Hate Speech Public Consultation

CtevenSrowder · 20-12-2020 01:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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]

'Dismissing the case, Judge O’Connor said the once-off insertion of material, while revolting and insulting, could not be deemed to be an incitement to hatred and he noted that apart from his initial comments, Mr Kissane had not added to or commented on on the page until it was removed.'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20169325.html%3ftype=amp

20-12-2020 01:24PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

'Dismissing the case, Judge O’Connor said the once-off insertion of material, while revolting and insulting, could not be deemed to be an incitement to hatred and he noted that apart from his initial comments, Mr Kissane had not added to or commented on on the page until it was removed.'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20169325.html%3ftype=amp

Thanks.. the result seems slightly more reasonable within the context of the article.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 01:27PM

tjhook wrote: »

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.

Well the real answer is that the legislation should be interpreted as broadly as possible in order to avoid the sort of rules lawyering and word play and relying on dictionary definitions tactics often employed by posters here for example.

tjhook wrote: »

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

Exactly, and yet we have posters here already imagining they’ll be targeted, and I think there’s a legitimate question to be answered in asking why does a person imagine they will be targeted by legislation which is expected to be used to prohibit hate speech? It’s likely it will go the same way as the blasphemy laws, which is a good thing from my perspective anyway -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kinda reminds me of the time one of my co-workers told me they were Hindu. I asked him what's a Hindu? He went into a big long explanation and I felt bad then because the joke was lost on an actual Hindu, and I didn't have the heart to tell him to stop :pac:

(answer: lays eggs)

There are some people here who are arguing as though the proposals are intended to suck all the joy out of life, and they’re not. The intent of the proposals is to make people’s lives a bit easier, that they aren’t subjected to the same ****e day in, day out, all day, every day. It’s not about silly gotchas by taking what anyone says out of context and putting their own spin on it just so that person can waste the Gardaí’s time with silly complaints like they’re back in the school yard running to teacher to tell tales on each other.

CtevenSrowder · 20-12-2020 01:34PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the real answer is that the legislation should be interpreted as broadly as possible in order to avoid the sort of rules lawyering and word play and relying on dictionary definitions tactics often employed by posters here for example.

Wow relying on the definitions of words to make a point, imagine. Even worse, 'lawyering' a piece of legislation!!

In the reality of anything can mean anything that you want us all to exist on, having legislation such as this being applied 'as broadly as possible' is a terrible idea.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 01:36PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Wow relying on the definitions of words to make a point, imagine. Even worse, 'lawyering' a piece of legislation!!

In the reality of anything can mean anything that you want us all to exist on, having legislation such as this being applied 'as broadly as possible' is a terrible idea.

Aye, thank heavens for being able to interpret context and intent from what someone posts. Imagine!

20-12-2020 01:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly, and yet we have posters here already imagining they’ll be targeted, and I think there’s a legitimate question to be answered in asking why does a person imagine they will be targeted by legislation which is expected to be used to prohibit hate speech? It’s likely it will go the same way as the blasphemy laws, which is a good thing from my perspective anyway -

Honestly, for my part, I look at the way society has moved over the last two decades. The rise of feminist ideology, the aggressiveness of the Trans debates, the wild accusations of a dangerous far right, etc. The growth in acceptance for the idea of white privilege, the agenda driven drive behind BLM, and declarations of rampant racism supposedly existing in Ireland.

You see, this legislation taken by itself isn't the problem. As you've said, it's simply an update of the past legislation, and should it be applied the same way as past legislation, then few will need to worry.

However, I do see a movement within society to push certain outlooks on others. I said it before that I'm more concerned with other organisations taking this act and using it to further their own agendas.. because speech will be taken out of context. We've also seen the acceptance of feminist inspired beliefs which insult the male gender, and no backlash has appeared, but rather tentative support for such ideas.

The act on it's own isn't the issue. The world has changed from the implementation of the original act. We do live in a world which, while not as extreme as the US or Canada, is promoting certain biases over others. And I am concerned for how this new act will be implemented, but worse yet, what will be justified because of it's existence.

tjhook · 20-12-2020 02:09PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the real answer is that the legislation should be interpreted as broadly as possible in order to avoid the sort of rules lawyering and word play and relying on dictionary definitions tactics often employed by posters here for example.

So the law should apply equally to all groups; not just "protected" groups?
That would be fairer than what I'm seeing being proposed.

And if the meaning of the words that make the law are to be irrelevant, what should define the guilty/not guilty verdict? A general "that sounds a bit racist/ageist/sexist to me" feeling by the most sensitive person in the room? That would achieve the broadest interpretation.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 02:21PM

tjhook wrote: »

So the law should apply equally to all groups; not just "protected" groups?
That would be fairer than what I'm seeing being proposed.

And if the meaning of the words that make the law are to be irrelevant, what should define the guilty/not guilty verdict? A general "that sounds a bit racist/ageist/sexist to me" feeling by the most sensitive person in the room? That would achieve the broadest interpretation.

The law would apply to anyone who attempts to incite hatred of any particular groups or groups in society on the basis of protected characteristics which already exist in Irish law.

Nobody is suggesting the meaning of words which make laws are irrelevant. I’m saying that for the people who want a defined list of prohibited words that they can skip around, they’re not going to get one. The intent of their speech will be easily determined by context, and further investigation if it’s determined necessary to form an objective opinion one way or the other by investigating authorities. I don’t imagine they want to encourage people to waste their time either, they expect people to be reasonable.

Big Gerry · 20-12-2020 03:14PM

The next thing they will be going after school kids for hate speech.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9070893/Schoolgirl-14-plans-free-speech-fight-police-hate-rules.html

Big Gerry · 20-12-2020 03:16PM

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.

You don't change the law because of one case people have actually gone to jail under the 1989 act.

It seems to work fine to me.

tjhook · 20-12-2020 03:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law would apply to anyone who attempts to incite hatred of any particular groups or groups in society on the basis of protected characteristics which already exist in Irish law.

Ah, apologies, I didn't realise the "words" referred to previous Boards posts, rather than the wording of the law.

I suppose regardless of what I or anybody else thinks, this law is coming. I'll be surprised it all ends up any different to how it is in the UK.

Annasopra · 20-12-2020 08:10PM

Big Gerry wrote: »

You don't change the law because of one case people have actually gone to jail under the 1989 act.

It seems to work fine to me.

Very few people have. There have been a tiny number of prosecutions. I am not suggesting the law should be updated merely because of 1 case. I am giving 1 case as an example of where the law was weak and ineffective. There are many other issues with it. The law in 1989 didnt deal with anything online. Many other cases such as that I illustrated above couldnt even goto prosecution.

20-12-2020 08:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Speech perceived by who?

20-12-2020 08:15PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

So tell me, specifically, what words am I not allowed say!

You said I am not allowed incite hatred or other such malarkey. I asked you what hatred is.

Are others allowed to use words I am not?

If so, why?

20-12-2020 08:16PM

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.

What do you think the punishment should have been?

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 08:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Speech perceived by who?

What?

20-12-2020 08:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What?

I suspect he means, Who decides that the speech is hateful?

"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."

Speech perceived by whom? Does the qualifier for being decided as hate speech, change depending on who is enforcing the law... So, today we have Bob, who has an extreme view and a zero tolerance of anything which might, possibly offend someone, and then we have Mary, who considers any negative comments about Travellers is wrong, but anything said about "men" is fair.

The point being that depending on who is deciding what is hate speech, the bill can be applied differently. At least, that's what i'm wondering.. is there a more reliable method of determining if something is hate speech, rather than relying on the perspective of an individual or body of people, with their own biases?

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 08:42PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I suspect he means, Who decides that the speech is hateful?

"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."

Speech perceived by whom? Does the qualifier for being decided as hate speech, change depending on who is enforcing the law... So, today we have Bob, who has an extreme view and a zero tolerance of anything which might, possibly offend someone, and then we have Mary, who considers any negative comments about Travellers is wrong, but anything said about "men" is fair.

The point being that depending on who is deciding what is hate speech, the bill can be applied differently. At least, that's what i'm wondering.. is there a more reliable method of determining if something is hate speech, rather than relying on the perspective of an individual or body of people, with their own biases?

Ahh right, yeah, whoever hears it I guess, and then if they decide to make a complaint to Gardaí I suppose, it’ll be decided by Gardaí whether it’s worth pursuing or just keeping it on file. It appears they’re going more for the community policing approach than anything heavy handed, so I don’t imagine anyone’s going to be doing time over shooting their mouth off, far more likely they’ll just be cautioned about making a nuisance of themselves.

20-12-2020 08:56PM

Easily policed with a new twitter account "Garda Hate Patrol".

"Today on Garda Hate Patrol (#GardaHatePatrol) we have the curious case of nudain. He posted something on Boards.ie today which, if he was joking, was kinda clever. But if he wasn't joking then it was maybe kinda racist.

Let the voting begin.

Oh, and watch out for the N7, there's a big tail-back at the moment."

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 09:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Easily policed with a new twitter account "Garda Hate Patrol".

"Today on Garda Hate Patrol (#GardaHatePatrol) we have the curious case of nudain. He posted something on Boards.ie today which, if he was joking, was kinda clever. But if he wasn't joking then it was maybe kinda racist.

Let the voting begin.

Oh, and watch out for the N7, there's a big tail-back at the moment."

nudain goes flying

https://twitter.com/DaraghCassidy/status/1340054640755429376?s=20

20-12-2020 09:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh right, yeah, whoever hears it I guess, and then if they decide to make a complaint to Gardaí I suppose, it’ll be decided by Gardaí whether it’s worth pursuing or just keeping it on file. It appears they’re going more for the community policing approach than anything heavy handed, so I don’t imagine anyone’s going to be doing time over shooting their mouth off, far more likely they’ll just be cautioned about making a nuisance of themselves.

My point is, nobody can define what hate, or hate speech is. It's contextual and nebulous. It's an absolute nonsense to legislate for "hate" when it can't be defined.

It's pandering

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2020 09:29PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My point is, nobody can define what hate, or hate speech is. It's contextual and nebulous. It's an absolute nonsense to legislate for "hate" when it can't be defined.

It's pandering

It can be defined? It’s been defined already in Irish law. Of course it’s based upon context, just like everything else is based upon context. I don’t know why you’re suggesting it can’t be defined when it’s easy to define and has been defined -

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.

I don’t think it’s pandering to any particular groups, you’ll have the same right as anyone else does to make a complaint to Gardaí if you feel that someone may be guilty of inciting hatred against any groups in particular. Already there’s been one poster who has suggested they’re going to make it their mission to see Ebun Joseph is convicted. Gardaí are simply more likely to see that endeavour for the vexatious effort it is, than take it seriously.

20-12-2020 10:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It can be defined? It’s been defined already in Irish law. Of course it’s based upon context, just like everything else is based upon context. I don’t know why you’re suggesting it can’t be defined when it’s easy to define and has been defined -

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.

I don’t think it’s pandering to any particular groups, you’ll have the same right as anyone else does to make a complaint to Gardaí if you feel that someone may be guilty of inciting hatred against any groups in particular. Already there’s been one poster who has suggested they’re going to make it their mission to see Ebun Joseph is convicted. Gardaí are simply more likely to see that endeavour for the vexatious effort it is, than take it seriously.

OEJ, think of the various mobs that tend to form around the different agendas out there, whether it be feminism, BLM, Trans rights, etc. We've seen protests both here in Ireland and abroad for seemingly minor issues, but which have stirred up outrage, and even hatred/violence as a result. Don't you think authorities will seek to shut down the source of what causes these groups to go mental? It's not like we haven't already seen politicians and others make remarks pandering to the mob, in the hope of dispelling resistance.

While I do have faith in the Gardai to approach these things with some common sense, the Gardai are increasingly being put under pressure to be more political (or social) as time goes by because many of these groups have considerable support/influence from certain areas, or are simply extremely vocal on social media (which our politicians are constantly hooked into).

The problem is that I doubt this will be left solely in the hands of the Gardai, and there will be interest from other groups (political or other) to get involved.

I suspect you know that this is likely to be the case too. Don't get me wrong. I genuinely hope that you are correct, and if you are, then we likely won't see much come from this legislation... but, at the same time, I don't think it's going to be that simple.

20-12-2020 10:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is, nobody can define what hate, or hate speech is. It's contextual and nebulous. It's an absolute nonsense to legislate for "hate" when it can't be defined.

It's pandering

It's leaving the door open for further interpretations down the line. It's giving themselves the flexibility to deal with any situation, because they're not limited to a specific set of circumstances, allowing them to deal with whatever group happens to be considered inconvenient to the status quo.

I understand your concern. I share it. The vagueness of the language used suggests that this act could be applied for a wide range of "offenses".. and entirely dependent on whoever is chosen to decide what constitutes a contribution towards generating hatred/violence.

TBH I have little faith in politicians or others to be fair in this. I honestly don't expect to see this law applied to feminists who state "all men should be killed". Justifications will continue to be made to excuse such expressions... while other people will be targeted because they express sentiments that go against the 'accepted' viewpoints. Or rather the viewpoints that are promoted by politicians and through the media.

Perhaps if this act was introduced with the clear goal of removing the establishment of double standards in society, I might have more faith.. but I seriously don't think that's the case. If anything this will reinforce the double standards...

nj27 · 20-12-2020 10:47PM

Might be 'bout time to get involved with some action if this goes too far. Something like a basic bounding maneuver is second nature to a not inconsequential number of people who disagree with this and it would be highly effective against the essentially untrained individuals who they'd hypothetically face in such an event.

Tell me how · 20-12-2020 11:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is, nobody can define what hate, or hate speech is. It's contextual and nebulous. It's an absolute nonsense to legislate for "hate" when it can't be defined.

It's pandering

It's proven that the actions of encouraging hatred towards an individual or a group of individuals can have serious repercussions for the health of many people on the receiving end of it.

You could easily say that it is impossible to define bullying in the workplace but there is legislation to prevent that from being allowed to happen without fear of consequence.
In the case of bullying subjective opinions could differ as to whether what is being said constitutes bullying or not but the law forces companies to have policies in how to deal with accusations of it occurring.

The determination as to whether or not it did occur usually will happen after it has been investigated, people have been allowed to give their side of the story and outside of serious cases those accused of bullying will have the opportunity to correct their behavior, or be absolved. Are you aware of countless incidents where people are unfairly accused and disciplined for having been bullies in their workplace? I'm not.

This I expect will be similar, I suspect we will never see someone tried under the accusation of being guilty of hate speech unless it is on a topic about which there is no reasonable excuse that they didn't know what they were saying was hateful.

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 11:06PM

nj27 wrote: »

Might be 'bout time to get involved with some action if this goes too far. Something like a basic bounding maneuver is second nature to a not inconsequential number of people who disagree with this and it would be highly effective against the essentially untrained individuals who they'd hypothetically face in such an event.

Can you expand on that please

21-12-2020 01:05AM

Tell me how wrote: »

This I expect will be similar, I suspect we will never see someone tried under the accusation of being guilty of hate speech unless it is on a topic about which there is no reasonable excuse that they didn't know what they were saying was hateful.

There is a difference though. The social movements of protest by woke/sjw/activists etc, along with the online presence that they have, backed up by supportive media exposure...

No bullying campaign has ever had the support that those who follow these agendas have. There's rarely public interest in bullying within the workplace... whereas within the last few months, we have seen increasingly more reports of racism in Ireland. Coming from official and media sources.

You don't think that combined with the State interest in promoting diversity, the media's attention on race in Ireland, and the popular movements like BLM, and other racial unrest/problems, that the legislation isn't being brought in at a particularly "suitable" time? (although, TBH, I suspect it'll be first used against those who resist trans issues, rather than race)

Tell me how · 21-12-2020 01:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a difference though. The social movements of protest by woke/sjw/activists etc, along with the online presence that they have, backed up by supportive media exposure...

No bullying campaign has ever had the support that those who follow these agendas have. There's rarely public interest in bullying within the workplace... whereas within the last few months, we have seen increasingly more reports of racism in Ireland. Coming from official and media sources.

You don't think that combined with the State interest in promoting diversity, the media's attention on race in Ireland, and the popular movements like BLM, and other racial unrest/problems, that the legislation isn't being brought in at a particularly "suitable" time?

No. I don't think that this is some sort of coordinated event like you seem to be suggesting.

I think the legislation is being considered, as it should as a consequence to 20 years of growing internet use and activity and the evidence of many people using it as a platform by which to target others in order to cause them anguish which has had significant negative impacts on their health.

Also, there was an anti bullying campaign launched in Irish schools in 2006. Autism Ireland launched a campaign about bullying in the workplace in 2015

The UK has an anti-bullying week, was held just 4 weeks ago and has specific websites dedicated to education and support around bullying including that in the workplace.

I always find it funny when people talk about activists today and suggest that they would have had no place in previous times while ignoring that significant changes only came about so that modern day activities are now seen, as they should be, as normal, specifically because of the work of activists who were dismissed as attention seekers at the time.

Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc all came about because of people who were disparaged in the same way as many modern day activists but persevered to draw attention to a just cause.

21-12-2020 09:56AM

Tell me how wrote: »

I always find it funny when people talk about activists today and suggest that they would have had no place in previous times while ignoring that significant changes only came about so that modern day activities are now seen, as they should be, as normal, specifically because of the work of activists who were dismissed as attention seekers at the time.

Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc all came about because of people who were disparaged in the same way as many modern day activists but persevered to draw attention to a just cause.

I always find it funny when posters claim that I said things, which I obviously didn't say. :rolleyes:

Gosh.. perhaps that's why people are concerned with this legislation?

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments