New alcohol legislation and the Equal Status Act

maxheadroom

Hmmm,


It seems like today's new alcohol legislation, as well as restricting even further the Irish populations right to enjoy a drink without being totally ripped off (no more drinks promotions), will also remove pubs and niteclubs from equality legislation, meaning that you can no longer apply to the Equality Authority if you feel you have been discriminated against. It also removes the very specefic provisions in the Equal status act relating to age discrimination.

I wonder if this is compatible with EU law, or is the person I heard this from misinterpreting the provisions of the new law?

AngelofFire

If you ask me after loosing many supporters as a result of the cutbacks the Government are just trying to trick their middle aged voters into thinking that politically correct measures are going to make the streets safer. How dare they restrict our right to have a good time. Banning happy wont make the streets one bit safer nor will moving thursday nites back to 11:30.

Reports of Open warfare in the streets of dublin on saturday nites are scarmongering bull crap. We`re now all deprived of a good time on thursday nites jus cos one person every 2 weeks is stabbed in town at nitetime. 99.9% of the people going out on the town do so to enjoy themselves not to engage in antisocial behaviour. In 5 years time we`ll all have to clear out of the niteclubs by10:30 on a saturday nite by the way things are going

Living abroad is looking more attractive by the month:mad:

jim_bob

Originally posted by maxheadroom
Hmmm,


It seems like today's new alcohol legislation, as well as restricting even further the Irish populations right to enjoy a drink without being totally ripped off (no more drinks promotions), will also remove pubs and niteclubs from equality legislation, meaning that you can no longer apply to the Equality Authority if you feel you have been discriminated against. It also removes the very specefic provisions in the Equal status act relating to age discrimination.

I wonder if this is compatible with EU law, or is the person I heard this from misinterpreting the provisions of the new law?

Does this mean then that there will be no more "girls free in before such and such a time "

Originally posted by AngelofFire

Living abroad is looking more attractive by the month:mad:

don't you mean by the day

maxheadroom

Originally posted by jim_bob
Does this mean then that there will be no more "girls free in before such and such a time "

No, it means that pubs and clubs are no longer subject to equality legislation, so all those 21's only 25's only etc clubs can come right back..

It also means that if someone is denied entry because of race, then they have to take the case court, instead of a free investigation by the equality authority.

AngelofFire

Seriously the government are taking political correctness to the extent that its allowed to compromise equality and civil liberties. Someone should take them to the european court for arbitration.

sceptre

Originally posted by AngelofFire
make the streets one bit safer nor will moving thursday nites back to 11:30.

The idea in moving Thursday closing back to 23:30 isn't to make the streets safer. it's to try and lessen the amount of sickies being pulled on Fridays asa result of drinking the night before. They noticed that the figure went up dramatically when they made the closing time later on Thursdays. Obviously there are quite a few other possibilities as explanations as well but I agree wih this move.

AngelofFire

Yes i agree there a lots of people hung over on friday as a result. but i dont understand the part why responsible adults who only go out to socialise and have a good time cant have a drink after 11:30 on thursday

STaN

Does that mean i can be refused if a bouncer doesnt like the fact that i'm gay?

I can see where they are coming from for the Thursdays and Sundays, but its just going to put pressure on EVERYTHING on a friday and a saturday night. The pubs will be packed, the clubs will be packed, the nitelinks will be jammed and you won't be able to get a taxi till 7am. Good move govt!

maxheadroom

Originally posted by STaN
Does that mean i can be refused if a bouncer doesnt like the fact that i'm gay?

Not exactly, but if you are refused, you now have to take a case to court, where previously the equality authoity could investigate and rule on your behalf. Good luck trying to prove that in court...

It does mean that "members only" or "23's ands over" are once again valid reasons to be denied entry.

Imposter

With regard to Thursday nights, clubs are still open and quite a few are cheaper entry or free compared to weekends. Now if someone wants drink they can still get it and i'd imagine the profile of those pulling sickies would be pretty close to that of those who'd be more likely to go to a club. I think it's a stupid idea. If people pull fake sickies then fire them as they're the irresponsible ones not the people who enjoy a late drink and still go to work.

dahamsta

Originally posted by sceptre
The idea in moving Thursday closing back to 23:30 isn't to make the streets safer. it's to try and lessen the amount of sickies being pulled on Fridays asa result of drinking the night before. They noticed that the figure went up dramatically when they made the closing time later on Thursdays. Obviously there are quite a few other possibilities as explanations as well but I agree wih this move.

It's nannying sceptre. It's up to the people and businesses to deal with this, not the Government. We're adults, remember?

This comes from McDowell again doesn't it? I hate to sound like Neil or Rick, but the man's a bloody fascist.

adam

Kell

Originally posted by maxheadroom
Not exactly, but if you are refused, you now have to take a case to court, where previously the equality authoity could investigate and rule on your behalf. Good luck trying to prove that in court...

It does mean that "members only" or "23's ands over" are once again valid reasons to be denied entry.

Along with reasons such as "Just never seen you around before" despite the fact that I am 28, with proof and not a drop of alchohal had passed my lips. Surely the new law removes the function of the equality authority to an extent.

This is a typical about face our government comes up with that makes me mad. A year ago everyone thought it was great that an individual could take action against a pub/club whatever if they were unfairly treated. Now we have to pay for the privelege. Me smells lobbying from the Vintners federation.

K-

DadaKopf

Look, I hate to piss on your barbecue but there's lots of things which need to be said here.

For the record, I'd love it if there was no legislation on booze and we could all drink absinthe with our corn flakes any time, anywhere I wanted but as a responsible member of society, I agree we have to set limits.

Most everyone I've talked to about this argue on the basis that they want to keep drinking when they want and screw everyone else - and then they construct an argument to justify their point. Wrong way to do things.

How about we admit to ourselves that this most common reaction is drink related, not liberty related. We're so addicted to going out and drinking and getting liggered that we'll do anything we can to pretend we haven't got a drink problem in this country.

So, when we're arguing about this new legislation, how about we first of all declare our intentions? "I am a drinker and I want to be free to get wasted wherever I choose and, if I want, get in a fight or dance on somebody's car roof because I'm such a deadly person."

There are two issues here.

Firstly, we Irish have a terrible addiction to drink and it's so embedded in our culture that we feel the pangs of the DT's any time a government moves toward greater restrictions on the sale and consumption of it. I laud any government which attempts to tackle the problem of our destructive drinking culture.

Secondly, there is the issue of the law. The Public Order Act deals with street violence and danger to citizens by citizens on the streets; the Intoxicating Liquor Act deals with the sale, purchase and consumption of booze; and the Equal Status Act deals with access to services. Law experts accept that the Public Order Act is too excessive, so to be drunk and to give cheek to a Garda is legitimate grounds for arrest. The Equal Status Act has been criticised for being too lenient (!) although it just brought Ireland in line with EU law. The Intoxicating Liquor Act has now become more restrictive - but too restrictive?

We Irish have an appalling drinking culture and it needs to change. The application of good laws, and the successful enforcement of it, can alter public behaviour and subsequent values for the better. The government made a strong statement to the public that our drunken behaviour is no longer acceptable and that it has to change.

However, I think they're going about it all wrong. Instead of developing laws and programmes to make us more responsible drinkers (i.e tackling the inbred psychological dependence on drink and giving us the space to be responsible), they've introduced laws which treat us all like schoolchildren, which is only going to repeat the cycle of abuse and drive drinking further underground. Always one positive aspect of Irish is that it's predominantly a public thing (shared trauma or whatever). The new laws further restrict our spaces of freedom by putting the seat of power firmly into the publicans' hands; it's an attitude thing but it's an arrangement that will only breed more contempt for the government, the law and publicans. Introducing age policies in pubs and clubs serve to stigmatise people and increase agitiation levels. Furthermore, like the Public Order Act, it will be abused and people will feel victimised.

I don't think feeling victimised or increased agitation are reasons enough to repeal the laws - the reasons why we would ever be and feel victimised and agitated in the first place are the things that should be investigated, studied and addressed.

If we're to cure our drink problem, the first step is to admit it. The reason for our lack of control when it comes to drink is deeply social so lasting change won't come from these silly laws but from adequately tackling social deprivation and inequality. This exception to the Equal Status Act is fint, if it's temporary, because the real cure will come through better social provision.

When we cure ourselves from our little problem, then we can begin relaxing the laws bit by bit.

These laws are too restrictive. They need to be revised and augmented by social programmes but we need them nonetheless.

DadaKopf

Oh yeah, just one more thing: it's not a 'nannying' issue.

In democracies like ours, things are done to defend the common good as well as individual liberties.

When it comes to drink, clearly there are public and a private dimensions to the issue.

Whether I want to drink or not is up to me, it's not up to me when some drunk knacker belts me over the head, or I get caught up in a brawl.

In general, people are seeing this way too simplistically and way too selfishly.

maxheadroom

In response to DadaKopf,


Declaring my intentions:

I'm a student, so week time socialising is important to me. However, I do not drink excessively, and the fact that its too damned expensive is only a minor reason for this. I know my limits and stick to them.

I have visited nordic countries with even more restrictive alcohol legislation, and countries from eastern and southern europe who have waaay more lenient drinking legislation. The combination of high prices and strict controls does nothing but force people who will drink anyway to buy (mainly spirits) in bulk and drink them at home.

Cheap + free (as in freedom of speech) access to alcohol, and a healthy attitude to alcohol seems to promote the opposite.



In the context of this discussion, as I originally posted, there is only one issue, the removal of a right I previously had not to be discriminated against when frequenting or attempting to frequent a licenced premises. A shop keeper can't refuse to sell me fruit based on discriminatory grounds, why should an off licence, pub, restaurant or club be any diffferent while selling alcohol, provided I have fulfilled the legal requirements of their licence (that I am of legal age, am not intoxicated etc)?

The reason is probably because that's the way the publicans want it to be and they have a lot of lobbying power. Imagine the uproar if Superquinn decided they were only going to sell to people with Irish passports. Or if Tesco decided that you had to be 25 before you could buy peanuts? Placing arbitrary restriction on the sale of goods or supply of services is illegal and discriminatory in every field of consumer law except for alcohol sales.

[EDIT]Wish there was a spelling / grammar checker on boards... [/EDIT]

DadaKopf

Alcohol is different. It's a recreational drug which happens to taste nice and which serves a social ritual function.

Consequently, a call has to be made on acceptable limits since a drug is something that's beneficial up to a point. I tried to point out that there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. One simply decrees a law (a patriarchal move) which repeats the cycle of abuse, the other attempts to understand and move beyond it.

I do oppose restrictions like this on my civil liberties but I'm afraid things like this are necessary from time to time, for a limited period. It's a judgement we have to make.

I do take your point regarding the Vintners' Association. They have a disproportionate amount of power as a lobby group. Maybe that shows how much of a stranglehold drink has on us all?

The issue as I see it is violence and damage. The motivation behind these laws is to bring order to our public spaces. Drink isn't the problem, per se, it's the effect it has on behaviour, which has become some sort of ritualistic act preceded by an ironic libation to the powers that be.

The problem is our lack of public, civic responsibility. It's always there, drink just releases inhibitions. This is why I think laws like these (like them, not identical to them) are necessary for the time being until such time as we can act more responsibly, after which we can relax the laws a lot. It would be very irresponsible of the government to announce a free for all at this present time, wouldn't it?

It goes without saying that the vast majority of people in this country who go out drinking every night of the week dont cause any trouble to anyone. There are also those who don't cause trouble because they're lucky. Just think back to how prevalent drink driving was ten years ago - talk about anti-social behaviour. Now the roads are getting safer because of tougher laws and adequate law-enforcement.

I want us to be free of these laws, I want us to be more responsible to each other, but right now it's simply not possible.

maxheadroom

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Alcohol is different. It's a recreational drug which happens to taste nice and which serves a social ritual function.

Yes, I agree, which is why there are licencing restrictions on it. However, once those conditions are met, there should be no difference between alcohol and other products. The rules regarding discrimination should be the same.

DadaKopf

That's the plan. And I don't think our civil liberties should be infringed upon. However, judging from people's behaviour, the law falls far too short - possibly much more in enforcement rather than law-making.

Chaos-Engine

DadaKopf


I think what will make the arguement against the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 will be its results... The Scotish Assembly introduced more liberial Drink Legislation the day after Ireland passed the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 to deal with teh exact same drink problems Ireland has... Seen as Scotish and Irish attitudes to Drink are very similar the results can be measured reasonably against each otehr of their effectivness...

I eagerly await

DadaKopf

Deadly, me too!

Syth

remove pubs and niteclubs from equality legislation

I thought it was just the ageism thing for licenced premises. I heard of a guy, just turned 18 and apparently got a few grand from a pub because they didn't believe he was 18+. I thought that's why they wanted to remove pubs from the ageism. Don't really see the point of removing pubs from all parts of equality law. I'll bet the publicans are happy that travelling status no longer applies...