Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1148149150151153

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,129 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Sure, however this bill isn’t about propaganda, and not all lies or fibs are propaganda either, but let’s blanket ban them all. Makes sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Sorry. Are you actually saying that your claim is that I, uniquely, have the power to prevent lies resulting in harm by simply ignoring them? That I can do this but nobody else can? And therefore the fact that lies told in the 1930s resulted in harm doesn't prove that I, who wasn't around in the 1930s, could not have averted that harm, if I had been there, by ignoring the lies?

    Because, if your claim doesn't relate to a magical power possess by me, Peregrinus, alone, the fact that this incident occurred in the 1930s, as opposed to as some other time, seems to me a detail that has no significance whatsoever.

    You, evidently, think it has some signficance, but you're not doing a great job of explaining what it is.

    I've given you a contemporary example of lies causing harm which was not averted by me ignoring the lies. You are studiously ignoring that example. Maybe try explaining your point by reference to that example? And maybe without mentioning me specifically? (Because I presume you're not really claiming that I possess a unique superpower that can avert all harm resulting from lies.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,129 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    No, I’m saying you have the power to ignore lies, or anything you don’t like hearing for that matter. You’ll hold onto the 1930’s for dear life now I imagine, as a means to try prove your point.

    Lies didn’t cause the rise to power of the Nazis, multiple reasons fed into that, I’m sure you know that though.

    My point is simple, banning someone’s ability to say something that’s “offensive”, won’t do a thing. It won’t change their beliefs or assertions one bit. You might be of the mind that it will do some good. Clearly it won’t, if we take your 1930’s example, why do we still see rightwing movements to this day? Would you just prefer to ban them because you hold different beliefs?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No, I’m saying you have the power to ignore lies, or anything you don’t like hearing for that matter. 

    Of course I have the power to ignore lies. Nobody has ever disputed that.

    But that was not your claim. Your claim was that, if I ignore lies, they will do no harm. That claim is refuted by abundant, easily-observed evidence.

    You’ll hold onto the 1930’s for dear life now I imagine, as a means to try prove your point.

    I have offered you a contemporary instance, and twice invited you to address it. You completely ignore it, and keep coming back to the 1930s. It's not me who's holding on to the 1930s, Frank. I don't have to; there are abundant examples from all periods of history and from the present day.

    My point is simple, banning someone’s ability to say something that’s “offensive”, won’t do a thing. It won’t change their beliefs or assertions one bit.

    Banning harmful statements may not change the beliefs of the people who want to make those statements, but it doesn't follow that it "won't do a thing". Remember, the object of the law is not to change the minds of those people; it's to prevent the expression of their views resulting in harm to other people. We know that the expression of harmful views can lead to serious harm — you keep banging on about the 1930s, so I think you accept that point at least in principle. If your claim is that the harm would have resulted anyway, even if the views had never been expressed — well, I await the arguments and evidence you will present in support of that claim.

    You might be of the mind that it will do some good. Clearly it won’t, if we take your 1930’s example, why do we still see rightwing movements to this day?

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. The expression of Nazi views did result in great harm. We still have right-wingers today. This proves that supressing harmful views would have acheived nothing? There are some logical gaps in that argument that you are going to have to fill before I can engage with it in any useful way.

    Would you just prefer to ban them because you hold different beliefs?

    Where's this coming from? Nothing I have said at any point in this thread could lead you to think that. Are you trying to have an argument about a different topic because you realise that, defending your own claim, you're on a hiding to nothing?

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,129 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    it's to prevent the expression of their views

    And there we have it folks, and before you jump in saying I’ve chopped up your quote, we already have laws about causing harm, like assault, battery etc.

    Hurting someone’s feelings shouldn’t be illegal.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Your finger slipped, or something, and you accidentally edited what I said in a way that a less charitable person than myself might think was dishonest. What I actually wrote (emphasis supplied for the benefit of the slow-witted) was:

    it's to prevent the expression of their views resulting in harm to other people.

    Yes, we already have laws against assault, etc. But, gee, assaults still happen. So it is rational to consider whether there are steps we can take to avert violence, rather than waiting for it to happen and then punishing the perpetrators. We know that hateful speech is often a precursor to, and a contributor to, violence — I know it; you know it; we all know it. And those that wish to employ violence, and hope to profit by it, know it to; that is why they so freely engage in hateful speech. So please stop pretending that this is not the central issue here. The pretence does you no credit.

    This is not about avoiding hurt feelings. It's about avoiding harm — the harm you say that I, and I alone, can single-handedly avert simply by ignoring statements that would cause harm if I paid any attention to them. I say that's rubbish, and your desperate attempts to reframe the arguments as being about suppressing disagreement with my views, or about avoiding hurt feelings, suggest that you know that it's rubbish.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,970 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    It would be great if we had specific examples of what you two are talking about. What expression of harmful views, words or feelings are you referring to?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    We've had two examples in the thread already.

    One is the role played by Nazi propaganda in bringing the Nazis to power, and subsequently in building and maintaining public acceptance of their antisemitic measures while in power.

    The other is the lies told about the perpetator of the Southport massacre, which led to anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker violence in the UK, up to and including attempts to burn asylum-seekers in their accommodation.

    And, you know, other examples of hateful speech leading to serious harm are not difficult to find. Think of the role that homophobic speech played in normalising homophobic attitudes, and so creating a climate in which homophobic violence was perpetrated, for example.

    The key problem here is that, yeah, there's a genuine tension between (a) protecting society, and especially vulnerable members of society, from the things that harmful speech leads to, and (b) protecting free speech. These are both important values and, when they're in tension, you have to find some way of balancing them. Which is not easy.

    But an entry-level qualification for participating usefully in this discussion is that you have to accept that this tension exists. If you approach this question on the bizarre basis that harmful speech ceases to be harmful if Peregrinus ignores it, or on the only fractionally less bizarre basis that restrictions on harmful speech are just about avoiding hurt feelings, you're refusing to acknowledge the issue that is actually being addressed here. You're posing as a free speech absolutist, but everyone else is aware that you're standing in the tradition of a lot of other self-professed free speech absolutists who turned out, once in power, not to be that keen on free speech at all.

    [NB: I am not saying that Frank Bullitt himself is not in favour of free speech, but is cynically adopting the position he does because he wants to carve out a space for hate speech. I am sure that is not the case. But the position he adopts fails to acknowledge the tension that I have pointed to, and you can't really mount an effective argument against hate speech legislation if you are in denial about, or won't address, the reasons why it is promoted in the first place.]

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,129 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Take the religious views of someone who might be seen as extremist, such as the Burke family. We are free to ignore them, and while I do not agree with anything they say at all, I would not agree with surprising or censoring their freedom to be able to hold or display their views. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to say what is or isn't hurtful when it comes to a view or belief. Turning the other cheek is always the best approach.

    The same could be applied to any version of religion or political view, while I might not agree with anything on the right or conservative point of view (and some of these might be against same sex marriage, or abortion etc), I equally think it is wrong to stop them voicing those views.

    The ability to hold views or voice them is essential to the function of a democracy. If we begin to criminalize view points, we kneecap the function of a democracy and society. You do not have to agree with what others say, but ask yourself if you would want any of your views criminalized, how would that make you feel?

    Free speech is not just a right, it is a function of a democracy.

    @Peregrinus
    [NB: I am not saying that Frank Bullitt himself is not in favour of free speech, but is cynically adopting the position he does because he wants to carve out a space for hate speech. I am sure that is not the case. But the position he adopts fails to acknowledge the tension that I have pointed to, and you can't really mount an effective argument against hate speech legislation if you are in denial about, or won't address, the reasons why it is promoted in the first place.]

    Nowhere have I said I want to carve out a space for "hate speech", you can acknowledge the tension all you want. SImply banning or criminalizing speech you do not like does not defend or protect minorities etc. This is where this whole thing falls flat, this will simply not stop bad people having or holding bad views. If anything, if you ban them, it will simply empower them as they will feel justified.

    It is a pretty dangerous game to play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Nowhere have I said I want to carve out a space for "hate speech", 

    And I have also not said that; in fact I have expressly said the exact opposite; this is not what you are trying to do.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    A glimpse of how hate speech legislation would be implemented.

    Kneecap, Christy Moore, Chris O’Dowd, harlie McGettigan, Vincent Woods, Christy Moore, Andy Irvine, Frances Black, Mary Coughlan, Fontaines DC, Mike Scott of The Waterboys and The Mary Wallopers, and some 600 other prominent Irish artists reportedly signed an open letter calling for its cancellation.

    The same musicians who advocate for their right to freedom of speech and artistic expression will curtail the right to freedom of speech and artistic expression of those they don’t agree with.

    This is the first time I've heard of this, if only it had the same exposure as the musical wing of sinn fein Kneecap



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,751 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Anyone who uses the term "far-right" seriously in a country with our liberal laws, social equality, and general laid back attitude to pretty much EVERYTHING really shouldn't be taken seriously!

    Too much Twitter and American media is the problem, as well as Millenial and younger "journalists" regurgitating it as "fact" to fill virtual column inches/advertising space.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    This doesn't make a lot of sense. You're saying that if a country has liberal laws, social equality and a generally laid-back attitude then nobody in that country can possibly hold or express far-right views, and anyone who describes anything as far-right can't be taken seriously?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,751 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    There will always be a handful of outliers (on both "sides") but to listen to some corners of the media or even commentry online - including this very site - you'd think the Nazi party was about to win the next election which is absolute nonsense.

    Instead, "far-right" is simply being used to try and silence/marginalise opinions that others don't like or agree with. Censorship is no better than actual extremism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    There will always be a handful of outliers (on both "sides") but to listen to some corners of the media or even commentry online - including this very site - you'd think the Nazi party was about to win the next election which is absolute nonsense.

    At first you seemed to be saying that there is no such thing as a far-right in Ireland. Now you're just saying that the far-right is not about to take over in ireland

    These are two very different claims. The first is obviously false; the second is obviously true.

    Instead, "far-right" is simply being used to try and silence/marginalise opinions that others don't like or agree with. Censorship is no better than actual extremism.

    Well, except maybe they don't like or agree with those opinions because they are far-right opinions. I think what you've got here is called a false dichotomy.

    As for censorship being no different from actual extremism, we censor e.g. child sexual exploitation material, and I assume you agree with that. So the discussion to be had here is not whether we should censor stuff, but what stuff we should censor. And, while it's true that calling some position "far-right" may be an invitation to censor it, it's not clear whether you oppose censorship of the position on the grounds that (a) it isn't far-right, or (b) it is, but we shouldn't be censoring far-right positions. And, again, these are two very different views; which one do you want to defend?

    (We're hampered in the present context by the fact that the news reports give us very little information that would enable us to say that the proposed Mise Éire festival could, or could not, be fairly categorised as "far-right", and we don't know why those who object to it think it could be.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,360 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    The problem is that every non-conforming opinion was at least termed far right. For example any discussion on migration and how it plays into housing demand up until a few weeks ago would have had you branded a fascist. It seems it's ok to talk about it now though as McWilliams has finally said the obvious, that the department of justice is issuing too many visas.

    There is a real far right in Ireland and while it is small, I suspect it is growing. It's hampered by the fact it's an alliance of grievances led by a bunch of nitwits to there is a hard size limit to its current form.

    As for Mise Eire, information is at best sketchy as to what it entailed. If we don't know what it was about, then those that signed that letter didn't either. What we do know is that it was organised by and going to be attended by the same people that attend migration protests.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,350 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    (We're hampered in the present context by the fact that the news reports give us very little information that would enable us to say that the proposed Mise Éire festival could, or could not, be fairly categorised as "far-right", and we don't know why those who object to it think it could be.)

    Here is the text of the letter that over 600 musicians/ performers/... signed, separate to the petition with 260 signatures

    I think it's clear why so many signed it, maybe less clear on the 'fairly' part...

    The Mayflower Community Centre in Drumshanbo has a longstanding and rich tradition of hosting vibrant, uplifting, diverse and inclusive cultural events.

    Musicians and artists, past & present, from the area, from across the country and indeed from countries and cultures from across the world, have passed through the doors of the Mayflower and contributed to this rich heritage.

    If it is permitted to go ahead, we believe the far-right 'Mise Éire Festival' will tarnish the proud history of the Mayflower as a venue that has served to bring people together from all backgrounds and as a safe and inclusive cultural space for the community, for local schoolchildren and for all visitors to the area.

    We artists, arts workers and musicians thus call on the committee of the Mayflower Community Centre to cancel this divisive event which is planned to take place there on August 23rd.

    There's a link to the document with all the signatures at the end of this article

    https://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local-news/1864063/seamus-orourke-and-saw-doctors-star-among-new-signatures-of-letter-against-leitrim-far-right-festival-laraf.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The problem is that every non-conforming opinion was at least termed far right . . . As for Mise Eire, information is at best sketchy as to what it entailed. If we don't know what it was about, then those that signed that letter didn't either. What we do know is that it was organised by and going to be attended by the same people that attend migration protests.

    Well, yes, "far-right" and "woke" are deployed by people on opposite sides to demonise and marginalise views they don't like without having to actually examine and counter them. That doesn't mean that the terms themselves have no content and can't sometimes be meaningfully applied.

    Just because we don't know how much substance there is to the "far right" characterisation in this case doesn't mean that nobody knows. The people who signed the petition will have had their reasons for doing so and the only way to find out what those reasons were is to ask them or, failing that, to look at the material associated with the petition and its promotion. I haven't done that. Have you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,360 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    The terms of course had a real meaning but they have been so inappropriately overused that they have now become devoid of it.

    And in this instance of the festival I am quite sure that those who opposed it know as much about it as we do - which is fairly little. All they knew was the name, where it was, who was likely to attend and drew inferences from that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,326 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    To be fair, who is likely to attend a gathering is not an unreasonable foundation on which to base a characterisation of the gathering. There's a sporting chance that a gathering which featured Dolores Cahill, Gemma O'Doherty, Mattie McGrath and Ben Gilroy would be likely to be an anti-vax or Covid-sceptical gathering, for example.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    A glimpse of how hate speech legislation would be implemented.

    The same musicians who advocate for their right to freedom of speech and artistic expression will curtail the right to freedom of speech and artistic expression of those they don’t agree with.


    This incident isn’t a glimpse of how hate speech legislation would be implemented at all though. There was no involvement of the State or its agents at any point.

    The proprietors of the establishment was confident a few days ago that they would be hosting the event, with 400 tickets sold to what was billed as an Irish culture and heritage event (with John Waters being invited to speak… dammit I’m raging I missed out now 😂), but then it was the proprietors who turned round and said they were not going to host the event because the terms and conditions were not met (I’m assuming they mean by the organisers of said event).

    So, I don’t imagine a strongly worded letter, no matter how many signatures were on it, had anything to do with the decision by the proprietors not to host the event. It was the organisers who failed to meet the terms and conditions. I wouldn’t be of a mind to give credit where it isn’t due, and the cancellation appears to be a business decision taken by the proprietors, nothing to do with hate speech legislation or freedom of speech or any of the rest of it, because there was no involvement at all, at any point, by the State.

    To put it more succinctly -

    IMG_4246.png

    You can substitute Article 40 there for where the cartoon mentions the 1st amendment, the fundamental point remains the same. I’d have done it myself but I’m not very good at drawing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,350 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    So, I don’t imagine a strongly worded letter, no matter how many signatures were on it, had anything to do with the decision by the proprietors not to host the event

    Ah here...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    The signatories to the letter are entitled to exercise their right to freedom of expression too, not just the organisers of the event who, as it turns out were ultimately responsible for the event not going ahead at the Mayflower -

    On Wednesday, a message on the Mayflower’s social media said: “On behalf of Mayflower Community Centre CLG we regretfully wish to inform the public that the upcoming ‘Mise Éire’ festival due to be held on 23rd August, 2025, will NOT be hosted at the Mayflower Community Centre. From the article posted by Ladlad -

    “This is due to terms & conditions not being complied with. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.” 

    What those terms and conditions the organisers didn’t comply with were, the Mayflower doesn’t say. I’ve no doubt the organisers of the event know exactly what terms and conditions they weren’t in compliance with, and no doubt the organisers will not be so keen to exercise their freedom of expression on that score to explain why an event celebrating Irish culture and heritage was cancelled due to their own actions 😒



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Sort of funny watching the usual types getting outraged about freedom of speech being exercised. Completely peaceful etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭maik3n




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Jim O'Callaghan tells the Dáil he has no plans for further laws on incitement to hatred/hate speech – he has written to the European Commission arguing that Ireland has already transposed EU laws on the area. Brussels had signalled a possible legal case against Ireland in May



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    There was a Labour TD on Radio 1 yesterday getting all excited about the bill being shelved.

    Of all the things the opposition could be getting on the governments case about this is what Labour chose to highlight.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Do you mean they wanted it to be brought in?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭corkie


    I think I raised it already in this thread?

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_300

    So it was already introduced by that, even without us passing the laws here.

    Untitled Image

    O’Callaghan: Ireland won’t reintroduce hate speech law

    Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan today {October 9, 2025} told the Dáil that he has no intention to reintroduce failed hate speech legislation, saying he is “fairly satisfied” that Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating hate speech.

    Deputy Jim O’Callaghan said he was “fairly satisfied” that Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on “combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to the domestic system of law in Ireland. “

    “I assure Members of the House that Ireland’s position has been communicated to the European Commission,” he said. “That position is that the framework decision is fully transposed in Irish legislation in a manner appropriate and tailored to the domestic system of criminal law and procedure, and is in line with Article 40.6 of the Constitution, which expressly respects and protects the right to freedom of expression and of people to express their views freely.”

    “The Deputy will be aware that last year the House enacted legislation to provide for tougher sentences for crimes motivated by hate. That was the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024. This was sensible legislation that provided for increased prison sentences for certain crimes where they are proven to be motivated by hatred or where hatred is demonstrated. For approximately 36 years, we have had the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act 1989."

    What have I missed this week that the issue is being discussed again, did EU take action against us for the method we have implemented EU law?

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana
    "But that's balanced out by the fact that it's a mandate not to do very much." ~ Prof. Eoin O'Malley



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    I'm glad it's been dropped. I'm against hate speech, but it seems to me that the countries that pass such laws have more of it. Look at the UK and France.

    Also, the lack of a definition of "hate" in the bill risked unintentional offensive speech being criminalised. I'm.a firm believer intentionally should matter in criminal law.

    I think theres something in western society, that resists attempts to police speech. Ancestral memories of dictatorships or the Church censoring people.



Advertisement