Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs wrote: »

Are you being wilfully obtuse and avoidant?

She claimed Ireland has always and I quote: "Been a diverse society, linguistically, ethnically and religiously. Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish". Which is nonsense on a few levels and a barefaced lie in others. Never mind that what "diversity" was here came on the back of conquest and colonialism, the effects of which are still evident today. Her and the NGO she represents have also called for more education on our "colonial past" in the Caribbean.

The ostensible motivation behind legal measures against hate speech is laudable. Who, after all, would deny that “threatening, abusive, or insulting conduct. . . intended or likely to stir up hatred”, to use the language of the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, is noxious and undesirable?
Yet it does not follow from the fact that a behaviour is harmful or undesirable that it should be legally regulated. There are many forms of socially destructive behaviour that are not regulated by law. For example, we do not legally enforce courtesy, gratitude, sincerity, sobriety or charity.

Legislating for such matters is ill-advised and counter-productive. Its likely benefits are paltry compared with its risks, in particular the erection of a Big Brother State with powers of surveillance and control easily moulded to the ideological and political agendas of the controllers.

Using the law to regulate hate speech is a bit like erecting a Special Criminal Court to tackle petty theft: while it might have some positive effects, it is an ill-chosen instrument, likely to do more harm than good. The most appropriate instruments for combating hate speech are not laws, but political persuasion, education and social norms.

the notion of “incitement to hatred” based on group traits is so extraordinarily vague and contestable that defining it as a justiciable offence gives judges and public officials wide-ranging powers of censorship and exposes the law to rampant ideological and political manipulation.
What one person views as legitimate criticism of group behaviour, another will perceive as an intervention “intended or likely to stir up hatred” against the group in question (to use the language of the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act).

Those who are inclined to express prejudice and hatred toward certain social groups are not likely to stop feeling hatred and prejudice
For example, if someone publicly satirises the beliefs of Catholics as naive or childish, is that person engaging in legitimate social critique or stirring up hatred against Catholics? Shouldn’t these sorts of thorny question be thrashed out politically rather than settled in a court of law?

Another serious objection against hate-speech laws is that their promoters are just as liable to make mistakes as the rest of us. To believe in the moral infallibility of those tasked with creating or enforcing hate-speech rules would be historically myopic, given the number of gross falsehoods and injustices that have passed for common sense in the past, such as apartheid, slavery and religious persecution.

hate-speech laws are likely to have a chilling effect on public debate about controversial social and moral questions. Because of the inherent vagueness of the notion of hate-inciting speech, its legal prohibition is likely to make citizens leery about publicly expressing criticism of behaviour, actions or beliefs associated with protected groups, even if such criticism is backed up by reasoned argument and is not in fact motivated by hatred.

Finally, those who are inclined to express prejudice and hatred toward certain social groups are not likely to stop feeling hatred and prejudice just because they cannot express it in public. On the contrary, they are likely to be driven underground, where their feelings of resentment and hostility may continue to simmer and grow, far removed from the scrutiny of public opinion. Ironically, hate-speech legislation may help to forge ghettoed communities brimming over with unvented anger and prejudice.

In public debates about contentious issues, some degree of bitterness and acrimony is par for the course. People are bound to say things, at least occasionally, that others find offensive and unacceptable. That is just the nature of robust civil discourse. A public sphere in which nobody is ever seriously offended is a public sphere that has been infantilised and neutered beyond recognition.

Marcos wrote: »

There's an interesting tweet from the Association of Former Muslims of Ireland regading Free Speech and how it's a movable feast. they reference a tweet from the Connolly Youth Movement calling for the defence of free speech in the Jobstown protests and their opposition to a free speech demonstration outside the Dail this weekend.

Go figure.

Wibbs wrote: »

You're using Spain as a good example of implementing this kind of law? :pac: You may recall the ongoing trouble in Catalan Spain. The authorities used this very law in a number of cases against those calling for Catalan independence. Oh it started out sounding reasonable, or reasonable enough as these kind of laws do, but then more and more "protected groups" got added to the list, including the police and other arms of the government.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

name one thing casey said about tinkers that isnt true ?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

miggeldy had the entire backing of both the political establishment and media tribe behind him full square , had he snorted coke off a dwarf strippers thighs during the tv debate , he still would have had that full square backing

caseys performance was the truth being outed about a sacred cow of the PC left

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and the genetic "evidence" for ethnicity to back this up was bloody dubious too. You may as well argue all men with M222 on their Y chromosome with names associated with O'Neill are also an "ethnic group". On the different cultural aspects there was more solid ground, but by god it's a stretch and far more about the political decision you mention.

Which BTW I wouldn't have much of an issue with if it were a positive way of changing things for them and wider Irish society, but instead it has meant more of the nothing to see here, let's ignore the facts and accuse those raising those facts however civilly of being racists. I don't mean Casey or support for him in this. The support he got was as much about the shock of hearing someone, somewhere on the national airwaves raising this without being filtered through Pavee Point's prism of perpetual victimhood.

And again it seems you have lost the ability to bloody well read. When it suits. From the link I posted from the on the ground sources: A Catalan high school teacher, Manel Riu, appeared in court on Thursday accused of hate speech for his tweets and Facebook posts criticizing Spain, government members and the Guardia Civil police. And yes the police were added as a group to Spanish "hate speech" legislation. That's precisely how the man was charged with those offences in the first bloody place.

Maybe a report in Spain's El Pais newspaper on the back of Amnesty international expressing concern might help. If you can get your literacy skills back in play. You don't even have to understand Spanish. In its annual report on the state of human rights in countries across the world, Amnesty International has criticized Spain for making excessive terrorism allegations against people expressing a difference of opinion on social media These were prosecuted under Spain's "hate speech" legislation.

But ah no, that could never happen here. "Multiculturalism" and "diversity" is current government political policy. There have already been a couple on here clutching their outrage and offence pearls over others criticising those policies and out and out called them racists for holding this viewpoint. As for the proposed legislation we've little actual hard facts as to what it will actually contain. It's still in the planning stage. That's the point of this very thread

But please don't let anyone stop you from continuing on with your usual deflection.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is hardly surprising to me though. Forcing people to talk about their political beliefs only in echo chambers with like minded people produces just one outcome. Silencing people and demonising them for beliefs they legitimately hold causes they to double down on said beliefs.

My ex-girlfriend has been pro-life and vehemently anti-abortion for as long as she can remember, for extremely personal reasons relating to the circumstances of her own birth, and because my generation so shamefully refuses to separate the personal from the political, she has been almost entirely ostracised by family and friends (all of whom are broadly pro-choice and campaigned as such in the referendum). Apparently I'm the only person of a liberal persuasion who still values her friendship, and I have good reason to believe she's not exaggerating in saying that.

One side effect of this has been that she has drifted considerably towards the right wing in recent years. She used to be a typical D4 millennial in all of her political views except the issue of abortion, but because she has been so comprehensively shunned by her social circle, and probably because this has resulted in her only being able to socialise with conservatives for the past few years, she has been influenced entirely by conservative thinking and is now a card carrying Trump and BoJo supporter among other things. If you knew her, you'd understand just how incredibly bizarre it is to see her espousing these views now, given the things she believed in when we first met back in 2011 - but this, to my mind, is the result of being shut out of mainstream discourse in the manner in which she has.

I'm sure many on my own side would regard me as some kind of traitor for this, but I have been consistent in encouraging her to stand up for what she believes in and get involved in politics, from cheering her up over the phone after rough days on the "vote no" campaign trail, to explaining how to find out when a bill is up for committee discussion and which TDs are on said committees, so that she could lodge objections. She is now intending to enter politics herself and has become very close with several right-leaning senators who are actively helping her to achieve that.

My point? This is what believing in democracy is supposed to be about. I disagree with almost everything she believes in politically with one or two exceptions, and I will support and encourage her every step of the way in campaigning for those things I so fundamentally disagree with - because that's her right in a democratic society, the same as it's my right to campaign for the things I believe in. The fact that she has lost friends and family over this is f*cking insane. But it has resulted in her drifting very significantly to the right, primarily on account of being unable to keep any social company to the left of herself because of their intolerance.

I have absolutely no doubt that this story is in no way unusual. Experiencing political intolerance and ostracism for daring to oppose the zeitgeist is the perfect gateway drug into doubling down and becoming more extreme in one's own beliefs. I support her and anyone else who feels strongly enough about their believes to actively get involved and try to change the world, but at the same time I am absolutely furious with the bulk of my own side in politics for allowing this climate of intolerance to develop to the point that this is the inevitable result.

You know when you see members of PBP bragging on Facebook about tearing down or otherwise vandalising the election posters of the opposition? This is the kind of sh!t I'm talking about. This is what happens when you create a climate of political intolerance, and that climate of political intolerance is exactly what is going to be furthered with the trojan horse of hate speech laws. How long before it becomes "hate speech" to suggest, for example, that social housing creates ghettoes and that people on the dole are layabouts? Anyone who knows me on this forum will know that I very, very vehemently oppose both of these statements, but I will happily choose defending those who espouse those views as my hill to die on, because that is the essence of democracy, and democracy is humanity's greatest achievement to date.