Hate Speech Public Consultation

alastair · 11-12-2019 6:59pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

And how is it anything new? It’s older than the State.

alastair · 11-12-2019 7:02pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

By supporting measures that endanger freedom of speech?

They don’t endanger freedom of speech. If you can’t articulate an argument without recourse to hate speech, that’s an issue for you, no-one else. ICCL have been championing freedom of expression for a lot longer than you have.

Junkyard Tom · 11-12-2019 7:14pm

alastair wrote: »

And how is it anything new? It’s older than the State.

I can't figure out any circumstances where speech doesn't have effects/consequences. I mean, 'speech has consequences' is self-evidently true, isn't it?

Slowyourrole · 11-12-2019 7:16pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

By supporting measures that endanger freedom of speech?

If the exercise of one right reduces the ability for others to enjoy another right then the rights must be balanced. Freedom to say what you want is generally ranked lower than another persons freedom to enjoy their life free from unwarranted harassment.

CrankyHaus · 11-12-2019 7:20pm

alastair wrote: »

We have freedom of expression, but that freedom has always been constrained within laws to protect society.

Indeed it has : for example with the laws that came from The Committee on Evil Literature, which censored some of our greatest writers and even deterred Joyce's Ulysses from being sold here; the prohibitions on any information regarding abortion; or the 2009 Blasphemy Act which a Muslim Brotherhood linked cleric called to be used to prosecute Irish people supporting Charlie Hebdo after its offices were attacked by terrorists.

You're really selling this to me :pac:

weldoninhio · 11-12-2019 7:57pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

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

One has been protected for years.

weldoninhio · 11-12-2019 8:00pm

alastair wrote: »

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.

Entering another country and breaking the law to do so is only decriminalised if you are in fear of your life. They had nothing to fear in Europe. They 100% could have been arrested for that, and criminal damage

I don’t know if it’s laziness or wanting to be the good boy of the EU, but Ireland needs to start enforcing these laws.

Annasopra · 11-12-2019 8:29pm

Slowyourrole wrote: »

If the exercise of one right reduces the ability for others to enjoy another right then the rights must be balanced. Freedom to say what you want is generally ranked lower than another persons freedom to enjoy their life free from unwarranted harassment.

Exactly. This is what it boils down to - the right to free expression versus the right be safe and free from discrimination. It's a difficult balance between them because these rights collide.

bfa1509 · 11-12-2019 8:36pm

alastair wrote: »

They don’t endanger freedom of speech. If you can’t articulate an argument without recourse to hate speech

This way of thinking is such a dangerous precedent. Who has the authority to determine what falls under the realm of hate speech? We all too often see people who speak the truth being accused of racism, bigotry, xenophobia etc. Why should speaking the truth be punishable by law?

It's different in the case of defamation because you could consider someone's name to be the foundation of a business/reputation etc. therefore a value can be put on the damage to that person if the accusation is NOT true. The accuser should have to pay damages but their freedom to say these things should not be taken away, which this hate speech legislation boldly does.

Sir Oxman · 11-12-2019 9:03pm

Slowyourrole wrote: »

If the exercise of one right reduces the ability for others to enjoy another right then the rights must be balanced. Freedom to say what you want is generally ranked lower than another persons freedom to enjoy their life free from unwarranted harassment.

Are there not laws in place for harassment?

joe40 · 11-12-2019 9:17pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. This is what it boils down to - the right to free expression versus the right be safe and free from discrimination. It's a difficult balance between them because these rights collide.

Exactly, censorship can be insidious and damaging, likewise a cleric calling for jihad, or a far right nutcase calling for violence both pose real danger in a society.

Generally I would favour free speech as far as possible, but there must be limits.

Annasopra · 11-12-2019 9:20pm

joe40 wrote: »

Exactly, censorship can be insidious and damaging, likewise a cleric calling for jihad, or a far right nutcase calling for violence both pose real danger in a society.

Generally I would favour free speech as far as possible, but there must be limits.

There has always been limits to free speech and they are necessary

bfa1509 · 11-12-2019 9:26pm

joe40 wrote: »

a cleric calling for jihad, or a far right nutcase calling for violence both pose real danger in a society.

Not hearing them because of a hate speech law poses an even bigger danger.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-12-2019 9:27pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There has always been limits to free speech and they are necessary

But you believe that the current limits on free speech are not limiting enough, correct?

seenitall · 11-12-2019 9:57pm

So, I hear ye Irish are racist now, so I do!

What has come over ye now that a whole new law has to be brought in to deal with your racism and your hate speech? When have ye become that hateful?? Tsk tsk.

Well, for my part, I grew up in a communist country where one had to be rather careful of what kind of political opinions or activities one expressed in public, lest one found oneself in hot water in a bad enough way, so having grown up with it, I'll be ok with this new legislation here, I reckon. Nothing like reliving a bit of old time, careful-now social atmosphere to reinvigorate the spirit!

suicide_circus · 11-12-2019 10:00pm

Authoritarians present themselves in a multitude of guises. But eventually the mask slips.

AllForIt · 11-12-2019 10:40pm

https://youtu.be/IMBfT38xbhU?t=1619

Well put.

suicide_circus · 11-12-2019 10:51pm

i just cant get my head around the enthusiasm for handing more power and control to bureaucracies and state institutions.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-12-2019 11:05pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

i just cant get my head around the enthusiasm for handing more power and control to bureaucracies and state institutions.

Bizarrely, the same people are often found bitterly complaining on other threads about how many things the government has screwed up or can't get right. And yet, when it comes to speech, they are practically falling over themselves to hand control over everyone's expression to the same state bureaucrats.

RandomName2 · 11-12-2019 11:12pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

This way of thinking is such a dangerous precedent. Who has the authority to determine what falls under the realm of hate speech? We all too often see people who speak the truth being accused of racism, bigotry, xenophobia etc. Why should speaking the truth be punishable by law?

It's different in the case of defamation because you could consider someone's name to be the foundation of a business/reputation etc. therefore a value can be put on the damage to that person if the accusation is NOT true. The accuser should have to pay damages but their freedom to say these things should not be taken away, which this hate speech legislation boldly does.

This was the whole issue with the blasphemy law. Remember when Stephen Fry was investigated for saying something that could be construed as offensive in relation to religion?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

In the end Stephen Fry was free from the specter of prosecution because the claimant publicly admitted that he wasn't personally offended by Stephen Fry's remarks. However the law was a dangerous one. To quote the legislation

“publishing or uttering [of] matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion”

Of course the burden of proof for 'intentionally' was some protection, but the rest of it was fairly subjective drivel.

'Scientology is bullsh*t. God doesn't exist. Cows aren't sacred.' - these are sentences I might have hesitated from writing before that garbage law was struck down.

Now the proponents of Hate Speech want it back, but way, way bigger. Not just covering religion, but, well, almost anything. How might it be codified?

“publishing or uttering [of] matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters religious, social, racial, or cultural in nature that are deemed to represent any individual, or group of people; thereby intentionally causing outrage”

I mean that about fits the bill, right?

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Bizarrely, the same people are often found bitterly complaining on other threads about how many things the government has screwed up or can't get right. And yet, when it comes to speech, they are practically falling over themselves to hand control over everyone's expression to the same state bureaucrats.

For the last number of decades people who identify as being socially liberal tend to lean towards authoritarianism. Specifically, in the last couple of years, this has been due to a distrust of populism and populist ideologies, with the belief that strong government control can be used to protect minority groups.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:14am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Entering another country and breaking the law to do so is only decriminalised if you are in fear of your life.

Ehh, no. That’s so much bollox.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:33am

RandomName2 wrote: »

This was the whole issue with the blasphemy law. Remember when Stephen Fry was investigated for saying something that could be construed as offensive in relation to religion?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

In the end Stephen Fry was free from the specter of prosecution because the claimant publicly admitted that he wasn't personally offended by Stephen Fry's remarks. However the law was a dangerous one. To quote the legislation

Of course the burden of proof for 'intentionally' was some protection, but the rest of it was fairly subjective drivel.

'Scientology is bullsh*t. God doesn't exist. Cows aren't sacred.' - these are sentences I might have hesitated from writing before that garbage law was struck down.

Now the proponents of Hate Speech want it back, but way, way bigger. Not just covering religion, but, well, almost anything. How might it be codified?

Hate speech has nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs. You can mock the faith all you like, the issue is hatred directed towards a person or persons on the basis of membership of a given religion, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. You know - the sort of ****e you should really know better than to engage in.

Feel free to blaspheme away.

12-12-2019 1:39am

the problem, alastair, with simply responding to any concerns with trite "oh just avoid hate speech! why would you hate speech anyone anyway?" responses is that, obviously, the disagreements are going go arise around what is and isnt hate speech.

and codifying it into law is a step that rests uneasily with the ephemeral nature of speech, with the changing nature of the societally permissible.

there's ways to use it for good (or for what i think is good) and there's ways to use it for bad (or for what i think is bad) but its a significant step that can't be handwaved blithely away, and isnt a genie that will go back into the bottle easily.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:49am

Deleted User wrote: »

the problem, alastair, with simply responding to any concerns with trite "oh just avoid hate speech! why would you hate speech anyone anyway?" responses is that, obviously, the disagreements are going go arise around what is and isnt hate speech.

and codifying it into law is a step that rests uneasily with the ephemeral nature of speech, with the changing nature of the societally permissible.

there's ways to use it for good (or for what i think is good) and there's ways to use it for bad (or for what i think is bad) but its a significant step that can't be handwaved blithely away, and isnt a genie that will go back into the bottle easily.

Plenty of disagreements seen in courts every day. Hate crime will require a burden of proof like any crime.

Augme · 12-12-2019 1:55am

bfa1509 wrote: »

This way of thinking is such a dangerous precedent. Who has the authority to determine what falls under the realm of hate speech?

A jury does. I can't imagine a better system than having your peers decide if what you have said is hate speech or not.

bfa1509 · 12-12-2019 2:06am

Augme wrote: »

A jury does. I can't imagine a better system than having your peers decide if what you have said is hate speech or not.

Does the thought of someone being presented in front of a jury, facing the prospects of prison time, all for something they said or view that they held, not scare the life out of you?

Never mind even facing prison time, a fine, the costs of the trial, the solicitor fees, the process itself would be so severe a punishment that most people would be afraid to open their mouths out of fear. That's not a world I would like to live in.

12-12-2019 2:17am

alastair wrote: »

Plenty of disagreements seen in courts every day. Hate crime will require a burden of proof like any crime.

any other crime will have a demonstrable harm, in the main.

not the harm the complainant decides to take from it, their word being favourably weighted based on whether theyre a member of a group/community identified *in legislation* as meriting a special legal bonus boost.

Seriously questionable step to start bringing subjective self-evaluations of such harm into legislative form.

Augme · 12-12-2019 2:20am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Does the thought of someone being presented in front of a jury, facing the prospects of prison time, all for something they said or view that they held, not scare the life out of you?

Never mind even facing prison time, a fine, the costs of the trial, the legal fees, the process itself would be so severe a punishment that most people would be afraid to open their mouths out of fear. That's not a world I would like to live in.

Nope, certainly doesn't. I cant wait for it in fact. But then again, I'm not a racist who plans on directly targeting people with abuse so that might explain why I'm not worried.

Why are you so scared though?

bfa1509 · 12-12-2019 2:27am

Augme wrote: »

Nope, certainly doesn't. I cant wait for it in fact. But then again, I'm not a racist who plans on directly targeting people with abuse so that might explain why I'm not worried.

Why are you so scared though?

So in other words if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear? That line always annoyed me.

If we don't nip it in the bud now the law will grow legs and encroach on a freedom that even you won't be happy about. Maybe Boards.ie will be number 1 to go? Too many opinions here anyway.

12-12-2019 2:30am

Augme wrote: »

Nope, certainly doesn't. I cant wait for it in fact. But then again, I'm not a racist who plans on directly targeting people with abuse so that might explain why I'm not worried.

Why are you so scared though?

answering for myself, i spose id be very worried that if my views somehow stepped out of sync with the views of

whichever lobby group

got to decide what was "racist"

id be worried about that.

id be worried about the kind of aggressive certainty you see in the tone of the likes of the response above and think "this is a pretty firm foot in the door for some pretty dangerous medicine"

id be worried that the kind of person who considered "we should take this action, and anyone who expresses doubts is under suspicion of being a pariah of type x" a reasonable defence of that action might under whatever circumstance be the person influencing the rules.

because then anyone disagreeing with that person is illegal pretty ****in quickly, if we have been studying our history

1800_Ladladlad · 12-12-2019 3:16am

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

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

In Western culture, people are free to criticize and mock Christians as they please. This has become an accepted norm. There's nothing said about it. But when it comes to Islam the difference in the treatment both religions are given, is evidently clear. In this modern civilization anyway, no religious group or minority should be free from criticism or being mocked.

Slowyourrole · 12-12-2019 10:34am

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Are there not laws in place for harassment?

Exactly, because the rights of the victim not to be harassed were deemed more important than the rights of the harasser to say what they want. Public Order laws are another example of this balancing act. Hate speech laws will be another.

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

In Western culture, people are free to criticize and mock Christians as they please. This has become an accepted norm. There's nothing said about it. But when it comes to Islam the difference in the treatment both religions are given, is evidently clear. In this modern civilization anyway, no religious group or minority should be free from criticism or being mocked.

One of the reasons Christianity can be seen to be treated differently is because of the rigid structure of the hierarchy. The Catholic church, specifically, is as much a business as a religion. So often criticism can be justifiably directed at the organization without meaning any towards the faith. We see the same issue when it comes to Israel and anti-Semitism. Some people innocently cross the line, some do it on purpose.

But I've never seen a person going to mass referred to as a pedophile because of the actions of a large number of priests. I've never seen a story in the Bible used to judge individuals of a Christian faith. Yet we constantly hear of how Muslims are part of a violent religion that justifies murder and child rape. It's like people have never read the Old Testament. Yet these same people seem to become experts on sections, individual passages even, of the Koran when it suits them to justify slurring or pigeon holing followers of the religion.

And to add to that, while we have no issue recognizing that individuals might practice Christianity to varying degrees and in different interpretations, Muslims seem to all be required to be a part of the same extreme sects of the faith and me completely strict on it.

The reality is the same rules apply to criticism and satire of all religion, people just don't like to play by them.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 12-12-2019 10:58am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Does the thought of someone being presented in front of a jury, facing the prospects of prison time, all for something they said or view that they held, not scare the life out of you?

Never mind even facing prison time, a fine, the costs of the trial, the solicitor fees, the process itself would be so severe a punishment that most people would be afraid to open their mouths out of fear. That's not a world I would like to live in.

Exactly.

I gave an example above of a British man who argued on social media that a biological male could not genuinely become a woman by way of hormone treatment and surgery.

As a consequence, he was investigated by police for "hate speech" against the LGBT community.

Imagine participating on a Boards thread about whether Jessica Yaniv is really a woman, taking the "no, 'she' is really a 'he'" position. A few days later, the Guards are knocking at your door, telling you that you may have committed a hate crime.

Is this the kind of world we want to live in? It's inexplicable to me that some are arguing to usher this in.

ArrBee · 12-12-2019 11:34am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. This is what it boils down to - the right to free expression versus the right be safe and free from discrimination. It's a difficult balance between them because these rights collide.

I think you have touched on something there.
One of the issues I've struggled with while reading the thread is the subjective nature of how "anti hate" type laws are inevitably applied.

So often feelings are used as a reason to invoke such laws and this leads to misuse/abuse of the laws.
I think most people saying that hate speech laws shouldn't go any further (or even already go too far) would agree that we need some checks and balances to prevent active discrimination or putting people in harms way. But what we don't need is to reduce freedom of expression in order to prevent a an individuals perceived offense.

Perhaps the answer is in what you wrote?
That there should be a threat to safety for the law to be breached.
as opposed to feeling like there is a threat to safety.

You may feel like that is obvious and not worth discussing as a difference, but I bet that the foresight others are applying to the situation includes individuals claiming they are being made unsafe because that's how they feel as opposed to there actually being any real threat caused by that expression.

eg.
-calling names is not a real threat.
-organising a rally and handing out baseball bats to go out and target a specific group is.

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 11:38am

Augme wrote: »

A jury does. I can't imagine a better system than having your peers decide if what you have said is hate speech or not.

And as I've pointed out what is seen as hateful, or incorrect, or beyond the Pale in a society changes over time. This is a provable fact. No? Hate speech is obvious and eternal among your peers of society?

OK let's approach this from another direction. Consider your beliefs that you hold dear and immutable and obvious and just. Which jury of your peers would you want to judge them on those metrics, an Irish Jury of 2019, or an Irish Jury of 1959? And we don't even have to time travel. Which jury of your peers would you prefer to judge your beliefs today; a jury of twelve Irish 20 year olds or twelve Irish 80 year olds? And you might find surprises even there. EG in Irish rape cases that go to jury, no majority woman jury has ever convicted an accused rapist in this jurisdiction, whereas majority men juries do so in the majority of cases. The trend is that the more women on a jury, the more chances an accused rapist has of walking free. That upends the applecart of expectations.

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Is this the kind of world we want to live in? It's inexplicable to me that some are arguing to usher this in.

I can think of a couple of reasons. Primarily because they feel it will align with their social and political views. Another reason is the genuine and laudable hope for a better society.

Another aspect I have found is the tendency for the need for some societal overseer to be more present in some sociopolitical viewpoints. That old line about "If you aren’t a liberal when you’re twenty you have no heart, but if you aren’t a conservative when you're forty, you have no head"(pardon the use of Liberal/Conservative. Plus I don't buy the sentiment itself). In extremely simplistic terms "Liberals" tend to be younger, but also tend to want more oversight over their peers and society, something to run to for help, to shut down what they see as anything "dangerous" to the society. It can be argued that it is a more juvenile take on things. Run to the mammy/daddy/teacher role. It's a more societal, communal thing over the individual's independence. "Conservatives" tend to be older, more biased towards the independence of the individual within the society, oft to the level of selfish self interest and society's role is largely to allow them that freedom to be individual and independent. The former want more laws that they see as community based, the latter more laws that allow for individual independence. This explains some of the disparity.

That said - and I say this as much more an old style "liberal" than a "conservative", who values the society, the community, over the self centred individual and far prefers the idea of a social democracy along European lines over American - my concern is that both sides tend to be decidedly subjective and ignorant of the wider concerns that history illustrates. Like I said right at the start, every single right we hold dear and hold to be true and just, first came about because a tiny minority of society decided the bulk of their society was wrong.

As B noted:

bfa1509 wrote:

So in other words if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear? That line always annoyed me.

It annoys me too, because it shows a truly stunning lack of understanding of society over time and a large dollop of ego to believe that this time we have it right. History has shown time and time again that this is a nonsense and I guarantee many cast iron truths that Irish society believes today will change in a couple of generations or less. Those above minorities who gave us all the freedoms we enjoy today had everything to fear, had to hide their views and in a lot of cases actually died for those freedoms their society thought dangerous.

ArrBee · 12-12-2019 11:39am

RandomName2 wrote: »

This was the whole issue with the blasphemy law. Remember when Stephen Fry was investigated for saying something that could be construed as offensive in relation to religion?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

In the end Stephen Fry was free from the specter of prosecution because the claimant publicly admitted that he wasn't personally offended by Stephen Fry's remarks. However the law was a dangerous one. To quote the legislation

Of course the burden of proof for 'intentionally' was some protection, but the rest of it was fairly subjective drivel.

'Scientology is bullsh*t. God doesn't exist. Cows aren't sacred.' - these are sentences I might have hesitated from writing before that garbage law was struck down.

Now the proponents of Hate Speech want it back, but way, way bigger. Not just covering religion, but, well, almost anything. How might it be codified?

I mean that about fits the bill, right?

For the last number of decades people who identify as being socially liberal tend to lean towards authoritarianism. Specifically, in the last couple of years, this has been due to a distrust of populism and populist ideologies, with the belief that strong government control can be used to protect minority groups.

You'll find it easier to accept if you stop thinking about how it might end up effecting society!

alastair · 12-12-2019 11:43am

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Exactly.

I gave an example above of a British man who argued on social media that a biological male could not genuinely become a woman by way of hormone treatment and surgery.

As a consequence, he was investigated by police for "hate speech" against the LGBT community.

The guy is a long-standing troll on the subject, and supporter of Tommy Robinson. And has had his twitter account shut down for hateful content. He’s no innocent in this front.

joe40 · 12-12-2019 11:50am

ArrBee wrote: »

I think you have touched on something there.
One of the issues I've struggled with while reading the thread is the subjective nature of how "anti hate" type laws are inevitably applied.

So often feelings are used as a reason to invoke such laws and this leads to misuse/abuse of the laws.
I think most people saying that hate speech laws shouldn't go any further (or even already go too far) would agree that we need some checks and balances to prevent active discrimination or putting people in harms way. But what we don't need is to reduce freedom of expression in order to prevent a an individuals perceived offense.

Perhaps the answer is in what you wrote?
That there should be a threat to safety for the law to be breached.
as opposed to feeling like there is a threat to safety.

You may feel like that is obvious and not worth discussing as a difference, but I bet that the foresight others are applying to the situation includes individuals claiming they are being made unsafe because that's how they feel as opposed to there actually being any real threat caused by that expression.

eg.
-calling names is not a real threat.
-organising a rally and handing out baseball bats to go out and target a specific group is.

I was just about to make a similar point about the level of risk associated with the "hateful" views. (For want of a better word)

For example if I were to say Catholics were deviant, and sub-human. That would be an extremely offensive opinion to express, but I don't think it would put anyone in actual harms way in Ireland of 2019.

The exact same opinion expressed in NI during the height of the troubles when sectarian violence and murder was a reality would very definitely constitute "hate speech" because it would feed into the narrative that was promoting the sectarian violence that exists.

People should be protected from discrimination, but making a criminal offence of opinions should be applied with care.

Most societies self-moderate to a large extent. Views that would have been socially acceptable in a different age are now no longer so, this did not necessarily require legal enforcement, just societies change.

alastair · 12-12-2019 11:57am

ArrBee wrote: »

eg.
-calling names is not a real threat.
-organising a rally and handing out baseball bats to go out and target a specific group is.

It doesn’t need a rally, and it doesn’t need baseball bats. Engendering hate against a person or persons on the back of a broader group they belong to is probably more a social media dynamic than anything else these days. Stochastic terrorism being one particularly harmful outcome. Gemma O’Doherty doesn’t need to hand out baseball bats to ramp up misery for the various groupings she demonises online. Her hate has consequences, and currently there’s no penalty for that sort of activity.

nthclare · 12-12-2019 11:59am

The problem lies within the person themselves, if someone who's highly offended by remarks or banter they should consider an expensive well regarded psychotherapist, so should people who personalise their hatred on people.

There's a difference between banter and hate, and its a thin line of course.

But if people are hell bent on totalitarianism, they'll burn on their own fire.

There's two sides of hate speech.

For fck sake it'll end up like hedge schools and mass rocks

PEOPLE WITH SCRUPLES AND A SENSE OF HUMOUR MEETING UP IN SECRET TO HAVE A LAUGH BANTER AND TELL DIRTY JOKES

THOR WEPT

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 12:10pm

Slowyourrole wrote: »

But I've never seen a person going to mass referred to as a pedophile because of the actions of a large number of priests. I've never seen a story in the Bible used to judge individuals of a Christian faith. Yet we constantly hear of how Muslims are part of a violent religion that justifies murder and child rape. It's like people have never read the Old Testament. Yet these same people seem to become experts on sections, individual passages even, of the Koran when it suits them to justify slurring or pigeon holing followers of the religion.

And to add to that, while we have no issue recognizing that individuals might practice Christianity to varying degrees and in different interpretations, Muslims seem to all be required to be a part of the same extreme sects of the faith and me completely strict on it.

While I would agree on the different degrees and interpretations, the rest is far more grey and complex. Christians not being openly and directly mocked over their "sky fairy"? That happens quite a lot. Try starting a thread or tweet on any open platform in the west and outside some support from a few American God botherers you'll get short shrift. Never mind Christians being associated with and seen as supportive of child molesters within the faith by adhering to their faith, even by other non Catholic Christians. Too many seem to have ignored the their Christian wisdom of being wary of pointing out the splinter in your brother's eye, while ignoring the plank in your own.

On the more theological end of things, outside of the usual small time Christian sects who buy into Noah and all that stuff as real, the reason the Old Testament is less in play is because the New while fulfilling the prophecies of the Old, also upended and widened them. For a start it opened up the faith outside of the original faithful. The clue is in the names. Secondly, though in practice this was often ignored for reasons for power and control, the New quite clearly pushes for a separation of church and state(my kingdom is not of this earth/give to Caesar that is Caesars, etc). Islam has no such separation as a faith. At its heart the church is the state and society, even down to the minutiae. Thirdly, while Christianity is a fading power within the "christian" world(even in the God fearing US agnosticism and atheism is on the rise), in the Muslim world the faith has become stronger, less secular and more militant over the last century. Iraq had a popular communist party at one time.

Does this mean the majority of Muslims and their faith are a threat? Of course not , but there are fundamental differences between the faiths as far as "threat" is concerned when it comes to western societies. This itself is a complex matter. From many Muslims quite understandable point of view "christian" powers are an even bigger threat to them. Certainly far more Muslims die at the point of a drone missile, than Christians die at the hands of a Muslim suicide vest, bomb, bullet or knife. Hell more Muslims die at the hands of a Muslim suicide belt, bomb, bullet or knife.

But like I say it's complex. However there is some truth to the accusation that Islam finds more support within "liberal" thought, when compared to Christianity. The latter is often openly stated as another "enemy" where Islam is rarely seen as such. Ironic indeed, given both are hardly liberal worldviews. Though a large part of it is the long standing European gra for the exotic and the European tendency to give more surface appreciation and leeway to the exotic. Orientalism has held sway for a long time in the European heart and mind and at least some of the support comes from that well trodden route, though it has also tended to be a tad patronistic.

But I digress...

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:11pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Which jury of your peers would you want to judge them on those metrics, an Irish Jury of 2019, or an Irish Jury of 1959? And we don't even have to time travel. Which jury of your peers would you prefer to judge your beliefs today; a jury of twelve Irish 20 year olds or twelve Irish 80 year olds? And you might find surprises even there. EG in Irish rape cases that go to jury, no majority woman jury has ever convicted an accused rapist in this jurisdiction, whereas majority men juries do so in the majority of cases.

Complete nonsense. Of the small fraction of rapes that actually make it to trial in this country, only 25% result in convictions. So clearly there’s no majority of any kind of jury - males or females young or old, convicting rapists. In the study you’re referring to, only 17% of juries were female majority - so it’s hardly surprising that a small minority of a small minority might result in a null result.

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:16pm

joe40 wrote: »

Most societies self-moderate to a large extent. Views that would have been socially acceptable in a different age are now no longer so, this did not necessarily require legal enforcement, just societies change.

And often it did require legal enforcement. In fact, it generally does. Laws and rules are the mechanism for social self-moderation.

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:18pm

nthclare wrote: »

The problem lies within the person themselves, if someone who's highly offended by remarks or banter they should consider an expensive well regarded psychotherapist, so should people who personalise their hatred on people.

There's a difference between banter and hate, and its a thin line of course.

But if people are hell bent on totalitarianism, they'll burn on their own fire.

There's two sides of hate speech.

For fck sake it'll end up like hedge schools and mass rocks

PEOPLE WITH SCRUPLES AND A SENSE OF HUMOUR MEETING UP IN SECRET TO HAVE A LAUGH BANTER AND TELL DIRTY JOKES

THOR WEPT

Nobody is arguing for totalitarianism. So much smoke with no actual fire.

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 12:19pm

alastair wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Of the small fraction of rapes that actually make it to trial in this country, only 25% result in convictions. So clearly there’s no majority of any kind of jury - males or females young or old, convicting rapists. In the study you’re referring to, only 17% of juries were female majority - so it’s hardly surprising that a small minority of a small minority might result in a null result.

You forgot the part where there is a direct correlation between the ratio of men to women on a jury and conviction rates in rape cases and not just in this jurisdiction either. More men, more convictions. While the science is nebulous and in need of more study and results where present are minor enough, American lawyers are quite well acquainted with jury make up in all sorts of crimes and how this could impact results and defence and prosecution lawyers will work to make jury selections along gender, age and race lines to better serve their purposes.

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:21pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You forgot the part where there is a direct correlation between the ratio of men to women on a jury and conviction rates in rape cases and not just in this jurisdiction either. More men, more convictions. While the science is nebulous and in need of more study and results where present are minor enough, American lawyers are quite well acquainted with jury make up in all sorts of crimes and how this could impact results and defence and prosecution lawyers will work to make jury selections along gender, age and race lines to better serve their purposes.

It’s not what you claimed though - which was my point.

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 12:38pm

alastair wrote: »

It’s not what you claimed though - which was my point.

While you're kinda correct, I should have said "In rape cases there is far more likelihood of a conviction with a majority male jury and no majority woman jury has ever convicted an accused rapist in this jurisdiction". Which part of this is wrong? Or are you as usual trying to sweat the details in the vain hope of a win in lieu of argument? Actually you do sound like a solicitor.

Marcos · 12-12-2019 12:38pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

So in other words if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear? That line always annoyed me.

Ah yes, that argument that is always run out when some party (either on the right or the left depending on the era) wants to argue for more state control of individual and his or her freedoms. You'll not be surprised when you hear it's commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933.

If we don't nip it in the bud now the law will grow legs and encroach on a freedom that even you won't be happy about. Maybe Boards.ie will be number 1 to go? Too many opinions here anyway.

What, you mean the legal equivalent of mission creep? Surely not? I mean why would some parties ever want to shut down speech. It's not like they are worried that there arguments won't hold sway or have anything to hide is it?

nthclare · 12-12-2019 12:42pm

alastair wrote: »

Nobody is arguing for totalitarianism. So much smoke with no actual fire.

Are you sure about that?

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:44pm

Wibbs wrote: »

While you're kinda correct, I should have said "In rape cases there is far more likelihood of a conviction with a majority male jury and no majority woman jury has ever convicted an accused rapist in this jurisdiction". Which part of this is wrong? Or are you as usual trying to sweat the details in the vain hope of a win in lieu of argument? Actually you do sound like a solicitor.

I’m not ‘kinda correct’ - your claim was absolutely incorrect. Male majority juries in Ireland don’t convict in the majority of rape trials. And the number of female majority rape trial juries is so small as to not offer any statistical value in an Irish context. So - the details are pretty much that your entire claim was false.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments