It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with Catholic views, but I do in this case, e.g. in relation to ” A significant issue with the law is that the definition of hatred has remained circular and self-referential through each iteration of the Bill”; ”It is unclear how reasonableness will be interpreted in the same way that it is unclear how hatred is to be interpreted – and by whom – under the law”.
A pretty withering critique, for sure.
They had no problem with the State interpreting what ‘blasphemy’ was, and were very angry when that bill was removed.
And ‘hatred’ has a well defined meaning in the English language.
[deleted]
The Catholic Herald? Wouldn’t have expected anyone to take that seriously.
Catholic Herald. Dismissed.
It is supposed to be like this. Normally this kind of legislation is dull to fit their narrative when a someone, normally political opponents, commit a mistake and/or needs to be shut down.
Might be a dumb question but what is the issue with current hate speech laws ? I assume we have hate speech and racially motivated crime laws right ? Is there some common gap we need to fill or a loophole, common injustice we need to cater for ?
I don’t like the proposed solution but maybe if I understood the specifics of the problem with the current laws I would. Anything Ive read about this has been too opinionated.
It seems to be a thinly veiled attack on transgenderism, largely. O’Reachtnin (author) presents as a very conservative Catholic connected to the Iona Institute. Nothing for me, here.
Every post about the hate speech law are criticizing how broad, undefined and generally stupid it’s provisions.
Except for when the post is a Catholic Herald article.
It’s a horrible law that is vaguely defined so can be used for anything the state doesn’t want people to hear about. Very authoritarian and easily abused. Anything that goes against the government line can be suppressed.
Increasingly popular in Western nations like UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with similar proposals in other EU states. The use the guise of stopping hateful speech whether that’s towards ethnic groups or gay people, trans etc but worded so can be used in any situation.
It’s a slippery slope towards totalitarianism
Yet more evidence that the proposed bill is the right thing to do.
Doesn’t this contradict the freedom of self expression ? Express my view on people and or groups I don’t like ?
I’m atheist but against it as well, and I’ve read the Bill.
The definition of “hatred” being “hatred” is not good enough imo. The definition:
“‘hatred’ means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics;”. Good luck defining in legal precedent what kind of language rises to the level of hatred rather than mere dislike.
The best defence of the bill is that there is the following defence under Freedom of Expression at S.10 (which was not there when initially drafted):
“For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.”
The problem is that people could still shut down discussion by referring publications critical of certain religions, groups or ideologies to the guards and forcing you to defend it in court by relying on this section. Even if not found guilty, that could have a really deleterious effect on the freedom of the public discourse.
Almost everyone has some opinions that don’t line up with the modern liberal consensus. As someone who does not agree at all with Israel’s current policies or modern gender ideology, would I be guilty of a crime for stating my beliefs under this law? No, I wager I would not. But could someone theoretically sic the guards on me and force me to defend myself to them, or to the courts? Yes. And that alone could make me think twice about sharing my opinion. And that’s not acceptable.
I was on the fence but since the Catholic Herald are against it, I’m all for it
Lol Catholic Herald definitely unbiased…
This is just a secular blasphemy law, and therefore a terrible idea. ‘Hate’ will just be defined as whatever mass hallucination twitter is having that month. The potential for misuse is significant.
I certainly won’t be paying attention to the “[catholicherald.co.uk](https://catholicherald.co.uk)” when it comes to anything related to speech in Ireland.
Lads, just so you’re aware – Hitler liked painting and breathing air along with efficient roads.
If you find yourself in favour of the Bill purely down to the fact that a catholic paper disagrees with it, you might want to reevaluate your views on art, air and roads too.
As I understand it, if it gets signed into law and is awful and the use of it infringes on established rights they can test it in a case and find it unconstitutional that way. If the president sends it to judges to inspect for constitutionality and they find nothing explicitly against it, it becomes law and can never be challenged again. I think it’s unenumerated rights that it has to be tested against.
Generally, I’m against hate speech laws. Don’t get me wrong, if a person tries to actually incite violence against another person or a group of people that’s obviously a crime. Harassment is also a crime and isn’t necessarily borne of hate. Like, if a person says I’m a fascist because of my views, that’s fine. That’s their opinion and they have a right to it. Being wrong isn’t a crime and it doesn’t transform their opinion into a crime. Yet, if that same person thought I was right about everything, and would constantly follow me around and try to contact me, and never left me alone, that is harassment. It doesn’t have to come from hate, and that person’s admiration for me doesn’t negate the harassment element.
On speech though, for me it’s not just about the speaker’s right to speak, it’s about the listener’s right to hear. I do not believe there is one person in Ireland, or the world, who is better qualified than me to decide, for me, what I should or should not be able to hear. I think only children can really be expected to be able to defer that responsibility to somebody else. So I’m against laws that allow the state to impose a chilling effect on speech, or laws that are a step in that direction.
When it’s just speech, the way to combat nasty speech is with better speech. Even for the worst of it. Take denial of the holocaust for example. It’s among the worst kind of intellectual stance imaginable, and usually it’s goal is to antagonize jews, or as a weapon against Israel, etc. there is usually some motivation beyond history. It’s also just plain disgusting. However, that shouldn’t make it illegal. Instead, in our society we have the right of response to this kind of stuff. We can ridicule the purveyors of it, correct the record with the historical evidence of the atrocity. We can beat them without having to rely on the state shutting them up or forcing them “underground”. Why give them a claim to martyrdom anyway? The other reason why it shouldn’t be illegal to deny the holocaust, or any part of history, is no state or institution should have the permission to establish historical “truth” by force.
Of course, it’s way more complex than can be summed up in a few paragraphs on reddit, but generally speaking I oppose hate speech laws. I think there are better ways for us, as a society, to deal with it than the justice system. But again, that said, if you incite violence against somebody or harass them, and so forth, you can’t hide behind free speech either.
[removed]
In Scotland, you can be sent to prison for expressing forbidden opinions in a private conversation, in your own home.
> An additional concern relates to “gender”, another of the protected characteristics, as the Minister for Justice introduces a definition that is circular, intangible and open-ended. “‘Gender’ means the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
Caths wondering if they can discriminate against trans or not!
Our government barely even pretends to work for Irish people. They’re fascists and they don’t care. If they cared they wouldn’t be Fine Gael British terrorist sympathizers in the first place.
I know very little about this and assumed it was bad, but if the Catholic Church thinks it’s bad, then maybe it’s actually a good thing????
It’s always about protected minorities, but what about protected majorities? Would there be bias?
That is the problem with hate speech legislation, who defines hate? The answer is, the people you least want to! Rat finks who never learned how to not tattle tale on their peers when they are children and run to totalitarian authority to wield their resentful power.
Better to not introduce it at all, also the stupid , ignorant and theocratic blasphemy law
28 comments
It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with Catholic views, but I do in this case, e.g. in relation to ” A significant issue with the law is that the definition of hatred has remained circular and self-referential through each iteration of the Bill”; ”It is unclear how reasonableness will be interpreted in the same way that it is unclear how hatred is to be interpreted – and by whom – under the law”.
A pretty withering critique, for sure.
They had no problem with the State interpreting what ‘blasphemy’ was, and were very angry when that bill was removed.
And ‘hatred’ has a well defined meaning in the English language.
[deleted]
The Catholic Herald? Wouldn’t have expected anyone to take that seriously.
Catholic Herald. Dismissed.
It is supposed to be like this. Normally this kind of legislation is dull to fit their narrative when a someone, normally political opponents, commit a mistake and/or needs to be shut down.
Might be a dumb question but what is the issue with current hate speech laws ? I assume we have hate speech and racially motivated crime laws right ? Is there some common gap we need to fill or a loophole, common injustice we need to cater for ?
I don’t like the proposed solution but maybe if I understood the specifics of the problem with the current laws I would. Anything Ive read about this has been too opinionated.
It seems to be a thinly veiled attack on transgenderism, largely. O’Reachtnin (author) presents as a very conservative Catholic connected to the Iona Institute. Nothing for me, here.
Every post about the hate speech law are criticizing how broad, undefined and generally stupid it’s provisions.
Except for when the post is a Catholic Herald article.
It’s a horrible law that is vaguely defined so can be used for anything the state doesn’t want people to hear about. Very authoritarian and easily abused. Anything that goes against the government line can be suppressed.
Increasingly popular in Western nations like UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with similar proposals in other EU states. The use the guise of stopping hateful speech whether that’s towards ethnic groups or gay people, trans etc but worded so can be used in any situation.
It’s a slippery slope towards totalitarianism
Yet more evidence that the proposed bill is the right thing to do.
Doesn’t this contradict the freedom of self expression ? Express my view on people and or groups I don’t like ?
I’m atheist but against it as well, and I’ve read the Bill.
The definition of “hatred” being “hatred” is not good enough imo. The definition:
“‘hatred’ means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics;”. Good luck defining in legal precedent what kind of language rises to the level of hatred rather than mere dislike.
The best defence of the bill is that there is the following defence under Freedom of Expression at S.10 (which was not there when initially drafted):
“For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.”
The problem is that people could still shut down discussion by referring publications critical of certain religions, groups or ideologies to the guards and forcing you to defend it in court by relying on this section. Even if not found guilty, that could have a really deleterious effect on the freedom of the public discourse.
Almost everyone has some opinions that don’t line up with the modern liberal consensus. As someone who does not agree at all with Israel’s current policies or modern gender ideology, would I be guilty of a crime for stating my beliefs under this law? No, I wager I would not. But could someone theoretically sic the guards on me and force me to defend myself to them, or to the courts? Yes. And that alone could make me think twice about sharing my opinion. And that’s not acceptable.
I was on the fence but since the Catholic Herald are against it, I’m all for it
Lol Catholic Herald definitely unbiased…
This is just a secular blasphemy law, and therefore a terrible idea. ‘Hate’ will just be defined as whatever mass hallucination twitter is having that month. The potential for misuse is significant.
I certainly won’t be paying attention to the “[catholicherald.co.uk](https://catholicherald.co.uk)” when it comes to anything related to speech in Ireland.
Lads, just so you’re aware – Hitler liked painting and breathing air along with efficient roads.
If you find yourself in favour of the Bill purely down to the fact that a catholic paper disagrees with it, you might want to reevaluate your views on art, air and roads too.
As I understand it, if it gets signed into law and is awful and the use of it infringes on established rights they can test it in a case and find it unconstitutional that way. If the president sends it to judges to inspect for constitutionality and they find nothing explicitly against it, it becomes law and can never be challenged again. I think it’s unenumerated rights that it has to be tested against.
Generally, I’m against hate speech laws. Don’t get me wrong, if a person tries to actually incite violence against another person or a group of people that’s obviously a crime. Harassment is also a crime and isn’t necessarily borne of hate. Like, if a person says I’m a fascist because of my views, that’s fine. That’s their opinion and they have a right to it. Being wrong isn’t a crime and it doesn’t transform their opinion into a crime. Yet, if that same person thought I was right about everything, and would constantly follow me around and try to contact me, and never left me alone, that is harassment. It doesn’t have to come from hate, and that person’s admiration for me doesn’t negate the harassment element.
On speech though, for me it’s not just about the speaker’s right to speak, it’s about the listener’s right to hear. I do not believe there is one person in Ireland, or the world, who is better qualified than me to decide, for me, what I should or should not be able to hear. I think only children can really be expected to be able to defer that responsibility to somebody else. So I’m against laws that allow the state to impose a chilling effect on speech, or laws that are a step in that direction.
When it’s just speech, the way to combat nasty speech is with better speech. Even for the worst of it. Take denial of the holocaust for example. It’s among the worst kind of intellectual stance imaginable, and usually it’s goal is to antagonize jews, or as a weapon against Israel, etc. there is usually some motivation beyond history. It’s also just plain disgusting. However, that shouldn’t make it illegal. Instead, in our society we have the right of response to this kind of stuff. We can ridicule the purveyors of it, correct the record with the historical evidence of the atrocity. We can beat them without having to rely on the state shutting them up or forcing them “underground”. Why give them a claim to martyrdom anyway? The other reason why it shouldn’t be illegal to deny the holocaust, or any part of history, is no state or institution should have the permission to establish historical “truth” by force.
Of course, it’s way more complex than can be summed up in a few paragraphs on reddit, but generally speaking I oppose hate speech laws. I think there are better ways for us, as a society, to deal with it than the justice system. But again, that said, if you incite violence against somebody or harass them, and so forth, you can’t hide behind free speech either.
[removed]
In Scotland, you can be sent to prison for expressing forbidden opinions in a private conversation, in your own home.
> An additional concern relates to “gender”, another of the protected characteristics, as the Minister for Justice introduces a definition that is circular, intangible and open-ended. “‘Gender’ means the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
Caths wondering if they can discriminate against trans or not!
Our government barely even pretends to work for Irish people. They’re fascists and they don’t care. If they cared they wouldn’t be Fine Gael British terrorist sympathizers in the first place.
I know very little about this and assumed it was bad, but if the Catholic Church thinks it’s bad, then maybe it’s actually a good thing????
It’s always about protected minorities, but what about protected majorities? Would there be bias?
That is the problem with hate speech legislation, who defines hate? The answer is, the people you least want to! Rat finks who never learned how to not tattle tale on their peers when they are children and run to totalitarian authority to wield their resentful power.
Better to not introduce it at all, also the stupid , ignorant and theocratic blasphemy law