Fewer Nativity Christmas Cards

[time to plan]

It's ok to believe that homosexuality is a sin. Or morally wrong, to use secular terminology. What's very much NOT ok is to act on that belief by treating gay people less favourably.

Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.

 

[Purple]

Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.

Yes, the "We want to oppress you and/or kill you because we love you" people.

 

[Baby boomer]

Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.

True in practice, but the two are not mutually exclusive. One could believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful, but that all people have a civil right to so engage anyway and shouldn't be denied the right to marry on that basis.

Like, say, you could believe that blasphemy is sinful, but equally believe there's a civil right to blaspheme.

My point is that people who hold odd or unpopular religious or moral views shouldn't be penalised for doing so, as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights.

 

[Purple]

My point is that people who hold odd or unpopular religious or moral views shouldn't be penalised for doing so, as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights.

Are you suggesting that people should have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?
That'll never catch on, we're too liberal for that.

 

[Leper]

How did we get from the non availability of Nativity scene Christmas Cards to peoples' freedom of speech?

 

[Purple]

How did we get from the non availability of Nativity scene Christmas Cards to peoples' freedom of speech?

A lot can happen in 5 pages.

 

[Baby boomer]

How did we get from the non availability of Nativity scene Christmas Cards to peoples' freedom of speech?

The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.

 

[RetirementPlan]

The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.

By 'discouragement' presumably you mean the right to free speech of other parties who disagree with your position?

There is no move towards prohibition or 'say the opposite' on any free speech issues in Ireland. You might be getting confused with the right to speak without being challenged by others.

 

[Leper]

The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.

I get confused by Purple from time to time. Now Babyboomer and RetirementPlan are confusing me.

 

[Purple]

I get confused by Purple from time to time.

I get confused my me too so it's probably more of a reflection of me than you.
Clear?

 

[Baby boomer]

By 'discouragement' presumably you mean the right to free speech of other parties who disagree with your position?

Nope. Discouragement is when the police call to your door to question you about a "non-crime hate incident" as happened in the UK to Harry Millar (google his case, quite extraordinary) and Graham Linehan for expressing the view that biological sex is a real immutable thing. And there is no objective definition of a "hate incident" in UK law - if any person perceives an incident to be motivated by hate, then the police are required to treat and record it as such.

There is no move towards prohibition or 'say the opposite' on any free speech issues in Ireland.

You sure about that? We tend to follow the UK in such matters and Helen McEntee is working on "hate speech" legislation.

You might be getting confused with the right to speak without being challenged by others.

Why do free speech skeptics have trouble grasping the fundamentals of the thing? No free speech advocate I've ever heard would try to restrain the free speech of others - that's just the polar opposite of what we believe in. What we object to is imposing criminal or civil penalties on freedom of speech. By all means let those who disagree with us say so loudly and freely - that's what public discourse is all about. But once freedom of speech depends on what you've got to say, it ceases to exist in any meaningful form.

 

[RetirementPlan]

Nope. Discouragement is when the police call to your door to question you about a "non-crime hate incident" as happened in the UK to Harry Millar (google his case, quite extraordinary) and Graham Linehan for expressing the view that biological sex is a real immutable thing. And there is no objective definition of a "hate incident" in UK law - if any person perceives an incident to be motivated by hate, then the police are required to treat and record it as such.

I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.

You sure about that? We tend to follow the UK in such matters and Helen McEntee is working on "hate speech" legislation.

Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all? Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ? Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?

Why do free speech skeptics have trouble grasping the fundamentals of the thing? No free speech advocate I've ever heard would try to restrain the free speech of others - that's just the polar opposite of what we believe in. What we object to is imposing criminal or civil penalties on freedom of speech. By all means let those who disagree with us say so loudly and freely - that's what public discourse is all about. But once freedom of speech depends on what you've got to say, it ceases to exist in any meaningful form.

Presumably you accept the idea of some limitations on free speech? Do you accept that it's NOT ok for me to run up to people on the street and use my rights to free speech to threaten to kill them or harm their families?

 

[Purple]

Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ? Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?

I think that's a reference to Canadas Bill C-16, a law that is said to require people to use the pronouns that trans people identify with. Jordan Peterson came to fame when he objected to the law, even though he said that if there was a Trans person in his class or company he would address them using the pronouns of their current gender (this stuff is really important to teenaged girls and I've one at home).

 

[Baby boomer]

I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.

An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.

Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech...

Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.

...and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all?

As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right

Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ?

I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.

Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?

As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.

Presumably you accept the idea of some limitations on free speech?

Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.

Do you accept that it's NOT ok for me to run up to people on the street and use my rights to free speech to threaten to kill them or harm their families?

A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.

Let me spell it out for you. Here's an example of free speech: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world." This is the sort of speech that currently is and should always be legally allowed even though some people may find it offensive.

Here's an example of very similar speech that goes beyond that and into the territory of conspiracy and attempted criminality: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world. The only possible response is to burn down every Church (or mosque) in the country - let's go do it!" This type of speech is and always has been a crime.

In short, we don't need further "hate speech" legislation because we've already got laws that criminalise harmful and dangerous hate speech. Hate speech that is merely offensive doesn't need to be criminalised. We all have the right to be offended. It's a right that benefits from being frequently exercised.

 

[Baby boomer]

I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.

An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.

Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech...

Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.

...and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all?

As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right

Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ?

I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.

Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?

As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.

Presumably you accept the idea of some limitations on free speech?

Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.

Do you accept that it's NOT ok for me to run up to people on the street and use my rights to free speech to threaten to kill them or harm their families?

A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.

Let me spell it out for you. Here's an example of free speech: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world." This is the sort of speech that currently is and should always be legally allowed even though some people may find it offensive.

Here's an example of very similar speech that goes beyond that and into the territory of conspiracy and attempted criminality: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world. The only possible reaponse is to burn down every Church (or mosque) in the country - let's go do it!"

In short, we don't need further "hate speech" legislation because we've already got laws that criminalise harmful and dangerous hate speech. Hate speech that is merely offensive doesn't need to be criminalised. We all have the right to be offended. It's a right that benets from being exercised.

 

[Purple]

An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean

I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I do agree that he should have the right to voice them.
The appropriate response to someone saying that they find something offensive is "So what?".

 

[Baby boomer]

I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I di agree that he should have the right to voice them.

Is it really transphobic to suggest that someone born with XY chromosomes complete with meat and two veg is actually a man rather than a woman? How did we even contemplate a situation where someone wouldn't have the right to voice that opinion?

The appropriate response to someone saying that they find something offensive is "So what?".

Or even "good!" If free speech doesn't offend anyone, there's not enough of it around.

 

[RetirementPlan]

An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.



Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.


As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right


I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.


As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.


Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.



A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.

Let me spell it out for you. Here's an example of free speech: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world." This is the sort of speech that currently is and should always be legally allowed even though some people may find it offensive.

Here's an example of very similar speech that goes beyond that and into the territory of conspiracy and attempted criminality: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world. The only possible reaponse is to burn down every Church (or mosque) in the country - let's go do it!"

In short, we don't need further "hate speech" legislation because we've already got laws that criminalise harmful and dangerous hate speech. Hate speech that is merely offensive doesn't need to be criminalised. We all have the right to be offended. It's a right that benets from being exercised.

Re Linehan - 'unkind' doesn't start to get close to the campaign of fear that he wreaked against trans people in the UK and world wide. Again, he's entitled to his opinion, he's entitled to express his opinion, and he also has the responsibility to manage the outcome and impacts of him 'expressing his opinion'. This really isn't a 'free speech' issue in the slightest, he's using 'free speech' as a convenient vehicle for his personal vendetta, all because some people offended him with their views on one of his past works.

As for Canada, that confirms my view about people dragging up strange edge cases as proof of some kind of agenda. I've no idea of the ins and outs of the Canada issue, but in general, coming out on the opposite side to Jordan Peterson generally keeps me on the right side of most issues. I'd guess if you didn't have people going out of their way to insult trans people and others, there wouldn't be any needs or calls for that kind of legislation. It doesn't sound like a 'say the opposite' scenario to me - just treating people with a little basic respect and dignity.

On the broader free speech issue, it seems a little over the top to suggest that it can't be codified into law, given the large number of countries that have done exactly that. You said; "once freedom of speech depends on what you've got to say, it ceases to exist in any meaningful form" but you've gone on to confirm that it absolutely DOES depend on what you've got to say, and it does come with limits. I'm honestly not familiar with the US 1st Amendment or with hate speech legislation elsewhere, or with the proposed changes in Ireland so I'm no expert on it. But many other countries seem to have managed to implement hate speech legislation without their legal systems collapsing.

In Ireland, our current Incitement to Hatred legislation only protects specific vulnerable groups. So if I was to post about wanting to kill catholics or muslims for example, that would be an offence under that Act. If I was to post about wanting to kill cyclists (as a number of posters did here recently) that wouldn't be an offence under that Act, which seems a fairly arbitrary distinction to me. Hopefully the new legislation will close that gap.

 

[Purple]

Is it really transphobic to suggest that someone born with XY chromosomes complete with meat and two veg is actually a man rather than a woman?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

What I don't get is the need some people have to but labels on other people, or their objection to labels people put on themselves. My gender, gender identity or sexuality isn't threatened or undermined by someone else identifying as a women or a man or whatever.
Why is it so important to Linehan and his ilk? What's the big deal? What consenting adults do together, wear, identify as etc is their own business and doesn't hurt anyone else. It would be great if we could get to a place where words like straight, gay, bi, trans etc were unnecessary, just as descriptions around skin pigmentation should be, and people were just people.
In that context I find the objections to LGBTQ people and how they see themselves as deeply unsavoury. The objectors are more often than not informed by Middle Eastern tribal writings which can be summed up in "We want to oppress or kill you because we love you".

 

[cremeegg]

I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I do agree that he should have the right to voice them.
The appropriate response to someone saying that they find something offensive is "So what?".

There is a twitter post currently before the Gardai. Diane Dodds a DUP politician posted a picture of herself with her dogs. Some anonymous poster replied with a really offensive and hurtful comment.

Gardaí contacted over Diane Dodds abusive tweet inquiry

Police in Northern Ireland investigating an abusive tweet targeting a senior unionist politician have contacted gardaí because they believe the person responsible is based in the Republic.

www.rte.ie

It got lots of attention when Arlene Foster retweeted the offensive comment.

The PSNI got involved. It seems the anonymous account has been traced to a poster in the South, hence the Gardai were asked to get involved.

Now the nature of the tweet was extremely hurtful, unlike AF I won't repeat it, and no civilised person would make such a remark, however in my opinion there is no grounds for police involvement.

I suspect that the whole thing will go away but the very fact of police involvement is sinister. The Millar case in Britain is similar, even if some people don't wish to engage with it.

Police transgender rules breach right to free speech, court told

Ex-officer Harry Miller taking legal action after being accused of hate incident

www.theguardian.com