Hate Speech Public Consultation

19-12-2020 11:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn’t? The RCC still controls the vast majority of educational institutions in this country at primary, secondary and third level, still involved in sports and numerous other community activities and organisations, and the reason I’m making the connection between this legislation and the RCC/Education is because it goes to parents who do not wish to have their children inculcated with the ideas and values of a Catholic Education. I’m in favour of it personally, and it’s a considerable advantage for me that the opportunity is available, but for those parents who wish for a different type of education for their children, their choices are limited pretty much to Educate Together or home schooling. There is a legitimate way to have that discussion without resorting to suggestions that Catholicism encourages brainwashing, paedophilia, religion is child abuse, etc, etc.

Really? I hadn't realised that my hometown was so different. When I was young there were four secondary schools all run by the Church. Now, three are completely run by the state, and the fourth is shut. All the primary schools are also run by the state. They've retained the original names, but there's very few priests/nuns working in the schools, and the administration isn't religious.

And I'm in agreement. I had a religious upbringing, and while I'm agnostic now, I have nothing but respect for the schooling I received from the RCC. I wasn't brainwashed, abused, or whatever. Fact is, most of my friends from that period, feel the same way, and speak respectfully, of the teachers they had.

I know it exists alright, and if anyone was ever in any doubt, Hillary made its existence clear with her comment about a basket of deplorables (I resemble that remark ). I don’t think it’s even anything close to a majority at all klaz - while metoo was trending, Hollywood was still doing it’s thing as the world’s biggest producer of pornography, and American consumers were still their biggest market. The only two most famous examples of men who thought they couldn’t trust themselves around women are Mike Pence, and Keanu Reeves. I genuinely don’t think we have to be concerned in Ireland that things could possibly get as vindictive as they have in the US among a tiny minority of its population.

Ahh well, as I said before, I'm more concerned about how it may affect those in employment, and the dangers of cancel culture being encouraged due to this bill. I'm not terribly concerned about the bill itself, but what will be affected by it...

But sure they were leading the same way in 1937, in 1989, and now in 2020, same people are endorsing and enforcing it since the progressive sorts have about as much chance of forming a Government or influencing legislation as Peter Casey has a chance of becoming President of Ireland if he were ever to run again on a platform of taking a dump on travellers.

Politicians. Nah. That's not the danger. The organs of the state are the danger here. The administrators, the supervisors, the advisory boards, the state funded commissions and boards, etc.. all of whom can act independently of public will... and most of us don't notice until they bite us in the ass.

Have a look at the Men's Rights thread.. and look at iptba's contributions. You'll see what I mean.

19-12-2020 11:23PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No you're not. If you've been posting here for ten years then you've worked out a way of getting your opinion across without inciting hatred. Same situation with all the other long-term posters here. This thread has been full of intense disagreement but I see no hate.

True, but then we're discussing some legislation.. not a particularly emotional topic.

I've been on boards for.. I dunno. A very long time, and I've never been banned. Haven't even been thread banned before (I think. I have a vague memory of one.. I think). Actually, I'd say that out of my whole time on boards, the vast majority of warnings from the mods have happened this year, and on threads, where I didn't think my post was offensive.

oh, I have lost my cool a few times, gotten angry, and been too sarcastic, resulting in warnings, but most of the warnings came from posts I'd consider well-thought out, and logical. The problem is when enough people disagree with you and complain... you can just be punished for being against the status quo.

However, I have been called a racist, a bigot, and all manner of horrible terms because other posters didn't appreciate my point of view. You'll often find that the person who screams racist/bigot doesn't get banned.

I have no problem with people saying that they don't like other people. I similarly have the right to disagree with them if I so wish and you'd probably see no harm in that.

What I don't like is people threatening others or inciting hatred or violence towards them.

I would agree with you, except the Internet isn't quite so.. honest anymore. There are too many agendas at play, and too many very sensitive people. The problem is your, and my perception of what entails the encitement of hatred/violence, is likely to be different from those who feel passionate about a subject, and don't appreciate you disagreeing with them.

If everyone online was reasonable, and showed a tiny bit of consideration for what others thought, then there likely wouldn't be much problem with this situation. Alas.. that's not the internet that exists today.

19-12-2020 11:28PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Yet you're still posting. Thus you were suspended not banned.

Bans can be appealed, and/or lifted. I'm pretty sure he has been banned before.

Bonniedog · 19-12-2020 11:57PM

Old Herbert Marcuse, the former CIA agent who launched the "New Left" would be proud to see how his project is progressing.

In the 60s old Herb, realising that socialism as an economic system was a beaten flush in which no sane working class person believed in, launched the identity politics trojan horse.

A key part of that strategy was to undermine free speech, as he claimed that it allowed people who understood the fallacies of socialism too much air time. Took a while, but it is coming to fruition.

Mind you, i doubt that McEntee is familiar with his work, unless he maybe made a guest appearance in Friends.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 12:11AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because it is an open discussion.

What am I not allowed say by law? Are there words I can't say?

You are restricted by law in making libellous or defamatory statements about other persons and you are restricted by law in making statements that incite hatred under the Prohibtion of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

Under the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 there are offences of incitement to hatred on account of race, religion, nationality, ethnic or sexual orientation. It is an offence to use words, behave, publish or distribute written material, or broadcast visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or are likely to stir up hatred. The Act defines "hatred" as "hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation"

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 12:15AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

That is very true. I know several teens who committed suicide due in large part to online bullying. It is and was traumatic. But Hate Speech laws will not address that or stop it. It happens in secret and usually uses the fleeting or invisible aspect of digital space to achieve its aim. To mortify a child in front of their peers, can be done in a comment that circulates for moments and is then deleted. It is a whole other issue. And to associate suicide from online bullying with the Hate Speech laws proposals is actually manipulative.

They are entirely separate issues and entirely separate laws. The harassment and harmful communications bill has just passed all stages in the Dail and Seanad. There isnt even a proposed Hate Speech law yet.

Bonniedog · 20-12-2020 12:25AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They are entirely separate issues and entirely separate laws. The harassment and harmful communications bill has just passed all stages in the Dail and Seanad. There isnt even a proposed Hate Speech law yet.

But there will be. McEntee promised one during the week. Following a consultation similar to the gender dysphoria farce which was comprised of a gang of strange people, not a qualified medic among them.

Hate as you will know if you have read Orwell, is a tricky one.

Journalists who stated the facts regarding a fked up man claiming to be a woman were accused of hate for simply stating the facts as regards that person's mental condition and danger to women who some think he is one of!

So, really this legislation could be open season on all forms of dissent from the woke agenda.

Tell me how · 20-12-2020 12:27AM

Bonniedog wrote: »

Old Herbert Marcuse, the former CIA agent who launched the "New Left" would be proud to see how his project is progressing.

In the 60s old Herb, realising that socialism as an economic system was a beaten flush in which no sane working class person believed in, launched the identity politics trojan horse.

A key part of that strategy was to undermine free speech, as he claimed that it allowed people who understood the fallacies of socialism too much air time. Took a while, but it is coming to fruition.

Mind you, i doubt that McEntee is familiar with his work, unless he maybe made a guest appearance in Friends.

Can I ask why you think someone who has worked in politics since she was 24, has a Degree in Economics, Politics and Law and whose father was a TD before her, would have only been aware of the existence of a political theorist if they had appeared as a guest on a sitcom?

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 01:28AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Politicians. Nah. That's not the danger. The organs of the state are the danger here. The administrators, the supervisors, the advisory boards, the state funded commissions and boards, etc.. all of whom can act independently of public will... and most of us don't notice until they bite us in the ass.

Have a look at the Men's Rights thread.. and look at iptba's contributions. You'll see what I mean.

I’ve read them klaz, and I know what you mean, that’s all I’m saying on that one. You probably know what I mean when I’m not saying anything else on that particular point either - I have a completely different perspective that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

20-12-2020 09:26AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are restricted by law in making libellous or defamatory statements about other persons and you are restricted by law in making statements that incite hatred under the Prohibtion of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

Under the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 there are offences of incitement to hatred on account of race, religion, nationality, ethnic or sexual orientation. It is an offence to use words, behave, publish or distribute written material, or broadcast visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or are likely to stir up hatred. The Act defines "hatred" as "hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation"

So there are no words I am not allowed say. Thank you.

Can you defined hate or hatred for me in this context?

Gruffalux · 20-12-2020 09:35AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They are entirely separate issues and entirely separate laws. The harassment and harmful communications bill has just passed all stages in the Dail and Seanad. There isnt even a proposed Hate Speech law yet.

I was responding to someone who wanted to justify the hate speech law by insinuating a relationship being suicide and online hate speech.

Gruffalux · 20-12-2020 09:47AM

"We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division."

The above is an extract from a letter which was signed by the National Council of Women in Ireland and many other notables from NGOs, and proudly promoted by Colm O Gorman, Irish CEO of Amnesty. The bigoted beliefs for which these very prominent public representatives demand people be deprived of media or political representation include being "defenders of biology" and having valid objections to so-called affirmation therapies on children, which have recently been ruled on in the High Court in the UK as experimental and requiring court orders.

So you will forgive me if I feel that the idea of "hate speech" and laws being required to punish it has every potential to be wild horse ridden through the looking glass by pseudo- virtuous authoritarians.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 09:52AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So there are no words I am not allowed say. Thank you.

Can you defined hate or hatred for me in this context?

Specifically, according to the Act in question, it prohibits an incitement to hatred, which it categorises as -

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

Hate speech in law in considered to be -

speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental disorder, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered a liability.

It would certainly be clear from the way she talks about it that Ms. McEntee intends for the law to provide better protection to people who experience prejudice on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or membership of the traveller community.

Biker79 · 20-12-2020 09:55AM

Tell me how wrote: »

All that shows is your ignorance on the matter. Deliberate or otherwise, only you know.

Rubbish. It shows your ignorance.

Teenagers cannot be considered healthy in body and mind because they haven't finished growing. But you know that, right? Still didn't stop you using it to somewhat desperately bolster your position.

You always do that..you and Overheal, protonmike, etc. You twist words, shift goalposts and redefine the meaning of words. You do this when you're cornered and it's proven you have a weak position.

It's like saying I like playing football but don't want to play against anyone who will beat me.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 10:10AM

Biker79 wrote: »

Teenagers cannot be considered healthy in body and mind because they haven't finished growing. But you know that, right?

I had to go back and look at the context for where that bullshìt statement came from, because I figured there had to be more to it than at first glance it just being silly...

Biker79 wrote: »

Exactly right. Bullying is part of growing up and social media magnifies it. This is a matter for parents, teenagers, schools and the manner in which social media companies encourage peer validation to drive attention. A big part of this is the business model of social media companies.

None of it relates to the wider societal issue of free speech. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to drive a nail.

Biker79 wrote: »

That's all that needs to be said on the matter.

I would seriously doubt anyone healthy in body and mind would take their own life, as a result of comments online.

Bizarre stuff

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 10:13AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So there are no words I am not allowed say. Thank you.

Can you defined hate or hatred for me in this context?

Of course there are words you cannot say. I just explained how its defined above.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 10:15AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

I was responding to someone who wanted to justify the hate speech law by insinuating a relationship being suicide and online hate speech.

Yeah grand. It was just that some posters in this thread confused the issues of hate speech and online harassment/bullying and assumed they were sll the same thing.

Sir Oxman · 20-12-2020 10:37AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah grand. It was just that some posters in this thread confused the issues of hate speech and online harassment/bullying and assumed they were sll the same thing.

Two posters (on the 'nothing to see here' side) conflated the online harassment/bullying bill and the proposed one.
One of them is threadbanned.

Gatling · 20-12-2020 11:25AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hate speech in law in considered to be

"speech perceived"

.

So it doesn't have to be hate speech it just needs to be perceived to be ,
Case and point on how it's going to be used to turn discussions in to sterile echo chambers

CtevenSrowder · 20-12-2020 11:37AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course there are words you cannot say. I just explained how its defined above.

No there aren't. The context in how the words are used is what matters.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 11:53AM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No there aren't. The context in how the words are used is what matters.

Yes. If you put certain words together they are illegal. E.g. If you said. "All Muslims are evil and I am calling on Irish people to murder every Muslim" that is currently illegal.

CtevenSrowder · 20-12-2020 11:59AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes. If you put certain words together they are illegal. E.g. If you said. "All Muslims are evil and I am calling on Irish people to murder every Muslim" that is currently illegal.

But you've just put those words together, and it isn't illegal because of the context used. So you are wrong.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 11:59AM

Gatling wrote: »

So it doesn't have to be hate speech it just needs to be perceived to be ,
Case and point on how it's going to be used to turn discussions in to sterile echo chambers

I was giving a common definition of what is understood by the term hate speech, and what constitutes hate speech, and of course it’s based upon perception, which you appear to have taken out of context, a case in point indeed of how to portray what someone says as the opposite of its intent by taking it out of context. Here’s the full quote again, this time in context, explaining what is perceived - speech perceived to disparage a particular person or group in society.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hate speech in law in considered to be -

speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental disorder, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered a liability.

It would certainly be clear from the way she talks about it that Ms. McEntee intends for the law to provide better protection to people who experience prejudice on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or membership of the traveller community.

Case in point in wanting desperately to play the victim when you imagine anyone will care about your opinions enough to want to see you silenced :rolleyes:

tjhook · 20-12-2020 12:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I was making is that I think people who are in favour of the legislation are already aware that it’s possible for themselves to be accused at least, of falling foul of it. It’s possible for anyone to be accused of falling foul of it. Does that mean they have something to fear from the legislation?

My problem with this legislation is that its wording is going to be overy broad, with the proposers already saying they won't use it "to catch people out". That's no way to introduce a law. It puts people under the threat of state action, even if the state doesn't end up prosecuting. In Ireland up to 1993 there was a law against homosexuality that was also applied sensibly (in that it wasn't being enforced at that time). And there was a law against blasphemy that was also sensibly enforced. Sensible enforcement didn't make everything hunky-dorey.

Why not just word the law more cleary? The generous answer would be that the proposers aren't themselves clear on where the line should be drawn, but they want the power to decide what's acceptable case-by-case, and clamp down on people on that basis. The more cynical answer would be that the law won't be applied equally and it's best not to publicise that. I think it may be a bit of both.

For example, I'm quite sure it'll be fine to continue to refer to "pale, male and stale". But an equivalent referring to other groupings will be at risk of investigation or prosecution. I was going to make up an example equivalent phrase rhyming with the word "black", but whereas I feel "pale male and stale" would be acceptable on Boards, even today before this legislation is in place I wouldn't fancy my chances if I posted such a "black" equivalent. A mod might reply here later to say such a phrase is fine in the context of my post (I wouldn't bet on it!), but by then it's too late. The threat of enforcement has already had its result. The same situation goes for this law.

Likewise, Pat and Mary can both criticise groupings of people. But whereas Mary can be prosecuted (or even if not, she lives under the threat of being prosecuted), Pat is under no such threat because he is classed as an "academic". And of course we know which end of the social spectrum is more represented in academia.

Everybody has their biases, and this law appears to be broad enough to allow a lot of bias in its enforcement.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 12:02PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But you've just put those words together, and it isn't illegal because of the context used. So you are wrong.

It isnt illegal because I am explaining it. It would be illegal if it was done. So no Im not wrong.

20-12-2020 12:05PM

Biker79 wrote: »

Rubbish. It shows your ignorance.

Teenagers cannot be considered healthy in body and mind because they haven't finished growing. But you know that, right? Still didn't stop you using it to somewhat desperately bolster your position.

You always do that..you and Overheal, protonmike, etc. You twist words, shift goalposts and redefine the meaning of words. You do this when you're cornered and it's proven you have a weak position.

It's like saying I like playing football but don't want to play against anyone who will beat me.

Weird... Naming people who aren't even in the discussion. Do you think bullying is okay? Do you think racial abuse should be allowed? If a person receives continuous racial abuse or homophobic abuse, should the people doing so face consequences for their actions?

Also there's no reason a teen should not be healthy in mind, bullies are people who exploit vulnerabilities. Any sustained attack can be incredibly damaging for one's mental health. Yes, it might be harder when a teen but also doesn't make it okay for it to occur as an adult, and it can be damaging to one's mental health at any time.

This isn't twisting of your words by the way. You just don't appear to be happy with being called out and apparently have developed a bit of a fixation on certain posters.

CtevenSrowder · 20-12-2020 12:06PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It isnt illegal because I am explaining it. It would be illegal if it was done. So no Im not wrong.

But it was done, you just did it. You put those words together to form a sentence. The words aren't illegal in themselves, the context in how they are used are. Which was TheDunnes point.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 12:08PM

The current 1989 act is weak and unenforceable. A case was taken against a man in 2011 who set up a facebook page to “Promote the use of knacker babies for shark bait” and also suggested “Instead of using animals for shark bait, they could use knack babies. Also, as food at feeding time in the zoo. And for testing new drugs for viruses.”. The case failed because the current law is weak. It shouldnt have failed.

20-12-2020 12:15PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The current 1989 act is weak and unenforceable. A case was taken against a man in 2011 who set up a facebook page to “Promote the use of knacker babies for shark bait” and also suggested “Instead of using animals for shark bait, they could use knack babies. Also, as food at feeding time in the zoo. And for testing new drugs for viruses.”. The case failed because the current law is weak. It shouldnt have failed.

Considering the wording of the 1989 act, why did it fail? What reason did the Judge give?

(Or give me a link, and I'll read up on it myself) [I agree that it shouldn't have failed, btw]

Gatling · 20-12-2020 12:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Case in point in wanting desperately to play the victim when you imagine anyone will care about your opinion

I'm not some victim I'll leave that to a small chort of posters who are either constantly offended and making false claims about posts on boards ,
Because they are offended for other people

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments