Hate Speech Public Consultation

statesaver · 16-11-2020 05:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

because absolutely EVERYTHING has the potential to offend if it is up to any individuals perception

Comedy is finished.

Frankie Boyle saw it coming and become a woke unfunny political correct bore.

seamus · 16-11-2020 05:36PM

bluewolf wrote: »

As someone not familiar with legislation in general, it seems so wide open to interpretation.
Perceived as? by anyone?
So if everyone involved agrees something wasn't motivated by any of those items but someone else pops up and goes no i've decided it was... ? surely you could find anyone guilty of a hate crime for nearly anything if it's that loose.

Is this existing in law elsewhere already? is there a burden of evidence for perceived as?
i see it even specifies perceived age, so if someone is 17 and you knew they were 17 but someone argues you must have thought they were 16 and therefore a minor, you're guilty of a hate crime (thinking of some sort of sexual assault here) ? or 18/17 whatever

You might be overanalysing it.

First you need an offence to have been committed.

Someone merely being offended, doesn't make it a crime.

Once you have established that an offence has been committed, it is then an aggravating factor if that offence is additionally deemed to be a hate crime.

This will be established by presenting relevant evidence; witness statements, etc.

The "perceived as" part means that someone needs to believe that there was a specific prejudicial motivation - but that doesn't mean this belief requires no evidentiary support. "I believe he attacked me because I'm black and he's not", doesn't make it a hate crime. The prosecution would still need to provide evidence in the way of something the perp had said, or having been specifically targetted.

Assessing/applying aggravating factors to offences is widely used and well established, this isn't anything wild.

In your example above, one would first have to prove a sexual assault took place, before they could establish that it was additionally a hate crime.

This bill doesn't create any new offences. It allows for existing offences to be classified at "hate crime".

There is a big out within the bill though that could make it completely toothless;

“prejudice” includes a preconceived belief about an individual which belief is not based on reason or actual experience

If, for example, a shopkeeper were to assault a traveller in the course of ejecting them from his shop, it would be a defence (against the "hate crime" aggravation) to state that he has experienced large amount of theft from travellers and thus his prejudice was justified.

16-11-2020 05:41PM

seamus wrote: »

You might be overanalysing it.

First you need an offence to have been committed.

In your example above, one would first have to prove a sexual assault took place, before they could establish that it was additionally a hate crime

Oh yeah that's a given but you can then seem to ramp everything up. a perceived hate crime based on perceived age. it's very wishy washy sounding

Where can we learn more about what evidence is needed for perceived as? i was looking in that bill but didnt see anything

seamus wrote: »

If, for example, a shopkeeper were to assault a traveller in the course of ejecting them from his shop, it would be a defence (against the "hate crime" aggravation) to state that he has experienced large amount of theft from travellers and thus his prejudice was justified.

okay but why does he need a defence against it being a hate crime if he "just" assaulted the traveller for trying to eject them? where's the bar where the traveller goes i was only assaulted because i'm a traveller and everyone says yeah fair enough?

i can see it says

(1)Where is it proven or demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court, that a motivatingfactor for the commission of a relevant offence (as set out in the Schedule to this Act)was aggravated by hate crime

but that only leads us back to a hate crime which is defined as being about "perceived by anyone" so surely anyone could come in and make a statement saying they perceived it as being a hate crime and that's enough

sure look maybe this happens every day with existing bills but if that's the case maybe we should be worried about that too!

it's just such a big blanket of a list.

biko · 16-11-2020 05:49PM

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

Like:

I’m terribly sorry. What I’m about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.

— Shuhada’ Davitt (@MagdaDavitt77) 6 November 2018

Eric Cartman · 16-11-2020 05:52PM

the worst part about the perception clause is the people most likely to abuse this law for their own gains , already perceive almost all negativity towards them as an attack based on their minority characteristic.

seamus · 16-11-2020 05:57PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh yeah that's a given but you can then seem to ramp everything up. a perceived hate crime based on perceived age. it's very wishy washy sounding

Where can we learn more about what evidence is needed for perceived as? i was looking in that bill but didnt see anything

"Perceived as", is taken as plain english. The purpose of putting it there is so that "hate crime" can't just be tagged on to every offence that seems kind of racist. Someone has to believe there was a prejudicial motivation to the crime. If you can't find someone who believes there was, then it's not an aggravating factor.
The "any other person" bit is to avoid the situation where a victim is not willing to say they believe it was a hate crime. It allows the Gardai to push ahead with the classification without the victim's co-operation, once they have sufficient evidence.
I know the two cancel each other out a bit, it's annoying legalese.

The evidential standard is the same as any. In order to qualify as a "hate crime", it has to be proven (to a jury), or in a non-jury court the court has to be satisfied, that:

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual, or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual.

okay but why does he need a defence against it being a hate crime if he just assaulted the traveller for trying to eject them? where's the bar where the traveller goes i was only assaulted because i'm a traveller?

It is up to the prosecution to declare in court as part of their evidence, that the offence is additionally a hate crime.
The prosecution would decide whether this addition is necessary based on the evidence gathered, i.e. based on what they had been in told in interviewing the two parties, witnesses and reviewing the CCTV.
It's not a case that a witness could ask for it to be tagged on or that the court could add it on at the end. If the prosecution doesn't ask for it, it can't happen.

16-11-2020 06:04PM

seamus wrote: »

"Perceived as", is taken as plain english. The purpose of putting it there is so that "hate crime" can't just be tagged on to every offence that seems kind of racist. Someone has to believe there was a prejudicial motivation to the crime. If you can't find someone who believes there was, then it's not an aggravating factor.

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

The "any other person" bit is to avoid the situation where a victim is not willing to say they believe it was a hate crime. It allows the Gardai to push ahead with the classification without the victim's co-operation, once they have sufficient evidence.

ye i get the "positive" part of it or how things would work ideally (reviewing cctv). i'm really just keen to know what are the barriers to the "how could this be used negatively against people" part. just because things don't always work out to the ideal situation obviously so how is this controlled for.

it sounds like there is evidence required to satisfy the court that there is a hate crime but that takes a whole big step back because it just has to satisfy "hate crime" which is the "perceived as" bit.

Eric Cartman · 16-11-2020 06:23PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

ye i get the "positive" part of it or how things would work ideally (reviewing cctv). i'm really just keen to know what are the barriers to the "how could this be used negatively against people" part. just because things don't always work out to the ideal situation obviously so how is this controlled for.

it sounds like there is evidence required to satisfy the court that there is a hate crime but that takes a whole big step back because it just has to satisfy "hate crime" which is the "perceived as" bit.

even worse than that, say you have Barry down the road who is a known national party voter , has been out canvassing etc.. , fionnan (a neighbour two doors down is so died in the wool left that he believes Barry who he has never talked to properly is a nazi) , Barry assaults a burglar who happens to be black, and fionnan acts as a witness for the burglar, having the whole thing reversed from a simple burglary with a clear victim into some sort of big hate crime where Barry through no fault of his own is now liable to face prosecution.

seamus · 17-11-2020 11:23AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay, so let's say joe bloggs committed the crime. john smith, who hates joe bloggs just because, shows up and says i wasnt involved in this crime but i live down the road from joe bloggs and i think joe bloggs did this because he's racist.
what is the next step?
the prosecution goes ahead with the case and says also it is aggravated because he is racist. here is someone who perceived this crime as racist?

The next step is that the prosecution would have to gather evidence to support John Smith's claim. Simply perceiving the crime to be racially motivated is insufficient.

In this case, the defence could use John Smith's own credibility against him as an unreliable witness to have the aggravating factor dropped.

My feeling here is that this definition of "hate crime" has been overengineered by committee.

It probably started out as

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

But someone noted that the victim might get scared, so added

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

When in fact, this would be exactly the same;

Any criminal offence which is, in whole or in part, motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, ‘race’, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The "perceived as", in fact may add extra unnecessary overhead to the issue because if the victim isn't willing to complain that there was prejudicial motivation, they have to find someone who does.

Biker79 · 17-11-2020 04:55PM

And if ' hate ' is nothing more than polarisation orchestrated by social media companies aggressively competing in the attention economy...

Who is liable then?

biko · 17-11-2020 05:17PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the worst part about the perception clause is the people most likely to abuse this law for their own gains , already perceive almost all negativity towards them as an attack based on their minority characteristic.

There is a person in Sweden who has made a business idea of trawling facebook for comments like "they take our jobs" and then sending them a message that he will drag them into court in possible breach of the Swedish hate speech legislation.
But if they would be willing to make an out-of-court contribution to him for let's say a thousand euros he won't bother.

Many of these people are angry elderly and they don't want the scandal so they pay him.

Despicable human being but as long as the law is there he won't stop and more elderly will get threatened by him.

1800_Ladladlad · 18-11-2020 01:03AM

Senator Sharon Keogan in the Seanad earlier today.

"Not only is this Bill poorly drafted, ill-conceived nonsense on stilts, it is equally a manifestation of poisonous Identity Politics. It is a shameful attempt to corrupt the existing criminal law with this toxic incoherent ideology for the sake of political gain".

Im waiting for a video or audio to be uploaded so I can post it here. The amount of sh*te coming out of the mouths of those in the room is cringeworthy.

TomTomTim · 18-11-2020 09:18AM

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Senator Sharon Keogan in the Seanad earlier today.

Im waiting for a video or audio to be uploaded so I can post it here. The amount of sh*te coming out of the mouths of those in the room is cringeworthy.

I'm actually shocked. I honestly didn't think that there was even one politician in this country with a backbone. Fair play to her.

mohawk · 18-11-2020 10:15AM

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'm actually shocked. I honestly didn't think that there was even one politician in this country with a backbone. Fair play to her.

She is an independent though. All the parties seem to have bought into the identity politics malarkey.

TomTomTim · 18-11-2020 11:14AM

mohawk wrote: »

She is an independent though. All the parties seem to have bought into the identity politics malarkey.

Which really shows that there's some value to independents, especially in the modern world where accepted thought becomes narrower and narrower everyday. The fact that none of the main parties will even question anything like this is a terrifying prospect. The back and forth of debate is being ruined by political correctness, which will result in ridiculous policies becoming the norm because few are willing to speak out. It's essentially just a fear based ideology that forces people to never open their mouths due to fear of reprisal.

inforfun · 22-11-2020 12:42AM

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Senator Sharon Keogan in the Seanad earlier today.

Im waiting for a video or audio to be uploaded so I can post it here. The amount of sh*te coming out of the mouths of those in the room is cringeworthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4qCqGr1dSg

1800_Ladladlad · 23-11-2020 02:14PM

Theatres ensure Scotland’s hate crime bill is given a rewrite

Justice secretary Humza Yousaf:

"The bill is intended to simplify and clarify the law by bringing together various laws relating to hate crime into a single piece of legislation. It empowers police to seize and destroy any material deemed inflammatory..."

Yousaf does not see a reason why directors and performers should be exempt from prosecution. What an insufferable moran.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theatres-ensure-scotlands-hate-crime-bill-is-given-a-rewrite-86p2vmx0w

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 23-11-2020 02:18PM

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Theatres ensure Scotland’s hate crime bill is given a rewrite

Justice secretary Humza Yousaf:

Yousaf does not see a reason why directors and performers should be exempt from prosecution. What an insufferable moran.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theatres-ensure-scotlands-hate-crime-bill-is-given-a-rewrite-86p2vmx0w

Is that the same lad who said EVERYTHING was "too white" in scotland?

Gobshìte.

Gervais08 · 23-11-2020 02:24PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Is that the same lad who said EVERYTHING was "too white" in scotland?

Gobshìte.

I remember having a fairly odd lecturer on the late 80s who when we were studying Macbeth said “one day you rob the able to put this on, the killjoys will ban it”.

He’s not far off being right.

Eric Cartman · 23-11-2020 11:20PM

inforfun wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4qCqGr1dSg

the only member of our government with even the slightest bit of spine, clearly laying out the disastrous nature of the bill and why FF are doing it.

"go woke go broke" - sums it up.

_Kaiser_ · 17-12-2020 10:25AM

So it seems McEntee is about to bring forward new laws to prosecute those who share "hate speech" online

The sharing of hate speech on social media is to become a criminal offence under Government proposals to combat racism and bigotry.

This will mean that the sharing or retweeting of hateful speech on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter will be a crime, even if the person sharing it was not the author.

Under the Government plan, to be published on Thursday by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee, there will be protections for social-media companies from prosecution. For example, it will be a defence for a company to show it had existing measures in place to prevent hate speech and was complying with these.

The proposed Bill will involve the complete repeal of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which the Department of Justice viewed as ineffective at combating hate speech.

The planned law will, for the first time, provide protection to trans and disabled people alongside ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants and other members of the LGBT community.

The platforms themselves though will be immune .. cute!

There will be a high bar for hate-speech prosecutions and the law will include protections for free speech. “Good faith” contributions to public debates, academia and the arts would be exempt.

In theory of course this is a good thing but the lack of detail of what constitutes "hate speech", and who decides what is a legitimate opinion vs overstepping the mark (although more here which does sound more reasonable) is a question, but I have concerns that we're putting laws in place to deal with "hurt feelings"

I can see many threads or legitimate topics and points of discussion in CA alone being closed pre-emptively, and future discussion on "controversial" topics banned if this passes

So.. good thing, or bad thing?

CtevenSrowder · 17-12-2020 10:41AM

Bad thing. Very bad.

Wibbs · 17-12-2020 10:41AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

In theory of course this is a good thing but the lack of detail of what constitutes "hate speech", and who decides what is a legitimate opinion vs overstepping the mark

And that's the major problem. One person's hate speech is another's fair comment or debate. If someone says "all Travellers are criminals" that's pretty obvious, but if another says "Travellers have a wildly disproportionate level of criminality compared to the rest of the population" that's a fact, but some will undoubtedly call that "hate speech". And that's a pretty clear cut pair of examples. In even greyer areas things can get even more troublesome.

Legislation like this is worrying in my humble. Starts off with good intentions and political optics of course, but can be too easily corrupted down the line and is harder to row back on. Any pushback will garner the "So I hear you approve of hate now?" kinda thing. In essence it's another blasphemy law in all but name.

CtevenSrowder · 17-12-2020 10:44AM

Wibbs wrote: »

And that's the major problem. One person's hate speech is another's fair comment or debate. If someone says "all Travellers are criminals" that's pretty obvious, but if another says "Travellers have a wildly disproportionate level of criminality compared to the rest of the population" that's a fact, but some will undoubtedly call that "hate speech". And that's a pretty clear cut pair of examples. In even greyer areas things can get even more troublesome.

Legislation like this is worrying in my humble. Starts off with good intentions and political optics of course, but can be too easily corrupted down the line and is harder to row back on. Any pushback will garner the "So I hear you approve of hate now?" kinda thing. In essence it's another blasphemy law in all but name.

It has been said that hate speech laws are just blasphemy laws for secular societies.

WrenBoy · 17-12-2020 10:45AM

That was a nice internet we had there for a while.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 10:49AM

I'm very interested in the safeguards for free speech they have planned.
Should hear about those today?
Everyone (inc cheerleaders) should have a critical eye on what the proposals will be in detail.

"“I am determined to tackle these crimes and to ensure that those who seek to divide our communities and spread hatred and fear are dealt with effectively by our criminal justice system,” Ms McEntee says in the foreword to the report."

For example, would her definition of hate speech coincide with Amnesty Ireland's (amongst other unaccountable ngo's who adhere to critical theories, race, queer, identity etc) view tweeted a few weeks ago that demanded the withdrawal of public representation and media coverage of people who do not align with this theory?

Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature.
“So, a broadcast or speech which is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is couched in polite or coded language, would be covered by the new offence"

...there will be protections for social-media companies from prosecution. For example, it will be a defence for a company to show it had existing measures in place to prevent hate speech and was complying with these.

Is this being framed with Twitter and Facebook and Google definitions of hate speech in mind?
All massive gatekeepers of public discourse with no accountability but who supply thousands of jobs in our country.

Bad law is paved with good intentions.

WrenBoy · 17-12-2020 10:52AM

What a nanny state.

Kivaro · 17-12-2020 10:52AM

“Good faith” contributions to public debates, academia and the arts would be exempt.

So basically, those with an embedded, skewed and warped (unrealistic) opinion of our lives here in Ireland will be exempt from prosecution. Those from academia and arts are the ones, front and foremost, in pushing neo-liberal policies on our country. That doesn't seem fair now, does it?

I wonder will those of us who do not buy Dr. Ebun's books or hire her company to give diversity lessons to our kids will be prosecuted because she will "perceive" it as racism. This concept of "perceived" racism is a very dangerous concept, and we will see it as an excuse going forward in the courts as some sort of defense for abhorrent behaviour and criminality.

This is bad. Very bad.

Chips Lovell · 17-12-2020 10:57AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

...but I have concerns that we're putting laws in place to deal with "hurt feelings"

Legislation yet to be published, but I gather they're specifically trying to avoid prosecution because "someone got offended".

Furthermore, unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful. However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack.

Also

Prosecutions should “always be the measure of last resort”, it says.

“There is no doubt that criminal legislation alone will not solve the problem of hate speech, and is not suitable for dealing with many of the milder forms, which although harmful and far-reaching in their negative effects, do not reach the threshold for criminal prosecution.”

Let's all not start running around with our hair on fire. It almost sounds like some people want this legislation to be repressive in order to have something to complain about.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 11:00AM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Legislation yet to be published, but I gather they're specifically trying to avoid prosecution because "someone got offended".

Also

Let's all not start running around with our hair on fire.

"Furthermore, unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful"
That's a good sign.
"However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack"
Will be interesting to get the fine detail at this stage.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments