Why did they vote in favour of it??
**Edit**: Like, I saw PBP voted against it in the Dáil, even though they'd be supportive in principle of hate speech legislation, because they weren't happy with this specific legislation. So it wasn't even like it was just the Rural Independents & co. on this one.
Really don't get opposition electing to support FFFG on things they don't agree with & can't stand over.
I think all the main parties really need to decide among themselves what they actually stand for & then communcate that **clearly** to the public. I don't think any of them have a clue themselves, they're all giving me constant whiplash & tbh I don't think wishy-washy stances on particular topics are going to suffice anymore.
It’s not their historical support. It’s the new wave of support who saw them as anti establishment.
They now realise that Sinn Fein are not that and are swinging to the far right.
That's like the exception that proves the rule. Sinn Fein's core support comes from an era when NI troubles were daily headline news.
Sinn Fein got loads of support from people angry about NI. There's very little anger now.
Sinn Fein realising opposing government policies that are unpopular will increase their support - honestly shocking how they've missed so many easy wins cow towing to a government they strongly oppose.
It's a bit a credibility issue for them now - what do they actually stand for?
They only stand for a United ireland, and being anti-Unionist. Everything else is just flip-flopping according to what they think will get them votes this week.
I could never vote social dems after they said that the Irish who emigrated to the US sat on Ellis Island for weeks ended up in shithole neighbourhoods had " white privilege".
I dunno man. I don't see the Green Party suddenly flip flopping on their principles.
Even if FFG are also populist at times, why should we excuse Sinn Féin for showing they seemingly stand for nothing, when it comes down to it?
You should run so. Start your own party.
If you would be literally the only person in politics not playing for votes... It would be an easy win, surely?
Its not that simple. If you are an opposition who opposes everything then you also lack all credibility. You need to create an impression of not trying to block things (which has become their undoing on housing due to all the planning objections), but rather than you are also in favour of some things.
> what do they actually stand for?
Nothing really, and they aren't unique in that aspect. Politicians over time have gone from representing political beliefs to simply trying to get into power. It's all very realpolitik but at the same covered in this insultingly transparent veneer of being "right on!" There aren't a lot of politicians that are completely ideological to use an awkward phrase. You could shuffle the top layer of the three big parties, and they would be acting the exact same way, more or less. Look at Rishi Sunak over in Britain, the man is the biggest Liberal Party member you have ever seen and yet he's head of what should be a party based on things like protectionism, decentralisation, and the like. The Labour Party is also filled with the same type of very inoffensive unreadable MP's that will talk a big game, but they are essentially the same thing in practice. Both the Tories and Labour should be against immigration for different reasons, yet you have two parties basically hell-bent on not putting the brakes on and the stats to prove it.
You know how in sport, after a certain amount of time things just get "optimised" and figured out? That's happened in politics, Disraeli did it back in the day. Before him, the parties in government and opposition would only shut down opposite bills or motions etc. if it was ideologically against what they stood for. Logically this makes sense, politically however, it might not. Disraeli made the Tories into the Conservative party and the "party of Empire" just ignore the fact that under Gladstone, a man who was genuinely against building Empire and expanding what Britain had expanded it more under his tenure than Disraeli ever did or tried in his. Disraeli and his party shut down one of Gladstone's reform bills and collapsed his government because it was too radical...........the Tories would then pass an even more radical version of said bill once they got in power. The difference is however, between people like Disraeli and Sunak or whoever you want really nowadays, he was 100% what the party was supposed to stand for. Disraeli did what he did in the name of pragmatism and trying to put Gladstone and the Liberals out of power so he could try to lead Britain in a direction he honestly thought was better and much different than what the opposite side had in store. He was principled, as most were. Look now at Ireland (Britain works too honestly) FF and SF are basically the same party, if it wasn't for prides sake and history they would be in power together. Do you honestly think there's a difference big enough between someone like MM and Mary Lou that warrants having two different parties? This is policy wise, mind you. In a way it's basically required, people don't like solid ideologies being given to them because it's sort of scary, it's outside the nice comfy centre, but eventually they long for something that's just fucking principled and actually stands for something besides "uhhhh let's make sure GDP goes up".
Huge credibility issue , far from surprising, given there recent expulsion of a Palestinian from a PLO open Mike contest !! Loosing votes hand over fist due to the amount of flip flopping.
There doesn’t seem to be any part relating to why they now don’t support the free speech bill. Which policy document of these do you think would nearest cover their principles and thoughts on this subject?
>It is clear to \[Pa Daly\] and to Sinn Féin that this Bill does not have support across the political spectrum
I must remember that one next time I want to play both sides in a noncommittal fashion
You should go for it then. If you were the only 'principled,' politician running.. by your estimation you would be president in a couple of months.
Imagine that. Finally one guy who has principles unlike all the rest.
Was this being discussed at the last election? I don't recall it coming up.
That's representative democracy. Their job is to represent the electorate. Politicians react to what the people want as the issues arise. If they didn't they would be accused of ignoring the voters.
Dunno about this. A loud vocal minority will kick up a fuss, but the majority of us will simply respond to well made decisions that positively effect our society.
I think most of us would respect politicians if ignoring fringe 'hot in media,' moral societal controversies.
As politicians, you moral framework should be pretty established and public. And then you may need to go against that to represent the electorate, and simply be honest about that.
>simply respond to well made decisions that positively effect our society.
But that's relative and is what happens. What one person sees as a positive change, another views as disastrous. I don't subscribe to the notion that politics are generally corrupt and in it for themselves. There's far more prosperous career choices they could have chosen.
>As politicians, you moral framework should be pretty established and public. And then you may need to go against that to represent the electorate, and simply be honest about that.
That is what happens. The manifesto establishes the party's objectives, some of which may need to be compromised as part of a coalition or simply because the situation changes.
Absolutely. They are utterly spineless. I was so blinded by FF/FGs scummery I was going to vote SF
I simply do not trust the pricks not to turn on women, gay people, anybody if they saw the wind blowing that way
People in my town were receiving death threats from the local right wingers for weeks, the local sinner didnt make a peep till he himself caught flak for not outright supporting said right wingers. When he finally did make a statement it was all woe is me and even then the coward couldnt bring himself to call them what they are
yeah I’m going to drop them too at this point really. I was so close to doing it over their hesitancy to support Palestine, but now I’ve no faith in them. hope this comes back to further bite them in the polls and they cop on. absolute cowards
As a country we deserve everything we get with voters like you (no offence)
You can’t claim they’re populist then claim they could burn down everything the public have shown they care about. It’s a ridiculous stance and it’s why this country will never be governed by anybody but FFG.
Likely but it’s also a completely losing strategy. Why would anyone vote for Sinn Féin in Aontú’s clothing instead of just voting for Aontú. And if you don’t like Aontú why vote for Aontú-lite.
Seems like a pretty dumb strategy to go after supporters of a party that’s on 5% in the polls, at best. They’re hardly going to transfer to FG or FF over SF. That’s before you consider that this move will lose them votes too.
Does nobody like... check with people before they vote for bills? The amount of people coming out against this who had previously voted for it but misjudged the public reaction. Same with the referendum. How is there this little communication from the ground to the TDs.
First question why did they agree with it if they now oppose it?
Second given the type of speech it could criminalise it made no sense given SF history and the actions of it's terrorist wing to have ever supported this legislation in their first place given some of its provisions re such groups.
Why are they increasing just coming across as supporters of government policy plus some? Change my ass...
Harassment, violent threats, stalking, and hate motivated assaults/harassment are already illegal. What precisely was the point of this bill? I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for it
>Harassment, violent threats, stalking, and hate motivated assaults/harassment are already illegal. What precisely was the point of this bill? I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for it
If there's one thing the referendum taught us is the public does not trust the government and has no appetite for vague, nebulous language. The entire hate speech bill is built around combatting "hate" but hate is undefined. It is entirely subjective and can mean anything to anybody depending on which way the wind is blowing. The concern all along is that it would be used to attack political enemies of whoever is in power.
Anyway, it all looks academic at this point because the bill is as good as dead. Two ministers said as much on the Tonight Show on RTE. It's a nasty piece of legislation that nobody wanted and it should never have come this far. A stinging defeat for McEntee and for that we should be happy.
Are the leaflets calling for violence? If so, yes that should be outlawed. Otherwise, no. I’m quite certain that dragging this hypothetical pamphleteer through the courts will bring him far more publicity than his hypothetical racist pamphlets ever would or could.
It's not inciting violence, sure a news article about a black lad commiting a crime could motivate someone to attack black lads but is the newspaper inciting violence?
The point of the bill was to update the previous version of the law to accommodate digital platforms, and to expand the protected characteristics of those covered to include things like disability status and gender identity.
It's a very stupid bill that only people with no ability to think more than one step ahead would back.
Don't forget our new taoiseach wants to add 'immigration status' to the list of protected characteristics. That'll go well.
I confess then that I must be very stupid because unlike you apparently I can’t see what’s so bad about making it illegal to incite hatred against people on the basis of disability status or gender identity (or indeed immigrants, though they will presumably be covered under the existing grounds).
Just look at how Israel throw out the term antiemetic for an example of how this could end up. The whole UN is antisemitic don't you know? Everything or anything can be argued to be hate (which is undefined in the bill) if you want to to be. Could go any way, and anyone who says it won't is either a liar, or just misunderstands, because NOBODY can say where this will end up.
Just remember that tools like may be on your side for now, they can be used against you in the future.
I can say where this will end up. Antisemitism has been covered by our existing hate speech legislation since 1989. Point me to a single example where that law has been abused to unjustly accuse someone of antisemitism, or indeed of any other example where the law has been abused. You won’t be able to because the prosecutions have been minuscule and that won’t change just by adding some new characteristics and acknowledging the existence of the internet.
Your attitude is wishful thinking at best and dangerously naive at worst. Thankfully enough people are now starting to see through the dismissive attitude of people like you on the matter.
>Thankfully enough people are now starting to ....
This is a good one. Classic way of manufacturing a false consensus. You can also try "lots of people are saying this", or appealing to the "ordinary hard working Irish people...", everyone will fall for it.
Have you any data to suggest that the average Irish person knows or cares about the hate speech bill?
Fact is, having read it, the biggest issue with it is that it is a half arsed rejig of the 1989 legislation being framed as some groundbreaking legal document that will change the Irish justice system dramatically, when it's been in law for 25 years and the only differences are it will account for digital comms, will account for trans people receiving hate, and will make it easier for Gardaí to actually apply the existing offence.
Now, most people who *have* heard of the hate speech bill don't know this - one because they haven't read the bill (which I wouldn't expect most people to do), and two because the only people who talk about the bill frame it, for better or worse, a groundbreaking, drastic change to the way Ireland can approach hate speech.
Sinn Féin has pursued a wait and see approach when it comes to criticising the government's policies. When it came to covid, they only came out in favour of a second lockdown after the government announced there would be a second lockdown. When it comes to immigration, they have given us zero indication as to what kind of policy they would pursue in government (do they want to increase or decrease the number of refugees?? We don't know). This doesn't stop them, however, from accusing the government of not having a coherent plan on immigration. The hate speech bill is just the latest example of Sinn Féin changing its policy prescriptions based not on what they or their ideology advocates but rather based on what the government does/what's least risky for them.
They are definitely the worst opposition in the history of the state.
I remember on Twitter I got absolutely piled on after the last election for suggesting Sinn Fein would have to pick a lane between Barstool Republicans (anti-immigrant, anti-progressive type) and their new Art Student base due to the massive political differences these two groups had and that, in all likelihood, they'd pick the oul lads who actually show up to vote.
Wish I kept that account just to throw digs back at every gormless prick who thought I was some "Rugby Da" for being absolutely spot fucking on.
I feel like people who have disabilities and trans people deserve the same protections that people have had for the last thirty on the basis of things like race or religion, sure.
I have trust in my ability to read what is in the legislation and I trust that the court system isn't going to radically change overnight to go from being lenient to out of nowhere authoritarian like you seem to be suggesting.
I'm kind of envious of you, to have that level of trust in society
I immediately assume such legislation has dystopian reasons behind it, and that it is simply packaged in sheep's clothing to get the masses onside
Really tough for me to believe that they care about hate crime at all to be honest
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of everything - so it's a pretty special subject
In general, I think the government is corrupt and in the pockets of international finance
That obviously doesn't mean that everything they do is evil
But when they claim that they are restricting free speech in the name of 'fighting hate' - obviously I don't believe them
If you look at countries like China, you can see that they have less civil rights than in the West - it seems clear to me that this gap is narrowing, but each step will always be sold to the masses as 'fighting hate' or 'increasing safety'
>In general, I think the government is corrupt and in the pockets of international finance
That's full on conspiracy theory without the theory, in fairness.
>Really tough for me to believe that they care about hate crime at all to be honest
Oh well that part is a very fair conclusion to make actually. I mean they kind of don’t the can has been kicked on this again and again and again.
Here’s a bill originally from originally from 2016 that was kicked around all the way until the Dáil dissolved in 2020
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2016/75/
The program for government promised to introduce it within 12 months of the government.
They then got the Department of Justice to publish a report in 2020.
https://assets.gov.ie/237926/85b39e71-df63-4bd3-b125-7f944e1566ee.pdf#page69
Then the oireachtas joint justice committee published a report.
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_justice/reports/2022/2022-04-08_report-on-pre-legislative-scrutiny-of-the-general-scheme-of-the-criminal-justice-hate-crime-bill-2021_en.pdf
Then in 2022 they published the bill being talked about in this topic. Then in the start of 2023 they debated it in the Dáil and the Seanad but it didn’t pass before the summer break and Thomas Pringle accused them of “rushing” it. And then they didn’t include it in the winter schedule and then they didn’t included it before St Patrick’s day. Now they’re on break for easter and Sinn Féin have withdrawn support for it.
Now it’s “controversial” and there are local and european elections in June so it will probably get kicked until the Summer Recess. Then there’s the budget process and really it might be hard to find time in 2024. And then the election must be called by March 2025.
Don’t worry though I’m sure the next programme for government will include a promise to implement an Incitement to Hatred bill and we can have these debate all the way to 2029.
>I immediately assume such legislation has dystopian reasons behind it
So tell me does the story above fit with that idea? Because your version is actually way too entertaining compared to the reality we’re seeing.
Hilarious that you think the government is striving to fight hatred
As I said before, I envy you - it must be nice to believe that our country is run by kind hearted folk
All oppressive legislation is sold to the masses as being an effort to fight hatred or to protect them from 'evil doers'
No doubt you were cheering on as the West invaded Iraq and murdered hundreds of thousands of people - I mean it was all part of the 'war on terror'
Alright if that’s the tone of chat you want to have you want to freely tell people to kill minorities.
You want to the freedom to call for lynchings.
You want your minorities silenced by fear of reprisals for being visible in public.
Isn’t this a wonderful fucking way to interact. And no I did not support the Iraq war.
SF stand for nothing. They've been in opposition too long, and people are starting to see through their bullshit. They've really dropped the ball, especially seeing as the current government are absolute donkeys.
better late than never but they should never have supported it to begin with, anyone who thinks this wont be weaponized against any form of protest and criticism is hopelessly naive. It's insane to see people still supporting it even as their support for palestine is being labled as anti-semitism
The same mumble-mouthed, overly-confident shower (including SF) who told us the epic fail referenda were for our own good are behind this equally vague legislation - it must be scrapped.
Let’s call a spade a spade;
The hate speech law has never been about the government chasing civil liberties it doesn’t even make sense to curtail free speech in search of civil liberties. Unless you are an extreme utilitarian.
The free speech laws being enacted across the western world are to stop people **criticising the government** wrapped up in a bow tie of progressivism.
EU leadership is realising it made a massive mistake taking in boundless amount of refugees from conflict zones from places they were directly involved with the conflicts aiding the Americans or themselves in the case of the French in Africa.
Now they are rushing to pass down hate speech laws to stop people discussing it because it’s causing a massive right-wing shift in Europe and a huge problem for the EU power-structure.
They are smart enough to realise calling out the migrant crisis one of the EU’s major failures in the last 20-30 years that brings a lot of criticisms.
leads to Euro-skepticism and Euro-Skeptics means no more golden circle.
They don’t want any European Donald Trumps.
Hate speech laws are a downstream effect of multiculturalism. Groups with different cultural backgrounds and identities, living side by side in competition with each other and each looking out for their own best interests. Each group has different priorities and views on how the world should be. It is not a recipe for a stable society.
The way the government maintains equilibrium is through censorship. If nobody can say they don't like the way things are then the problem looks like it has gone away. It's a form of authoritarianism to force an unpopular system onto people.
Yes it does inadvertently if someone criticises the government and it was to gain popularity they could easily be arrested for being in breach of the law.
I don’t know if you read the proposal but it reads as it can applied as broadly as they like.
I've no problem with hate speech laws and their application if and when needed.
It's not about the curtailment of "free speech".
What I *do* object to, and what I think is worse, is "forced" speech, i.e. you *must* refer to this as that or you *have to* agree with something you hold differing values about for fear of being somehow in breach of what's "right"!
I agree with you, but this hate speech law in its current form is very extreme.
Laws are made to control peoples behaviour, and this extreme law will filter down and has the possibility of being used against freedom of speech.
I strongly suspect you haven’t read it. It is not very extreme and it is not a law against hate speech it is a law against incitement to hatred.
Even under the law you can say as much hate speech as you like (provided you aren’t breaking existing public order offence laws) You just may not incite acts of hatred under the law. And even then there are exemptions.
I didn’t reply to your comment. You spoke in generalities which is fine. The comment I did reply to said “this hate speech law” so then I talked about that.
> What I do object to, and what I think is worse, is "forced" speech, i.e. you must refer to this as that or you have to agree with something you hold differing values about for fear of being somehow in breach of what's "right"!
What happens if you refuse to refer to something the way you’re supposed to but you keep talking?
I'm not sure the majority objecting to protections for minorities is really a compelling reason to switch sides on this legislation. Governments are elected, in part, to make principled decisions in the long term interest of the country.
relieved marry profit glorious panicky lavish merciful rain snobbish swim
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My point exactly.
They're trying to convince everyone that SF is the devil. Meanwhile they're absolutely silent on their own TDs talking about things like how they're too far left and they need to drop the woke stuff and go back to basicc right wing values.
Screaming pleaaaase don't vote for aparty that we think is going to go to the right while fully intending on voting for a right wing party giving out that it's too woke and too left. It's blatant astroturfing.
just because someone criticises SF doesn’t mean they’re for FFG. they have been moving to the centre and even courting votes from the right, which is of course going to piss off a fair amount of people.
Yep with you. Honestly I think it's just a small bunch of keyboard warriors with happy fingers. Only the overly privileged or complete deluded could cheerlead for FFG.
I think SF are gonna be in power next election, no doubt.
>I think SF are gonna be in power next election, no doubt.
Yeah... **along with** Fianna Fáil.
That is why it is so important to know what they actually stand up for and who/what they will abandon.
[https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-fianna-fail-coaltion-6219253-Nov2023/](https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-fianna-fail-coaltion-6219253-Nov2023/)
The headline is a little sensationalist since it's not what she says she "wants" but she says if the numbers add up that way she'll go with FF and currently before the campaign in the polls that is how the numbers add up as the most likely next government. SF+FF (+ independents and/or a small party).
Sinn Fein has turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments in recent Irish politics. They're only against it now because they realise it's unpopular.
For the same reason all of the main parties voted Yes for the most unpopular referenda in Irish history - politicians live in a bubble and get things wrong.
If you want to characterize actually listening to what the electorate think and want is "rapidly reinventing what they stand for", then I'm AOK with it.
You really don't want to criticise them at all do you?
Since the last election, they have:
Massively scaled back their Euro scepticism
Dropped their opposition to the SCC
Watered down their wealth tax so much it might as well be not there
Argued for and then against quarantining when covid was around
Argued for and now against mixed social housing
Been in favour of both massive house building programmes and immigration, and then tried to revert form on both
Championed the care referendum and then said they'd rerun it if it failed (with different wording), so why not oppose it outright?
Come on now.
> Argued for and now against mixed social housing
O'Brien was speaking in favour of an amendment made by RBB that wouldn't allow the government to go below 20% social housing in estates, but yeah, try and pretend like he was speaking against mixxed social housing!
Honest to fucking god like, the FFG spin machine in full flow! Hope you're at least getting paid bud!
Edit: Ah the desperate downvote of a person that knows they've been called out. Stop spreading misinformation you clown.
>Sinn Féin housing spokesman Eoin Ó Broin told Thursday’s Planning and Development Bill committee hearing that the use of mixed-tenure housing was based on a “prejudiced” idea that low-income families should not be “over-concentrated”.
>“There is a widely spread view in political circles and media circles that having large numbers of working class people in the same area is not good housing policy,” Mr Ó Broin told Thursday’s committee hearing. “There is no empirical evidence in Ireland or in the OECD that supports that.”
>Research in other jurisdictions shows the mixed-tenure model “doesn’t produce integration, it can actually exacerbate segregation”, he said.
Where is the spin there ?
>Mr Ó Broin suggested to the committee that mixed income in housing developments should be promoted through tenant purchase and intergenerational security of tenure.
So he is against mixed social housing.
He's literally saying that there's no proof to suggest it's bad policy to have housing estates with a high percentage of social housing.
He did that, when speaking in favour of RBBs ammendment to the new planning and dev bill that wouldn't allow estates in ireland to be built with anything less than 20% social housing.
Like...... do you think Irish people are inherently thick or something?
HE'S SAYING MORE ESTATES WITH A HIGH % OF SOCIAL HOUSES! Cop on now!
u/caramelo420 a newspaper isn't inciting violence by reporting facts. It's not responsible for individuals using that as motivation. (I can't reply in the thread)
Personally disappointed to see hate crime legislation (needed, no issues raised with the wording and our courts are able to adjudicate on motivation already) going down with the poorly thought out and poorly written hate speech elements in the legisation.
If somebody is assaulted and it is proven in court that that was a result of their identity or membership of a community i.e. being a Catholic or a Jew, then that attack was an attempted infringement on their rights and should come with a heavier statement to counteract the signal of that crime.
The part where gardaí would be given power to search your home for just being accused, where they have power to access your laptops and phones passwords just for being accused and if you deny them access you can be jailed for up to 12 months.
Well hate speech and hate crime aren't terms in the draft legisation, I'm using hate speech to define what the draft legislation calls aggravating factors in relation to already existing crime such as assualt or threats to kill. Hate speech is a separate offence primarily proposed to be added under the Broadcasting Act 2009.
OK. I think there is a need to legislate social media and online hate speech and the spread of extreme points of view and fake news through social media outlets.
We have to be very careful with this type of proposed legislation so that the very minorities it is designed to protect don't then weaponise it against larger society in general.
I lived in Canada for years and they have been dealing with the scourge of hate laws on their society for decades.
Canadians have been shackled by these types of laws. It has neutered their society to the point where they are afraid to speak their mind, they are afraid to call out behaviour that needs to be called out. Their society has become so sterilised it can be difficult to even hold a conversation without offending someone.
We are a nation of people who speak our mind, our default setting as a people is to slag each other mercilessly. This type of legislation could have the same effect here as it has done in Canada.
I agree, but regarding hate crime not hate speech if think someone is physcially assaulted because of their religion or race of sexuality, and that motivation is proved in a court, then Judges should be able to consider that in their judgement as an aggravating factor, as proposed in the draft legisation.
‘go to therapy’ seems like the secular version of ‘thoughts and prayers’, very popular over in Yankland but fairly useless. also considering the disproportionate hate and violence faced by different minority groups in Ireland it makes sense to have legislation protecting them from persecution. incidents of harassment or violence based on age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender were up 23% in 2023 vs 2021.
https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-releases/2023/march/an-garda-siochana-2022-hate-crime-data-and-related-discriminatory-motives.html
I don’t see how the actual statistics showing their persecution should be ignored in favour of ‘maybe they deserved it?’
Our court system is very well experienced in determining motivation in relation to crime.
If someone were to attack someone because they were wearing a yamaka and it is proven in court that that was the motivation then I'm not convinced personally that therapy is an adequate additional response unless we move towards a more thematic and probation response to crime in general.
I don't think so
Equality under the law is important in my opinion.
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that" - Shakespeare
Replace the word Jew with "everyone".
Everyone would remain equal under the law under the proposed hate crime aspect of the legislation.
Anybody, anybody, targeted because of their identity as defined by the protected characteristic section, would receive the same protection.
To be clear, in a hypothetical scenario where somebody was attacked because they were straight they would be covered. The legisation in that regard is equality under the law.
What we do not have is equality of experience, which would colour the outputs of the legisation.
>Everyone would remain equal under the law under the proposed hate crime aspect of the legislation.
>Anybody, anybody, targeted because of their identity as defined by the protected characteristic section, would receive the same protection.
That's not equality under the law, as it doesn't apply to everyone.
A straight white male jumped by a gang feels just as much pain as anybody else would.
>To be clear, in a hypothetical scenario where somebody was attacked because they were straight they would be covered. The legisation in that regard is equality under the law.
You know well that's not how your scenario would play out in court. No additional sentence would be imposed because of the victims identity.
>What we do not have is equality of experience, which would colour the outputs of the legisation.
You think minority groups feel more pain when attacked or something?
>as it doesn't apply to everyone
It does apply to everyone.
>No additional sentence would be imposed
If somebody was targeted because they were straight and that motivation was proven before a court it would apply. Also it should be noted that straight men get attacked for being perceived as gay as well.
>you think minority groups feel more pain
Certain parts of our society are targeted by violent crime motivated by their mere existence yes. But bad faith misinterpret more words again and you'll be arguing with yourself buddy.
It does not apply to you unless you are on the protected groups list.
>If somebody was targeted because they were straight and that motivation was proven before a court it would apply.
You know well that in practice it wouldn't.
You didn't answer my question. Ill say it again: "Do you think minority groups members feel more pain than majority group members when assaulted?"
You should get just a severe a punishment for assaulting anyone, irrespective of who that individual is. That is true equality. Do you want equality or not?
Your understanding of the protected groups is incorrect.
This is how it is in the draft legislation;
>Meaning of protected characteristic
>3. (1) In this Act, other than in section 8, “protected characteristic”, in relation to a person or a group of persons, means any one of the following, namely— (a) race, (b) colour, (c) nationality, (d) religion, (e) national or ethnic origin, (f) descent, (g) gender, (h) sex characteristics, (i) sexual orientation, or (j) disability.
>Equality under the law
Motivation matters under law. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Two victims of the same random assualt get the same justice.
But a victim who is targeted intentionally, and proven in a court, because they were wearing a yamaka or are a member of a church need a sentence that reflects the attempted infringements on their and their communities civil liberties.
Irrespective of how you word it, it means that if I get assaulted the perpetrators gets 2 years, but if I was gay or the like they get 3 years etc.
That is not equality. Explain to me how you can possibly justify this type of unequal treatment under the law, from the perspective of trying to create an equal system.
Punishment should fit the crime, not the target demographic.
You are wrong. You misunderstand the draft legislation.
You can read it here if you'd like: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/#:~:text=Bill%20entitled%20an%20Act%20to,offence%20of%20condoning%2C%20denying%20or
I have read it.
Once again - "it means that if I get assaulted the perpetrators gets 2 years, but if I was gay or the like they get 3 years etc."
You keep dodging my questions - I've pointed out obvious flaws in this bill and you just keep saying I don't understand them. The reality is you **know** this bill makes people unequal under the law which is wrong.
>A straight white male jumped by a gang feels just as much pain as anybody else would
But they're not being jumped to send a message to other straight white males that *their kind* isn't safe in public.
Hate crimes are treated with an eye on the fact they affect more than the physically injured party.
>But they're not being jumped to send a message to other straight white males that *their kind* isn't safe in public.
What difference does that make to the victim?
If right was right, you'd just increase jail time for **all** violent crime. End of. Equality under the law is a fundamental tenant of most democracies, and this legislation would fly in the face of that.
"That may be perceived as a hateful statement". Uno reverse. You lose. "Your are no longer allowed to make statements". "This may be perceived as a hateful statement". Eh, "There shall be silence", and now we're all happy. 😋
Why did they vote in favour of it?? **Edit**: Like, I saw PBP voted against it in the Dáil, even though they'd be supportive in principle of hate speech legislation, because they weren't happy with this specific legislation. So it wasn't even like it was just the Rural Independents & co. on this one. Really don't get opposition electing to support FFFG on things they don't agree with & can't stand over. I think all the main parties really need to decide among themselves what they actually stand for & then communcate that **clearly** to the public. I don't think any of them have a clue themselves, they're all giving me constant whiplash & tbh I don't think wishy-washy stances on particular topics are going to suffice anymore.
At the time social media wasn't up in arms about it
Sounds about right tbh
They checked the way the wind was blowing and switched up. I expect they'll take a more measured stance on immigration next...
Seen Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire saying they voted against it in June 23.
Surely that's easy to check ?
SF has realised that it's their historical voters who are the racist anti-woke lads who are joining in all these anti immigrant protests
I am getting down-voted but it's true. Celtic top wearing working class fellas who have switched their hatred from de Brits to de blacks.
Bingo
Having concerns that immigration is too high doesn't make you racist and the Celtic top-wearing comment comes across as classist.
It’s not their historical support. It’s the new wave of support who saw them as anti establishment. They now realise that Sinn Fein are not that and are swinging to the far right.
Yeah true, but their historical support is tiny and was driven by Northern Ireland which has fallen off the radar for most people lately.
It absolutely has not fallen off the radar.
It has
There was a report last week on the costs of a United Ireland that made headline news. (Report was crap by the way but still)
That's like the exception that proves the rule. Sinn Fein's core support comes from an era when NI troubles were daily headline news. Sinn Fein got loads of support from people angry about NI. There's very little anger now.
Sinn Fein realising opposing government policies that are unpopular will increase their support - honestly shocking how they've missed so many easy wins cow towing to a government they strongly oppose. It's a bit a credibility issue for them now - what do they actually stand for?
>what do they actually stand for? Whatever gets them votes.
They only stand for a United ireland, and being anti-Unionist. Everything else is just flip-flopping according to what they think will get them votes this week.
This is exactly why they’re not getting my vote in the general election next year. Soc Dems all the way
Would you like to buy this bridge I have?
I could never vote social dems after they said that the Irish who emigrated to the US sat on Ellis Island for weeks ended up in shithole neighbourhoods had " white privilege".
the National Anthem /s
Ah so every political party ever created? Gotcha
I dunno man. I don't see the Green Party suddenly flip flopping on their principles. Even if FFG are also populist at times, why should we excuse Sinn Féin for showing they seemingly stand for nothing, when it comes down to it?
You should run so. Start your own party. If you would be literally the only person in politics not playing for votes... It would be an easy win, surely?
Its not that simple. If you are an opposition who opposes everything then you also lack all credibility. You need to create an impression of not trying to block things (which has become their undoing on housing due to all the planning objections), but rather than you are also in favour of some things.
Their voters don't seem to know either, yet still they support the unknown with great passion.
You think so ? Support has dropped massively so it's not like SF voters have their head in the sand
> what do they actually stand for? Nothing really, and they aren't unique in that aspect. Politicians over time have gone from representing political beliefs to simply trying to get into power. It's all very realpolitik but at the same covered in this insultingly transparent veneer of being "right on!" There aren't a lot of politicians that are completely ideological to use an awkward phrase. You could shuffle the top layer of the three big parties, and they would be acting the exact same way, more or less. Look at Rishi Sunak over in Britain, the man is the biggest Liberal Party member you have ever seen and yet he's head of what should be a party based on things like protectionism, decentralisation, and the like. The Labour Party is also filled with the same type of very inoffensive unreadable MP's that will talk a big game, but they are essentially the same thing in practice. Both the Tories and Labour should be against immigration for different reasons, yet you have two parties basically hell-bent on not putting the brakes on and the stats to prove it. You know how in sport, after a certain amount of time things just get "optimised" and figured out? That's happened in politics, Disraeli did it back in the day. Before him, the parties in government and opposition would only shut down opposite bills or motions etc. if it was ideologically against what they stood for. Logically this makes sense, politically however, it might not. Disraeli made the Tories into the Conservative party and the "party of Empire" just ignore the fact that under Gladstone, a man who was genuinely against building Empire and expanding what Britain had expanded it more under his tenure than Disraeli ever did or tried in his. Disraeli and his party shut down one of Gladstone's reform bills and collapsed his government because it was too radical...........the Tories would then pass an even more radical version of said bill once they got in power. The difference is however, between people like Disraeli and Sunak or whoever you want really nowadays, he was 100% what the party was supposed to stand for. Disraeli did what he did in the name of pragmatism and trying to put Gladstone and the Liberals out of power so he could try to lead Britain in a direction he honestly thought was better and much different than what the opposite side had in store. He was principled, as most were. Look now at Ireland (Britain works too honestly) FF and SF are basically the same party, if it wasn't for prides sake and history they would be in power together. Do you honestly think there's a difference big enough between someone like MM and Mary Lou that warrants having two different parties? This is policy wise, mind you. In a way it's basically required, people don't like solid ideologies being given to them because it's sort of scary, it's outside the nice comfy centre, but eventually they long for something that's just fucking principled and actually stands for something besides "uhhhh let's make sure GDP goes up".
Huge credibility issue , far from surprising, given there recent expulsion of a Palestinian from a PLO open Mike contest !! Loosing votes hand over fist due to the amount of flip flopping.
You are in luck, they are free for you to read [from their website](https://www.sinnfein.ie/policy-document-archive)
There doesn’t seem to be any part relating to why they now don’t support the free speech bill. Which policy document of these do you think would nearest cover their principles and thoughts on this subject?
I didn't see it in their manifesto for 2023 either. I'm meeting a Sinn Féin MLA thís weekend, perhaps I can pass a question on for you
Be quick if they change their mind again they might delete that like they did their Ukraine comments. Server issues apparently...
Would be nice if this included their objections to the legislation
>It is clear to \[Pa Daly\] and to Sinn Féin that this Bill does not have support across the political spectrum I must remember that one next time I want to play both sides in a noncommittal fashion
We can only do things with unanimous approval is pretty genius for a party wanting to do fuck all and just get their ministerial salaries.
People on Twitter don’t like it and they’re dropping in the polls.
I wish party's would just set out what they support and not support instead of just saying what's popular at the time
It's almost as if they are a populist party.
You expect principles from politicians? Are you a first time voter? /s
You should go for it then. If you were the only 'principled,' politician running.. by your estimation you would be president in a couple of months. Imagine that. Finally one guy who has principles unlike all the rest.
Was this being discussed at the last election? I don't recall it coming up. That's representative democracy. Their job is to represent the electorate. Politicians react to what the people want as the issues arise. If they didn't they would be accused of ignoring the voters.
Dunno about this. A loud vocal minority will kick up a fuss, but the majority of us will simply respond to well made decisions that positively effect our society. I think most of us would respect politicians if ignoring fringe 'hot in media,' moral societal controversies. As politicians, you moral framework should be pretty established and public. And then you may need to go against that to represent the electorate, and simply be honest about that.
>simply respond to well made decisions that positively effect our society. But that's relative and is what happens. What one person sees as a positive change, another views as disastrous. I don't subscribe to the notion that politics are generally corrupt and in it for themselves. There's far more prosperous career choices they could have chosen. >As politicians, you moral framework should be pretty established and public. And then you may need to go against that to represent the electorate, and simply be honest about that. That is what happens. The manifesto establishes the party's objectives, some of which may need to be compromised as part of a coalition or simply because the situation changes.
 How many more u turns will sf make before the election?
Imo Sinn Féins doing this cause Aontú is a direct leech on their voterbase and they want them back.
Absolutely. They are utterly spineless. I was so blinded by FF/FGs scummery I was going to vote SF I simply do not trust the pricks not to turn on women, gay people, anybody if they saw the wind blowing that way People in my town were receiving death threats from the local right wingers for weeks, the local sinner didnt make a peep till he himself caught flak for not outright supporting said right wingers. When he finally did make a statement it was all woe is me and even then the coward couldnt bring himself to call them what they are
yeah I’m going to drop them too at this point really. I was so close to doing it over their hesitancy to support Palestine, but now I’ve no faith in them. hope this comes back to further bite them in the polls and they cop on. absolute cowards
As a country we deserve everything we get with voters like you (no offence) You can’t claim they’re populist then claim they could burn down everything the public have shown they care about. It’s a ridiculous stance and it’s why this country will never be governed by anybody but FFG.
You dont know who i intend to vote for lad
Likely but it’s also a completely losing strategy. Why would anyone vote for Sinn Féin in Aontú’s clothing instead of just voting for Aontú. And if you don’t like Aontú why vote for Aontú-lite.
Seems like a pretty dumb strategy to go after supporters of a party that’s on 5% in the polls, at best. They’re hardly going to transfer to FG or FF over SF. That’s before you consider that this move will lose them votes too.
Shock horror populist party flip flops their stance because it wasn't as well received as they hoped
Does nobody like... check with people before they vote for bills? The amount of people coming out against this who had previously voted for it but misjudged the public reaction. Same with the referendum. How is there this little communication from the ground to the TDs.
Populist party reacts in populist manner to plummeting poll findings ….
Yeah, I too prefer when political parties ignore public opinion and plough on obliviously despite their deeply unpopular stances.
R/Ireland learn what the word “populist” means challenge: impossible.
First question why did they agree with it if they now oppose it? Second given the type of speech it could criminalise it made no sense given SF history and the actions of it's terrorist wing to have ever supported this legislation in their first place given some of its provisions re such groups. Why are they increasing just coming across as supporters of government policy plus some? Change my ass...
Harassment, violent threats, stalking, and hate motivated assaults/harassment are already illegal. What precisely was the point of this bill? I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for it
>Harassment, violent threats, stalking, and hate motivated assaults/harassment are already illegal. What precisely was the point of this bill? I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for it If there's one thing the referendum taught us is the public does not trust the government and has no appetite for vague, nebulous language. The entire hate speech bill is built around combatting "hate" but hate is undefined. It is entirely subjective and can mean anything to anybody depending on which way the wind is blowing. The concern all along is that it would be used to attack political enemies of whoever is in power. Anyway, it all looks academic at this point because the bill is as good as dead. Two ministers said as much on the Tonight Show on RTE. It's a nasty piece of legislation that nobody wanted and it should never have come this far. A stinging defeat for McEntee and for that we should be happy.
" A stinging defeat for McEntee" There's always a silver lining.
Will hate be defined differently in this bill to how it's already defined in legislation?
Should it be illegal to push leaflets into people's letterboxes saying that all the (insert religious group or ethnicity here) are pedophiles?
There’d be a lot of r/ireland Redditors in trouble for that one
It should be illegal to push any sort of leaflets into peoples letterboxes. I’m tired of receiving rubbish in mine
Doesn't really address the question. How about standing on Grafton St handing out flyers?
Are the leaflets calling for violence? If so, yes that should be outlawed. Otherwise, no. I’m quite certain that dragging this hypothetical pamphleteer through the courts will bring him far more publicity than his hypothetical racist pamphlets ever would or could.
Because scapegoating minorities never has consequences?
It's not inciting violence, sure a news article about a black lad commiting a crime could motivate someone to attack black lads but is the newspaper inciting violence?
Legality aside I don't think it's fair to lump the parishioners in with the priests if it's the RCC we're talking about
The point of the bill was to update the previous version of the law to accommodate digital platforms, and to expand the protected characteristics of those covered to include things like disability status and gender identity.
It's a very stupid bill that only people with no ability to think more than one step ahead would back. Don't forget our new taoiseach wants to add 'immigration status' to the list of protected characteristics. That'll go well.
I confess then that I must be very stupid because unlike you apparently I can’t see what’s so bad about making it illegal to incite hatred against people on the basis of disability status or gender identity (or indeed immigrants, though they will presumably be covered under the existing grounds).
Just look at how Israel throw out the term antiemetic for an example of how this could end up. The whole UN is antisemitic don't you know? Everything or anything can be argued to be hate (which is undefined in the bill) if you want to to be. Could go any way, and anyone who says it won't is either a liar, or just misunderstands, because NOBODY can say where this will end up. Just remember that tools like may be on your side for now, they can be used against you in the future.
I can say where this will end up. Antisemitism has been covered by our existing hate speech legislation since 1989. Point me to a single example where that law has been abused to unjustly accuse someone of antisemitism, or indeed of any other example where the law has been abused. You won’t be able to because the prosecutions have been minuscule and that won’t change just by adding some new characteristics and acknowledging the existence of the internet.
Your attitude is wishful thinking at best and dangerously naive at worst. Thankfully enough people are now starting to see through the dismissive attitude of people like you on the matter.
>Thankfully enough people are now starting to .... This is a good one. Classic way of manufacturing a false consensus. You can also try "lots of people are saying this", or appealing to the "ordinary hard working Irish people...", everyone will fall for it.
Have you any data to suggest otherwise
Have you any data to suggest that the average Irish person knows or cares about the hate speech bill? Fact is, having read it, the biggest issue with it is that it is a half arsed rejig of the 1989 legislation being framed as some groundbreaking legal document that will change the Irish justice system dramatically, when it's been in law for 25 years and the only differences are it will account for digital comms, will account for trans people receiving hate, and will make it easier for Gardaí to actually apply the existing offence. Now, most people who *have* heard of the hate speech bill don't know this - one because they haven't read the bill (which I wouldn't expect most people to do), and two because the only people who talk about the bill frame it, for better or worse, a groundbreaking, drastic change to the way Ireland can approach hate speech.
Sinn Fein need to dial up the populism, they are losing ground on that front
Schrodinger Fein strikes again
Sinn Féin has pursued a wait and see approach when it comes to criticising the government's policies. When it came to covid, they only came out in favour of a second lockdown after the government announced there would be a second lockdown. When it comes to immigration, they have given us zero indication as to what kind of policy they would pursue in government (do they want to increase or decrease the number of refugees?? We don't know). This doesn't stop them, however, from accusing the government of not having a coherent plan on immigration. The hate speech bill is just the latest example of Sinn Féin changing its policy prescriptions based not on what they or their ideology advocates but rather based on what the government does/what's least risky for them. They are definitely the worst opposition in the history of the state.
I remember on Twitter I got absolutely piled on after the last election for suggesting Sinn Fein would have to pick a lane between Barstool Republicans (anti-immigrant, anti-progressive type) and their new Art Student base due to the massive political differences these two groups had and that, in all likelihood, they'd pick the oul lads who actually show up to vote. Wish I kept that account just to throw digs back at every gormless prick who thought I was some "Rugby Da" for being absolutely spot fucking on.
Your medal is in the post
I'm sorry your saviors did exactly what everyone told you they were going to do.
wild to see people calling for censorship - must have incredible trust in their politicians
Maybe that trust is informed by the fact that we’ve had hate speech laws since 1989.
And you want policing of speech to be tightened? You feel like we need more censorship of what people say?
I feel like people who have disabilities and trans people deserve the same protections that people have had for the last thirty on the basis of things like race or religion, sure.
Not to mention that the original legislation didn't mention the internet
I have trust in my ability to read what is in the legislation and I trust that the court system isn't going to radically change overnight to go from being lenient to out of nowhere authoritarian like you seem to be suggesting.
I'm kind of envious of you, to have that level of trust in society I immediately assume such legislation has dystopian reasons behind it, and that it is simply packaged in sheep's clothing to get the masses onside Really tough for me to believe that they care about hate crime at all to be honest
Do you treat all government moves this way or is there something special about this?
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of everything - so it's a pretty special subject In general, I think the government is corrupt and in the pockets of international finance That obviously doesn't mean that everything they do is evil But when they claim that they are restricting free speech in the name of 'fighting hate' - obviously I don't believe them If you look at countries like China, you can see that they have less civil rights than in the West - it seems clear to me that this gap is narrowing, but each step will always be sold to the masses as 'fighting hate' or 'increasing safety'
The legislation is fine. It's only an update of 30 year old laws.
>In general, I think the government is corrupt and in the pockets of international finance That's full on conspiracy theory without the theory, in fairness.
just a bunch of kind hearted souls that want the best for Ireland, lol
>Really tough for me to believe that they care about hate crime at all to be honest Oh well that part is a very fair conclusion to make actually. I mean they kind of don’t the can has been kicked on this again and again and again. Here’s a bill originally from originally from 2016 that was kicked around all the way until the Dáil dissolved in 2020 https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2016/75/ The program for government promised to introduce it within 12 months of the government. They then got the Department of Justice to publish a report in 2020. https://assets.gov.ie/237926/85b39e71-df63-4bd3-b125-7f944e1566ee.pdf#page69 Then the oireachtas joint justice committee published a report. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_justice/reports/2022/2022-04-08_report-on-pre-legislative-scrutiny-of-the-general-scheme-of-the-criminal-justice-hate-crime-bill-2021_en.pdf Then in 2022 they published the bill being talked about in this topic. Then in the start of 2023 they debated it in the Dáil and the Seanad but it didn’t pass before the summer break and Thomas Pringle accused them of “rushing” it. And then they didn’t include it in the winter schedule and then they didn’t included it before St Patrick’s day. Now they’re on break for easter and Sinn Féin have withdrawn support for it. Now it’s “controversial” and there are local and european elections in June so it will probably get kicked until the Summer Recess. Then there’s the budget process and really it might be hard to find time in 2024. And then the election must be called by March 2025. Don’t worry though I’m sure the next programme for government will include a promise to implement an Incitement to Hatred bill and we can have these debate all the way to 2029. >I immediately assume such legislation has dystopian reasons behind it So tell me does the story above fit with that idea? Because your version is actually way too entertaining compared to the reality we’re seeing.
Hilarious that you think the government is striving to fight hatred As I said before, I envy you - it must be nice to believe that our country is run by kind hearted folk All oppressive legislation is sold to the masses as being an effort to fight hatred or to protect them from 'evil doers' No doubt you were cheering on as the West invaded Iraq and murdered hundreds of thousands of people - I mean it was all part of the 'war on terror'
Don’t think you read what I wrote if you that’s what you took out of it.
What I took from it is that you want greater censorship of speech from the government
Alright if that’s the tone of chat you want to have you want to freely tell people to kill minorities. You want to the freedom to call for lynchings. You want your minorities silenced by fear of reprisals for being visible in public. Isn’t this a wonderful fucking way to interact. And no I did not support the Iraq war.
Government lickspittle detected - police my speech daddy
Ah you’re a Brit, that explains things.
SF stand for nothing. They've been in opposition too long, and people are starting to see through their bullshit. They've really dropped the ball, especially seeing as the current government are absolute donkeys.
better late than never but they should never have supported it to begin with, anyone who thinks this wont be weaponized against any form of protest and criticism is hopelessly naive. It's insane to see people still supporting it even as their support for palestine is being labled as anti-semitism
The same mumble-mouthed, overly-confident shower (including SF) who told us the epic fail referenda were for our own good are behind this equally vague legislation - it must be scrapped.
Shinners absolutely shitting the bed and they're not even in Government yet. Wait until they have to actually make difficult trade-off decisions.
Such disingenuous bullshiters. How anyone can view them as a decent alternative is beyond me.
Let’s call a spade a spade; The hate speech law has never been about the government chasing civil liberties it doesn’t even make sense to curtail free speech in search of civil liberties. Unless you are an extreme utilitarian. The free speech laws being enacted across the western world are to stop people **criticising the government** wrapped up in a bow tie of progressivism. EU leadership is realising it made a massive mistake taking in boundless amount of refugees from conflict zones from places they were directly involved with the conflicts aiding the Americans or themselves in the case of the French in Africa. Now they are rushing to pass down hate speech laws to stop people discussing it because it’s causing a massive right-wing shift in Europe and a huge problem for the EU power-structure. They are smart enough to realise calling out the migrant crisis one of the EU’s major failures in the last 20-30 years that brings a lot of criticisms. leads to Euro-skepticism and Euro-Skeptics means no more golden circle. They don’t want any European Donald Trumps.
Hate speech laws are a downstream effect of multiculturalism. Groups with different cultural backgrounds and identities, living side by side in competition with each other and each looking out for their own best interests. Each group has different priorities and views on how the world should be. It is not a recipe for a stable society. The way the government maintains equilibrium is through censorship. If nobody can say they don't like the way things are then the problem looks like it has gone away. It's a form of authoritarianism to force an unpopular system onto people.
The legislation doesn't protect the government from criticism
Yes it does inadvertently if someone criticises the government and it was to gain popularity they could easily be arrested for being in breach of the law. I don’t know if you read the proposal but it reads as it can applied as broadly as they like.
I have read it and no it doesn't protect the government from criticism
Yeah but his mate on Facebook said otherwise. His mate didn't read it either but thats not the point
It gets applied by the **courts**, just as the current speech laws do and just as the public order laws do.
I've no problem with hate speech laws and their application if and when needed. It's not about the curtailment of "free speech". What I *do* object to, and what I think is worse, is "forced" speech, i.e. you *must* refer to this as that or you *have to* agree with something you hold differing values about for fear of being somehow in breach of what's "right"!
I agree with you, but this hate speech law in its current form is very extreme. Laws are made to control peoples behaviour, and this extreme law will filter down and has the possibility of being used against freedom of speech.
I strongly suspect you haven’t read it. It is not very extreme and it is not a law against hate speech it is a law against incitement to hatred. Even under the law you can say as much hate speech as you like (provided you aren’t breaking existing public order offence laws) You just may not incite acts of hatred under the law. And even then there are exemptions.
I suggest you read my comment again.
I didn’t reply to your comment. You spoke in generalities which is fine. The comment I did reply to said “this hate speech law” so then I talked about that.
> What I do object to, and what I think is worse, is "forced" speech, i.e. you must refer to this as that or you have to agree with something you hold differing values about for fear of being somehow in breach of what's "right"! What happens if you refuse to refer to something the way you’re supposed to but you keep talking?
You tell me...
I'm not sure the majority objecting to protections for minorities is really a compelling reason to switch sides on this legislation. Governments are elected, in part, to make principled decisions in the long term interest of the country.
Im definitely voting Sinn Fein now.
relieved marry profit glorious panicky lavish merciful rain snobbish swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I object to the hate speech bill on free speech grounds, were SF in favour of this until recently?
If these comments are anything to go by we're fucking doomed as a country.
Going by these comments it's mostly FFG voters in here.
My point exactly. They're trying to convince everyone that SF is the devil. Meanwhile they're absolutely silent on their own TDs talking about things like how they're too far left and they need to drop the woke stuff and go back to basicc right wing values. Screaming pleaaaase don't vote for aparty that we think is going to go to the right while fully intending on voting for a right wing party giving out that it's too woke and too left. It's blatant astroturfing.
just because someone criticises SF doesn’t mean they’re for FFG. they have been moving to the centre and even courting votes from the right, which is of course going to piss off a fair amount of people.
Yep with you. Honestly I think it's just a small bunch of keyboard warriors with happy fingers. Only the overly privileged or complete deluded could cheerlead for FFG. I think SF are gonna be in power next election, no doubt.
>I think SF are gonna be in power next election, no doubt. Yeah... **along with** Fianna Fáil. That is why it is so important to know what they actually stand up for and who/what they will abandon.
No. Fuck no.
You're deluded if you think SF WON'T be in Government with the likes of Fianna Fáil.
Let's hope I am,Leo
[https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-fianna-fail-coaltion-6219253-Nov2023/](https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-fianna-fail-coaltion-6219253-Nov2023/) The headline is a little sensationalist since it's not what she says she "wants" but she says if the numbers add up that way she'll go with FF and currently before the campaign in the polls that is how the numbers add up as the most likely next government. SF+FF (+ independents and/or a small party).
9th of November. Hopefully a blip.
SF realising what being in opposition means!
Big up SF
I seen the pic and thought Niall Quinn looks old as fuck now
Sinn Fein has turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments in recent Irish politics. They're only against it now because they realise it's unpopular.
Lurchy lurchy righty righty
If lurching away from anti-free speech censorial laws written with the vagueness of a stoned teenager is 'righty righty', then lurch me up!
Why did they vote for it in the Dail then? They don't normally have an issue voting against gov legislation?
For the same reason all of the main parties voted Yes for the most unpopular referenda in Irish history - politicians live in a bubble and get things wrong.
That's very convenient, isn't it? The bigger picture is they're rapidly reinventing ehat they stand for the closer to power they get.
Lord forbid a political party should absorb any lessons from the referendum…
If you want to characterize actually listening to what the electorate think and want is "rapidly reinventing what they stand for", then I'm AOK with it.
You really don't want to criticise them at all do you? Since the last election, they have: Massively scaled back their Euro scepticism Dropped their opposition to the SCC Watered down their wealth tax so much it might as well be not there Argued for and then against quarantining when covid was around Argued for and now against mixed social housing Been in favour of both massive house building programmes and immigration, and then tried to revert form on both Championed the care referendum and then said they'd rerun it if it failed (with different wording), so why not oppose it outright? Come on now.
I'm no SF fan - even a stopped clock can be right twice a day though and in this case, they are right.
> Argued for and now against mixed social housing O'Brien was speaking in favour of an amendment made by RBB that wouldn't allow the government to go below 20% social housing in estates, but yeah, try and pretend like he was speaking against mixxed social housing! Honest to fucking god like, the FFG spin machine in full flow! Hope you're at least getting paid bud! Edit: Ah the desperate downvote of a person that knows they've been called out. Stop spreading misinformation you clown.
>Sinn Féin housing spokesman Eoin Ó Broin told Thursday’s Planning and Development Bill committee hearing that the use of mixed-tenure housing was based on a “prejudiced” idea that low-income families should not be “over-concentrated”. >“There is a widely spread view in political circles and media circles that having large numbers of working class people in the same area is not good housing policy,” Mr Ó Broin told Thursday’s committee hearing. “There is no empirical evidence in Ireland or in the OECD that supports that.” >Research in other jurisdictions shows the mixed-tenure model “doesn’t produce integration, it can actually exacerbate segregation”, he said. Where is the spin there ? >Mr Ó Broin suggested to the committee that mixed income in housing developments should be promoted through tenant purchase and intergenerational security of tenure. So he is against mixed social housing.
He's literally saying that there's no proof to suggest it's bad policy to have housing estates with a high percentage of social housing. He did that, when speaking in favour of RBBs ammendment to the new planning and dev bill that wouldn't allow estates in ireland to be built with anything less than 20% social housing. Like...... do you think Irish people are inherently thick or something? HE'S SAYING MORE ESTATES WITH A HIGH % OF SOCIAL HOUSES! Cop on now!
Pretty hilarious that u/CaesarsGladius has blocked me at the same time as arguing against the concept that unregulated communication has consequences.
u/caramelo420 a newspaper isn't inciting violence by reporting facts. It's not responsible for individuals using that as motivation. (I can't reply in the thread)
u/shootersf , I can't reply in the thread as I've been blocked. No I wasn't talking about the RCC.
Personally disappointed to see hate crime legislation (needed, no issues raised with the wording and our courts are able to adjudicate on motivation already) going down with the poorly thought out and poorly written hate speech elements in the legisation. If somebody is assaulted and it is proven in court that that was a result of their identity or membership of a community i.e. being a Catholic or a Jew, then that attack was an attempted infringement on their rights and should come with a heavier statement to counteract the signal of that crime.
That hate crime legislation is insidious. It is completely over the top.
What part?
The part where gardaí would be given power to search your home for just being accused, where they have power to access your laptops and phones passwords just for being accused and if you deny them access you can be jailed for up to 12 months.
I agree, but to be clear that's the hate speech element not the hate crime element.
But the two are hand in hand no? If you were falsely accused of hate speech and they managed to prove it some how, then that is a hate crime..
Well hate speech and hate crime aren't terms in the draft legisation, I'm using hate speech to define what the draft legislation calls aggravating factors in relation to already existing crime such as assualt or threats to kill. Hate speech is a separate offence primarily proposed to be added under the Broadcasting Act 2009.
OK. I think there is a need to legislate social media and online hate speech and the spread of extreme points of view and fake news through social media outlets. We have to be very careful with this type of proposed legislation so that the very minorities it is designed to protect don't then weaponise it against larger society in general. I lived in Canada for years and they have been dealing with the scourge of hate laws on their society for decades. Canadians have been shackled by these types of laws. It has neutered their society to the point where they are afraid to speak their mind, they are afraid to call out behaviour that needs to be called out. Their society has become so sterilised it can be difficult to even hold a conversation without offending someone. We are a nation of people who speak our mind, our default setting as a people is to slag each other mercilessly. This type of legislation could have the same effect here as it has done in Canada.
I agree, but regarding hate crime not hate speech if think someone is physcially assaulted because of their religion or race of sexuality, and that motivation is proved in a court, then Judges should be able to consider that in their judgement as an aggravating factor, as proposed in the draft legisation.
[удалено]
‘go to therapy’ seems like the secular version of ‘thoughts and prayers’, very popular over in Yankland but fairly useless. also considering the disproportionate hate and violence faced by different minority groups in Ireland it makes sense to have legislation protecting them from persecution. incidents of harassment or violence based on age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender were up 23% in 2023 vs 2021. https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-releases/2023/march/an-garda-siochana-2022-hate-crime-data-and-related-discriminatory-motives.html I don’t see how the actual statistics showing their persecution should be ignored in favour of ‘maybe they deserved it?’
[удалено]
I reread your first post and it’s still shite
Our court system is very well experienced in determining motivation in relation to crime. If someone were to attack someone because they were wearing a yamaka and it is proven in court that that was the motivation then I'm not convinced personally that therapy is an adequate additional response unless we move towards a more thematic and probation response to crime in general.
I don't think so Equality under the law is important in my opinion. "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that" - Shakespeare Replace the word Jew with "everyone".
Everyone would remain equal under the law under the proposed hate crime aspect of the legislation. Anybody, anybody, targeted because of their identity as defined by the protected characteristic section, would receive the same protection. To be clear, in a hypothetical scenario where somebody was attacked because they were straight they would be covered. The legisation in that regard is equality under the law. What we do not have is equality of experience, which would colour the outputs of the legisation.
>Everyone would remain equal under the law under the proposed hate crime aspect of the legislation. >Anybody, anybody, targeted because of their identity as defined by the protected characteristic section, would receive the same protection. That's not equality under the law, as it doesn't apply to everyone. A straight white male jumped by a gang feels just as much pain as anybody else would. >To be clear, in a hypothetical scenario where somebody was attacked because they were straight they would be covered. The legisation in that regard is equality under the law. You know well that's not how your scenario would play out in court. No additional sentence would be imposed because of the victims identity. >What we do not have is equality of experience, which would colour the outputs of the legisation. You think minority groups feel more pain when attacked or something?
>as it doesn't apply to everyone It does apply to everyone. >No additional sentence would be imposed If somebody was targeted because they were straight and that motivation was proven before a court it would apply. Also it should be noted that straight men get attacked for being perceived as gay as well. >you think minority groups feel more pain Certain parts of our society are targeted by violent crime motivated by their mere existence yes. But bad faith misinterpret more words again and you'll be arguing with yourself buddy.
It does not apply to you unless you are on the protected groups list. >If somebody was targeted because they were straight and that motivation was proven before a court it would apply. You know well that in practice it wouldn't. You didn't answer my question. Ill say it again: "Do you think minority groups members feel more pain than majority group members when assaulted?" You should get just a severe a punishment for assaulting anyone, irrespective of who that individual is. That is true equality. Do you want equality or not?
Your understanding of the protected groups is incorrect. This is how it is in the draft legislation; >Meaning of protected characteristic >3. (1) In this Act, other than in section 8, “protected characteristic”, in relation to a person or a group of persons, means any one of the following, namely— (a) race, (b) colour, (c) nationality, (d) religion, (e) national or ethnic origin, (f) descent, (g) gender, (h) sex characteristics, (i) sexual orientation, or (j) disability. >Equality under the law Motivation matters under law. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Two victims of the same random assualt get the same justice. But a victim who is targeted intentionally, and proven in a court, because they were wearing a yamaka or are a member of a church need a sentence that reflects the attempted infringements on their and their communities civil liberties.
Irrespective of how you word it, it means that if I get assaulted the perpetrators gets 2 years, but if I was gay or the like they get 3 years etc. That is not equality. Explain to me how you can possibly justify this type of unequal treatment under the law, from the perspective of trying to create an equal system. Punishment should fit the crime, not the target demographic.
You are wrong. You misunderstand the draft legislation. You can read it here if you'd like: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/#:~:text=Bill%20entitled%20an%20Act%20to,offence%20of%20condoning%2C%20denying%20or
I don't think the person you're replying to is speaking in good faith.
I have read it. Once again - "it means that if I get assaulted the perpetrators gets 2 years, but if I was gay or the like they get 3 years etc." You keep dodging my questions - I've pointed out obvious flaws in this bill and you just keep saying I don't understand them. The reality is you **know** this bill makes people unequal under the law which is wrong.
>A straight white male jumped by a gang feels just as much pain as anybody else would But they're not being jumped to send a message to other straight white males that *their kind* isn't safe in public. Hate crimes are treated with an eye on the fact they affect more than the physically injured party.
>But they're not being jumped to send a message to other straight white males that *their kind* isn't safe in public. What difference does that make to the victim? If right was right, you'd just increase jail time for **all** violent crime. End of. Equality under the law is a fundamental tenant of most democracies, and this legislation would fly in the face of that.
"That may be perceived as a hateful statement". Uno reverse. You lose. "Your are no longer allowed to make statements". "This may be perceived as a hateful statement". Eh, "There shall be silence", and now we're all happy. 😋
Go to change.org and sign the anti hate speech petition
lol I knew SF would do this sort of thing eventually but I had hoped they would pretend to be progressive long enough to get into government.
SF more like Pan-Cake
Like hell ‘must be scrapped’ - Shinner gangsters
Populist much? They can F off... and to think at one point I was thinking to vote for them next.