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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1676870727391

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    You can say what you want but you are still completely wrong in what you are saying. Facts matter. You are not saying facts.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on

    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



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Wait now a minute, we could nearly clear up all the source of confusion here if we can establish the facts.

    • perceived doesn’t mean the complainant has the authority to declare what does or doesn’t constitute an offence, that’s still the role of the Gardaí, who are an objective party
    • vexatious cases, by virtue of the fact that they are vexatious, are not considered valid, that’s why they are dismissed

    No, the best way to achieve that outcome is for people not to make vexatious complaints solely for the purposes of wasting police time and resources. That’s an offence in itself under different legislation in both Ireland and the UK already.

    It’s not been a mistake, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the legislation itself has been a success or failure. If the legislation does what it’s intended to do, then it’s a success. If the legislation doesn’t do what it’s intended to do, as is the case with current legislation in Ireland, then it’s a failure, which needs to be addressed. The proposed legislation is how Government are doing that. Social media just wasn’t a thing in Ireland when the 1989 legislation was enacted, and it couldn’t have been predicted then, which is why three decades later we’re getting round to addressing that failure, to bring our laws into line with every other EU member state. That’s why this legislation isn’t going away no matter how many times you declare it a failure or predict that it won’t happen.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    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



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    Ultimately when you strip away the often misleading superimposed contexts of this legislation, it comes down to the following three things:

    • do people believe that holocaust denial (which is effectively history denial) should be illegal, as in Germany?
    • do people believe that subjective gender expression should be a "protected characteristic"?
    • do people believe that people's self-perception is a good basis for establishing hate crimes punishable under the law?

    As long as the answers to these three questions remain no, this legislation is dreadful, open to abuse, restricts speech, creates a chilling effect, and creates a precedent where language may be restricted further at some point in the future.

    I don't see any advantage, none.

    I fully support the existing and already effective 1989 legislation which does the job it is intended to do.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    “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.

    You cannot have the definition of a word where the word is repeated in the definition. That's the very opposite of what a definition is supposed to achieve. We can conclude that "hatred" is undefined.

    It would be the equivalent of someone asking me to define the word chicken, and I started with the words, "Chicken means chicken…". It's self-evidently absurd.

    This is a particularly acute issue when it comes to legislation, and yet another reason why this legislation should be opposed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    The difference is that existing legislation does not lend itself toward subjectivity and self-perception in the way that this novel legislation hopes to effect.

    Combine hate speech laws with subjective self-perception of what is deemed "hateful" with an undefined meaning of "hatred" itself, and you have a toxic legislative cocktail right there.

    As I said, the existing legislation is more than sufficient to handle all necessary crimes in this domain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,469 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    That's a daft comparison and argument. You're name calling, I'm not calling anybody names here.

    "You’re the same kind of person who probably denounced (or still does) gay people"

    No. And you said that, not me.

    "I think a bigot is a bigot"

    If you want to continue with the name calling and call yourself out, go right ahead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭combat14


    the irish people want proper policing, housing, stronger borders, proper education and healthcare and good value for money on state projects and spending

    they have no interest in introducing subjective hate laws



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    Gender has become meaningless these days (seeing as there are now hundreds of genders) .

    I would argue that as abhorrent as it is people should still be allowed to express racist thoughts and then you beat them by having a better argument and showing how stupid what they were saying is.Better to have idiotic thoughts out in the open and beating them with a better argument than allowing them to be quite in the shadows and building up without being challenged publicly.

    If people are being harassed by someone there are laws already to deal with that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    council of Europe definition

    https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech

    hate speech is understood as all types of expression that incite, promote, spread or justify violence, hatred or discrimination against a person or group of persons, or that denigrates them, by reason of their real or attributed personal characteristics or status such as “race”,[2] colour, language, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    AGS have a definition,

    https://www.garda.ie/en/crime/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime-.html#:~:text=Any%20criminal%20offence%20which%20is%20perceived%20by%20the,colour%2C%20nationality%2C%20ethnicity%2C%20religion%2C%20sexual%20orientation%20or%20gender.

    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.

    United Nations definition

    https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech#:~:text=Hate%20speech%20is%20%E2%80%9Cdiscriminatory%E2%80%9D%20%28biased%2C%20bigoted%20or%20intolerant%29,contemptuous%20or%20demeaning%29%20of%20an%20individual%20or%20group.

    EU

    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-hate-speech-and-hate-crime_en

    Hate motivated crime and speech are illegal under EU law. The 2008 Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia requires the criminalisation of public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.

      https://www.rightsforpeace.org/hate-speech

    Hate Speech becomes a human rights violation if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or a group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors.

     

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


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



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    I quoted the existing legislation as well as the three additions that the new legislation seeks to include.

    There is a legitimate comparison to be made between the two, about how the 1989 legislation is more objective in approach and focusses on actual crime and less on thoughts / subjectivity / self-perception.

    You can dismiss this evidence-based assessment if you wish, but I would rather trust my sources in the legislation quoted rather than the superimposed and often deliberately misleading contexts we have seen, and continue to see, over the course of this thread.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    No we don't, we know what discrimination on the basis of sex is alright but gender these days has become meaningless.

    Post edited by Jack Daw on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Well then why are you asking for insults based on being male be made into hate speech then? If being male is meaningless.

    Of course, that's not he mention the ridiculousness of wanting an insult to be made criminal🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    It is being done to score points by our politicians and the reason we know that is as soon as it became very obvious recently it was an unpopular piece of legislation they decided they didn't like it anymore.

    The legislations definition of hatred is nonsense though, I just showed that in one of my recent posts.

    How the hell will this help maintain public order? That type of argument is the sort of argument the communists and fascists in europe made in the past about censorship laws they introduced.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    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.



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    How many times.

    The 1989 legislation already exists to handle these cases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


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

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Can you point out Where the existing legislation criminalises incitement to violence?

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    Here is the relevant subsection of the 1989 law:

    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.

    As to the question in your post, that's a matter for the Gardaí and DPP — not for me to answer; unless, of course, you are now arguing the Gardaí and law enforcement forces are engaged in some bizarre conspiracy not to enact the 1989 law?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    I can make a complaint against a person calling for all migrants to be murdered and it has to be investigated. Its not at the discretion of the Gardi.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Stir up hatred, does not include violence.

    Call for violence against protected groups are not covered in existing legislation.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    This is a fundamental difference in the new legislation.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭jackboy


    There are thousands of death threats made online daily in Ireland alone. A lot of these are targeted at individuals as well as groups. An extremely tiny number of the threats are followed through to murder. It would take a massive number of Guards to investigate all of them. Its a resource issue.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    I already said that if incitement to violence legislation needs to be introduced on an objective basis, I have no problem with that. For instance: if a religious cleric calls for the murder of Jews, that should be criminal; the evidence collected, and the perpetrator convicted. I fully support legislation that prosecutes people who explicitly call for violence against anyone, for any reason.

    I do not support subjective hate speech laws which are an add-on to that. I do not support add-on legislation that seeks to transform subjective gender expression into a protected category. I do not support add-on legislation that seeks to criminalize people if they deny parts of history. I do not support legislation that prioritizes "perceived" crimes based on what they believe someone has said to them.

    I hope I have made my position crystal clear.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭jackboy


    I just cant see the guards ever having enough resources to do that. The vast majority of actual violent incidents are not investigated in a serious way by the guards and plenty of dangerous individuals are are let of lightly by the courts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭jackboy


    I don't understand how this new legislation impacts the example you make here. Surely the Guards could intervene with current legislation.



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    What often happens with this debate is that a very obvious case of inciting violence is brought up, and then the conclusion, "…therefore, the legislation must be passed" is carried through.

    As I already explained, I think very few people are against an objective-based incitement to violence law.

    What people are uncomfortable about isn't these obvious cases of inciting violence, it's every other part of the legislation (the hate crime part; transforming gender expression as a protected characteristic; chilling effect) etc.

    Take one of the more ludicrous parts of the legislation:

    In this case, if someone denies or minimizes a "war crime", that is punishable under this legislation.

    What right does Helen McEntee and others think they have to weigh down on issues like this? Whilst I don't support the idea of minimizing war crimes, the government shouldn't take it upon themselves to weaponize the Gardaí against people who do.

    The government would be better off dealing with actual issues in society; the police, dealing with real crime in society. This kind of thing, as well as making subjective gender expression a protected characteristic, undermines the legislation.

    Again, this stuff has nothing to do with the clear cases of inciting violence — of which almost everyone is in alignment. And once you start criminalizing speech, where does it end? When will the next wave of speech restrictions come in?

    It's a slippery slope. We really are better off without this legislation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    incitement to violence is an add on to already existing legislation, that is being updated.

    Gender is a protected characteristic, all gender, it does not discriminate between what you believe to be subjective gender expression and any other gender. The fact that you believe what you do, doesn't matter. You can continue to believe whatever you wish. And people can continue to choose their legal gender as per, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/print.html

    And just fyi, all people who report incidents to AGS, perceive they are a victim, or that a crime has been committed, otherwise no-one would ever report anything! How do you think it works

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


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

    Of course they are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Which legislation would cover a person calling for all travellers children to be drowned at birth, because they're all scumbag criminals?

    Or someone advocating to burn all asylum seekers out of their accommodation? ( which imo is only a matter of time)

    What act covers that?



  • Posts: 0 Spencer Lazy Hoe


    Only part of the legislation is about incitement to violence.

    Every other part of the legislation is absurd.

    It would be similarly absurd to pass legislation on that basis. Remove the nonsense parts of the legislation; keep the sensible incitement to violence clauses, and then almost everyone will be on board.

    As an aside, there is a good argument that the 1989 law covers those two cases:

    It shall be an offence for a person—

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

    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭jackboy


    They are very different to the example I was responding to which detailed direct organisation of a violent attack, which current legislation surely deals with.

    Your examples are different. As I said before there are thousands of such threats made daily. The resources will never exist to investigate even a tiny fraction of those, regardless of what legislation exists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭Economics101


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Previous acts require the state to initiate a case, of which they have shown themselves singularly unwilling to do. The new legislation allows a citizen to make a complaint which must be investigated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Vote4Squirrels


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



  • Advertisement
Advertisement