Hate Speech Public Consultation

what is the impetus for this legislation? presumably it comes from the same quarters that peddle the idea that "hate is on the rise".

The number of quangos, "activists", special interest groups and people making a living from this trope is certainly on the rise, a growth industry indeed.

But the idea that our society is more racist and bigoted than it was 30/40 years ago is demonstrably false and i'd like to see anyone argue that point while keeping a straight face.

i can only surmise that those in favour of chipping away at civil liberties have no understanding of the historical context in which the freedoms they take for granted were won and maintained.

Boggles wrote: »

Who is making that argument or claim?

I think its to try and suggest a reason for the introduction of this proposed hate speech law.

suicide_circus wrote: »

the trope that hate is on the rise is very much present in the media

Well, I don't know what barometer one uses to measure that, but every degenerate scumbag now has their own digital soap box.

So I don't really see a problem in reviewing a law from 1989.

A lot has changed since then.

suicide_circus wrote: »

so we are more tolerant, accepting and diverse than at any time in human history but "scumbags" have the internet. what is the driving force behind the new laws?

Again, like I asked before what barometer are you using to measure tolerance and acceptance?

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Here we have an African lady, telling the UN that Ireland has always been diverse, and that diversity is what it means to be Irish.
I guess from now on to challenge her on her complete bullsh1t will be regarded as Hate Speech.

https://twitter.com/HGKrell/status/1205123041925173251

Who is she representing ?

suicide_circus wrote: »

common sense. can you point to a time in history that was more tolerant?

How very scientific.

So you don't know is the actual answer and you are basing it on your opinion.

Just because there was intolerance 40 years ago doesn't mean there isn't intolerance now, or more.

A lot of minorities would be more open now essentially making a larger target on their back, so no it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibilities that actual hate crimes are on the rise.

Either way, I can't see how anyone is crying wambulance over a review of a law from 1989.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Ireland. Sent over by the DOJ I'd imagine.

Let her speak for her own people. She doesn't speak for me.

One of the elephants in the room here is the fact that nativism, a part of human nature which goes back to the dawn of our species and is pretty much hard-wired in to human nature, is now considered a hateful ideology. It is also very often conflated, totally erroneously, with racism. I have very little doubt that this is the primary target of this new legislation as nativist speech has certainly been on the rise for the last number of years - the idea that those native to a particular region have a sort of birthright to be counted first and to be looked after first by the resources and government of that particular region.

It is quite simply moronic that this extremely universal ideology has been classified as racism, but that is essentially what I believe this whole debate to be all about. It is seen as racist, essentially, to believe in any variation of the following two statements: "Regardless of the wars, conflicts, poverties or other hardships taking place in foreign lands, we have no moral responsibility to intervene", and "in a situation of limited resources, we should look after our own natives before we offer to share those resources with foreigners".

Both of the broad statements I have quoted above have a history going back to the birth of human civilisation and when humans first grouped themselves together by families, tribes and so on. They are fundamental in many ways to human nature. But they have relatively suddenly become regarded as completely unacceptable ideologies to express, and laws like this - in many peoples' eyes - are an attempt to further close the Overton Window on such beliefs in order to delegitimise them and prevent them from gaining a foothold in mainstream politics.

I'll give you an example of how this Overton Window has been closed in the context of the debates one generally sees over Trump's border wall proposal on forums such as Reddit's main political discussion areas:

Liberal: "Building a wall is racist!"
Conservative: "Well how would you propose to defend our border from illegal entrants?"
Liberal: "Make it easier for people to enter legally, of course!"
Conservative: "What if we're opposed to a population influx from a foreign country?"
Liberal: "Then you're a RACIST!!! ARGUMENT OVER!!!!! CHECKMATE!!!!"

It is, whether those on the left choose to accept it or not, an extremely recent phenomenon to regard this type of nativism as "problematic". It is an utter cop out to suggest that desiring a closed border, with a region's resources distributed among those living there and born there but not allowing people to enter from the outside and share in those resources, is a hateful or racist ideology. It is simply part of human nature and is not some fringe, nutcase, extremist belief as the current political mainstream tries to paint it as. Someone is not racist for saying, basically, "I don't actually hate foreign people, I just don't feel any shared responsibility to help them - particularly when we're not currently able to help all our own people". It's an extension of the aeroplane safety message - "ensure your own oxygen mask is secure before you attempt to assist others".

A United States conservative who suggests, to continue this example, that they feel no personal responsibility to help those fleering poverty or persecution in South or Central America, is not racist for saying so. They are not saying that they hate or dislike those people, they are merely suggesting that they hold the generally right wing belief that humans' first responsibility is to themselves and their own 'tribe'.

To give you an Irish historical example, the Plantations probably occurred at least in part because those ruling Britain felt that the country was overcrowded and needed more space for its citizens. Were Irish people "racist" to oppose this? At what point would you define a cutoff beyond which a country can say "ok enough, you are overrunning our own people at this point"?

It is furthermore absolutely not hateful or racist to be opposed to multiculturalism - the unquestioning advocacy of this also being a very recent "requirement" for being considered an acceptable person in the political mainstream. It is perfectly acceptable to suggest that one appreciated the familiarities and comforts of home, and does not want to see those diluted through multiculturalism. But this, also, is very close to being regarded as outright hate speech by the political mainstream.

The reason such hate speech laws are opposed, in short, is because there is a very, very clear and definitive push to close the Overton Window on any form of nativist beliefs, and many people, even those who don't personally hold nativist beliefs, find this both absurd and alarming.

Boggles wrote: »

There is a foggy notion that it isn't.

That's why laws are review. This is one due a review.

I can't see how any normal healthy minded individual would have a problem with reviewing legislation from 1989.

It's in the context of the current climate where the Overton Window is closing on formerly mainstream nativist beliefs, the regular conflation of such beliefs with hatred, and perhaps more alarmingly, the fact that the questions on the pre-defined questionnaire you can fill out on the public consultation website very much implying the presumption that hate speech being on the rise, and that measures to prohibit it being necessary, are pre-accepted facts and not open for discussion.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's in the context of the current climate where the Overton Window is closing on formerly mainstream nativist beliefs, the regular conflation of such beliefs with hatred, and perhaps more alarmingly, the fact that the questions on the pre-defined questionnaire you can fill out on the public consultation website very much implying the presumption that hate speech being on the rise, and that measures to prohibit it being necessary, are pre-accepted facts and not open for discussion.

Yeah, you are way over thinking it buddy.

The law is 30 years old it needs to be reviewed.

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, you are way over thinking it buddy.

The law is 30 years old it needs to be reviewed.

That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. I'm basing my own opinion on trends in the media and in mainstream discourse over the last five or six years, which have been going firmly in one direction with regard to categorising ordinary political beliefs as socially unacceptable.

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, you are way over thinking it buddy.

The law is 30 years old it needs to be reviewed.

you're fooling no one with this 30 years codology. this is an ideologically driven attempt to curb civil liberties...an ideology you subscribe to, nothing whatever to do with the age of the law which is in fact comparatively recent as laws go. just realise that one day this authoritarian sh1te may well be used against you, these things go in cycles.

suicide_circus wrote: »

you're fooling no one with this 30 years codology. this is an ideologically driven attempt to curb civil liberties...an ideology you subscribe to, nothing whatever to do with the age of the law which is in fact comparatively recent as laws go. just realise that one day this authoritarian sh1te may well be used against you, these things go in cycles.

:pac:

Anyway, which of your civil liberties will be curbed because a law that is 30 years old is being reviewed.

Specifically?