Urgent, Ireland: public consultation on hate-speech laws. Gender id may be added.

[CumannNamBan]

You have until tomorrow (Friday 13th) to submit a response to a public consultation on the introduction of hate-speech laws. I don't know if that means today is the last day or if submissions can be made tomorrow.

www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation

The supporting document specifically mentions potentially adding gender identity to the list of protected groups. I can't find the direct link to the supporting document (it is on the page linked to above) but will have a look.

The supporting document specifically mentions potentially adding gender identity to the list of protected groups

How is hate speech defined? Will asserting a belief in the immutability of biological sex be considered hate speech? I believe that is what this lobby wants, to impose criminal penalties for that belief.

Wait what? How did this not get discussed in the media? Deadline tomorrow!

How will anyone sit an exam in anything to do with biology ever again? Every science or medical degree in the country will be hate speech if that’s passed.

Given the ongoing hate speech issues round travellers and that poor mixed race couple in the Lidl ad, you think there would be bigger fish to fry than gender Id. But important that it doesn't sneak in under the radar.

" The 1989 Act prohibits certain forms of threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons on account of certain characteristics. These characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation. "

All fine, except sex isn't there as a protected characteristic.
Have completed the 5 question survey on main page and questioned why not sex, and why 'gender ID' before sex?

More backdoor fuckery.

And thanks for the heads up!

Thanks will do later.

Done! So glad you posted this.

Yes thanks for the heads up, how is this a public consultation when we don't get to hear about it!!

True. It all seems very underhanded.......i wonder why, and who is behind all of this?

I'm still seething regarding the term pregnant 'people'. I've had 4 children and not once did i see a pregnant man in the maternity hospital.

Okay, I'm being very stupid here.

What kind of answers are people putting down? My automatic reaction to the first question was "women" but I think I'm missing the point somewhere.

Help!

From the Surveymonkey survey itself:

1. In your opinion, what groups or communities of people in Ireland are targeted by hate speech?

1. Please describe the kinds of hate speech that you think are (or are not) serious enough to be a criminal offence.

1. Is it necessary or right to place limits on freedom of expression by making some forms of hate speech a crime? If so, what protections do you think the law on incitement to hatred should offer?

1. Do you think those who are actively involved in publishing, spreading or distributing hate speech should be subject to criminal prosecution?

1. Is there anything else important we should take into account as part of this review?

I went the way of agreeing with the characteristics of the groups covered by the Act and agreeing they were frequent targets but that why was sex not among the protected characteristics and that women are routinely directly threatened with death or rape on social media platforms. I might differ with many here in being a US style freedom of speech advocate but said that incitement to harm a member of the mentioned groups or their property was my red line and was broadly my answer to 2, 3 and 4

Also, within the PDF consultation document on main page under written submissions (my bolding)

"Four preliminary issues for discussion have been identified:

1. the list of protected characteristics covered by the Act and whether these should be changed.

2. the use of the term ‘hatred’ in the Act and whether this should be changed.

3. whether the wording of the 1989 Act is adequate to deal with online communications.

4. the need to prove the intent or likelihood of stirring up hatred and whether this should be changed.

Issue 1:

Protected characteristics covered by the 1989 Act. The Act deals with incitement on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community and sexual orientation. The Department is examining whether this list should be amended. The list of identity characteristics should take account of current social issues, but also their social or historical context. Historic or emerging fissures or divisions in society can be helpful in identifying groups that may be the target of hate speech. Care is needed not to include characteristics which are in any way unclear, or which are not easily identifiable –in prosecuting offences under this Act it will be necessary to prove to a court of law that the accused person knew or perceived that the victim was a member of or associated with a protected group. "

Do you have to be a citizen of Ireland to fill it in?

I started to fill out that consultation form and it's quite complex isn't it?
I thought it would be enough to write 1-2 sentences, but it isn't.
This is too complex to convey in response to 5 questions.

Hi Female, I think you would probably either need to be an Irish citizen, or live here, to complete it.

As other people have noted, the absence of harassment based on sex is interesting.

This jumped out at me from the supporting document (shows how the government and civil service are thinking):

"Question

1. Are there other groups in society with shared identity characteristics, for example disability, gender identity, or others, who are vulnerable to having hatred stirred up against them and should be included in the list of protected characteristics?"

Can you imagine the potential implications? "Misgendering" would be a potential crime, along with discussions about bio sex.

In my responses to the Survey Monkey questions, I've argued that only incitement to violence, or persistent harassment of a particular individual, should be legislated for (I think current legislation would cover these). I thought it was important to send a clear simple message to the idiots that seem to be running the country.

The irony is, it is mostly politicians who engage in mass forms of "hate speech". I wonder how many of them will vote for legislation which could be used against them?

I put down that sex should be a protected class, and that as well as direct threats of harm, nonconsensual porn of a person should be considered hate speech - so deepfakes and photoshops, as well as photos/videos the people distributing it don't have permission for. Should also have mentioned upskirting.

Also referred to this line quoted above Care is needed not to include characteristics which are in any way unclear, or which are not easily identifiable to argue against gender identity being included, with a link to some definitions of trans so they could see how fuzzy it is. Also included examples of court cases which demonstrate that the inclusion of gender ID under hate speech laws clearly is being abused.

Done - didn't need to give an address for the 5 survey monkey questions.

It's not very official or detailed. Maybe it's an initial response for a more detailed consultation?

Sorry ignore - I've just seen the other options to reply, was looking on my phone.

I've emailed to ask if they will allow a late submission, I think these things often do.

Was this publicised at all? Anyone looking into why it's so low key for such a big question?

Done the five questions. Recommended they take into account the UK FairCop judicial review.

Kantastic your one sounds better than mine. Great that a few people are getting in some responses which might provoke some thinking (I live in hope!).

Just typed out a response here posted it and now it's gone...
Anyway done, agreed with the protected characteristics given and said that sex should be added.
For the last question I talked about fair cop. Hopefully enough of responses like this and they will take note.

Done - thanks for the heads up! Mentioned Miranda Yardley ‘transphobia ‘ case and the need for sex to be included as a protected characteristic. Also referenced trans sexual offender housed in the female prison as an “unforeseen consequence” of self-ID and the importance of avoiding unforeseen consequences in this review.

Bump!

Thanks for the heads up, 5 questions answered