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

Forget about the cause, whether it's pro or anti-legislation people — in principle, do you believe that a law that can be easily abused is a good law?

To put it into perspective, I'm against the legislation even if most of the people abusing the legislation are against it. The very fact it can be abused by anyone, by either side, demonstrates the very weakness of the legislation. Almost everyone can see this.

Also, where is your evidence that all the people reporting to Scottish police are "Neo-Nazis"?

If evidence is what we care about, it's important not to make things up.

Ad hominem is widely considered among the worst arguments in logic.

In lieu of that, can you explain why you think the position is naïve?

If evidence is what we care about, it's important not to make things up.

But it’s ok for you to make things up and claim that people abusing the operation of the legislation means the legislation itself is weak, when in reality people making things up says nothing about the strength of the legislation to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.

No, it's a legitimate question — and all legitimate questions have legitimate answers.

Forget about the cause, whether it's pro or anti-legislation people — in principle, do you believe that a law that can be easily abused is a good law?

Either you believe the answer is yes or the answer is no.

The question doesn't have a non-answer.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine — but it is a fair and legitimate question to ask.

Even if what you suggest is true, that doesn't make hate speech legislation a good thing.

It means, at the very least, that reporting figures are being disputed.

The legislation itself is the problem. Even if mass reporting from bad actors didn't happen at all, the legislation itself would still be bad to pass. Though that said, bad actors are weaponizing the legislation for their own ends.

It's the legislation that's the problem, first and foremost. You know this.

Most people know this, that's why it's so unpopular and, when enacted, so ineffective.

I'm not suggesting anything. Have you read any of the links you've been quoted in? It would appear you're one of those very selective "concerned" posters.

This legislation makes it possible for some to pretend to "perceive" hatred against them, even if what they perceive is personal offense i.e. they are manipulating the legislation for their own personal ends.

It incentivizes people to report, report, report — because you cannot disprove their personal belief that they feel perceived as experiencing "hatred" against them.

The very fact this is possible makes it bad legislation.

What a childish response.

It's because they want the power. They want the power to abuse the legislation.

It's not admitted, but that's the naked ambition.

As has been pointed out to you numerous, numerous times now (as though you’re not already well aware of it), anyone can pretend to be a victim of a crime, and that possibility exists with regard to any Act which relates to criminal offences or acts. That is no reflection whatsoever on the legislation itself, it is a reflection on the person who engages in that sort of behaviour.

The legislation itself doesn’t incentivise anyone to report, report, report. The encouragement to report comes from AGS who encourages people to come forward and make a report, as the AGS are aware of certain criminal offences being underreported. That’s more of an issue with current legislation than the issue of over-reporting which you’re attempting to suggest could be an issue, in spite of the fact that it’s been in place in Ireland for years (where did you think AGS get their data from in support of the legislation?):

https://www.garda.ie/en/reportahatecrime/

Nothing to do with the proposed legislation, everything to do with the fact that current legislation has been proven to be ineffective in preventing and tackling criminal offences motivated by hatred and prejudice against persons or groups of persons in Irish society on the basis of the protected characteristics included in the upcoming legislation.

Whether or not it’s good or bad law is entirely subjective, but in order to support your argument, ironically enough - the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims, and none of your flowery language, just plain English will do.

You were a bit quick off the mark with your claim the first time, is what I think. It’s because I’m already familiar with how EU regulations and directives are transposed into Irish law is the reason I pointed out there is a mandate for it - our membership of the EU for starters. I understand that Ireland can amend whatever is proposed in EU law and apply it within Irish legislation, and I made the point already that France are having considerable difficulties with it given their opposition to being told that they cannot discriminate in law against Muslims who choose to wear traditional dress, while Germany already has existing law prohibiting denial of the Holocaust, and similarly we have the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act since 1989, which has proven to be ineffective in preventing and tackling criminal acts motivated by prejudice and hatred.

What happened with the Lisbon Treaty is not that the terms of the treaty itself were changed; what changed was the conditions under which Ireland was expected to accept the terms of the treaty. Another one of the main reasons for Ireland’s change of heart the second time round is that Government actually made an effort to inform the public about the Treaty, as opposed to what they did with the recent referendums, and what they’re doing with this bill, knowing that at least it doesn’t involve a referendum:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1003/122507-eulisbon1/

Nothing you said contradicts what I said, you imagine that the Irish state can mangle this directive to death - just wait to see what happens if they try. But the reality is they won't because they understand the limits of their power to go again EU directives even if you don't.

Jesus, you might want to get to a hospital.

I might have no other choice but to throw in the towel if that’s expected to be an explanation as to why you think I’m mistaken in my interpretation of your original claim. It’s often the reason an investigation following a complaint cannot proceed - the victim or victims who made the original complaint is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation by Gardaí. It doesn’t mean the Gardaí can’t continue to investigate and gather evidence, regardless of whether the victim agrees to cooperate with their investigation or doesn’t. Proof that they have been wronged infers something else entirely, more likely in a civil dispute than a criminal matter.