Ireland proposed hate speech law

[PorcelinaV]

This is a Catholic article but presumably everyone will understand the relevance.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/irelands-proposed-hate-speech-laws-are-a-direct-attack-on-christians-and-the-church/

Can laws be applied in a backdated way? I am vaguely remembering something about a push to prosecute historical sex offences? Was that always law just being applied very late or were some people convicted of crimes they committed before something was actually illegal?

I'd be curious to know if such legislation came into effect where I live and I happen to have been rather vocal on some things- would I be safe. What about Caroline F, posy Parker, JKR.

We can talk until such laws are passed right? There won't be a witch hunt on what people have said on the past it can only go after those still speaking up after the law comes into effect?

I don't understand this.

So 'Religion' will be protected - how? How can Religion be protected if reading from religious texts that are the central planks of the Abrahamic religions would become 'hate'? Because that's exactly where this is going.

Wouldn't surprise me if it criminalised biology texts unless they're rewritten to have a load of mea culpa gender jargon after the actual scientific facts.

I find gender ideology hateful. What then?

There was the same problem with religious hate act in Britain.

The Government's plan was simply to add 'or religious' after 'racial' in the existing law, which would then have penalised use of 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour'. Critics of the Bill asserted that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Quran illegal in their current form in the UK. Eventually the words 'abusive or insulting ' were removed and the addition of a requirement for the intention of stirring up religious hatred

Governments in democracies want to more tightly control the people. Thus speech laws are brought in on the pretext of protecting the vulnerable.

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1654454535644143616?t=L6fX4zja9tCRXZduLinHpg&s=19

“Any time Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a different view to you, that’s not a bad day at the office,” Mr Harris said.

It's seriously worrying when a senior minister behaves like a child in the school yard.

To add insult to injury public "consultation" turns out to be keeping up the appearance of being democratic while ignoring the results. What was the point of it?
https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1654113707004239872?t=GbVRrOBvbcS_T-BwzmPreg&s=19

This law is truly terrible because it would criminalize not only gender critical women who were actively disseminating information, but also those women who were simply downloading and reading the 'hateful material'.

Also, the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence, which is a complete inversion of justice. And prosecutions will be based on a victims subjective feelings of offence. Trans- activists are offended by our mere existence, so how's that going to work out?! And how will a defendant be able to prove that an accuser wasn't actually offended if he claims he was??

I'm no expert in constitutional law but this is surely unconstitutional on several levels. Both in terms of article 40.6.1, because I don't think it would stack up as immoral as immoral has to be judged by how DeValera would have intended it. And in terms of how guilt rather than innocence has to be proven. I don't think the law would survive a supreme court challenge.

And how do they prove I intended to offend when voicing my opinion? It’s total nonsense. Let’s hope sanity prevails.

From Eoin O'Malley in today's SINDO, a good insight as to how this law got to this point. Lobby groups seem to be running the country, with the government using citizen assemblies as a smokescreen for a democratic process.

https://t.co/55kdryqtkq

Interesting radio interview with Ronan Mullen discussing the proposed hate speech legislation:

twitter.com/TheCountessIE/status/1656306799971295233?s=20

McDowell has written to the minister with some interesting questions about the legislation

"Senator McDowell, a former Justice Minister, noted from the wording of the Bill that “gender” means the gender of a person, “or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender”.
The draft legislation also defines gender as that sex “with which the person identifies, and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female”.
His intervention came as Senator Rónán Mullen criticised the Minister for Justice for allegedly “smuggling” a radical new definition of gender into “an already controversial hate speech law”.
Senator McDowell, a senior counsel, said the Gender Recognition Act 2015 already provided that if the preferred gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man; and if the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman. A certificate would issue to this effect.
On that basis, he said, he had “great difficulty in understanding what is intended by the term ‘transgender’” and the phrase “a gender other than those of male and female”.
Since one of the purposes of the Bill was to expand protections against hate speech or acts, “it seems to me to be important that the Seanad should understand the meaning of the phrases,” he said.
He said he had written to the minister “to obtain absolute clarity” as to what it was intended those terms should mean. He had to ask the questions: “Is transgender a gender for the purposes of Irish law?” and “Can you specify what is meant, in addition to transgender, by ‘any gender other than those of male and female’?”
Mr McDowell said he was bearing in mind “the binary nature of gender recognition certificates as evidenced by the 2015 Act. “I await hearing from you as a matter of urgency,” he told Justice Minister Simon Harris."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/michael-mcdowell-writes-to-justice-minister-simon-harris-over-inclusion-of-transgender-in-new-hate-speech-laws/a266464446.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/what-is-in-ireland-s-new-so-called-thought-crime-bill-how-many-years-in-jail-can-you-get-and-which-parties-are-backing-it/ar-AA1aDj1H
Scary stuff

Section 10 then goes further.
Under this section, it will be a crime of someone merely "possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons... with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person".
The bill says that where it is "reasonable to assume that the material was not intended for personal use", it will be "presumed" that the accused did indeed intend to disseminate it unless they can prove otherwise.
The maximum punishment under Article 10 is two years in jail.

Whatever happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty?

it will be "presumed" that the accused did indeed intend to disseminate it

... You may have been thinking about it... So we're writing thought crime into the law now?

Basically the justice minister and other TDs are making their personal preferences and views the new law of the land with no attempt at trying to maintain the plurality of views that’s necessary in a modern democracy. It’s illiberal, intolerant and authoritarian. And it’s just replacing the theocratic rule of the Catholic Church with another set of quasi-religious views.

Sadly, it’s happening in other countries too: UK governments have tried to curb free speech via hate speech legislation, and various european countries have also passed hate speech laws. I don’t know what it is about modern politicians but they really are censorious and afraid of free speech. They seem to think they can legislate the human mind into believing only what they want it to believe. They look down on their fellow citizens and try to corral them through nudges and laws. It’s no bloody wonder that conspiracy theorists are having a field day in this political climate.

Sometimes, it feels like the Enlightenment never happened.

What if you intended to disseminate it, but with critical commentary, so you weren't actually endorsing the message?

Or what if you intended to disseminate it, but only in the sense that you kept an archive of the material, so again not endorsing the message?

https://www.foxnews.com/world/irish-politician-boasts-hate-speech-bill-restrict-freedom-protect-trans-people-discomfort

"When one thinks about it, all law and all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. This is exactly what we are doing here," O’Reilly argued. "We are restricting freedom but we are doing it for the common good."

She then suggested that people should not be free to disagree with people’s identities, warning this "discomfort" is a severe hazard.

She continued, "If a person's views on other people's identities make their lives unsafe and insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, our job as legislators is to restrict those freedoms for the common good."

FFS - 'the common good', isn't that the same bullshit justification used by nefarious people in the past. I sort of can't believe we're living through this shit.

Also, I'm really glad this is being picked up by international news, our politicians hate it when we are scrutinised by other countries - they want to be universally adored.

our politicians hate it when we are scrutinised by other countries - they want to be universally adored

With the exception of those women's lib types.

"This is very fundamental to a legislative system. It should be one of the very fundamentals for any legislators who sit in this Chamber that they understand what we do is restrict freedoms."

She really has got democracy arse about face.

That's exactly what I wondered.

Politicians spout this claptrap and then wonder why we don't trust, can't be bothered to vote etc. The problem is that inertia amongst the electorate just puts more power into the hands of lobby groups.

Hate Speech according to Helen McEntee https://twitter.com/SenatorKeogan/status/1677248108294438933?t=myomwvcaD4CpzlN7uE5H3g&s=19
Is the victim above also guilty of Hate Speech?
Such a ridiculous law.

AutumnCrow · 30/04/2023 19:34
I don't understand this.

So 'Religion' will be protected - how? How can Religion be protected if reading from religious texts that are the central planks of the Abrahamic religions would become 'hate'? Because that's exactly where this is going.

plus:

Ireland ( lol, which one though ) still has BONO and the Message Bible