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

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

Options
1130131133135136142

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    If someone makes a false or deliberately exaggerated claim of "hate" you cannot disprove, it is done to undermine an innocent person.

    I'm on the side of that innocent person, not the complainant's apparent right to complain. And, of course, wasting police time.

    You may want innocent people investigated off the back of insidious people, but I do not.

    This legislation allows that exploitation to take place, and it must be opposed.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    I asked a question earlier to some other posters, but they couldn't find or know of, any examples.

    On the protected characteristic of gender, are there any examples in recent years you are aware of that would have violated this legislation if the legislation existed at the time the "incitement to hatred" comments were made?

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Sure how would we know? There could be thousands! That's doubtful and im just being funny😊

    But how.could we know, because there was no legislation, therefore no crime, no investigations, no charges etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    There couldn't be thousands.

    Incitement to hatred on the basis of gender would be publicly available (the word in the 1989 and the 2022 legislation, "public" calls).

    If the country were awash with incitement to hatred, we'd know all the cases — because those cases would have been used to justify the legislation to begin with.

    Nobody knows of any cases because they don't exist.

    Including gender as a protected characteristic is hollow.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,928 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    😁Nobody is calling for nasty words to be criminalised.

    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 Posts: 40,928 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    The example I cited last week of the tweet calling to execute a trans woman because she is trans might possibly fall into that category, the documented death threats against the Former CEO of TENI might possibly fall info that category

    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 Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I said it was a joke🙄

    No, we wouldn't know, how could we possibly? Do you think that victims would be publicising them?

    we do have records of non crime hate incidents recorded by gardai, so.presumably some reported non crime incidents would indeed be crimes under new legislation.

    https://garda.ie/en/information-centre/statistics/hate-crime-statistics.html

    https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-releases/2023/march/an-garda-siochana-2022-hate-crime-data-and-related-discriminatory-motives.html



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,928 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Again thats a REALLY silly reason to oppose law. Every law introduced has the potential for innocent people to be investigated. What you are effectively saying is you want to give into the bullys who might abuse the law.

    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 Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    You can be prosecuted for making a vexatious complaint i e accusing someone unlawfully. There is no vexatious complaint if someone makes up a complaint to get someone into trouble if this is brought in as all they have to say is '' i believed it offended me' even if they didn't believe it and made it deliberately to try and get the other person in trouble. You now cannot be prosecuted if you make up the excuse that you felt offended. How can you not get this?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    I specifically mentioned "incitement to hatred", not incitement to violence (as I already said that I am pro- any objective incitement to violence law).

    So no, this isn't an example of incitement to hatred.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    There is no offence of offending someone. That is not now, nor will it be an offence



  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    Self defence is an example, the person who assaults someone in what they believe to be self defence, is doing so subjectively.

    That's a dreadful comparison.

    In a legal case involving the self-defence argument, you can establish independent, objective criteria whereby an individual was a threat to the person and so the person could reasonably fight back in response.

    That's a world away from someone going to an online form and reporting someone on the basis that they feel someone hates them.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yet someone can make a baseless and false accusation without being prosecuted themselves. Topsy turvy flip flop.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Sorry you don't understand, self defence is entirely subjective.

    What a 5'2" woman feels is reasonable force, would not be the same as what a 6'2 man feels is reasonable force. And the law judges it subjectively based on that persons subjective feelings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭combat14


    the man to bring in hate laws in scotland thinks that there are too many white scots in scotland apparently

    despite his vile racist anti scot rant and many many complaints he hasn't been arrested yet under scotlands new hate speech law

    the whole thing is a sham - is this the world where helen mcentee and simon harris taking us



  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    No, the case is adjudged from objective, independent criteria — did the assault take place? What evidence can we appeal to?

    Any subjectivity in the case is wrapped within the confines of layers of objective data. People don't enter court without evidence to justify the claim, objective evidence from which they argue their subjective perspective.

    I'm not for a moment suggesting that subjectivity does not exist in law in any capacity.

    What I'm saying is that this legislation offers someone carte blanche the opportunity to report someone without any objective criteria at all; without any means of disproving their case.

    The two examples could not be any more opposed.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    If you believe that then why do you want new legislation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,928 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Someone can do that right now. Big swing. Giving into bullys who might abuse the law isnt an excuse not to bring a law.

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    No it is not.

    It is judged subjectively. Reasonable force is formed by a persons view of what they perceive the threat to be. That is how it is judged by the law in this country.

    Not at all opposed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Same point yet again - why do we need new legislation then?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,571 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    People can take baseless accusations now, under lots of legislation. That's what I mean.



  • Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    So why do we need new legislation if it is covered already?



  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭concerned_tenant


    The "someone can do that already" answer to the question of the risk of mass reporting misses the point (intentionally?) that it only has the force of law after the legislation has passed.

    Of course nobody would do it today, there is no incentive.

    As we saw in Scotland, offer people a risk-free reporting system and they will absolutely capitalize on it — as they would here, if the same legislation passes.

    Thank goodness the chances of it entering law in this country is declining with every day that passes.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." — George Orwell



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    There is no such thing as a risk free reporting system - if someone makes a false report, there is a risk to them for doing so that they will be prosecuted. Whatever incentive anyone has for making a false report, the mechanisms by which they may do so, already exist. If they do not wish to make a false report in person, they may do so by telephone call, or online:

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


    In recent times for example a tweet by the CEO of Educate Together has upset Jewish Israeli parents, and there’s a bit of back and forth between the parents and the board of Educate Together about it. There is an incentive there for anyone to make a false report based upon current legislation which includes religion:

    https://archive.ph/qXFu0

    Similarly, there was an opportunity for anyone who wanted to make a false report incentivised to do so in circumstances where a teacher in an Educate Together school made an awful gaffe, and the Chairman apologised to the student and his mother for it:

    Chairman of the school, Richard Allen, said it was an ‘unfortunate incident’ and apologised to the pupil and his mother.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/muslim-charlie-hebdo-limerick-school-1923456-Feb2015/

    You’re choosing to focus on the protected characteristic of gender, when there are nine other protected characteristics of equal value which offer the same opportunity and incentive for anyone who is of a mind to do so, to either deliberately make a false report, or make a report in good faith that later may or may not require investigation by Gardaí. It happens plenty, you just don’t hear about it because there’s no opportunity for sensationalism.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,303 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Feel free to prove it wrong then, or just keep with the clever one line responses. I know which one is easier for you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,303 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    "Necessitated" means to make something necessary or unavoidable. If a situation or action necessitates something, it means that circumstances require it, making it essential or inevitable.

    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 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.

    You are contradicting yourself here, just admit you got it wrong. Nothing new.

    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:

    As I have said, and you have ignored. The EU can pass certain regulations and directives. While it can pass criminal law (like the terrorist example I gave) it is ultimately up to the sovereign member states to pass their own laws.

    The link you posted: "The penalty was imposed after Ireland failed to meet a September 2020 deadline for implementing the EU’s updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)." Thank you for making my point for me, it was a directive, like I already pointed out.

    You should really read what you copy and paste.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    You should really read what you copy and paste.

    You berate another poster for their one-liners, and complain about walls of text that you aren’t bothered reading, then repeat the same nonsense that I have previously demonstrated how you are simply mistaken in your interpretation. It’s WHY I pasted the relevant bits directly, in the hope that you couldn’t avoid reading them and seeing how you were mistaken. The only failure on my part was expecting that you would see your mistake. At this point it’s obvious that you’re determined not to, so I’ll leave it there.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,408 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    It seems the loony left have driven most of the complaints so far with JK Rowling being the most targeted .



Advertisement