Hate Speech Public Consultation

alastair · 10-12-2019 5:47pm

Wibbs wrote: »

And as I noted the problem is every society is pretty convinced they're on the right track, but they're rarely on the right track for long and they also tend to hold a very short term view and even shorter term memories and you're proving my point and history shows you to be wrong.

"Hate" can be very much culturally and historically defined. I'm quite sure that what you would call a "hate crime" wouldn't be to someone else and vice versa, and that's today, in this society.

If I were to suggest that homosexuality is a mental illness and injurious to the individuals and wider society, we both would agree that would be by turn homophobic, daft and even hate speech, yet it was considered perfectly medically and socially accurate a concept a few decades ago(and still considered by some today). Not so long ago Africans were considered not quite human and by the majority of various societies and not just European either. Hell, somewhere at home I have a children's book first printed in the 1960's that states to the effect that native Australian Aboriginal people's aren't quite fully evolved humans. Women were and still are in some societies not considered equal in intellect and moral fortitude and to state that wouldn't be considered incorrect or hateful. Before the industrial age slavery has been the economic and social cornerstone of many many societies throughout history and not considered incorrect and hateful.

Oh and the chances are beyond high that if you were brought up in such times and societies you'd agree with all of the above to some degree or other. The vast majority did, even among those who were at the sh1tty end of the stick. So no, "hate" is not "perennial" and its definition shifts quite a bit over time and culture.

Nope. You haven’t touched on hate at all - you’ve merely pointed out that the focus of hate shifts. The hate remains perennial - and the legislation is hate-speech centred.

Annasopra · 10-12-2019 6:55pm

WrenBoy wrote: »

Who's feelings would be hurt though, who's the victim? science ? It would be hard to prove, this is a law about feelings. I don't think science will benefit much, in fact the opposite will probably happen.

Its not a law about feelings. Where hate speech directly calls for people to be killed because of their identity it is way more than fellings e.g. the man who set up the facebook page to “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait”

In this case his hate speech was putting travellers lives in dangers.

Hate Speech that breaches peoples rights to be safe and to be free from discrimination and incites violence against people should of course be illegal.

jackofalltrades · 10-12-2019 7:45pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In this case his hate speech was putting travellers lives in dangers.

How was it putting travellers lives in danger?
Did this website lead to threats or plans to threaten or attack travellers?

Hate Speech that breaches peoples rights to be safe and to be free from discrimination and incites violence against people should of course be illegal.

Which article in the European Declaration of Human Rights are you basing this on?

jmayo · 10-12-2019 7:55pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not a law about feelings. Where hate speech directly calls for people to be killed because of their identity it is way more than fellings e.g. the man who set up the facebook page to “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait”

In this case his hate speech was putting travellers lives in dangers.

Hate Speech that breaches peoples rights to be safe and to be free from discrimination and incites violence against people should of course be illegal.

Very few of the anti hate laws people are condoning speech that is specifically condoning or advocating violence against anyone or any group.

Actually it is often people on your side of the fence that are more lax about those advocating hate speech, especially when it comes from one religion.

BTW would you consider that Noel Grealish and Peter Casey should be targeted with such a law on hate speech ?

Do you consider what they said as "hate speech" and they should be stopped from saying what they said ?

weldoninhio · 10-12-2019 8:01pm

alastair wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.ie/irish-news/migrants-who-vanished-after-being-found-in-trailer-are-headed-for-uk-38722614.html

“Gardaí believe”, first two word of your link. They have absolutely no idea where those guys are.

TwoMonthsOff · 10-12-2019 8:08pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

“Gardaí believe”, first two word of your link. They have absolutely no idea where those guys are.

Yeah but if we cant see them then they arent here

Wibbs · 10-12-2019 8:17pm

alastair wrote: »

Nope. You haven’t touched on hate at all - you’ve merely pointed out that the focus of hate shifts. The hate remains perennial - and the legislation is hate-speech centred.

No, I pointed out that the very definitions of and social reactions to "hate" change over time. If this were 18th century Jamaica I could quite reasonably and socially acceptably state that "The Black races are inferior and destined to be enslaved and are of little utility beyond that and to believe in their elevation is an indulgent fancy". The vast majority would have agreed. This would not be seen as hateful save for by a tiny minority of reformers, who themselves would be seen as crackpots at best and dangerous crackpots at worst and some were exposed to hateful threats and actions. Today the former example would be very much considered hate speech, the latter as heroism in the face of hate. Quite the turnaround.

If you mean hate itself is a perennial of human nature, then I would agree, but the definitions most certainly change with culture and time. A law written for the context of 18th century Jamaica would be quite different.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In this case his hate speech was putting travellers lives in dangers.

Given there are aspects of Traveller culture and some Travellers themselves who all too regularly put their own people's lives in danger and yet as a society we seem all too reticent to prosecute many such cases, or even talk about them in the media. I suppose some crosseyed moron on Arsebook coming out with that guff is low hanging fruit and will look like someone, somewhere is doing something.

Take the above example further. If someone were to state that Travellers have a far higher percentage than background involved in criminal enterprise and gaol time, this is a cast iron fact. OK, how would Pavee Point react to this under more "hate speech" legislation? How would the ambulance chasers and their clients looking for a quick payout react to that? They seem to at once both hard and very soft necks as it is. Our defamation laws are already pretty tight and deep pockets can use that. This very website has been the focus of that kinda thing in the past. It was also the focus of copyright stuff. How quickly would the reds racists under the bed brigade be with shouts of Hate Speech!! if more legislation were in play?

Hell, in another thread myself and others were accused of "racism" by stating the plain fact that "asylum seekers" from places like Georgia were made up of a majority of scammers(a fact that is getting deeper by the day with discovery of false documents, organised crime and the like). A plain fact our own relevant government departments and Taoiseach also stated. To a flurry of accusatory Nays! from a fair number, including vested interests in the Refugee council. Would this be hate speech?

Lord Fairlord · 10-12-2019 8:31pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

My entire family is spread across the North East inner city and I can confirm this too. I've sent this on to family and friends who weren't even aware of the consultation itself. So many do not know about it and it would be something they would have strong opinions on, more than worthy of submission.

The consultation ought be better publicised perhaps.

Lord Fairlord · 10-12-2019 8:39pm

alastair wrote: »

Nobody gets to be consulted about their neighbours. Sorry to bring this news to you so late.

I am aware of that. The point that I was making was part of a broader one where ethnically Irish people may become a minority in their own country around the mid 21st century; that from The Irish Times.

bfa1509 · 10-12-2019 9:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Naturally, wandering down the road calling people knackers and n/ggers all day is a whole separate thing,

Well why should it be a separate thing? If I heard someone say these things it would give me a clear indication of the type of person I'm dealing with. Would you rather force them to stop so they have to retreat into the shadows and fester into something more sinister out of sight?

The existence of any blurred line has the ability to move to an area that could land you yourself in hot water. Maybe calling someone "stupid" in 10 years could be as bad as calling someone a knacker or n/gger today.

The solid line that exists and I believe should remain is any threat of violence or death. Only then should people be punished or warned at least.

alastair · 10-12-2019 9:41pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

“Gardaí believe”, first two word of your link. They have absolutely no idea where those guys are.

Strangely enough - they didn’t follow them over the border. Problematic.

alastair · 10-12-2019 9:42pm

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

Yeah but if we cant see them then they arent here

They aren’t here. Best to acknowledge the facts.

alastair · 10-12-2019 9:45pm

Wibbs wrote: »

No, I pointed out that the very definitions of and social reactions to "hate" change over time. If this were 18th century Jamaica I could quite reasonably and socially acceptably state that "The Black races are inferior and destined to be enslaved and are of little utility beyond that and to believe in their elevation is an indulgent fancy". The vast majority would have agreed. This would not be seen as hateful save for by a tiny minority of reformers, who themselves would be seen as crackpots at best and dangerous crackpots at worst and some were exposed to hateful threats and actions. Today the former example would be very much considered hate speech, the latter as heroism in the face of hate. Quite the turnaround.

If you mean hate itself is a perennial of human nature, then I would agree, but the definitions most certainly change with culture and time. A law written for the context of 18th century Jamaica would be quite different.

Given there are aspects of Traveller culture and some Travellers themselves who all too regularly put their own people's lives in danger and yet as a society we seem all too reticent to prosecute many such cases, or even talk about them in the media. I suppose some crosseyed moron on Arsebook coming out with that guff is low hanging fruit and will look like someone, somewhere is doing something.

Take the above example further. If someone were to state that Travellers have a far higher percentage than background involved in criminal enterprise and gaol time, this is a cast iron fact. OK, how would Pavee Point react to this under more "hate speech" legislation? How would the ambulance chasers and their clients looking for a quick payout react to that? They seem to at once both hard and very soft necks as it is. Our defamation laws are already pretty tight and deep pockets can use that. This very website has been the focus of that kinda thing in the past. It was also the focus of copyright stuff. How quickly would the reds racists under the bed brigade be with shouts of Hate Speech!! if more legislation were in play?

Hell, in another thread myself and others were accused of "racism" by stating the plain fact that "asylum seekers" from places like Georgia were made up of a majority of scammers(a fact that is getting deeper by the day with discovery of false documents, organised crime and the like). A plain fact our own relevant government departments and Taoiseach also stated. To a flurry of accusatory Nays! from a fair number, including vested interests in the Refugee council. Would this be hate speech?

You’re not doing any more but reiterating that the ‘other’ that’s subject to hate has changed over time. The dynamic is a constant. Doing something about penalising it would be a good thing. Hate is a perennial. This is not a passing issue.

alastair · 10-12-2019 9:50pm

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

I am aware of that. The point that I was making was part of a broader one where ethnically Irish people may become a minority in their own country around the mid 21st century; that from The Irish Times.

Oh spare me. We’re late to immigration on account of being a depressing impoverished outpost for generations. The chances of the ethnically Irish becoming a minority in thirty years are precisely zilch. And no-one with an ounce of cop-on gives a ****e about ethnic ‘purity‘ In any case. What’s your problem?

weldoninhio · 10-12-2019 10:07pm

alastair wrote: »

Strangely enough - they didn’t follow them over the border. Problematic.

They didn’t follow them anywhere. They have no idea where they are. There is zero evidence that they left to go to the U.K.

alastair · 10-12-2019 10:10pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

They didn’t follow them anywhere. They have no idea where they are. There is zero evidence that they left to go to the U.K.

I’ll take their informed statement as having rather more insight than your own uninformed one. Cheers.

I’m still curious what you want them arrested for.

Junkyard Tom · 10-12-2019 10:14pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of speech and speech free of consequences are the same thing.

Sweet cheeses that is absolutely crackers. Should I be allowed to call someone a peadophile and claim it's free speech?

Wibbs · 10-12-2019 10:23pm

alastair wrote: »

You’re not doing any more but reiterating that the ‘other’ that’s subject to hate has changed over time. The dynamic is a constant. Doing something about penalising it would be a good thing. Hate is a perennial. This is not a passing issue.

Oh FFS. You

country mile

point. The point is the focus of the dynamic is NOT constant, the focus changes all the time and that focus is extremely culturally based and laws will reflect that. What you think of as "hate speech", is variable over time and culture and in many cases the complete opposite of what you consider "hate speech". But I suspect you know this, but that doesn't suit your argument.

alastair wrote: »

Oh spare me. We’re late to immigration on account of being a depressing impoverished outpost for generations.

Hmm so it is in fact more about the economics then? And the "depressing impoverished outpost" stuff is a half truth at best. And we had a few actual refugees during the "bad old days". People actually escaping tyranny. I personally knew a couple in the 80's. Set against that the welcome for refugees and immigrants was never exactly the cead mile failte of the brochures - or as I found recently enough the perceptions of a few on this site. The UN and other agencies had to push us hard to accept a handful of Vietnamese Boat People. Before that Hungarians in the 50's fleeing strife were given short shrift here, were only allowed "in transit" and again with international pressure and the vast majority couldn't get out of here quickly enough. Do you really think those of darker hue are going to be widely accepted here, when we have existing issues with Travellers who are as local as one can get(regardless of the pretty daft governmental "ethnic status" afforded them)?

The chances of the ethnically Irish becoming a minority in thirty years are precisely zilch.

This I'd agree with. It's a demographical and mathematical nonsense. Whether it's peddled by xenophobes looking for support, or the right on rubbing one out in glee in leafy Dublin suburbs.

And no-one with an ounce of cop-on gives a ****e about ethnic ‘purity‘ In any case. What’s your problem?

Again it's interesting that "ethnic purity" and "multiculturalism" and this seemingly overwhelming requirement for "diversity" seems to be quite colour based, and in one direction and the same "diversity" must be of the "right" sort. Palefaces from other cultures don't quite fit the bill, not exotic enough, nor dark enough it seems. Oul Whitey and European cultures appear to require it the most, especially of late in Europe. Even European and White western cultures get stick in such discussions, with often near gleeful talk of colonialism and war and the like being the forefront examples of same and self flagellation to the fore with it. The Irish are bad enough for the latter as is. Read AH, or here for any length of time and the "sure Ireland is sh1te" stuff comes up all too regularly.

Thought experiment: Would you be OK with the idea if say Botswana became majority White European in ethnicity and culture through migration? Would that be "diversity" for you? Would you automatically consider them Africans? If the Chinese who are making inroads into a few African states decided to migrate more and more ethnically Chinese into said nations, would that be OK with you? If they did would you again automatically consider them Africans?

Wibbs · 10-12-2019 10:26pm

alastair wrote: »

I’m still curious what you want them arrested for.

Entering the country illegally, not presenting themselves to the authorities to apply for asylum, which makes the first part of my sentence applicable. Possibly destruction of private property if that's in play.

alastair · 10-12-2019 10:35pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh FFS. You
country mile
point. The point is the focus of the dynamic is NOT constant, the focus changes all the time and that focus is extremely culturally based and laws will reflect that. What you think of as "hate speech", is variable over time and culture and in many cases the complete opposite of what you consider "hate speech". But I suspect you know this, but that doesn't suit your argument.

Hmm so it is in fact more about the economics then? And the "depressing impoverished outpost" stuff is a half truth at best. And we had a few actual refugees during the "bad old days". People actually escaping tyranny. I personally knew a couple in the 80's. Set against that the welcome for refugees and immigrants was never exactly the cead mile failte of the brochures - or as I found recently enough the perceptions of a few on this site. The UN and other agencies had to push us hard to accept a handful of Vietnamese Boat People. Before that Hungarians in the 50's fleeing strife were given short shrift here, were only allowed "in transit" and again with international pressure and the vast majority couldn't get out of here quickly enough. Do you really think those of darker hue are going to be widely accepted here, when we have existing issues with Travellers who are as local as one can get(regardless of the pretty daft governmental "ethnic status" afforded them)? This I'd agree with. It's a demographical and mathematical nonsense. Whether it's peddled by xenophobes looking for support, or the right on rubbing one out in glee in leafy Dublin suburbs. Again it's interesting that "ethnic purity" and "multiculturalism" and this seemingly overwhelming requirement for "diversity" seems to be quite colour based, and in one direction and the same "diversity" must be of the "right" sort. Palefaces from other cultures don't quite fit the bill, not exotic enough, nor dark enough it seems. Oul Whitey and European cultures appear to require it the most, especially of late in Europe. Even European and White western cultures get stick in such discussions, with often near gleeful talk of colonialism and war and the like being the forefront examples of same and self flagellation to the fore with it. The Irish are bad enough for the latter as is. Read AH, or here for any length of time and the "sure Ireland is sh1te" stuff comes up all too regularly.

Thought experiment: Would you be OK with the idea if say Botswana became majority White European in ethnicity and culture through migration? Would that be "diversity" for you? Would you automatically consider them Africans? If the Chinese who are making inroads into a few African states decided to migrate more and more ethnically Chinese into said nations, would that be OK with you? If they did would you again automatically consider them Africans?

The dynamic IS constant. The focus changes - that’s all you’ve been saying. Hate speech isn’t variable - those that it’s directed are is - but that’s true in any moment in time, let alone over time.

And yes - if it’s news that immigration is about economics, I’m not sure what to say to you. This is a nation built on economic emigration. Refugees are not economic migrants - their asylum claim has been reviewed and approved as such. There’s been no change in that process.

The fixation on colour is your thing - not mine. I’ve not once mentioned any colours in pointing out that the obsession with ‘ethic purity’ is so much nonsense.

As to your question - I’d certainly consider white Botswana citizens no differently than black citizens. I don’t struggle with acknowledging white South Africans, any more than I struggle with acknowledging Paul McGrath as Irish. These are your bugbears - not mine.

Annasopra · 10-12-2019 10:36pm

Its interesting that people seem to think setting up a facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" is acceptable.

alastair · 10-12-2019 10:39pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Entering the country illegally, not presenting themselves to the authorities to apply for asylum, which makes the first part of my sentence applicable. Possibly destruction of private property if that's in play.

They irregularly entered the country to make an asylum claim. That’s not a criminal act. They made the claim - you don’t get into a reception centre without having made a claim. They’re allowed to then bugger off abroad if they so choose - there’s no legal imperative to force them to stay here to continue their asylum claim. It’s certainly annoying, and an abuse of the legal process, but it’s not actually anything you can legally prosecute. In making the claim here, they will have been fingerprinted and their details will be on the EU database, so they’ll not be able to pursue an asylum claim in the U.K.

osarusan · 10-12-2019 11:00pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sweet cheeses that is absolutely crackers. Should I be allowed to call someone a peadophile and claim it's free speech?

It's a baffling mindset, and just as ominous as its polar opposite.

Wibbs · 10-12-2019 11:15pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting that people seem to think setting up a facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" is acceptable.

It's not acceptable, but should it be illegal? And where do you draw the line? Like I said earlier, we would have generally quite different lines. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about where my line lays, are you?

alastair wrote: »

The dynamic IS constant. The focus changes - that’s all you’ve been saying. Hate speech isn’t variable - those that it’s directed are is - but that’s true in any moment in time, let alone over time.

Which doesn't negate, or answer my point.

And yes - if it’s news that immigration is about economics, I’m not sure what to say to you. This is a nation built on economic emigration.

In the vast majority of cases to countries founded on immigration and with few to little social aids and they were hated in quite a few.

Refugees are not economic migrants - their asylum claim has been reviewed and approved as such. There’s been no change in that process.

I'm not talking about actual refugees. How many of those landing up here in the "boom" were actual refugees? That fictitious Nigerian we were discussing earlier who is now apparently "Irish", chances are high they didn't show up here as a refugee or legally. Well, maybe a child was born here in due course which used to make it more legal... Put it another way I know two Nigerian women who came here legally and above board, highly qualified and even then they had to jump through official hoops.

The fixation on colour is your thing - not mine. I’ve not once mentioned any colours in pointing out that the obsession with ‘ethic purity’ is so much nonsense.

As to your question - I’d certainly consider white Botswana citizens no differently than black citizens. I don’t struggle with acknowledging white South Africans, any more than I struggle with acknowledging Paul McGrath as Irish. These are your bugbears - not mine.

You're still avoiding my questions. Why are European and White societies so apparently in dire need of diversity and multiculturalism, when others aren't in play? Are those White Botswana citizens African people from Botswana? Not citizens, actual Africans. White South Africans have been there for centuries so they may get a pass, if a debatable and uncomfortable one for many(I'm not so sure of them myself, considering their history). If I moved to Nigeria, gained citizenship, would you consider me a true blue African Nigerian? I doubt it and I frankly won't believe you if you say otherwise.

AllForIt · 10-12-2019 11:24pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-online-hatred-against-travellers-169325.html

A LANDMARK case against a man who admitted creating a Facebook page called “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” has been dismissed by a judge who said there was reasonable doubt about an intent to incite hatred towards members of the Travelling community.

This type of thing going through the courts is a complete waste of public resources. Imagine if the state had to process all of this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Better to shut down social media altogether.

Annasopra · 11-12-2019 12:03am

AllForIt wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-online-hatred-against-travellers-169325.html

This type of thing going through the courts is a complete waste of public resources. Imagine if the state had to process all of this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Better to shut down social media altogether.

Completely disagree.

The prosecution against him should never have been deopped and the law should be updated so that in similar circumstances to that he would be charged. Its an example of why the 1989 act needs to be reformed and updated.

He was promoting the murder of traveller children because they were traveller children.

Sir Oxman · 11-12-2019 12:04am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting that people seem to think setting up a facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" is acceptable.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-online-hatred-against-travellers-169325.html

This it?

DUPLICATE

Annasopra · 11-12-2019 12:05am

Sir Oxman wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-online-hatred-against-travellers-169325.html

This it?

Yes. He basically couldnt be prosecuted because the 1989 Act is too weak. He should have been.

Sir Oxman · 11-12-2019 12:06am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Completely disagree.

The prosecution against him should never have been deopped and the law should be updated so that in similar circumstances to that he would be charged. Its an example of why the 1989 act needs to be reformed and updated.

He was promoting the murder of traveller children because they were traveller children.

It's the exact opposite of an example why the 1989 act needs updating.

He was charged.

"A LANDMARK case against a man who admitted creating a Facebook page called “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” has been dismissed by a judge who said there was reasonable doubt about an intent to incite hatred towards members of the Travelling community"

Sir Oxman · 11-12-2019 12:07am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes. He basically couldnt be prosecuted because the 1989 Act is too weak. He should have been.

I didn't see the other post, responded above.

Joker2019 · 11-12-2019 12:09am

There is freedom of speech but I cannot gurantee freedom after speech

-Idi Amin

alastair · 11-12-2019 12:19am

Wibbs wrote: »

It's not acceptable, but should it be illegal? And where do you draw the line? Like I said earlier, we would have generally quite different lines. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about where my line lays, are you?

Which doesn't negate, or answer my point.

In the vast majority of cases to countries founded on immigration and with few to little social aids and they were hated in quite a few. I'm not talking about actual refugees. How many of those landing up here in the "boom" were actual refugees? That fictitious Nigerian we were discussing earlier who is now apparently "Irish", chances are high they didn't show up here as a refugee or legally. Well, maybe a child was born here in due course which used to make it more legal... Put it another way I know two Nigerian women who came here legally and above board, highly qualified and even then they had to jump through official hoops.

You're still avoiding my questions. Why are European and White societies so apparently in dire need of diversity and multiculturalism, when others aren't in play? Are those White Botswana citizens African people from Botswana? Not citizens, actual Africans. White South Africans have been there for centuries so they may get a pass, if a debatable and uncomfortable one for many(I'm not so sure of them myself, considering their history). If I moved to Nigeria, gained citizenship, would you consider me a true blue African Nigerian? I doubt it and I frankly won't believe you if you say otherwise.

Your point - repeatedly stated only amounts to restating the pliable nature of the other that hate is directed towards. The dynamic remains the same. Only so many times it’s worth reiterating this fact.

Refugees are all ‘actual refugees’. If you’re talking about immigrants, then call them immigrants. I emigrated to a country with social supports. My father did also, thirty years earlier. Plenty of families in this country had the same experience. It’s a country that was reliant on emigration for decades. Again - no need for scare quotes on a naturalised Irish person - they’re Irish.

I’m not avoiding any question. You have created a narrative in your head about some national hierarchy of multiculturalism. It’s not one I subscribe to, and I’d not know where to start to try and figure out your thinking. If you aren’t prepared to accept an answer you don’t like, it’s probably best not to waste anyone’s time by asking in the first place.

gw80 · 11-12-2019 12:32am

My biggest issue with al this will be irelands need to be seen as the poster child of Europe, the need for a pat on the head from Germany,
Ireland will have to have the best hate speech laws, the most right on than everyone,
Germany. "Look at our hate speech laws, aren't we the most right on"
Ireland. "Hold my beer"

alastair · 11-12-2019 12:48am

gw80 wrote: »

My biggest issue with al this will be irelands need to be seen as the poster child of Europe, the need for a pat on the head from Germany,
Ireland will have to have the best hate speech laws, the most right on than everyone,
Germany. "Look at our hate speech laws, aren't we the most right on"
Ireland. "Hold my beer"

There’s some awfully deluded notions about. The hate speech bill is a response to an ICCL research paper and recommendations on hate crime in this country. It’s got precisely nothing to do with Germans or anyone else outside Ireland. There is no ‘pat on the head’. I doubt anyone in Germany either knows or cares about it.

1800_Ladladlad · 11-12-2019 2:38am

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

The consultation ought be better publicised perhaps.

It makes wonder if it was intentionally released on the hush. There no way 1/2 of the family would have seen this online as they don't have internet are have just begun using touch phones

I found out about it through a comment section someone where else relating to the same topic. Sure some users on here were not aware of it either. It's not a trivial matter, the call for it to be better publicized is an understatement

Ironicname · 11-12-2019 2:41am

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Its not a law about feelings. Where hate speech directly calls for people to be killed because of their identity it is way more than fellings e.g. the man who set up the facebook page to â€œPromote the use of knacker babies as shark baitâ€

Joeytheparrot wrote:

In this case his hate speech was putting travellers lives in dangers.

Are you that easily led? Do you think people will see that page and start using babies as shark bait?

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Its interesting that people seem to think setting up a facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" is acceptable.

Acceptable? Not really. Appropriate? Not at all. Illegal? Get t'****.

WrenBoy · 11-12-2019 10:45am

Ironicname wrote: »

Are you that easily led? Do you think people will see that page and start using babies as shark bait?

I think thats an element of it. The people who support "Hate Speech" laws see themselves as being the arbiters of what is/ isn't acceptable in this brave new world.
In their eyes the rest of the public are just idiots who need to be told what offensive speech is otherwise if they see this facebook page they will all think its ok to kill traveller babies, the arrogance and disdain they have for ordinary people is astounding.

People can think for themselves some are dickheads but the vast, vast majority are good people who know the difference between right and wrong and don't need Big Brother.

weldoninhio · 11-12-2019 10:47am

alastair wrote: »

I’ll take their informed statement as having rather more insight than your own uninformed one. Cheers.

I’m still curious what you want them arrested for.

“Informed”. That’s some joke. Do they even know where they are originally from??

Entering the country illegally. Countries have borders for a reason.

11-12-2019 10:51am

alastair wrote: »

There’s some awfully deluded notions about. The hate speech bill is a response to an ICCL research paper and recommendations on hate crime in this country. It’s got precisely nothing to do with Germans or anyone else outside Ireland. There is no ‘pat on the head’. I doubt anyone in Germany either knows or cares about it.

it all boils down to whether you think an ICCL paper might have an agenda

very few papers on behavioural science dont

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-12-2019 12:07pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting that people seem to think setting up a facebook page called "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" is acceptable.

The purpose of the legislation isn't to decide what's acceptable — it's to decide what's criminal. There's a difference.

Speech should never be a criminal offence, with the potential exception of incitement to imminent lawless action.

A recent case from the UK:

A father of four has taken England’s police association and his own local police force to court after he was investigated by them for “hate speech” because he posted comments to social media questioning the LGBT claim that a man could become female through hormones and surgery.

Do we want people investigated by the Guards for "hate speech" because they question whether a man can become female? Because this is the direction things will inevitably take — it will create a law that the perpetually offended can use to create fear, intimidation, and censorship, and prevent others from expressing legitimate opinions.

Harvey Weinstein · 11-12-2019 1:16pm

Perhaps they will make criticism of Zionism and Israel hate speech. Its happened in France recently and I see Trump is pushing for something similar.

1800_Ladladlad · 11-12-2019 1:54pm

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Perhaps they will make criticism of Zionism and Israel hate speech. Its happened in France recently and I see Trump is pushing for something similar.

Any Religion should never be protected from any sort of ridicule. If you start to protect one, its downhill form there.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-12-2019 2:07pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Any Religion should never be protected from any sort of ridicule. If you start to protect one, its downhill form there.

Some display an obvious double standard, though, eagerly attacking Christians and Jews while regarding any criticism of Islam as "hate speech."

alastair · 11-12-2019 2:28pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

“Informed”. That’s some joke. Do they even know where they are originally from??

Entering the country illegally. Countries have borders for a reason.

Entering a country in an irregular fashion, for the purpose of claiming asylum is not a criminal act. It’s decriminalised under international law. There’s nothing to arrest them for.

alastair · 11-12-2019 2:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

it all boils down to whether you think an ICCL paper might have an agenda

very few papers on behavioural science dont

Sure - they don’t disguise their agenda - to protect civil liberties.

hatrickpatrick · 11-12-2019 3:49pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

Well said. Free speech includes expressions that might offend or upset people in the interest of learning and finding truth.

I am sure Aristotle's ideas upset, angered and offended alot of people and their beliefs.

If one believes in the generally accepted historicity of Jesus, regardless of one's belief in his divinity or lack thereof, then he is certainly an example of a good man with generally good ideological views deserving of discussion at the very least, who was put to death by the authorities for daring to speak out against their bullsh!t.

If one actually accepts the "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" bullsh!t which has crept into mainstream discourse during the 2010s, the logical conclusion is that Jesus should have kept his mouth shut, and deserved what he got, for having the temerity to criticise the hypocritical religious leaders of his day and age.

This is the inevitable result of the loophole to accepting intolerance of political opinions which so many people have been pedalling since society's pendulum began swinging away from left wing identity politics.

11-12-2019 4:03pm

I'm curious about the duality / contradictory aspect of simultaneously holding the following beliefs:

1. There is zero enforcement of existing Law A
2. Proposed Law B will be enforced in a totalitarian manner

CrankyHaus · 11-12-2019 5:34pm

alastair wrote: »

Sure - they don’t disguise their agenda - to protect civil liberties.

By supporting measures that endanger freedom of speech?

Junkyard Tom · 11-12-2019 6:56pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one actually accepts the "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" bullsh!t

How is the statement 'speech has consequences' not just a description of reality? I don't understand this.

alastair · 11-12-2019 6:58pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

By supporting measures that endanger freedom of speech?

We have freedom of expression, but that freedom has always been constrained within laws to protect society. The only freedom constrained by hate speech legislation is, ehh, hate speech. Do you have a stake in hateful rhetoric?

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments