Hate Speech Public Consultation

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.

alastair · 12-12-2019 12:45pm

nthclare wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

WrenBoy · 12-12-2019 12:53pm

alastair wrote: »

Yes.

You cant be sure, you can't know the ramifications of such laws down the line, some people just don't see it as worth the risk and/or they have a lot less faith in Government than you.

Marcos · 12-12-2019 12:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Well it's not like there is a justified fear that certain laws are enforced selectively while others like the proposed hate speech law will be used to target "problematic" points of view i.e those that don't meet the views of the establishment.

Or if you don't like that, then there's this ludicrous example from across the water. Elderly woman questioned by police for the hate crime of beeping her horn at another driver for taking ages at a garage. The driver was black and reported her for hate crime. An example of how such mission creep can take hold.

blanch152 · 12-12-2019 12:56pm

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.

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

You are not making a valid comparison here.

You say that you have heard hate speech against Muslims but not against Christianity, yet the two examples you use are poles apart.

On Christians you say "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 have witnessed that, causing great upset to a relative, but I would admit it is very rare. I have also heard that individual Muslims have been called "murderers" following individual atrocities, but I have not witnessed it myself. Both are clearly examples of hate speech directed at individuals and open to prosecution under legislation.

However, it is with your other example that I have a difficulty. You suggest that a statement that "Muslims are part of a violent religion that justifies murder and child rape." If I were to say that the Catholic religion, through its policy of celibacy for male priests has created an environment in which abuse of children and misogyny can prosper, and that ordinary Catholics did not do enough to stop it, I would argue that I am putting forward an opinion that is justified by the facts. Similarly, if I were to say that the Muslim religion has created the opportunity to allow itself to be exploited by radicals to justify violence and terrorism and that ordinary Muslims had not done enough to prevent this, I would again argue that I am putting forward an opinion that is justified by the facts. Neither would be classified as hate speech in my opinion, but they are both perilously close to the example you give.

For another example, if I were to say that Traveller culture is deeply disturbing because of its deep-rooted misogyny, prevalence for violence to resolve disputes and lack of respect for education, again I would consider that fair opinion.

Saying that "Muslims are part of a violent religion that justifies murder and child rape" is much more clumsily expressed than my opinions above, so I would be very reluctant to consider that as hate speech, particularly as it is directed at the religion rather than the adherents, as in the original examples I give above.

Annasopra · 12-12-2019 12:58pm

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.

You do realise dont you that hate speech has been codified into law since 1989. Its weird that people are suggesting that this is some sort of completely new thing coming out of nowhere.

Annasopra · 12-12-2019 1:01pm

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.

As I have said repeatedly there is a balance needed. You highlight about peoples fears of not opening their mouths, what about the fears of those subjected to hate speech. Do you disregard their fears? Their rights? To be safe? To be free from persecution? To be free from discrimination?

joe40 · 12-12-2019 1:02pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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...

It does seem that the group of people that suffer the most as a result of Muslim Fundamentalism (as opposed to muslims, an important distinction) are other Muslims, or moderate muslims.

The "handmaids tale" a dystopian novel where a fundamentalist Christian totalitarian regime takes over, is not a million miles from what happened when the Taliban got control in Afghanistan.

I'm not anti muslim in any way, but when extreme versions of any religion take hold, that is extremely damaging to any society.
I think what happens (I know I probably fall into this category) in an effort not to be associated with the out and out racists, it is easier to avoid any form of criticism of minority groups in any way. That is a mistake at times.

If a muslim cleric is complaining about LGBT rights, that should be called out. Travellers taking kids out of school early and marrying of young girls in arranged marriages should be an absolute anathema to any liberal minded person. Practises like this can and should be challenged without implying that a whole group is being victimised.

WrenBoy · 12-12-2019 1:03pm

Nothing brings communities together like Violent Coercion.

Junkyard Tom · 12-12-2019 1:16pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

But when it comes to Islam

Out of interest, if the Saudis funded a big Mosque here with a University of Wahhabism would you want it protected under 'free speech'?

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:16pm

WrenBoy wrote: »

You cant be sure, you can't know the ramifications of such laws down the line, some people just don't see it as worth the risk and/or they have a lot less faith in Government than you.

Of course you can. Any prosecutions on the back of the legislation have the same safeguards that any defendant does. That’s nothing the government is involved in.

ArrBee · 12-12-2019 1:17pm

Marcos wrote: »

Well it's not like there is a justified fear that certain laws are enforced selectively while others like the proposed hate speech law will be used to target "problematic" points of view i.e those that don't meet the views of the establishment.

Or if you don't like that, then there's this ludicrous example from across the water. Elderly woman questioned by police for the hate crime of beeping her horn at another driver for taking ages at a garage. The driver was black and reported her for hate crime. An example of how such mission creep can take hold.

but...but....but....
Thats what the courts are for!
We should be putting people like that in front of the courts. if they haven't done anything wrong then there's no harm done in dragging them through the process.
Plus, it keeps the poor lawyers employed.

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 1:17pm

alastair wrote: »

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.

So you want to disagree with a highly and internationally qualified lecturer in law*, when he noted on the back of this study:

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape. This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors."

These are the percentages in plain English and you'll note that the conviction rates consistently track with the percentage of men or women in a given jury. And it's not just in Ireland either. If you were falsely accused of such a crime and knowing the above which jury makeup would make you feel safer from wrongful conviction? Actually don't bother answering, because I'm 100% sure I'd doubt the answer. But sure it doesn't suit your view, so clearly must be a nonsense. You're the gift that keeps on giving alright.

*One Conor Hanly, BA, LLB, LLM (NUI), LLM, JSD (Yale), is a lecturer in the School of Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway. His principal areas of interest are criminal law, the criminal jury and legal history.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:18pm

Marcos wrote: »

Well it's not like there is a justified fear that certain laws are enforced selectively while others like the proposed hate speech law will be used to target "problematic" points of view i.e those that don't meet the views of the establishment.

Or if you don't like that, then there's this ludicrous example from across the water. Elderly woman questioned by police for the hate crime of beeping her horn at another driver for taking ages at a garage. The driver was black and reported her for hate crime. An example of how such mission creep can take hold.

It wasn’t considered a crime though. So where’s the mission creep?

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 1:19pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Out of interest, if the Saudis funded a big Mosque here with a University of Wahhabism would you want it protected under 'free speech'?

Yes. A society can't aim for free expression and then haggle over the price.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:22pm

ArrBee wrote: »

but...but....but....
Thats what the courts are for!
We should be putting people like that in front of the courts. if they haven't done anything wrong then there's no harm done in dragging them through the process.
Plus, it keeps the poor lawyers employed.

Nobody put petrol station beeper woman in front of any court.

Wibbs · 12-12-2019 1:23pm

alastair wrote: »

It wasn’t considered a crime though. So where’s the mission creep?

The woman in question is now on permanent record of being accused of a "hate crime".

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:25pm

Wibbs wrote: »

So you want to disagree with a highly and internationally qualified lecturer in law*, when he noted on the back of this study:

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape. This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors."

These are the percentages in plain English and you'll note that the conviction rates consistently track with the percentage of men or women in a given jury. And it's not just in Ireland either. If you were falsely accused of such a crime and knowing the above which jury makeup would make you feel safer from wrongful conviction? Actually don't bother answering, because I'm 100% sure I'd doubt the answer. But sure it doesn't suit your view, so clearly must be a nonsense. You're the gift that keeps on giving alright.

*One Conor Hanly, BA, LLB, LLM (NUI), LLM, JSD (Yale), is a lecturer in the School of Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway. His principal areas of interest are criminal law, the criminal jury and legal history.

I’ve no issue with Conor Hanly - he’s not making false claims - unlike yourself. It’s your nonsense is what I was calling out. You continue to engage in misrepresentation btw - you’ve no idea if a female majority jury has ever convicted a rapist in this country - none at all - and yet you make that claim. And again - if you don’t want answers - don’t waste everyone’s time by asking questions.

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:30pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The woman in question is now on permanent record of being accused of a "hate crime".

Nope - she isn’t. It’s recorded as a hate incident - clearly defined as a non-crime scenario.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 12-12-2019 1:33pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As I have said repeatedly there is a balance needed. You highlight about peoples fears of not opening their mouths, what about the fears of those subjected to hate speech. Do you disregard their fears? Their rights? To be safe? To be free from persecution? To be free from discrimination?

Who exactly is experiencing persecution and how? Which rights are being violated? What protections are needed in addition to already existing legislation?

alastair · 12-12-2019 1:39pm

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Who exactly is experiencing persecution and how? Which rights are being violated? What protections are needed in addition to already existing legislation?

Knock yourself out: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Ireland.pdf

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments