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

Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

Options
1104105107109110142

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Are you going to speak on everyones behalf on that? How do you know what someone might deem offensive or hateful, you can't even define it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,603 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Yes it is Jonny.

    I suggest you watch it, its a fantastic film.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Which aren't as bad as each other? Police are there to investigate crimes, I believe every crime reported should be examined to see whether or not there is enough evidence to prosecute, if not they should be closed.

    Nothing too controversial there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    You've never seen Trainspotting…now THIS is a crime.



  • Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭Vote4Squirrels




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Which crimes aren't as bad as each other, really? You can't tell the difference from a physical assault, assault with a deadly weapon, over someone saying something "hateful"…really?

    You don't seem to have a grasp on how police resources can and should be used here. It would explain a lot.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    That's ridiculous. It's giving burglars a free for all now to break into other people's premises. That's how vigilante behaviour starts when people feel they have to take the law into their own hands to protect themselves because the authorities can't be arsed. Horrible feeling coming home to find some scumbag has broken in and robbed the place and been through all your stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    😂😂😂

    Like I said, police are there to investigate crimes. They don't pick and choose what they want to investigate. Which is the way it should be.

    Also, there is no 'physical assault ' or 'assault with deadly weapon ' offences in this country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    How can someone be this naive?

    Police DO already pick and choose what to deal with (they don't always investigate), because they have limited resources. You are also avoiding my point about which crimes aren't as bad as each other, I noticed.

    I will make it simple, police resourcing is already limited (for most police forces around the world), if the choice was between investigating (let's use that word for you) a road traffic accident or a reported "hate speech" infringement, which would you pick?

    Please answer this question directly, don't avoid it. It is a very simple question.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    No, they do not pick and choose. I have no idea why you think that. Once a complaint is made, they cannot choose to ignore it! It's literally dereliction of duty and will result in disciplinary investigations.

    there is no picking between road traffic accidents or complaints about hate speech. That is not the way policing works. I



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Oh boy…

    Are you really trying to tell me that if there were those 2 incidents, one being a traffic accident and one a complaint about hate speech, they wouldn't prioritize one over the other at that moment?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    They are not at the same moment.

    It's nearly funny that you think if a policeman receives 5 complaints in one day, that he gets to ignore some of them 😂 I'd imagine they would give you the commissioners job tomorrow.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Where did I say ignore though? You brought that word in, I said prioritize, I do hope you know there is a difference…



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    Except as has been posted in this thread, Scotland police are already deciding not to investigate certain crimes which they consider low level. The police obviously do not have the resources to investigate every crime, and we would be wasting already limited resources to investigate speech crimes instead of things like theft and vandalism etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    You see it in America too. Certain cities have literally said they won't investigate shoplifting if the items are below a certain value.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    I would assume the gardai would treat each case on its merits and attend the one that is most serious. Similar to the way patients in A&E are triaged



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Precisely, so if any “hate speech” complaints came in..they’d be great as they should, last and very low priority.

    Just imagine the Garda knocking at your door, “did you say something hateful the other week/month/year?”, “no, it wasn’t me”, “…ok thanks”.

    Such a great use of Garda time and resourcing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Police DO already pick and choose what to deal with (they don't always investigate), 

    This is what you claimed.

    Then this,

    if the choice was between investigating (let's use that word for you) a road traffic accident or a reported "hate speech" infringement, which would you pick?

    Choosing one, implies not choosing/ignoring the other.

    Now it is 'prioritise' which would definitely be a better choice of word. However very few police have time in their hands to prioritise anything.

    ( road traffic collisions, with no injuries, are not generally investigations, but there is paperwork involved)

    Now, if you're trying to suggest that police are extremely stretched and over worked, under resourced and time poor, then I agree 100%.

    I have never heard the argument against legislation because there are not enough Gardai!



  • Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭Vote4Squirrels


    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/police-watchdog-issues-update-leeds-28491740.amp

    Seven officers sent to manhandle a disabled child for making a harmless comment.

    Why we believe Gardai would be any different to other jurisdictions is beyond me..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Hold your horses there, you'll note that the word "ignore" is nowhere to be found in my posts, like I said, you introduced that into this, not me.

    You haven't heard the argument against the legislation because there are not enough Gardai…are you REALLY sure about that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    And that would be a threat of violence wouldn’t it? I think we have laws around that in Ireland already.

    The fact remains if a person felt they were the recipient of hate speech or the subject of hateful material in the current draft of this proposal it’s totally plausible that anyone could be brought before the courts for anything they say or write if it annoyed the right person or group of people.

    If we look at speeding as an example, imagine there is a new law “not to speed” but there’s no limits or guidelines, the gardai and the public do not know what the limit is, the DPP don’t know, so it’s up to a judge to decide if someone is speeding or not - that’s all well and good but how do you arrest/charge someone when there is no guidelines or limits in place?

    Maybe I’m reading it wrong or hearing the justice minister wrong - I would love to be wrong here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,991 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No it's not plausible that it will go before the courts easily

    A It has to be investigated by Gardai

    B It has to go before the DPP

    C It has to meet the threshold in the bill on what is prosecutable - Minister James Browne was very clear on this matter in the Dail debates

    Only the most severe types of speech that constitute incitement to violence or hatred would be criminalised under the Bill. Discussion of protected characteristics, including criticism of matters relating to protected characteristics, is not a crime unless it crosses the line into incitement to violence or hatred. This remains a high bar and is not something into which people would just fall.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    There are two ways to interpret this legislation: literally and practically.

    Literally, you are correct — that's the way the legislation presents itself, and that's the way the legislation is typically explained by politicians.

    Away from that interpretation is how the legislation works in the real world.

    And in the real world, a minority of people seek to weaponize this legislation against people who hurt their feelings (claiming it as "hate"). This wastes police time and resources, but it is considered a valid waste of time under this legislation. Police should be out and about investigating real crime, not the subjective feelings of someone who may have been handed a harsh dose of reality on some Twitter post. We've already seen in the UK and elsewhere how this kind of legislation is weaponized, how it works in the real world.

    So many of the strongest proponents of this legislation will dishonestly point to what politicians and the legislation says when, in reality, their intentions are far more nefarious i.e. it's to use this legislation for their own narrow purposes but they daren't admit it (for obvious reasons).

    It's a deliberate sleight-of-hand, and they know it.

    Those who are deep will strive for clarity, while those who wish to appear deep strive for obscurity and seek to muddy their waters, for everything seems deep to ‘the many’ if only they can’t see the bottom - and they hate going into the water themselves.

    — Friedrich Nietzsche



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,991 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    The argument is that all sorts of things that are not severe criminal violations will go before the courts. This wont happen and you agree this is correct. 👍🏽

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    How you have come to that conclusion from my post is beyond my comprehension.

    Those who are deep will strive for clarity, while those who wish to appear deep strive for obscurity and seek to muddy their waters, for everything seems deep to ‘the many’ if only they can’t see the bottom - and they hate going into the water themselves.

    — Friedrich Nietzsche



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,991 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    You just agreed what I said is correct 👍🏽

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    Your conclusion from my post was the following:

    Show me where I said or implied that "all sorts of things that are not severe criminal violations will go before the courts".

    Thanks.

    Those who are deep will strive for clarity, while those who wish to appear deep strive for obscurity and seek to muddy their waters, for everything seems deep to ‘the many’ if only they can’t see the bottom - and they hate going into the water themselves.

    — Friedrich Nietzsche



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    right but how do the gardai know what is to be investigated? Assuming everything is investigated how do they know what fits the bill for this law - ie when do they start enforcing a complaint and taking it further.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Laws are not introduced based on Garda numbers.



Advertisement