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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Hate Speech Public Consultation

13567…51

Comments

  • #102
    vladmydad
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭vladmydad


    I see the NGOs are putting massive pressure on government to push this through, painting anyone who objects as “far right”, which seems to have replaced racist as their go to smear. These cranks are already so powerful in Ireland and shape so much of the debate here, can you even imagine how dominant they will be with this draconian legislation in their back pocket. Mass silencing is the name of the game. Just read their tweets, they’re salivating and already planning on who they’re going to target.


  • #103
    US2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭US2


    vladmydad wrote: »
    I see the NGOs are putting massive pressure on government to push this through, painting anyone who objects as “far right”, which seems to have replaced racist as their go to smear. These cranks are already so powerful in Ireland and shape so much of the debate here, can you even imagine how dominant they will be with this draconian legislation in their back pocket. Mass silencing is the name of the game. Just read their tweets, they’re salivating and already planning on who they’re going to target.

    Can you link tweets


  • #104
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.

    497183.jpeg

    To even debate removing or reducing one of the most fundamental foundations of Irish and damn near every system of law on the planet is extremely worrying no matter what legislation is in play.

    But do please enlighten us with your reasoned wisdom on the matter.


    I can see reported offences due to 'perception of offence' being rated as non-crimes but recordable and on file which lets them off the burden of 'burden of proof' but indicates a 'check your thinking' utopia for the perpetually offended activists and those that don't want any discussion or debate.
    There may even be, believe it or not the possibility of a third-party being able to report someone on behalf of someone else if they perceive for example, an online comment you make is offensive.



    That is the position in the UK and yes, we do follow the UK in a lot of respects.


    Orwell was approximately 35 years out.



    Submission sent.


  • #105
    Lord Fairlord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Lord Fairlord


    Wibbs wrote: »
    No idea. I think he was talking about north inner city Dublin. I'll try and find the episode on youtube. My point(and his) was he thought this was a good thing, a better thing. That "diversity" itself was this overwhelming positive. Of course I've long noted the type of diversity is in play too. A load of pale Eastern Europeans doesn't get them(or racists for that matter) nearly as egged on as a load of dark skinned people.

    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.


  • #106
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Lord Fairlord wrote: »
    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.

    Nobody gets to be consulted about their neighbours. Sorry to bring this news to you so late.


  • #107
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,394 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Lord Fairlord wrote: »
    Not all cultures are equally good.
    I can confirm that my part of the north inner city is c.70% non-Irish; it seems that Irish people don't get to be consulted about this.

    My entire family is spread across the North East inner city and I can confirm this too. I've sent this on to family and friends who weren't even aware of the consultation itself. So many do not know about it and it would be something they would have strong opinions on, more than worthy of submission.


  • #108
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,394 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Angela went full Authoritarian there a week ago and this kind of rhetoric is acceptable? Have we not seen something like this before? Stating that freedom of expression ends once a person engages in "hate speech" or "extreme speech". So Free Speech has its limits? She sees this as necessary for preserving a "free society".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs


    ...........when the dignity of others is violated

    LOL


  • #109
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is an occurrence that is more prevalent these days.
    Person 1: says something about immigrants...
    Person 2: replies....
    Person 1: "who are you calling a racist?...bleeding heart liberals, the world is fcuked"
    Person 2: .....?
    Person 3: "That's their only response, when you lose the argument you just play the auld racism card, despicable"

    Is this flat-earth territory?
    alastair wrote: »
    Given that there is no mass immigration at play in this country, you’d have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim there is. The Venn diagram of racists and those who buy into ‘the great replacement’ isn’t exactly sparse territory.

    So alastair says that anyone who says there is mass immigration into this country is wrong, and almost certainly a racist. You'd have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim that people who say that there's a lot of immigration are likely to be racists. :rolleyes::pac:

    82% of Irish population are ethnically Irish. The largest groups of non-nationals are all EU (chiefly UK and Poland). About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu.

    There you go. The big racist head on me. Hope that that legislation gets passed soon so that statistics like the ones I just typed don't get published, stirring up the usual knuckle draggers.

    I jest, but so many of these terms are subjective (certainly the term 'mass immigration' is subjective), but already we have someone using a subjective term to spearhead a claim stating a particular topic is probably indicative of people who need to be shut up. I'm not going to be hypocritical and say that those who are in favor of authoritarianism need to be shut up though.


  • #110
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Midster wrote: »
    I’m sorry I completely forgot for just a second that brown isn’t a real colour.
    Neither is white though btw.

    What is the correct and widely accepted wording these days?

    Btw my white Latvian neighbour said he hated me because I’m English, and then immediately followed that up by punching me in the face....

    Is that a hate crime?

    Or is white on white violence just a normal crime thing?

    Oh and one more thing, if the word coloured is now disallowed when used to describe people of darker skin to my own.

    Why the hell do they get away from calling us white!

    Yeah, I’d consider that a hate crime. It’s based on your perceived ethnicity.

    As for being called white, do you not say someone is black? I mean, we’re all a colour (white people are shades of pink), so ‘coloured’ doesn’t make much sense as a descriptor.


  • #111
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given this is even up for debate in this discussion is enough to raise flags.
    Sure. Given that what's up for debate?

    The consultation mentions nothing about reversing the burden of proof. The justice department in response to a question at a conference said that it's "in consideration". That's it.

    It's unusual, but not unheard of. It's a rather important part of tax evasion and money laundering prosecutions, for example.
    This is merely a simple response to a simple question. Without the text of any proposed legislation and how it's proposed to be applied - neither of which exist - there is nothing here to be worried about.

    I thought it was odd that you would post a screenshot of a tweet without any dates, rather than a link to it.

    Of course, anyone who went digging into the context would find out that it's not nearly the massive, "breaking the fundamental foundations of law to pander to immigrants" issue that you want people to think that it is.

    And given some of the responses to that tweet, it's pretty clear that you've picked up this talking point from some other forum more sympathetic to your point of view and regurgitated it here. You didn't find this tweet on your own.

    I knew you'd fallen down the anti-immigration rabbit hole Wibbs, but I thought you were better than dishonest sh1t-stirring.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    seamus wrote: »
    This is merely a simple response to a simple question. Without the text of any proposed legislation and how it's proposed to be applied - neither of which exist - there is nothing here to be worried about.
    Given our government's record on the blasphemy legislation and the internet copyright legislation and the apparently increasing need in some to out tumblr Sweden in being right on, reduction of the burden of proof being "in consideration" with this proposed legislation is at the very least concerning. This is not money laundering or tax evasion, it's about the right to hold an opinion that some might dislike, or feel they dislike. It's quite different.
    And given some of the responses to that tweet, it's pretty clear that you've picked up this talking point from some other forum more sympathetic to your point of view and regurgitated it here. You didn't find this tweet on your own.

    I knew you'd fallen down the anti-immigration rabbit hole Wibbs, but I thought you were better than dishonest sh1t-stirring.

    Nope, it's from the very first page of this thread.     The pic is hosted on Boards.ie, so Boards.ie seems to the "forum more sympathetic to my point of view". :rolleyes: BTW I'm not even on twitter. You seem to be the one more eager to forensically go down the "rabbit hole" to back up your position with "dishonest sh1t-stirring".

    Oh and for clarity: I'm am not against legal and controlled levels of immigration. I am against the current politic of top down "multiculturalism" and its clear failures elsewhere that inevitably lead to increased social problems, including very serious ones. I do not want to go down the road of France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Holland and all the others who have run this idiotic policy. Even the European ex colonies who were founded and needed multiculturalism illustrate the long term social problems with the notion.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #113
    Midster
    Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    You are not allowed to show a woman doing more housework than a man on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a person that does not have a variation of pink colour skin being treated badly on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a woman being touched in the work place on tv by a man. (Unless the woman disagrees With it, and is offended and the man is then sacked and arrested.)

    Your not allowed to show anyone (men, women, gay, lesbian, transsexual, people from different colour skin other than different variations of pink) on tv as might be seen as stereotypical in anyway. (Unless it is presented in such a way as to prove that it is either wrong, or wrong to do so.)

    You are not allowed to show any story of mass migration on tv. (Unless there is a story of peril behind it.)

    Nobody is allowed to offend anyone ever, in any way in which they might be able to describe being offended either deeply or otherwise.

    Not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as black. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)

    Also your not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as coloured. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)


    Have I left anything else out that your not allowed to do anymore?


  • #114
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Is this flat-earth territory?



    So alastair says that anyone who says there is mass immigration into this country is wrong, and almost certainly a racist. You'd have to wonder about the motivations of those who claim that people who say that there's a lot of immigration are likely to be racists. :rolleyes::pac:

    82% of Irish population are ethnically Irish. The largest groups of non-nationals are all EU (chiefly UK and Poland). About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu.

    There you go. The big racist head on me. Hope that that legislation gets passed soon so that statistics like the ones I just typed don't get published, stirring up the usual knuckle draggers.

    I jest, but so many of these terms are subjective (certainly the term 'mass immigration' is subjective), but already we have someone using a subjective term to spearhead a claim stating a particular topic is probably indicative of people who need to be shut up. I'm not going to be hypocritical and say that those who are in favor of authoritarianism need to be shut up though.

    Mass immigration isn’t a subjective term - it’s large scale immigration above and beyond the scope of the typical levels of migration apparent in this country - 32 thousand people added to a population of nearly 5 million in a year is nothing near atypical. Our immigrant levels are well within the norm for Western Europe, and well below some states. It’s this reality that is at odds with the whole ‘open borders’ / ‘mass immigration’ / ‘great replacement’ guff that permeates so much of the anti-immigrant commentary - and yes - the majority of these people are racists.


  • #115
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Midster wrote: »
    You are not allowed to show a woman doing more housework than a man on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a person that does not have a variation of pink colour skin being treated badly on tv. (Unless your trying to prove the point it’s wrong.)

    You are not allowed to show a woman being touched in the work place on tv by a man. (Unless the woman disagrees With it, and is offended and the man is then sacked and arrested.)

    Your not allowed to show anyone (men, women, gay, lesbian, transsexual, people from different colour skin other than different variations of pink) on tv as might be seen as stereotypical in anyway. (Unless it is presented in such a way as to prove that it is either wrong, or wrong to do so.)

    You are not allowed to show any story of mass migration on tv. (Unless there is a story of peril behind it.)

    Nobody is allowed to offend anyone ever, in any way in which they might be able to describe being offended either deeply or otherwise.

    Not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as black. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)

    Also your not allowed to show someone on tv describing someone else as coloured. (Unless it is presented on tv in a racist way.)


    Have I left anything else out that your not allowed to do anymore?

    Clearly you’re still allowed propagate deluded nonsense on the interwebs.


  • #116
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    Our immigrant levels are well within the norm for Western Europe,
    That's hardly a great metric considering the demographics of the last decade or so. The "norm" has shifted, or did you miss the "refugee" crisis?

    As SC pointed out earlier in the thread:
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    who mentioned the great replacement? besides you that is. 1 in 5 people in Dublin are foreign, an increase of 51% since 2002. We should be allowed to discuss this without lazy accusations of racism.

    So a doubling in numbers in the last twenty years is nothing to see here? Right you are.
    and well below some states.
    And long may that remain so, better yet, may it remain much lower.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #117
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Oh and for clarity: I'm am not against legal and controlled levels of immigration. I am against the current politic of top down "multiculturalism" and its clear failures elsewhere that inevitably lead to increased social problems, including very serious ones. I do not want to go down the road of France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Holland and all the others who have run this idiotic policy. Even the European ex colonies who were founded and needed multiculturalism illustrate the long term social problems with the notion.

    For even greater clarity - immigration into this country is legal and controlled. There is no significant issue with illegal immigrants in this country, and the few who are found are deported, unless there’s mitigating circumstances that warrant a reprieve. That’s the fact. You can argue that abuses of student visas exist, but that’s people taking advantage of a legal mechanism.

    You seem determined to believe that monocultural societies in the developed world are a realistic option. This is at odds with basic common sense. You can’t accept that our citizenship is demonstrably multi-ethnic and that multi-culturalism comes with that, whether you like it or not. Demeaning the citizenship of a Nigerian who opted to become Irish in 2003, as you’ve done, is no different than telling all those Irish people who took up US citizenship following on from their Morrison visas that they’re not actually American. You’d have to wonder what the difference is in your mind?


  • #118
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    That's hardly a great metric considering the demographics of the last decade or so. The "norm" has shifted, or did you miss the "refugee" crisis?

    As SC pointed out earlier in the thread:



    So a doubling in numbers in the last twenty years is nothing to see here? Right you are.

    And long may that remain so, better yet, may it remain much lower.

    Our immigrant population is comparable with Norway, not Sweden. Or pre refugee crisis levels, if you want to be specific.

    Doubling of numbers from a small starting point is nothing to get excited about. The low level of immigrant population is still the reality. You’re like the Henny Penny of xenophobia.


  • #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Is this flat-earth territory?

    About 50% of Irish population growth of 64.5k in 2019 was due to immigration. 34.5% of immigrants are non-eu..

    So, of 64k in growth......32k were immigrants. And of that number, a third were non-EU, which includes USA, Australia South America etc. If even half that number were the "wrong" type of immigration, we're down to about 5,000 per annum. Hardly "mass immigration" now, is it?

    No idea what the flat earth crap is about. I was saying that it's more common to see people incorrectly claiming they're being called a racist than it is to see someone being incorrectly labelled a racist.


  • #120
    Midster
    Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    alastair wrote: »
    Clearly you’re still allowed propagate deluded nonsense on the interwebs.

    There is nothing deluded at all about those statements.

    This is the world we live in.

    And insulting the questioner, rather than putting anything forward of any substance shows your complete ignorance and naivety of the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Midster wrote: »
    There is nothing deluded at all about those statements.

    This is the world we live in.

    And insulting the questioner, rather than putting anything forward of any substance shows your complete ignorance and naivety of the problem.

    Nope - it’s deluded guff. None of those things have any purchase outside your fevered imagination.


  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Midster wrote: »
    There is nothing deluded at all about those statements.

    This is the world we live in.

    And insulting the questioner, rather than putting anything forward of any substance shows your complete ignorance and naivety of the problem.

    You posted a load of delusional, unsubstantiated, ill-informed bollocks that is demonstrably untrue. The fact that you are challenging someone to put forward something of substance is laughable.

    Who says all those things you posted are true? Are they rules, written down somewhere? Are they unwritten rules that everyone in the media abides by? If someone took the time to provide video evidence that disproves each statement you made, would you accept they're untrue or move the goalposts somehow......e.g...."well one example proves nothing".

    Your post = Load. Of. Bollocks.

    How's that for substance.


  • #123
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    You seem determined to believe that monocultural societies in the developed world are a realistic option. This is at odds with basic common sense.
    It's the degree involved. It is not an either/or scenario. That line gets crossed when ethnic enclaves kick off and all the usual social/criminal/ethnic issues kick off(including social exclusion of the immigrant/not native population), which we've already begun to see in this country, but again thankfully not to the degree of other European nations and long may that continue and we should make this a matter of political will to make sure it doesn't.
    You can’t accept that our citizenship is demonstrably multi-ethnic and that multi-culturalism comes with that, whether you like it or not. Demeaning the citizenship of a Nigerian who opted to become Irish in 2003, as you’ve done, is no different than telling all those Irish people who took up US citizenship following on from their Morrison visas that they’re not actually American. You’d have to wonder what the difference is in your mind?
    There's one singular glaring difference. America is a nation entirely based on and actively required immigration(and colonisation) to exist. It had multiple cultures in the older sense of the term before Europeans showed up, but was of the same population(and even then were bating the crap out of each other). Then Europeans showed up and that didn't go too great for the locals, or the Africans shipped over in bondage to service it. And how is that "multicultural" society doing on the minority front, especially on the Black and Brown American front?

    Ireland is not a colony. Hasn't been for a very very long time and even then was on the periphery(and didn't go to well for the natives either where it happened).

    So no, they didn't magically become "Irish", they gained Irish citizenship. There's a difference. If I moved to France, married a local and after a time gained French citizenship, it would be a nonsense for me to claim I was French. I know Russians, Spaniards, Italians and Poles who through marriage and living here have become Irish citizens, but none of them would describe themselves as "Irish". Better yet if I moved to say Zambia and followed the same route and gained citizenship, would you then describe me as Zambian and African with a straight face? I doubt it. As I've noted before this automatic becoming [insert country/culture here] seems to be decidedly one way and usually based on melanin.

    I've also noted this similar commonality between the Right On and the Right wing; that is another decided focus on multiculturalism based on skin colour. A load of non native White people in a country isn't multicultural enough to be noted, or welcomed. Or feared. The yays and nays of "Multiculturalism" seem to hinge on more Black and Brown people in a majority White European nation.
    alastair wrote: »
    Our immigrant population is comparable with Norway, not Sweden. Or pre refugee crisis levels, if you want to be specific.
    The same Norway that is not exactly happy with what they are dealing with and have started classes for those from cultures who see normal western women's dress as akin to whores. The same Norway whose prime minister has stated she wouldn't hire a Muslim woman wearing a veil. And yep thankfully down to our geography, the closing of the kid recently born in Ireland gets you citizenship points loophole and more recent shifts in dealing with the scammers from various non warzone regions we've thankfully escaped the worst of it.
    Doubling of numbers from a small starting point is nothing to get excited about. The low level of immigrant population is still the reality. You’re like the Henny Penny of xenophobia.
    Henny Penny dies in the end, as did the boy who cried wolf.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #124
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    None of those things have any purchase outside your fevered imagination.
    Actually, I'd be in agreement with you here here. None of that stuff is valid outside of fevered twitter/youtube feeds. And there's a lot fevered stuff on all sides in such outlets. The signal to noise ratio is fcukered and increasingly dug in and divisive.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #125
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    alastair wrote: »
    For even greater clarity - immigration into this country is legal and controlled. There is no significant issue with illegal immigrants in this country, and the few who are found are deported, unless there’s mitigating circumstances that warrant a reprieve. That’s the fact.

    What about Mohamed Morei who ran around Dundalk stabbing people last year and killed one?

    It seems he wandered into and around the country known to the authorities but without any controls whatsoever on his movements before he killed someone at random. Even his nationality was a mystery for weeks after his rampage.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-challenged-over-dundalk-murder-charge-teenager-7697b3h3v

    How does that fit in with your facts?


  • #126
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    What about Mohamed Morei who ran around Dundalk stabbing people last year and killed one?

    It seems he wandered into and around the country without any controls whatsoever on his movements before he killed someone at random. Even his nationality was a mystery for weeks after his rampage.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-challenged-over-dundalk-murder-charge-teenager-7697b3h3v

    How does that fit in with your facts?

    He came to Dundalk from Belfast. There’s a CTA in effect, as there has been since the foundation of the State. The controls on land crossings are applied on a random basis, but unless you’re advocating identity checks on everyone crossing the NI border, then you have to accept that it’s possible to wander across that particular border. That’s the arrangement we have agreed to maintain. It doesn’t undermine any of the points I’ve made.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Midster
    Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You posted a load of delusional, unsubstantiated, ill-informed bollocks that is demonstrably untrue. The fact that you are challenging someone to put forward something of substance is laughable.

    Who says all those things you posted are true? Are they rules, written down somewhere? Are they unwritten rules that everyone in the media abides by? If someone took the time to provide video evidence that disproves each statement you made, would you accept they're untrue or move the goalposts somehow......e.g...."well one example proves nothing".

    Your post = Load. Of. Bollocks.

    How's that for substance.

    I may have thanked your post, mostly because it made me laugh quite a bit.

    But you are missing the point, and wide of the mark if you are saying my statements aren’t true.

    Have a think for a minute and think of how these things effect us.

    It is so easy to be called a racist these days, when there might not be a racist bone in your body.

    Same goes for sexism.

    Anti semitism.

    The media portrays all of these things in such a bad light you can’t do or say anything these days without offending someone.

    Women are told to cover up on programs on tv because there bosses are worried they might offend other women.

    Women have been consistently pushed to get jobs, even if they feel that there place is at home with the kids. Mostly by other women.

    And although most black, or brown colour skinned people (at least that I have ever met) are quite happy themselves to be described and having brown or black skin and are not offended in the slightest, your not allowed to say it on tv just in case there’s a racist outcry.

    3 of my own past relationships began by being what people would now see as objectifying or sexist towards women at work. (Most women can take a joke and laugh about it, and will accept help lifting heavy boxes.

    But all of these things are being seen more and more as completely unacceptable.

    The trouble is, and how I see it is that most of the time the people who do get offended weren’t even there at the time and have actually heard about it through someone else, and have deliberately taken it the wrong way.

    Trolls are not just on the internet, pointlessly putting other people down for there own amusement, trolls are also in real life, and they take every single subject so seriously that they love nothing more than to put you in your place.

    They are growing in number, and changing our laws and the whole make up of how we live through persistent campaigning and complaining.


  • #128
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    can we get back to the hate speech bit?


  • #129
    Midster
    Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Google’s definition

    Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.


  • #130
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    It is curious that the review does not allow participants to vote whether or not existing "hate speech" legislation in Ireland is sufficient, irrespective of the fact that the vote would not be binding. It would have been a mechanism for the authors of the review to judge the mindset of the people as a whole.

    I get the sense that Charlie Flanagan and his team really do not care what the majority of the population in Ireland want with this proposal. Irrespective of the probability that my submission was an exercise in futility, I went ahead and did it anyway because it is better than doing nothing at all.


  • #131
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    Angela went full Authoritarian there a week ago and this kind of rhetoric is acceptable? Have we not seen something like this before? Stating that freedom of expression ends once a person engages in "hate speech" or "extreme speech". So Free Speech has its limits? She sees this as necessary for preserving a "free society".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs





    LOL

    This isnt a new concept. It is enshrined in the European Declaration of Human Rights.

    Angela is dead right.

    Free speech and Hate speech collide with each other as human rights becauae hate speech breaches the rights of a person to be safe and to be free from discrimination.

    Article 10 – Freedom of expression

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    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
  • #132
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Kivaro wrote: »
    It is curious that the review does not allow participants to vote whether or not existing "hate speech" legislation in Ireland is sufficient, irrespective of the fact that the vote would not be binding. It would have been a mechanism for the authors of the review to judge the mindset of the people as a whole.

    I get the sense that Charlie Flanagan and his team really do not care what the majority of the population in Ireland want with this proposal. Irrespective of the probability that my submission was an exercise in futility, I went ahead and did it anyway because it is better than doing nothing at all.

    It’s not a vote - it’s a consultation - and you’re entirely welcome tell them you think existing legislation is sufficient. I made a point of telling them that the 1989 legislation wasn’t being enforced to the degree it should be, so to that end both it and any new hate speech legislation required actual application to have any meaning.


  • #133
    WrenBoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Maybe it'll be fun , The Speech authorities will announce the approved opinions on topics every Christmas and Summer, it'll be a big family event.


  • #134
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    No surprise that the same few ‘concerned citizens’ are the ones who oppose the idea of bringing in laws that punish racists for being racist and homophobes for being homophobic.


  • #135
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This isnt a new concept. It is enshrined in the European Declaration of Human Rights.

    Angela is dead right.

    Free speech and Hate speech collide with each other as human rights becauae hate speech breaches the rights of a person to be safe and to be free from discrimination.
    Indeed, but who decides when it becomes "hate speech". For a more local to this thread example, who between us as posters would be far more sensitive and quick to call out what they saw as "hate speech", you or me? So which is the guideline, you or me? Somewhere in the middle? But then you'd not be satisfied with that, I'd have doubts myself.

    So how does one define hate speech?

    Take the currently fashionable/debated Trans subject. Now I would address someone by their personally preferred gender, out of simple good manners, but I would not personally consider them to actually be their preferred physical gender, instead would consider them intersex or some flavour of same. It being provably medically and biologically impossible to change gender/sex and no amount of deed poll and legal changes will make it so. I also don't consider the alphabet soup of imagined "genders" to be anything based on reality beyond some personal subjective label to make some feel better, which is fine BTW, whatever oils your axle. Many would see this as "transphobic" and even "hate speech", even though my position is backed up my medical and biological science and as close to actual objective facts as one can get.

    If I were to state that Travellers as a group have a much higher incidence of criminality, lower longevity, higher levels of spousal abuse and lower education standards compared to the background Irish population, again all actual objective facts, would this be "hate speech"?

    Where does one draw the line and do we trust authorities to know where to draw this line?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #136
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Brian? wrote:
    Why does paedophilia always come into this debate?????

    Late replying to this but Jessica Yaniv definitely shows sign of paedophellic tendancies.

    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:
    Yeah, I’d consider that a hate crime. It’s based on your perceived ethnicity.

    What is a perceived ethnicity?


  • #137
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Faugheen wrote: »
    No surprise that the same few ‘concerned citizens’ are the ones who oppose the idea of bringing in laws that punish racists for being racist and homophobes for being homophobic.
    Well I for one oppose the idea of bringing laws that punish thoughts that are considered out of bounds by any current society. Now yep racists and homophobes will be caught in this net for the most part, but the danger of it being too wide and vague a net is there. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, damn near every right you hold dear and to be correct in our modern society came about precisely because a minority, often a tiny minority had thoughts that were considered out of bounds by the current society, including Gay rights and race rights.

    Not least in this very country of ours. If Boards.ie were around in 1950's Ireland I can guarantee that the vast majority of posters here, including some of the more "right on" and vocal about it would have been suckled at the teat of good oul Catholic Irish society and would have straight out baulked and been critical of the very ideas of Gay rights, women's rights, contraception, abortion, divorce and so on.

    The problem is every society is pretty convinced they're on the right track, but they're rarely on the right track for long and they also tend to hold a very short term view and even shorter term memories. Laws should never be framed in such terms.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #138
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    alastair wrote: »
    For even greater clarity - immigration into this country is legal and controlled. There is no significant issue with illegal immigrants in this country, and the few who are found are deported, unless there’s mitigating circumstances that warrant a reprieve. That’s the fact. You can argue that abuses of student visas exist, but that’s people taking advantage of a legal mechanism.

    You seem determined to believe that monocultural societies in the developed world are a realistic option. This is at odds with basic common sense. You can’t accept that our citizenship is demonstrably multi-ethnic and that multi-culturalism comes with that, whether you like it or not. Demeaning the citizenship of a Nigerian who opted to become Irish in 2003, as you’ve done, is no different than telling all those Irish people who took up US citizenship following on from their Morrison visas that they’re not actually American. You’d have to wonder what the difference is in your mind?

    Where do you start with this absolute horseshite?? Have the 16 Kurds been arrested, do we have any idea where they are now?? What about the person from parts unknown who was stopped by the Gardai in Dundalk a few years ago with no papers and was told to head on down to Dublin?? Or the five men who jumped off the lorry in Laois who were never found??


  • #139
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well I for one oppose the idea of bringing laws that punish thoughts that are considered out of bounds by any current society. Now yep racists and homophobes will be caught in this net for the most part, but the danger of it being too wide and vague a net is there. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, damn near every right you hold dear and to be correct in our modern society came about precisely because a minority, often a tiny minority had thoughts that were considered out of bounds by the current society, including Gay rights and race rights.

    Not least in this very country of ours. If Boards.ie were around in 1950's Ireland I can guarantee that the vast majority of posters here, including some of the more "right on" and vocal about it would have been suckled at the teat of good oul Catholic Irish society and would have straight out baulked and been critical of the very ideas of Gay rights, women's rights, contraception, abortion, divorce and so on.

    The problem is every society is pretty convinced they're on the right track, but they're rarely on the right track for long and they also tend to hold a very short term view and even shorter term memories. Laws should never be framed in such terms.

    Hate is perennial - it’s not a passing thing.


  • #140
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Where do you start with this absolute horseshite?? Have the 16 Kurds been arrested, do we have any idea where they are now?? What about the person from parts unknown who was stopped by the Gardai in Dundalk a few years ago with no papers and was told to head on down to Dublin?? Or the five men who jumped off the lorry in Laois who were never found??

    Let me get this straight... the significant problem you’ve identified is 16 lads who scarpered off to the U.K.? Yeah, it’s a scourge. What are you going to arrest them for in any case? There’s no legal obligation on them to stay here, and if they leave the State, it’s their own business.


  • #141
    ArrBee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    I wonder, could you flip it on it's head and say that denying science is Hate Speech?

    Like the Flat Earthers might get done for for inciting hatred, or anti vaxers, or any other group that spreads divisive agendas.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    WrenBoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    ArrBee wrote: »
    I wonder, could you flip it on it's head and say that denying science is Hate Speech?

    Like the Flat Earthers might get done for for inciting hatred, or anti vaxers, or any other group that spreads divisive agendas.

    Who's feelings would be hurt though, who's the victim? science ? It would be hard to prove, this is a law about feelings. I don't think science will benefit much, in fact the opposite will probably happen.


  • #143
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    alastair wrote: »
    Hate is perennial - it’s not a passing thing.
    And as I noted the problem is every society is pretty convinced they're on the right track, but they're rarely on the right track for long and they also tend to hold a very short term view and even shorter term memories and you're proving my point and history shows you to be wrong.

    "Hate" can be very much culturally and historically defined. I'm quite sure that what you would call a "hate crime" wouldn't be to someone else and vice versa, and that's today, in this society.

    If I were to suggest that homosexuality is a mental illness and injurious to the individuals and wider society, we both would agree that would be by turn homophobic, daft and even hate speech, yet it was considered perfectly medically and socially accurate a concept a few decades ago(and still considered by some today). Not so long ago Africans were considered not quite human and by the majority of various societies and not just European either. Hell, somewhere at home I have a children's book first printed in the 1960's that states to the effect that native Australian Aboriginal people's aren't quite fully evolved humans. Women were and still are in some societies not considered equal in intellect and moral fortitude and to state that wouldn't be considered incorrect or hateful. Before the industrial age slavery has been the economic and social cornerstone of many many societies throughout history and not considered incorrect and hateful.

    Oh and the chances are beyond high that if you were brought up in such times and societies you'd agree with all of the above to some degree or other. The vast majority did, even among those who were at the sh1tty end of the stick. So no, "hate" is not "perennial" and its definition shifts quite a bit over time and culture.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #144
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Indeed, but who decides when it becomes "hate speech". For a more local to this thread example, who between us as posters would be far more sensitive and quick to call out what they saw as "hate speech", you or me? So which is the guideline, you or me? Somewhere in the middle? But then you'd not be satisfied with that, I'd have doubts myself.

    So how does one define hate speech?

    Take the currently fashionable/debated Trans subject. Now I would address someone by their personally preferred gender, out of simple good manners, but I would not personally consider them to actually be their preferred physical gender, instead would consider them intersex or some flavour of same. It being provably medically and biologically impossible to change gender/sex and no amount of deed poll and legal changes will make it so. I also don't consider the alphabet soup of imagined "genders" to be anything based on reality beyond some personal subjective label to make some feel better, which is fine BTW, whatever oils your axle. Many would see this as "transphobic" and even "hate speech", even though my position is backed up my medical and biological science and as close to actual objective facts as one can get.

    If I were to state that Travellers as a group have a much higher incidence of criminality, lower longevity, higher levels of spousal abuse and lower education standards compared to the background Irish population, again all actual objective facts, would this be "hate speech"?

    Where does one draw the line and do we trust authorities to know where to draw this line?


    This.
    The perpetually offended activists wetdream is society's nightmare.


  • #145
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This isnt a new concept. It is enshrined in the European Declaration of Human Rights.

    Angela is dead right.


    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    So criticizing the ruling of a judge is offense? Making a lewd joke is an offense? Saying something that gives another person high blood pressure is an offense? That's honestly what that paragraph says. If a law were to be made which such scope, then anything could be classed as an offense, subject to the discretion of the state. It would certainly not be unusual for Angela to essentially view herself as the sole arbiter of what is right, but her God complex does not necessarily supply a valid reason to give unfettered scope to the state to gag or punish people from a subjective moralistic perspective
    alastair wrote: »
    Mass immigration isn’t a subjective term - it’s large scale immigration above and beyond the scope of the typical levels of migration apparent in this country - 32 thousand people added to a population of nearly 5 million in a year is nothing near atypical. Our immigrant levels are well within the norm for Western Europe, and well below some states. It’s this reality that is at odds with the whole ‘open borders’ / ‘mass immigration’ / ‘great replacement’ guff that permeates so much of the anti-immigrant commentary - and yes - the majority of these people are racists.

    Mass means 'massive'. That means 'a lot'. You have chosen to interpret this as 'a lot relative to what is typically experienced'. This is the definition of a subjective interpretation.

    The US experiences massive debt. False. It has been billions in debt for decades. :D

    Maybe if an individual like alastair codifies every infinitesimally small utterance as either falling within hate, or not hateful speech, we could at least know what would potentially be legal within an Ireland that had this new set of laws brought to bear. I'm assuming that this legislation is being considered as a response to people like Peter Casey being free to campaign. I mean, what other impetus might there be?


  • #146
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Ironicname wrote: »
    What is a perceived ethnicity?

    The guy thought he was British. I’m assuming he is Irish because phrased it like the person made a mistake. Did you read the post I quoted? I said ‘perceived’ because it appears the attacker was wrong on nationality. Nothing more to it than that.


  • #147
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,479 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The point of a law is to make it clear!!!

    You can't make something clearer that doesn't make sense in the first place.

    For example someone could say something that alluded to say a gay stereotype. Let's take Boris Johnson's remarks about 'tank top wearing bum boys'. I'm gay and I wear tank tops. I go to gay bars with other guys most of whom might be wearing tank tops or sometimes no top at all. Sure, the term bum boy is insulting, and certainty not appropriate for a politician to make. I might even make the remark myself and own it - cause there is some truth to it, that's where stereotypes come from, they are not completely made up.

    I would be deeply uncomfortable as a tank wearing bum boy if someone could be criminalized for what is essentially just an insulting remark. I don't buy into this 'spreading hate' accusation that goes on nowadays as if most ppl as so easily influenced to become 'hateful'. I want to reserve my right to insult loafer wearing beer bellied drunken larger louts of the heterosexual variety and I do. I'm also an atheist and if I happen to insult some religious zealot for their customs and cultural peculiarities I wish to have the right to do that also.


  • #148
    ArrBee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    WrenBoy wrote: »
    Who's feelings would be hurt though, who's the victim? science ? It would be hard to prove, this is a law about feelings. I don't think science will benefit much, in fact the opposite will probably happen.

    Yes it's a law of feelings (which is the crux of the problem IMO)
    but followers of science and have feelings to. :)

    I'm just musing that maybe if one was inclined, they could be offend, feel threatened and targeted because they are part of a group - say Scientists for example.

    Previous posts have indicated that the grouping whimsical.


  • #149
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    alastair wrote: »
    Let me get this straight... the significant problem you’ve identified is 16 lads who scarpered off to the U.K.? Yeah, it’s a scourge. What are you going to arrest them for in any case? There’s no legal obligation on them to stay here, and if they leave the State, it’s their own business.

    Got a link to that?


  • #150
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    AllForIt wrote: »
    You can't make something clearer that doesn't make sense in the first place.

    For example someone could say something that alluded to say a gay stereotype. Let's take Boris Johnson's remarks about 'tank top wearing bum boys'. I'm gay and I wear tank tops. I go to gay bars with other guys most of whom might be wearing tank tops or sometimes no top at all. Sure, the term bum boy is insulting, and certainty not appropriate for a politician to make. I might even make the remark myself and own it - cause there is some truth to it, that's where stereotypes come from, they are not completely made up.

    I would be deeply uncomfortable as a tank wearing bum boy if someone could be criminalized for what is essentially just an insulting remark. I don't buy into this 'spreading hate' accusation that goes on nowadays as if most ppl as so easily influenced to become 'hateful'. I want to reserve my right to insult loafer wearing beer bellied drunken larger louts of the heterosexual variety and I do. I'm also an atheist and if I happen to insult some religious zealot for their customs and cultural peculiarities I wish to have the right to do that also.

    Luckily there’s no obligation on you to press charges.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Got a link to that?

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.ie/irish-news/migrants-who-vanished-after-being-found-in-trailer-are-headed-for-uk-38722614.html


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement