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

Riiiiight…. 😒

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

Oh my… how can someone be so dense.

It doesn’t take much 😬

European Community Law

Ireland is a dualist State, Article 29.6 of the Constitution providing that international agreements have the force of law to the extent determined by the Oireachtas. This means that international treaties entered into must be incorporated into domestic law by legislation before they are applicable within the State (for example, incorporation of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Immunities was effected by the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967). The exception to this is European Community law, which, under the terms of Article 29 of the Constitution, has the force of law in the State. This means that any law or measure, the adoption of which is necessitated by Ireland's membership of the European Union, may not, in principle, be invalidated by any provision of the Constitution.

http://www.supremecourt.ie/SupremeCourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en

The Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobia (“The Framework Decision”) is the only existing EU criminal law instrument that harmonises the definition of and criminal penalties for some specific forms of hate speech and hate crime, namely race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Aiming to ensure that serious manifestations of racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties throughout the EU, it requires Member States to take the necessary measures to criminalise the public incitement to violence or hatred on above stated grounds. Member States were obliged to transpose the obligations imposed on them under the Framework Decision into their national law by 28 November 2010. As a result, they already have or should have national laws in place criminalising hate speech and hate crime on the grounds of race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin – even though implementation varies greatly (see below). In addition, victims of hate speech and hate crime are required to be provided with an effective remedy and rights, support and protection, as mandated under the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU), which recognised victims of hate crime as especially vulnerable victims requiring particular attention (Article 22(3)) and at high risk of experiencing secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation (Recital 57). The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13/EU) obliges EU Member States to ensure by appropriate means that audio-visual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, religion, sex or nationality (Article 6). Another complementary action is the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016), aimed at IT companies who are encouraged by the Commission to sign it in order to ensure the effective enforcement of legislation by preventing and countering the illegal hate speech online.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10609-022-09440-w

Oh I liked dissecting this one.

For as long as it lasts, I hope you did 😒

You missed this bit:

The exception to this is European Community law, which, under the terms of Article 29 of the Constitution, has the force of law in the State. This means that any law or measure, the adoption of which is necessitated by Ireland's membership of the European Union, may not, in principle, be invalidated by any provision of the Constitution.

Necessitated by Ireland’s membership of the European Union, is not the same as saying necessary to be a member of the European Union. It means because of our membership, not - in order to be a member.

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 meant Irish Law was already in accordance with EU Law, and Ireland went further than it was required in including characteristics of membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation:

“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;

That was the extent determined by the Oireachtas then. Now the Oireachtas has determined that gender identity and sex characteristics be added to the list, and they be made explicit as protected characteristics, in accordance with EU Law, meaning Ireland will be again, ahead of the curve so to speak, when EU countries domestic laws are required to be in harmony with EU Law regarding hate crimes and hate speech.

Because, in spite of your original claim, claims, both of them actually, that there is no mandate for an Irish law to be passed just because of the EU, and asking me to remember the Lisbon Treaty, and telling me our membership of the EU has nothing to do with this legislation, telling me it doesn’t seem as though I’m familiar with EU regulations and a nation’s sovereignty over its criminal law… none of that is actually true.

While there’s no mention of penalties in relation to these particular measures (which are part of The Framework Decision and the Victims Rights Directive), the idea that there is no mandate for an Irish law to be passed just because of the EU, is just flat-out nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that Ireland’s failure to transpose EU Law into Irish Law led to Ireland having to pay fines, until such a time as the Oireachtas gets the finger out and transposes all of the Directive into Irish Law:

The Government has been fined at least €2.5m by the EU’s highest court for delaying the introduction of new rules on streaming services, online safety and hate speech. 

A daily fine of €10,000 will be applied on top of that lump sum for each day that Irish law is not brought into line with the EU’s rules.

The penalty was imposed after Ireland failed to meet a September 2020 deadline for implementing the EU’s updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

The law was adopted in 2018 and guidelines on implementation were published two years later. The European Commission sent warning letters to Ireland in November 2020, September 2021 and November 2021, telling the Government it was in breach of EU law.

At the time the case was taken, Ireland’s online safety and media regulation bill was still making its way through the legislative process. It was finally adopted in December 2022. Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland’s media regulator, which features the country’s first online safety commissioner, began work last year.

The Department of Culture and Media said in a statement that it accepted the judgment and said the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 “marked partial transposition” of the EU law.

"Ireland is completely committed to implementing the directive into Irish law,” the statement said. “Full transposition will be achieved once Coimisiún na Meán adopts online safety and media services codes.”

Most EU member states failed to bring the rules into place in time, and the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Spain were also warned they could face fines. But Ireland is in the spotlight because it is the European headquarters of many of the world’s biggest tech firms. 

“Ireland is the EU member state where the largest number of VSPs [video sharing platforms] are established,” the European Court of Justice said on Thursday.

“The Court finds that Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, by neglecting to adopt the legislative, regulatory, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by the deadline set out by the Commission, and by failing to communicate these provisions to the Commission.

https://m.independent.ie/business/media/ireland-fined-25m-by-eu-courts-for-delays-to-online-safety-law/a1636080366.html

Can you give one example in recent years, say on the protected characteristic of gender, where someone said something that — in your view — reaches or exceeds the threshold of "incitement to hatred"?

Not incitement to violence, but incitement to hatred.

I don't have an example either.

Does anyone have an example?

That's because the so-called "notice of non-crime hate incidents" is brought up insincerely to illicit a response. From your posts, it's well-established that you mean to say non-crime hate incidents are recorded and that's all; there are no "notices", but as I say, it's said to illicit a response, so it's best ignored.

It's not in the Bill. You haven't provided evidence it's in the Bill.

Deleted. Dupiicatw

That links back to my earlier question:

Can you give one example in recent years, say on the protected characteristic of gender, where someone said something that — in your view — reaches or exceeds the threshold of "incitement to hatred"?

Not incitement to violence, but incitement to hatred.

Because as far as I can see, this legislation is wholly redundant in that there aren't even recent examples.

That misrepresents my position.

Of course the comment cannot be prosecuted under the 1989 law. What I'm saying is that are there any examples of statements made which would / could / should be prosecuted under this new legislation.

For instance:

• If a radical cleric called for the hatred of a particular group, we would have evidence of that incitement.

Are there any real-life examples in recent years in terms of the protected characteristic of gender where, had this new legislation existed at the time it was said, the person is likely to have been prosecuted under it.

Some people think it's ok to let people make false statements to the police you cannot disprove. It's silly because that's the opportunity this law creates. Almost nobody is on board with that.

You cannot disprove — and the key is in that word — someone's claim of perceived hatred, unless they admit to lying.

So what? You cannot disprove anyones claim of perceived anything. Precisely because it's what they perceive.

Fact remains it doesn't matter what they perceive, if there isn't a crime, there isn't a crime.

You want us to believe that hate is what you claim it is - but that is up to the Gardai and courts to decide - not you or me.