The following is the relevant portion of An Bunreacht outlining the personal right to freedom of expression.
They need a public disorder incident to bring in the censorship legislation. This legislation is of a public morality type. The original constitution expressly meant Christian morality, the change we're seeing now is the imposition of a new doctrine of morality.
This school stabbing incident is a collateral cost of the migration policy. It was never going to matter if such incidents arose - the costs would be absorbed - the policy is more important. It just gives an opportunity to implement the legislation restricting criticism of it. There you go.
A seditious utterance would be the suggestion that we are living under a foreign or treacherous government, an indecent one would have been the exposure of minors or the vulnerable to sexual explicit subject matter or sexual solicitation. I'm not sure what it is now, what with the legalisation and promotion of grooming. I think it might have something to do with pronouns but it's pretty unclear.
I've known numerous immigrants, and I've found the majority of them to be good and decent people - as good as any of us. There is always a seam in any community that is bad but glasshouses and stones.
It's often the case that those who excite animosity against immigrants (that are perfectly fine) are covering up for their own weaknesses and trying to summon group affinities to make allowances for their personal failings. While this can be said of us, it can be also said of other communities, so we're all dealing with it. The whole "antifa" crowd are exactly up to this carry on and I have nothing but contempt for them as a result.
When it comes to the migration question, the government released some explanation that this guy, who tried to murder Irish children, didn't get enough money so it's really a resources problem. This is the most benign excuse for it but let's examine it.
First, I have no objection to European immigrants and generally find them to be good people - South Americans are broadly in this bracket. There are criminal networks that have followed them over but examples of these are the exception rather than the rule. They generally integrate very well into society and are reliable skilled people. While we should not be complacent about the criminals, it would be unfair and stupid to define them by such examples. Eastern Europeans are good colleagues and good company. Irish policy for Ukrainian refugees is to warehouse them until the end of the war - theirs is not an asylum of the economic sort and most closely resembles the original intent of the rule.
Where migration is sourced from other parts of the world, regions that do not have the same civilisational roots, we should be more prudent, and not permit multitudes to enter the country merely to fuel the social provision industry. There is a feasible number that can be adequately integrated where the system can meet their expectations.
It seems that this individual, according to the government's account, felt failed by the prospects he thought Ireland would provide and descended into a mental maelstrom that resulted in an attempted deadly assault that could well have deeply scarred a number of Irish children.
The overwhelming of systemic and societal capacities caused this attack, and the government should recognise and address this. However, we can have no confidence in the competence of the government to do this given the trends in recent years and their resorts in this incident.
The Gardaí were quick to decide that this was not the product of some plan to instrumentalise this man in order to radicalise Irish politics. One would expect that this matter is being more fully studied.
It is not unreasonable to expect that the local community would react viscerally to a knife attack on Irish children. There were a number of hours between the incident and the first outbreak of rioting. The Garda Commissioner is not allowed to be a failure. It cannot be said that he did not have experience with social unrest. The lack of the decisive action to reassure the public and anticipate foment is indictable.
The path chosen by the minister and the commissioner was neglectful. It indicates either an inability or a disregard. The cost to the public and private purse, to the public peace, and the public reputation of the capital city, rests squarely on their shoulders.
Our public offices are not sinecures. Mammy is not in charge, reality is.