Hate Speech Public Consultation

GarIT · 17-12-2020 05:23PM

biko wrote: »

A judge in Ireland can already give a harsher sentence in case he/she thinks hate is a factor.

Which is already wrong. It's still the same crime.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:25PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

You've submitted no evidence. You've submitted some lines from a report that give zero evidence that any statement could become illegal.

Your interpretation of lines in a report are not fact not are they evidence.

In fact your interpretation is not only.implausible, but incredibly extreme

I've submitted evidence, from the report itself. That you won't accept that evidence because it undermines your (completely unsupported) opinion is neither here nor there.

The worry for people like me, who believe in evidence-based justice, is that people like you, who only value feelings and opinions, will be the ones to draft these laws.

You are the very thing you fear.

Banana Republic 1 · 17-12-2020 05:25PM

Ireland has plenty of laws and whilst is true to say that they constantly require updating the biggest issue is the lack of enforcement. I’m not at all against a hate speech one or anything it’s just that the government seem sometimes to in act new laws to make it seem like there doing something.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:27PM

Tell me how wrote: »

According to which report? Don't see that in the Times article.

Legislating for Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Ireland

Nermal · 17-12-2020 05:28PM

Tell me how wrote: »

That doesn't work when some people are deliberately targeting other and setting up new accounts to do so does it?

Works really well, just click it more than once. Small price to pay for freedom really, isn't it?

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:35PM

RandRuns wrote: »

I've submitted evidence, from the report itself. That you won't accept that evidence because it undermines your (completely unsupported) opinion is neither here nor there.

The worry for people like me, who believe in evidence-based justice, is that people like you, who only value feelings and opinions, will be the ones to draft these laws.

You are the very thing you fear.

Again youve submitted no evidence. You just reposted a line from the report with your own extreme interpretation of that line and se to be claiming your extreme interpretation is fact.

It's not.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:40PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again youve submitted no evidence. You just reposted a line from the report with your own extreme interpretation of that line and se to be claiming your extreme interpretation is fact.

It's not.

I'm wasting my time replying to you, as you are a dogmatist, who will hear nothing against what you think is legislation favouring "your side" and will dismiss any evidence presented.

The extract from the report is there for anyone to interpet as they see fit, that you haven't attempted to do so says it all.

Good luck, I sincerely hope you don't get what you wish for, for your own good as well as everyone else's.

suicide_circus · 17-12-2020 05:41PM

Is it Hate Speech if someone says that they believe that a transwoman is not a woman - a sincerely held belief based on biological fact? I'd like to see that tested in court.

Chips Lovell · 17-12-2020 05:41PM

biko wrote: »

I see a group missing here, the Irish majority.

If someone of another ethnicity says to me "you white bastard", "Irish bastard" or "I don't like white or Irish people", is that covered under the new hate speech law?

It is covered.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:42PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is it Hate Speech if someone says that they believe that a transwoman is not a woman - a sincerely held belief based on biological fact? I'd like to see that tested in court.

It won't have to be tested, the report implies that one can be convicted merely by being charged, therefore no proof is required.

CtevenSrowder · 17-12-2020 05:43PM

John Doe1 wrote: »

My god, the lunatics really are controlling the asylum now.

So is hate speech debating the dubious benefits of multiculturalism? Stating that there are biological differences between men and women? That maybe Islam is not a religion of peace?

We do love censorship in this country, its morally equivelant to the ban on discussion of birth control and abortion.

Was this an actual thing or are you exaggerating?

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:44PM

RandRuns wrote: »

I'm wasting my time replying to you, as you are a dogmatist, who will hear nothing against what you think is legislation favouring "your side" and will dismiss any evidence presented.

The extract from the report is there for anyone to interpet as they see fit, that you haven't attempted to do so says it all.

Good luck, I sincerely hope you don't get what you wish for, for your own good as well as everyone else's.

Here's a far more sensible interpretation of your quote from the report.

A case is taken against someone for hate speech. The jury think that the evidence does not prove hate speech but think that it does prove harrassment.

The law could allow for juries to reach alternative verdicts in these cases.

Now I can't "prove" that's what the report author(s) have in mind but it's far more realistic that the notion that this law allows for the criminalisation of random statements.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:45PM

RandRuns wrote: »

It won't have to be tested, the report implies that one can be convicted merely by being charged, therefore no proof is required.

The report does not suggest that at all.

biko · 17-12-2020 05:48PM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It is covered.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The report does not suggest that at all.

Can you quote your sources/conclusions? It really helps for fact checking.

CtevenSrowder · 17-12-2020 05:53PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why is it just the usual suspects that are concerned?

Equally we've got the 'usual suspects' complaining about the 'usual suspects'.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:54PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here's a far more sensible interpretation of your quote from the report.

A case is taken against someone for hate speech. The jury think that the evidence does not prove hate speech but think that it does prove harrassment.

The law could allow for juries to reach alternative verdicts in these cases.

Now I can't "prove" that's what the report author(s) have in mind but it's far more realistic that the notion that this law allows for the criminalisation of random statements.

A truly ridiculous post.

I am to take the chance that a judge will take a particular "interpetation" of a law when I am in court? In Ireland, where judges are political appointees? Surely you cannot be serious?

The law, as drafted in the report ALLOWS for the criminalisation of random statements, that is not an interpetation, it is how it is written. It doesn't matter that you don't believe it (or pretend not to), it will only take one judge to take the law as drafted, and anybody can be criminalised for any statement. It is there in black and white.
You seeming innocence is touching, but I wouldn't bank my freedom on it. There are a whole plethora of extremists, NGO's, and groups just waiting to start prosecuting people if this thoughtcrime law is implemented.

SchrodingersCat · 17-12-2020 05:55PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Seize him/her/they.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt5qJC1xQ8A

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:56PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

The report does not suggest that at all.

You're right for once, it doesn't suggest it, it states it clearly.

Chips Lovell · 17-12-2020 05:57PM

The report lists the categories of people who will be protected under the proposed legislation. They include:

Under "Racisim" it lists:

• Ethnicity/ race colour
• Travellers
• Immigrants/ non-Irish
• Native, white Irish
• Refugees/ Asylum seekers

Under Religious intolerance, it lists:

• Catholics
• Muslims
• Jews
• Other religions (including
Atheism)

Under "Homophobia, transphobia,
misogyny, misandry", it lists:

• LGBT+ people
• People with different gender identities
• Men
• Women

I think that covers off the Irish majority who are by and large, white Irish men and women with Catholic or atheistic beliefs

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 06:02PM

biko wrote: »

Can you quote your sources/conclusions? It really helps for fact checking.

Basic legal principle. There has never been and never will be a situation where someone is found guilty simply by being charged.

It is the most ridiculous extreme conclusion I've seen in this site....and that's saying something.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 06:03PM

RandRuns wrote: »

You're right for once, it doesn't suggest it, it states it clearly.

It neither suggests nor states it

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 06:05PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It neither suggests nor states it

It states it clearly, as previously posted.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 06:06PM

RandRuns wrote: »

A truly ridiculous post.

I am to take the chance that a judge will take a particular "interpetation" of a law when I am in court? In Ireland, where judges are political appointees? Surely you cannot be serious?

The law, as drafted in the report ALLOWS for the criminalisation of random statements, that is not an interpetation, it is how it is written. It doesn't matter that you don't believe it (or pretend not to), it will only take one judge to take the law as drafted, and anybody can be criminalised for any statement. It is there in black and white.
You seeming innocence is touching, but I wouldn't bank my freedom on it. There are a whole plethora of extremists, NGO's, and groups just waiting to start prosecuting people if this thoughtcrime law is implemented.

This shows an extreme ignorance of legal procedure.

The law is not "drafted in a report".

The only draft of legislation is draft legislation. Which the report is not.

And even if it was (which it isn't), your interpretation is completely faulty.

And yes I would trust a judges interpretation over a boards randomer. I'm strange that way.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 06:07PM

RandRuns wrote: »

It states it clearly, as previously posted.

It doesn't. It makes a statement that you have interpreted erroneously.

bewareofthedog · 17-12-2020 06:11PM

Imo, this has been introduced in an attempt to try and scare people from pointing out negatives associated with immigration from certain regions/cultures, or showing strong opposition to said immigration with reason. I think it has little to do with anything else.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 06:15PM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The report lists the categories of people who will be protected under the proposed legislation. They include:

Under "Racisim" it lists:

Under Religious intolerance, it lists:

Under "Homophobia, transphobia,
misogyny, misandry", it lists:

I think that covers off the Irish majority who are by and large, white Irish men and women with Catholic or atheistic beliefs

It leaves out straight people and non religious people.

Beasty · 17-12-2020 06:16PM

Threads merged

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 06:16PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

This shows an extreme ignorance of legal procedure.

The law is not "drafted in a report".

The only draft of legislation is draft legislation. Which the report is not.

And even if it was (which it isn't), your interpretation is completely faulty.

And yes I would trust a judges interpretation over a boards randomer. I'm strange that way.

The fact that your only fallback is nitpicking over procedural terms is noted.
I used shorthand terms rather than get bogged down in lengthy posts - something you should allow for, since most of yours are unproven one liners.

We both know what is meant.

Nice that you trust a judges "interpetation" - but of course you would only do that with legislation you think will be used to jail those you disagree with.

Like I've said already, be careful what you wish for.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 06:17PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It doesn't. It makes a statement that you have interpreted erroneously.

It requires no interpetation, it is there in black and white. Stop lying.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 06:23PM

RandRuns wrote: »

The fact that your only fallback is nitpicking over procedural terms is noted.
I used shorthand terms rather than get bogged down in lengthy posts - something you should allow for, since most of yours are unproven one liners.

We both know what is meant.

Nice that you trust a judges "interpetation" - but of course you would only do that with legislation you think will be used to jail those you disagree with.

Like I've said already, be careful what you wish for.

I am careful what I wish for and I'm wishing for this

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments