|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 30, 2019 20:00:52 GMT
As you probably know, the Government are planning to reform the laws on incitement in the wake of the attacks on the Ryan family last month. While the current situation is undesirable, I fear that any new laws will not only target racism and sectarianism, as they should, but will likely be used to curtail criticism of homosexual activity or gender theory. Instead, I believe that the laws in existence at present are adequate, and the issue can be solved by stronger enforcement of these laws rather than making new ones. What do others here think?
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 30, 2019 20:31:19 GMT
As you probably know, the Government are planning to reform the laws on incitement in the wake of the attacks on the Ryan family last month. While the current situation is undesirable, I fear that any new laws will not only target racism and sectarianism, as they should, but will likely be used to curtail criticism of homosexual activity or gender theory. Instead, I believe that the laws in existence at present are adequate, and the issue can be solved by stronger enforcement of these laws rather than making new ones. What do others here think? I believe that these types of laws will be used by the current liberal/left establishment to police any dissent from their PC, Identity politics and cultural marxist ideology. I would be happy with laws that protect from actual assault or threats of assault/violence. As Jordan Peterson keeps saying, who in power gets to make and police the laws that will constitutes hate speech? Certainly won't be anyone sympathetic to Catholics, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 30, 2019 21:35:05 GMT
Same here - I think the idea of banning/restricting hate speech (for something that is hate speech by any standards, see below): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diariesis right in principle, but I'm worried about how it's likely to be enforced (for example, any criticism however rational of the ongoing transgender lunacy might be called hate speech and accused of pushing people to suicide).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 31, 2019 6:58:18 GMT
I am completely opposed to hate speech laws in principle and regard this development with horror, needless to say.
All opinions should be freely expressed short of direct and explicit incitement to violence. Whatever social consequences flow from their expression, certainly there should be no legal ones.
The law will, of course, be used to suppress dissent from the ruling ideology.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 12, 2019 13:48:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 13, 2019 1:05:05 GMT
Don't think they won't try it. OTOH there's a difference between criminalising death threats and criminalising criticism. Opposing all restrictions on hate speech because they can and will be abused is like saying that because police forces and court systems can and will be abused they should be abolished. (The late Michel Foucault actually advocated something like this and praised lynch mobs, until he realised he was likely to end up on the sharp end of a lynch mob himself.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 13, 2019 7:06:20 GMT
Don't think they won't try it. OTOH there's a difference between criminalising death threats and criminalising criticism. Opposing all restrictions on hate speech because they can and will be abused is like saying that because police forces and court systems can and will be abused they should be abolished. (The late Michel Foucault actually advocated something like this and praiseud lynch mobs, until he realised he was likely to end up on the sharp end of a lynch mob himself.) But hate speech laws are never about criminalising actual death threats. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. I don't think there is any good application of hate speech laws-- indeed, I think even the current Irish law is excessive, and it's a good thing it's seldom been enforced. Free speech is so precious that it should only be curtailed in the most extreme conditions-- for instance, a direct and explicit incitement to violence.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 19, 2019 13:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 24, 2019 18:25:25 GMT
In the case of 'misgendering' a transgender person on twitter for example, which has led to police action in England, surely there is a philosophical and logical argument that renders the whole thing totally fallacious.
If a biological male certifies himself as a transgender woman, his 'version of reality' leads him to believe that he is a woman and everyone else must respect his 'version of reality' and address him using the correct pronouns (she, her, etc.)
However if my 'version of reality' is that you are the biological sex that you were born with, male or female, then everyone else must respect my 'version of reality' including the transgender man. I cannot call the transgender man 'she' because that is not my 'version of reality', I only believe in the sex you were born with.
Therefore we both cancel each other out. It all boils down to each individual having their own view of reality and in the interests of equality, no version can be superior to another.
Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 24, 2019 23:03:23 GMT
The Marquis de Custine in his account of Tsarist Russia recalled that it was forbidden to look at a certain palace as you passed it, because the Tsar's father had been assassinated there - but the prohibition itself reminded everyone of the unspoken reality. In the same way it is now forbidden to say that transsexuals are really of their birth sex, but... This denial of universally recognised reality was seen by Custine as a sign of the most outrageous despotism. You might think so - I couldn't possibly comment.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jan 24, 2023 12:53:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 24, 2023 14:33:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jan 27, 2023 16:21:45 GMT
|
|