and cultures that are in need of this "diversity" and almost always from non White sources. The same multiculturalists would have a twitching fit if one were to suggest that a nation like Sudan would be similarly improved by the "diversity" of an influx of one in five palefaces. They wouldn't automatically call them Africans either. But apparently a Nigerian who showed up here in 03 has to be seen and called "Irish".

Sadly I think the horse has bolted for Ireland. The lax and often pregnant with citizen points influx during the boom set that in motion. That and our ruling political class give us no real options to put forward a different view. About the only naysayers in the political field are made up of chancers, nutters and yep actual racists and nobody's going to vote for them en masse. Hopefully. Then again as we've seen again elsewhere, when you ignore people's concerns, enough of them will often do just that down the line.

We're already seeing the usual trends of ghettoisation and "race" issues and better it's not going to get. It has been tightened up since, with the near blanket refusal of the usual suspects from the usual places(Georgia, Sub Saharan Africa, Romania), but the boom influx was often made up of same. The same who would be refused at point of entry under today's criteria.

There is some hope here. Now that we've increased the entry requirements. Hopefully we won't see the numbers and percentages of other nations and the attendant problems. I won't hold my breath too long though, not when you have some in power going on about our nonexistent population crisis and the notion of this island sustaining a population double what it is. Even this very legislation - which I'm willing to bet will go ahead regardless as it's part and parcel of the multicultural politic - is yet another example of bowing to this stupid politic.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 4:26pm

alastair wrote: »

Nope. I didn’t.

True. It was the second.

alastair · 09-12-2019 5:09pm

Wibbs wrote: »

True. It was the second.

In response to a question regarding Charlie Flanagan condemning racists online - sure. And?

alastair · 09-12-2019 5:27pm

Wibbs wrote: »

When a Dublin city manager on Primetime expressed that the area of inner city Dublin he was responsible for was majority non Irish as a big positive and something to be proud of this will tell you much.

Which area of the city is this then? Because as someone who lives in what’s regarded as the most densely non-national populated area of the inner city (indeed the nation), I can tell you that there’s no majority non-Irish here. The only way you get to majority non-nationals is to get down to electoral district cluster level (typically a couple of thousand people), and even then - there are only four of those in the country.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 6:08pm

alastair wrote: »

Which area of the city is this then?

No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

alastair · 09-12-2019 6:12pm

Wibbs wrote: »

No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

Well - half the non-nationals in the north inner city are EU nationals, so I’m not sure how that fares in your dystopian musings. But the notion of any manner of non-national majority in the city - beyond a couple of localised clusters, is a fiction.

TwoMonthsOff · 09-12-2019 6:14pm

I watched that episode of prime time, it was Dorset street/Hardwicke street area he was talking about. Think it was 30 odd percent Irish.

seamus · 09-12-2019 6:22pm

Phoebas wrote: »

How many people will spend hours on this thread and others on this site complaining that they're being silenced by the state, but who won't actually make a submission now when they have a chance?

Judging by the first page of this thread, hopefully most of these posters don't make a submission given that they've no idea what the consultation is about.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 6:55pm

seamus wrote: »

Judging by the first page of this thread, hopefully most of these posters don't make a submission given that they've no idea what the consultation is about.

Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.

alastair · 09-12-2019 7:05pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.

I must have missed the bit where seamus advocated for any reduction in burden of proof. Strange that. For what it’s worth my submission was supportive of extending legislation on hate speech, of greater enforcement of the existing 1989 legislation, and for the need of documented or third party evidence to support prosecutions on the back of new legislation.

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 7:14pm

alastair wrote: »

For what it’s worth my submission was supportive of extending legislation on hate speech

Well paint my arse red and colour me surprised.

alastair · 09-12-2019 7:21pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well paint my arse red and colour me surprised.

Yeah - I’m no fan of those who lazily ascribe societal ills on the other.

James Brown · 09-12-2019 7:29pm

I made a submission on how asking me awkward questions was crossing my humanity. Also I said they should clarify what that means

For me any group generalisation is bad. Individual fact based criticism or praise, fine.

Midster · 09-12-2019 8:22pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You said "coloured", so you're on the naughty step already.

I’m sorry I completely forgot for just a second that brown isn’t a real colour.
Neither is white though btw.

What is the correct and widely accepted wording these days?

Btw my white Latvian neighbour said he hated me because I’m English, and then immediately followed that up by punching me in the face....

Is that a hate crime?

Or is white on white violence just a normal crime thing?

Oh and one more thing, if the word coloured is now disallowed when used to describe people of darker skin to my own.

Why the hell do they get away from calling us white!

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments