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

The legislation is littered with subjective clauses — such as "perceived" hate, and so on.

That subjectivity allows for people to decide for themselves whether they perceive hate, and so it leads to this absurd situation — now playing out in Scotland — where the sheer lack of objectivity means anyone can, for any perceived reason, seek to have their own case looked into.

You can dismiss these cases as "frivolous or vexatious" but according to the law, these cases are considered valid.

Though I agree with you that these cases should never be brought to the police to begin with. The best way to achieve that outcome is not to pass legislation strewn with subjective clauses.

What's happening now in Scotland was entirely predictable. Let's not make the same mistake in this country.

Can you point out which specific parts of what I said were false — and why?

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.