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
1106107109111112142

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Gardai complaining? I see plenty of Gardai complain, and they are dead right to.

    What I don't see is other members of society worried about Gardai except when it comes to legislation they don't like.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Politicians are not a protected group



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    It's ludicrous legislation, based solely on the subjective whims of those offended.

    Legislation should, as much as possible, veer toward objectivity and fact and logic — not personal feelings.

    Seeing as you’re adamant that legislation should, as much as possible, veer towards objectivity and fact and logic - not personal feelings, I’m perfectly fine with ignoring your personal feelings, lack of objectivity and ne’er even a hint of anything approaching facts or logic, never mind reason or rational argument.

    The legislation is being updated to address discrimination against individuals and groups in Irish society on the basis of data collected by AGS regarding discrimination, prejudice, hate crimes and hate incidents (incidents which are not crimes, but motivated by hatred and prejudice). In 2022, reports to Gardaí of hate crimes rose by 29%:

    Source: https://www.garda.ie/en/information-centre/statistics/hate-crime-statistics.html

    That’s actual data, as opposed to your feelings that the legislation either isn’t necessary, or uncalled for, or that it should lead to the downfall of Government.

    It’s reasonable to conclude from everything that you’ve written, that you’re not even familiar with Article 40 that you imagine anyone’s right to freedom of expression is threatened by the enactment of the proposed legislation. The right to freedom of expression (and many other rights) have always been subject to limitations, and with regard to freedom of expression, the right is curtailed by being subject to public order and morality:

    The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

    The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

    https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40

    Essentially, you never could just say what you like, regardless of anyone else’s opinions or whether anyone even so much as gave a fiddlers for your opinion, never mind whether or not your opinion was actually offensive, factual, etc. The facts are that the proposed legislation which is intended to replace current legislation, is objective, in that it applies to everyone, to protect everyone from being subjected to other people’s shìtty, antisocial behaviour. You’d imagine the ‘back to basics, law and order’ types would be all over that one given they’re constantly banging on about levels of criminality and all the rest of it.

    If you actually wanted to compare an Irish context to the Scottish context for hate crimes, you can do that too, not with silly rhetoric devoid of any facts, substance, reasoning or logical argument though, just the data will do, and indeed allow for anyone to draw their own conclusions about the necessity, value and purpose of the proposed legislation, as opposed to merely being swayed one way or the other by rhetoric that is far, far from constituting a persuasive argument. 20 years worth of evidence allows anyone to see trends in the data:

    Source: https://www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/hate-crime-in-scotland-2022-23/html/


    I just like the pictures 😒



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    They can’t make a similar call when “investigating” a hate crime as there is no definitions to go by…


    There is y’know:

    Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

    https://www.garda.ie/en/crime/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime-.html


    Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    They are literally listed in the proposed legislation, which I'm guessing you haven't read



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    You are just one contradiction after another. You didn't see Gardai complain, but you see plenty of them complaining…

    You don't see members of society worried…are you reading this thread or are you trying to be ironic? SF are against it now, there has been plenty of individuals who have voiced their concern about this as well.

    You are either ignorant to this, or on a wind up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,891 ✭✭✭skimpydoo




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I never said I didn't see Gardai complaining.

    I also said society don't care about Gardai being over worked or under resourced or that they have to much to do, or that they receive vexatious complaints all the time. Except now. When it suits them because they don't like legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭BillyHasMates


    This post is blatantly not true. There are many people concerned with the under resourcing and over working of Gardai. Plenty of posts on the subject in other threads such as the one on reducing fatal road traffic collisions to name a current one. It's the current government that don't seem to care, not society.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    I really can't keep up with this type of carry on. You are making zero sense with what you are even trying to say here.

    You flip flop so much, give short answers and have never really given a reason as to why you are in favour of this legislation. Care to share why exactly, you would be happy with this legislation being in place?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    The legislation is an update of current legislation. Legislation needs to be updated regularly to reflect changes in society. As I have already stated, anyone calling for violence against certain groups cannot be dealt with appropriately as it stands.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,351 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    No one not born yesterday would take those stats seriously when the increases are due to anonymous reports made online.

    https://www.ireport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/iReport-3-steps.pdf

    NGO's in particular have been whipping up hysteria about increasing homophobia for example. It's all lies and everyone knows it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Anyone calling for violence would be dealt with under the current legislation. You well know that, but you choose to ignore it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Are you really asking that question?

    You even said "…an update of the current legislation". So please tell us all, how that needs an update and what is wrong with what we currently have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    There is no offence of incitement to violence. h



  • Registered Users Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Vote4Squirrels




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Care to point out the offence of incitement to violence?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, that has you covered.

    So I ask again, what does this new legislation do over the current.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,390 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Actions likely to stir up hatred. Section 2. Did you even try read it, or even scan it?

    2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

    (a) to publish or distribute written material,

    (b) to use words, behave or display written material—

    (i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

    (ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

    or

    (c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

    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.

    We have done all of this before, and you keep badgering on that they aren't the same. You have no idea, whatsoever, what you are in favour of.

    At least admit that you just want this in to stop people from saying things that you find "offensive".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 41,053 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No. It isnt lies. I've seen you saying it's OK to abuse people calling them groomers and paedophiles.

    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: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    No Frank. That is not an offence of incitement to violence. Perhaps you didn't understand the first time this was explained to you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 753 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    Then what's required is a very specific and objective incitement to violence law — not a general, undefined, ambiguous, subjective "hate speech" law.

    Your arguments don't stack up.

    In fact, there's something insincere with the arguments you are putting across, almost as if it is a veneer; a kind of veil for what you really believe.

    By all means defend this legislation, but your evasive casuistry on this issue isn't fooling anyone — nor, may I add, is condescending language such as, "legislation needs to be updated regularly to reflect changes in society".

    Stock phrases like that are very annoying and yes, reflect a deep gravity of feigned sincerity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    What is not specific about incitement to violence as outlined in the proposed legislation?

    Im not sure how you feel that me stating legislation needs updating is somehow condescending, it's just a fact.

    Asa for the rest of your personal attack, not relevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,053 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    You don't even know what you are talking about. This isn't a "hate speech" law. There is nothing in the bill about hate speech.

    It has 2 aspects

    1 Updating the 1989 Act in relation to incitement to violence and incitement to hatred.

    2 Introducing hate crime into law

    There's nothing at all insincere about saying laws need to be updated. That's just your projections.

    You clearly havent read the bill at all and dont fully understand the contents of it. If you are going to accuse another user of casuistry it might be an idea to actually research and understand what you are talking about.

    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: 753 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    Laws may be updated, but that doesn't necessarily make those updates positive. What's legal is not always what's right; honestum non semper quod licet.

    Second, you said that:

    This isn't a "hate speech" law. There is nothing in the bill about hate speech.

    This is exactly what I mean by casuistry.

    The law is called "Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill". When we talk about "hate speech" bill, we are referring to the nature of the bill. But you knew that.

    Third, I understand perfectly well what I'm talking about. And it's a bit rich for you to say that I should "actually research and understand" the bill, when the bill itself cannot even define "hate" on any reasonably objective level, if at all on any level.

    Nor may I add, have you defined it either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,053 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No. You don't understand the Bill when you keep on about the bill being about hate speech. The other day you said it was called the Hate Speech Bill. Its not.

    Half of the Bill is about updating the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act so you telling SuviGirl what's needed in the Bill while talking about things that are not in the Bill shows you haven't got a clue what the Bill is actually about.

    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: 753 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    I have seen you many times tell people on this thread, "you didn't read the full bill" and "you don't know what you're talking about". Is that the best argument you have? Along with the other one, "laws need to be updated over time"?

    As far as I'm concerned, these are stock answers at this stage — probably and deliberately used because you don't want to engage in good faith with the actual substance and implications of the bill.

    They are attempts to knowingly mislead. I'd like to think most people can see through it at this stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Vote4Squirrels


    It's the very same response that followed the defeating of the ridiculous referendums last month - demeaning the population who don't agree with you by patronisingly stating, "you simply don't understand" - it didn't work then and it won't work now.

    I have read the bill as it goes and there is a lot to be concerned about.

    The simple fact is "gender identity and expression" is now listed as a protected characteristic which is insane - there is no defined metric to this; it is purely subjective and has no business being in a law or bill.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 753 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    The absurdity of gender expression as a protected characteristic in the bill is self-evident.

    All other characteristics listed in the bill are not subjective, except religion:

    • race
    • colour
    • nationality
    • national or ethnic origin
    • descent
    • gender (including gender expression or identity)
    • religion
    • sex characteristics
    • sexual orientation
    • disability

    And I don't even believe religion should be included as a protected characteristic either, but that's a separate argument.

    Protected characteristics should be factors not subject to subjectivity.



Advertisement