Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate Speech Public Consultation

1…4950525455…85

Comments

  • #1532
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    GarIT wrote: »
    There is no genuine debate to be had. You have it in your head that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is some type of -ist.

    And that is essential the new legislation in a nutshell


  • #1533
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Tell me how wrote: »
    The Irish courts system is run off its feet as it is. I suspect we won't ever see a case prosecuted for a single expression of disliking someone or indeed insulting them.

    But, when that becomes frequent, intense, targeted and damaging to the recipient, there will be legislation in place to deal with this.

    Oh you suspect do you. That's grand sure. Plenty of people I'm sure suspected nothing negative would result from the 8th amendment. We all know how that turned out.

    Its also quite telling that you admit it could happen, but won't due to the courts being overworked. What happens when/if they aren't?
    Tell me how wrote: »
    As is a common theme, there are many who spend their time talking about snowflakes, getting worked up about something that will likely never affect them in real life but they may find their 'style' is less tolerated than before.

    How about we try and keep this type of American-esque discourse out of the discussion. I don't believe I've ever used the term snowflake on this or other threads.


  • #1534
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    I think you need to read the report on the proposed legislation.

    I'm responding to what you wrote. And you havn't carefully read what I wrote.


  • #1535
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,480 ✭✭✭✭Seathrun66


    GarIT wrote: »
    Why ask again when I said I don't know.

    Because many Irish legal experts say we do and I take their word on it.

    Yet you said our legal system is based on that of the UK without elaborating or showing any knowledge of either. The UK is made up of three jurisdictions with varying laws:

    England & Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland

    Which of these is relevant in a discussion of hate speech legislation here?

    And please clarify how our constitution follows UK law when they don't have one.

    Otherwise be wary of bringing up UK legal examples in the context of burgeoning Irish law.


  • #1536
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,480 ✭✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Nermal wrote: »
    Three very different things, not-so-subtly rounded up under the same moral umbrella!

    With all to be covered by the imminent legislation, hence why I referred to them. It ain't a difficult concept.


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,480 ✭✭✭✭Seathrun66


    WrenBoy wrote: »
    Sure why not though, If none of that is your thing then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

    Read up on warrants and reasonable cause.


  • #1538
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Yet you said our legal system is based on that of the UK without elaborating or showing any knowledge of either. The UK is made up of three jurisdictions with varying laws:

    England & Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland

    Which of these is relevant in a discussion of hate speech legislation here?

    And please clarify how our constitution follows UK law when they don't have one.

    Otherwise be wary of bringing up UK legal examples in the context of burgeoning Irish law.

    Can you not cut the crap, we have established I don't know.

    I wasn't bringing up examples. Some said the Irish legal system is nothing like the UK one, I said it is, and you even provided some examples of how it is. I don't see why it's even worth writing this nonsense.


  • #1539
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Read up on warrants and reasonable cause.

    He is proposing abolishing warrants. And the question is if you have nothing to hide then why would you have anything to be concerned about?


  • #1540
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    With all to be covered by the imminent legislation, hence why I referred to them. It ain't a difficult concept.

    Nor is it is difficult to see that the point about them being very different is that they shouldn't all be covered by the same legislation.


  • #1541
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Every peep i hear out of Ebun Joseph calling Irish people racist will be getting reported to the Gardai.


  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,480 ✭✭✭✭Seathrun66


    GarIT wrote: »
    Can you not cut the crap, we have established I don't know.

    I wasn't bringing up examples. Some said the Irish legal system is nothing like the UK one, I said it is, and you even provided some examples of how it is. I don't see why it's even worth writing this nonsense.

    You, not I, brought up precedent under UK law and how Irish cases could follow some from the UK. You didn't specify which jurisdiction of the UK. Our new legislation will be underpinned by the constitution, in line with EU law and will not follow any of the British systems. Ask any constitutional lawyer on this.


  • #1543
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,480 ✭✭✭✭Seathrun66


    GarIT wrote: »
    He is proposing abolishing warrants. And the question is if you have nothing to hide then why would you have anything to be concerned about?

    Who propses that?


  • #1544
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    You, not I, brought up precedent under UK law and how Irish cases could follow some from the UK. You didn't specify which jurisdiction of the UK. Our new legislation will be underpinned by the constitution, in line with EU law and will not follow any of the British systems. Ask any constitutional lawyer on this.

    No I didn't. Care to quote me?


  • #1545
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Who propses that?

    WrenBoy


  • #1546
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Yet you said our legal system is based on that of the UK without elaborating or showing any knowledge of either. The UK is made up of three jurisdictions with varying laws:

    England & Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland

    Which of these is relevant in a discussion of hate speech legislation here?

    And please clarify how our constitution follows UK law when they don't have one.

    Otherwise be wary of bringing up UK legal examples in the context of burgeoning Irish law.

    Maybe you can explain why the given example is so irrelevant? Our legal system is the common law one which is based or has it's origins in the English legal system.


  • #1547
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Every peep i hear out of Ebun Joseph calling Irish people racist will be getting reported to the Gardai.

    Didn't you hear?
    She will be exempt from prosecution for calling the whole Irish nation racist.
    The new bill conveniently protects her "rights" to incite hatred because ........... wait for it ............ she is in academia.

    Wonder how many academics were involved writing this bill?


  • #1548
    RandRuns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 616 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Didn't you hear?
    She will be exempt from prosecution for calling the whole Irish nation racist.
    The new bill conveniently protects her "rights" to incite hatred because ........... wait for it ............ she is in academia.

    Wonder how many academics were involved writing this bill?

    The fact that academia and "the arts" (i.e. RTE), the two areas where progressives tend to cluster, are proposed to be excluded tells you all you need to know.

    This is a law deliberately designed to target one side of the political divide, while granting immunity to the other.


  • #1549
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Doesn't it just. Here's hope that government legislation doesn't curb your ability to insult, negatively generalise about or incite hatred towards other people. If none of that is your thing then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

    And that is what I was expecting to read next.
    So it looks like this new bill could indeed encroach beyond its core principles.
    There we have it folks .... from the expert's mouth: "We cannot negatively generalise."

    And here's us thinking that the bill might stray from the initial focus ......


  • #1550
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,077 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Every peep i hear out of Ebun Joseph calling Irish people racist will be getting reported to the Gardai.

    Oh how the turntables have........

    Tell me again what you think about snowflakes.


  • #1551
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,077 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Kivaro wrote: »
    And that is what I was expecting to read next.
    So it looks like this new bill could indeed encroach beyond its core principles.
    There we have it folks .... from the expert's mouth: "We cannot negatively generalise."

    And here's us thinking that the bill might stray from the initial focus ......

    It seems to me that a lot of the outrage here is coming from a place of jumping to conclusions.

    Later this evening I expect to read a post saying 'This is what the liberals want' while the poster is thinking of a 'might/maybe/it could' post from earlier in the thread and they'll have missed the point that nobody in favour of anti-hate legislation wants or expects such a thing to happen. Lots of fearmongering.


  • Advertisement
  • #1552
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Oh how the turntables have........

    Tell me again what you think about snowflakes.

    You are one to talk.

    I bought you a Christmas present



  • #1553
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Tell me how wrote: »
    It seems to me that a lot of the outrage here is coming from a place of jumping to conclusions.

    Later this evening I expect to read a post saying 'This is what the liberals want' while the poster is thinking of a 'might/maybe/it could' post from earlier in the thread and they'll have missed the point that nobody in favour of anti-hate legislation wants or expects such a thing to happen. Lots of fearmongering.

    I don't agree with the ah sure it will be grand, it will never be used like that approach to legislation.


  • #1554
    RandRuns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 616 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    GarIT wrote: »
    I don't agree with the ah sure it will be grand, it will never be used like that approach to legislation.

    And funnily enough, you would only ever find this attitude (which is strangely common among a certain coterie of posters) when they think the law will hurt those they disagree with.

    Imagine if a law were proposed that, from the initial reports on it, looked like it could possibly result in certain classes of immigrants being deported.
    The same posters would be screaming blue murder, and telling us we were about to turn into nazi Germany.


  • #1555
    LeBash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,679 ✭✭✭LeBash


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    the kind of " thinkers " who are gunning for robust " hate speech " legislation to be enacted , dont believe that official minorities should be held to the same standards as the rest of us

    travellers rank high on the sacred cow list so the above offenses dont apply to them im afraid

    I'd be for legislation on hate speech but if the State treated everyone the same, there wouldn't be a need for one.

    I do believe everyone should be treated the same, so just because you're X and your culture is to do Y, if its not acceptable in this state, then you should be punished for it.

    Nobody would find hate speech acceptable if certain people within the State weren't getting away with pushing beyond the laws of the land but because many do, it has become acceptable to slate many communities in the country and not just travellers/foreign minorities, we can include Irish in wealthy and poor areas as well.


  • #1556
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Omackeral wrote: »
    A poster on this very forum gleefully gloated in using the terms TERF and cis towards others despite being told by these folks they didn’t appreciate it. Being honest, the people opposing it were probably pointing out hypocrisy more than anything.

    When the poster refused to spot the irony, I used the former name of the actor now known as Elliot Page and said surely what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. That’s infraction worthy.

    As a microcosm, that shows how open things potentially could be.

    The truth is quite simple really.

    TERF is not an insult and is not considered so by boards.

    Deadnaming a trans person is against site rules.

    You broke a rule. I didn't. That's all there is to it.


  • #1557
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Oh how the turntables have........

    Tell me again what you think about snowflakes.

    You are missing the point. If anyone can be prosecuted for having a different opinion which anyone can misconstrue as racist, then it is only fair and right that everyone is held to the same standard.

    Holding others to the standard they hold you is not remotely "snowflakey".

    That standard sadly could be that everyone is guilty of offending someone.

    It's a pathetic law, supported by .... well I can't say in case I am retroactively punished.


  • #1558
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    TERF is not an insult and is not considered so by boards.

    Deadnaming a trans person is against site rules.

    Terf may not be an insult to you but if someone repeatedly has to say they do not want to be labelled as such, you would agree that is harassment?

    I would be greatly offended to be referred to as a TERF, purely because I would be insulted if anyone called me a feminist.


  • #1559
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Terf may not be an insult to you but if someone repeatedly has to say they do not want to be labelled as such, you would agree that is harassment?

    I would be greatly offended to be referred to as a TERF, purely because I would be insulted if anyone called me a feminist.

    No that's not harassment.

    You cannot as an individual take any word you don't like and declare it an insult or harassing.


  • #1560
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    No that's not harassment.

    You cannot as an individual take any word you don't like and declare it an insult or harassing.

    If someone continues to call you a name, that has a specific meaning, a meaning with which doesn't define you and one that you do not identify as, repeatedly, you don't think it's harassment?

    Well that's interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    LLMMLL wrote: »

    You cannot as an individual take any word you don't like and declare it an insult

    Well yes we can and didn't a judge in the UK agree with a certain word is considered offensive :)
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement