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

What is the tipping point between insulting some groups and inciting hatred of some groups? How do you define what hatred is?

But as my post above suggested , I want the protected groups and characteristics changed , why should some subsections have protection against hatred under the law and others don't ,that seems quite discriminatory in my opinion

The tipping point is where the language used incites hatred towards an individual or group on the basis of any of the protected characteristics included in the legislation. Hatred, for the purposes of the legislation, is already defined. That’s why how anyone defines hatred is entirely their own business and nothing to do with how it is defined in Irish law for the purposes of the Act:

“hatred” means 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;

No groups have protection that others don’t? You want to have protection for specific groups and specific terminology prohibited, but all that would do is elevate particular groups over others, and I guarantee you nobody would be long coming up with alternative terminology to express exactly the same sentiment, rendering your changes meaningless and ineffective.

You can, obviously, seeing as it’s already been done and has existed that way for the last 30 odd years! Hatred on its own is commonly understood, and it goes on to define what is meant by hatred for the purposes of the Act.

There’s no issue with it, only the issue you’re trying to invent by making out that hatred isn’t defined. It’s legislation, not a dictionary.

Gender, race , nationality, are all protected characteristics.

Fascist or far right are political ideologies, so you really think they should be protected? I can see no reason why, maybe you can?

Refugees welcome, does not in anyway discriminate against Irish people. But you know that.

Sure wasn’t I quoting existing legislation, which you say is fine and there’s no need to change it, and now you’re suggesting it should be changed because hatred is undefined? Would you make up your mind, which is it you want? This is existing legislation:

“hatred” means 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;

It doesn’t lend itself towards subjectivity any more than the proposed legislation lends itself towards subjectivity. The determination as to whether or not circumstances constitute an offence is a matter for Gardaí, who are an objective party.

That’s how it operates when any kind of a complaint is made to Gardaí - the person making the complaint doesn’t have to be familiar with Irish legislation, the complainant just doesn’t have the authority to decide whether or not a crime has been committed, like you tried to do earlier in declaring a crime isn’t a crime because you say so.

Were that actually the case, criminals could simply decide they haven’t committed a crime, regardless of what is written in Irish law. That kind of freeman nonsense has never worked in anyone’s favour.

Hatred is defined in the text above as "hatred again a group of persons" .That is not really a helpful definition of hatred as it just says hatred is hatred.Can you define hatred without using the word hate? what hate means differs from person to person, what is the tipping point that pushes what a person says or writes into the territory of hatred?

Fact is Ireland does not need this legislation, a better way to run a country would be to only involve the government and courts where they are really needed and not create pointless unnecessary legislation like this hate speech bill is.

This bill is wishy washy nonsense and is charter for every crank in Ireland to make complaints.

The government should spend their time trying to fix issues people actually care about like housing and immigration for example

Don’t be daft, I don’t care what you or anyone else does or doesn’t believe. The whole point of the legislation is simply that you keep your beliefs about other people to yourself, especially if you’re aware that they could constitute hate speech.

You’re not an idiot, you know well what is meant by it, because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t try raising such piss poor arguments against it that are based upon nothing more than your subjective feelings about other people and groups in Irish society, the very thing the legislation is designed to address. Attempting to disguise your nonsense in flowery rhetoric doesn’t make it any less transparent.

In your opinion maybe. Everyone else knows what discrimination on the basis of gender means.

You’re still missing the point that however anyone defines hatred, or that it differs from person to person, is irrelevant. It’s how it’s defined according to Irish law is the only thing that is relevant, and for the purposes of current legislation, that’s how it is defined, unless you want to change that, in which case your opinion that the proposed legislation is unnecessary, is simply contradicting yourself!

Fact is that Ireland does need the legislation, because current legislation is ineffective, and we know that because there is plenty of evidence to support making the necessary changes to existing legislation - circumstances which are not covered by existing legislation. This IS only involving the Government and the Courts where they are needed, just not needed according to you, which is entirely subjective. However, based on the evidence and the facts which are objective, it has been demonstrated that the changes proposed in legislation are necessary. This stuff isn’t just done for the hell of it or to score points in culture wars or any of that shyte, it’s done because it’s been demonstrated that it’s necessary.

Even if the amount of evidence didn’t already support the changes in Irish legislation, the evidence from how compulsive complainers have reacted to the Scottish legislation demonstrates the necessity of making these changes in Irish law - nobody likes their freedoms restricted, but it’s necessary in order to maintain public order.

It's up to the Gardai, DPP and courts to decide that tipping point.

The example I gave before. A person calling for a trans person to be executed because they are trans. That is gender based discrimination.

You can be as racist as you like ( all it proves is your an asshole) but when it strays into calling for violence against a race you have strayed into hate crime. Its really not that subtle a distinction.

Then please tell me why it is not been used against the people calling for all migrants to be murdered.

This is a fundamental difference in the new legislation.

What do you mean by “focuses on actual crime”? Sure something isn’t a crime if it isn’t a crime, there’s no ‘actual’ or otherwise about it. The proposed legislation doesn’t focus on thoughts / subjectivity / self-perception either. It’s doing nothing different than the previous legislation in that regard in that it prohibits anyone from engaging in the sort of behaviour that is contrary to public order and morality.

It’d be useful to know what evidence-based assessment you’re referring to before you accuse me of dismissing it (an accusation based entirely upon your perception, see how that works?). because I’ve been able to present evidence which supports the necessary changes in legislation - circumstances which aren’t covered by current legislation. The example I gave earlier of the priest in Kerry, is not covered by current legislation:

https://archive.ph/iaQXH

It’s perfectly normal that you would want to trust your own sources, but your own sources are of fcukall use to anyone else, certainly not if your aim is that legislation be objective! Objectivity requires that you take into consideration factors which you are deliberately choosing to dismiss in favour of promoting your own ideas about free speech, when that’s already constrained by the objective standard of the necessity to maintain public order and morality.

More speech doesn’t do anything, it only legitimises nonsense to entertain it. Nobody should be under any obligation to tolerate that kind of behaviour, which is what you’re suggesting is the more effective and appropriate way to deal with it. It isn’t, as has been evident by the rise in extremism in the last two decades as a result of people feeling they had the right to say whatever they like and treat people whatever way they liked, and if anyone objected they’re accused of being an activist or a compulsive complainer, etc, as you have done recently, repeatedly, over the course of this thread, while failing to make any sort of a rational or reasonable argument based upon facts, evidence, logic… the sort of concepts you purport to care about.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that you actually do care about them. It’s not because your ability to speak your mind freely is being limited by anything other than your own lack of imagination.

A death threat is a serious matter worthy of investigation, but this legislation is primarily designed to address coordinated and sustained campaigns of hate towards a group likely to lead directly to acts of violence. This is where the judgement of the Gardi and magistrates/judges is the deciding factor.

Resources is the filter here, if some right wing nutjob tries to drum up a gang with pitch forks and knives to attack migrants and he is seen to be getting traction he will be arrested and prosecuted under this legislation.

The whole notion of frivolous claims getting any traction is the ludicrous element of this discussion but fundamental to the tenuous case been made by the right wing opponents.

The vast majority of actual violent incidents are not investigated in a serious way by the guards

Of course they are.

There an Act of 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act which:

The 1989 Act prohibits certain forms of threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons on account of certain characteristics. These characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation. The threatening, abusive or insulting conduct can take the form of
 Actions likely to stir up hatred (section 2) – this covers the publication or distribution of written material; the use of words, behaviour or display of written material outside of a private residence; and the distribution, showing or playing of a recording of sounds or visual images;
 Broadcasts likely to stir up hatred (section 3) – this covers broadcasts to the general public of images or sounds; and
 Preparation and possession of material likely to stir up hatred (section 4) – this covers the preparation or possession, or the making or possession, of written material or recordings of sounds or visual images.

The above ais a quote from a review of the act available on Assets.Gov.ie

And it will be widely used to silence opinions people don’t like and you know that.