The Government's proposal to update Irish Hate Speech laws

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
Honest question, do you believe that if someone is on welfare they are a sponger.
No, but some are, do you think it hate speech to call those on welfare "spongers", or should you have to be part of a specifically ordained group to be protected?
 


cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
I haven't seen it, I'm afraid. Give me your best argument for criminalising even more speech than we already do.
I quoted one of my post about hate speech in the my last post. The one you just replied to.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
By its self being ignorant or Racist should not be a criminal offence and you are right when you say "That kind of thing should be countered by speaking the truth, backed up by facts, and proving the person wrong, not hauling them into court for wrongspeak."
Absolutely, but this can only be the case where there is no fear of sanction and what is said, is said out in the open.
But what happens after you have shown them to be wrong and ignorant. What happens if they ignore it and keep doing this, causing a lot of distress in the community. What happens when other ignorant people start to quote them and follow them and use it as an excuse to abuse other. When do we say as a society they have gone to far.
Wait a minute, who decides whats wrong and ignorant, at what stage does some claim cease to be hateful and become factual?, Who decides when a community is distressed?
"Other ignorant people", You just don't get it do you, you seriously think power over what constitutes hate speech should be given to pompous eejits like you who can then decide everything they disagree with is hateful and ignorant and make it illegal, you are exactly the kind of person free speech should be protected from.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
No, but some are, do you think it hate speech to call those on welfare "spongers", or should you have to be part of a specifically ordained group to be protected?
No not as a group as it is such an ignorant comment, that there is no need to include it, as one one would take it seriously.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
No not as a group as it is such an ignorant comment, that there is no need to include it, as one one would take it seriously.
So why would you think any of us take racist comments seriously enough to include them?
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
Absolutely, but this can only be the case where there is no fear of sanction and what is said, is said out in the open.

Wait a minute, who decides whats wrong and ignorant, at what stage does some claim cease to be hateful and become factual?, Who decides when a community is distressed?
"Other ignorant people", You just don't get it do you, you seriously think power over what constitutes hate speech should be given to pompous eejits like you who can then decide everything they disagree with is hateful and ignorant and make it illegal, you are exactly the kind of person free speech should be protected from.
I always find a this bit strange. I argue alot about changes to different laws in many areas and people never say " who decides"

Changes to criminal law, family law, housing right, taxation ect. The Same people who decide on all the other aspects of the law. The Dail, the people who are voted in to represent us as a society. Why would it be anyone else. Why do you think I want to be the one who decides. I want my input of course, like everone else. That is why I am given it here.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
So why would you think any of us take racist comments seriously enough to include them?
Sad fact is that, I meet a lot of different people and a lot of people I know on a regular basis and I start to hear it more in their conversations.
Quotes about immigration causing increased crime, rapes ect. I see it on facebook all the time now, blaming housing crisis on refugess and immgrants ect. Its fromsome people I thought was smarter than that. Now you have people like the Irish Nationa party and Gemma o Doherty and other spreading this flase information for whatever reason votes ect.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
I always find a this bit strange. I argue alot about changes to different laws in many areas and people never say " who decides"

Changes to criminal law, family law, housing right, taxation ect. The Same people who decide on all the other aspects of the law. The Dail, the people who are voted in to represent us as a society. Why would it be anyone else. Why do you think I want to be the one who decides. I want my input of course, like everone else. That is why I am given it here.
Criminal law, family law, housing laws taxation etc are totally different to free speech laws, they are not inherently political, except in the way that political parties might gain or lose votes with promises to change them, Free speech is intrinsically political, surely you can see the folly of handing politicians the power to decide that any policy that disagree with theirs is hateful.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
Sad fact is that, I meet a lot of different people and a lot of people I know on a regular basis and I start to hear it more in their conversations.
Quotes about immigration causing increased crime, rapes ect. I see it on facebook all the time now, blaming housing crisis on refugess and immgrants ect. Its fromsome people I thought was smarter than that. Now you have people like the Irish Nationa party and Gemma o Doherty and other spreading this flase information for whatever reason votes ect.
No, what you are hearing are progressives paid to find as much racism as possible exaggerating the dangers posed by a minute section of our society with the specific intention to gain control of the narrative, and a mob of useful idiots hooked on self righteous outrage and virtue signalling creating an atmosphere of race hatred that simply would not exist if the Gemmas of this world were just ignored as the loons they obviously are.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
No, what you are hearing are progressives paid to find as much racism as possible exaggerating the dangers posed by a minute section of our society with the specific intention to gain control of the narrative.
I agree with that except, I dont agree that it will go away by ignoring them.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,893
I agree with that except, I dont agree that it will go away by ignoring them.
Of course they are not going away, but can't you see no amount of legislation can stop people from hating, how sanctioning her and her band of fruit loops would play into her oppressed narrative and might gain her support?
I honestly believe it much better for a society to leave this kind of obvious racism out in the open, open to the ridicule it deserves.
 

atkin8

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
1,799
Sad fact is that, I meet a lot of different people and a lot of people I know on a regular basis and I start to hear it more in their conversations.
Quotes about immigration causing increased crime, rapes ect. I see it on facebook all the time now, blaming housing crisis on refugess and immgrants ect. Its fromsome people I thought was smarter than that. Now you have people like the Irish Nationa party and Gemma o Doherty and other spreading this flase information for whatever reason votes ect.
To say that more people coming into the country does not effect housing and services is ignoring the problem .
 

atkin8

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
1,799
What does that have to do with calling africans spongers or saying they are taken the place of other.



Its per person and Ireland are taken in familes so its enough to cover them untill they get setup. As they have refugeee status, they are intitled to work the minute they get here. so should not become a burden on the state.
That amount per person just covers their welfare for one year .The cost of housing and other supports goes way beyond that . You seem very confident that many who have no skills or language will find work in that time. The reality is that will only happen for the majority in the second generation .
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,118
That amount per person just covers their welfare for one year .The cost of housing and other supports goes way beyond that . You seem very confident that many who have no skills or language will find work in that time. The reality is that will only happen for the majority in the second generation .
Who said they have no skills or languages. These aren't random people turning up, they are being selected by the state after interviews. Yes some may never adjust but that happens in every walk of life.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,096
Twitter
No
No, but some are, do you think it hate speech to call those on welfare "spongers", or should you have to be part of a specifically ordained group to be protected?

Nail on the head, "all welfare claimants are spongers" raises no hackles, as it's too vague to be true. And we all know its not true.

"All nigerians on welfare are spongers", or "all travellers on welfare are spongers" are equally vague and cannot be true, but come across as racist as well.

Why is it racist? Because it implies that our welfare system is much better than all the welfare systems run by nigerians or travellers.
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,256
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.


Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.


Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller [1892-1984]
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,725
Is your preferred methodology to get your insider information from fellow racists?
Prove the racist slur.
A barrister friend of mine gave up all other cases to concentrate on asylum ones. Plentiful income stream, low to zero evidentiary threshold, constant appeals. In short, a racket.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top